In my past life, I was a high school teacher. Prior to that I was... a summa cum laude graduate, marching band member, choir member, statistician for the wrestling team, treasurer of the drama club, mathlete, and science geek. And those were the good years. In my younger years, I was... less cool than that. (Actually, as odd as it sounds, my high school years were awesome. I truly believe it had a lot to do with the school I went to as it encouraged activity cross-overs.)
The point is between my years of nerdiness and my years teaching, I've seen more than my fair share of bullies. And I've heard about even more.
Lately there's been a lot of talk on the internet about bullies on review sites--specifically GoodReads. The thing is... I think the people using that word either never dealt with bullies or forgot what it was like.
When children are in school and being bullied, there are a few things that they tend to have in common...
- Bullies attack outsiders. They rarely target the jocks or the popular kids or the rich kids. They go after those who are different or who don't have a lot of friends.
- The bullies hide what they do from anyone who can do anything about it. They don't throw kids against lockers in front of teachers. They do it when anyone with authority isn't around. They don't taunt their targets aloud in class, they whisper when the teacher is helping another student.
- They can't be avoided. Bullies are in the same school, oftentimes in the same classes, as their targets. Those students can't just walk away or pretend they don't exist because they are always there.
- They follow their targets. Bullies will wait outside practices to torment students after school. They will send them messages online to follow them home. The abuse is doesn't stop when the target leaves school.
- The people who try to stand up to bullies are often targets themselves. Bullies attack where they see weakness. That means that the only hope for targets is strength in numbers--something that rarely happens.
None of this seems to be true of the instances of "reviewer-bullying." Reviewers are, by definition, critical--it's part of the job. When an author (or publisher or agent or publicist) chooses to send a book out for review, they are aware of the possibility that there will be both good and bad reactions to the work... just like they'll get from readers when the book hits shelves. This is part of the gig.
Are some people jerks--especially with the anonymity allowed by the internet? Yes. Is GoodReads home to a lot of them? Also yes. There are reasons authors are advised to avoid their reviews. It's because even the "good" ones can sting.
The bad ones? Those are brutal. The assholes? Even worse. I've seen some of the horrible stuff trolls have said about books by friends of mine. They are vicious and nasty.
But here's the difference... the author and any of their fans has the ability to walk away from those reviews and foul comments--and never see them again. The "reviewer-bullies" don't seem to be following authors home or sending them death threats. The worst they've done? Gone on Twitter and mentioned their experience with the book and/or author. Contrary to popular belief, Twitter is not high school (or even elementary or middle school)--it's too damn big a crowd for people to just follow. One person tweets a bad experience? Even if it's re-tweeted by a hundred people, it's still only hitting a small corner of the internet. And that assumes there are a hundred people who are going to believe it on face-value.
That's not bullying. It might not be nice, but it's not bullying.
Also? There are a shit-ton of fantastic people who review books and blog about them and use good reads. A negative review doesn't mean someone is not a great person. We're supposed to be adults here. We should know the difference.
On the other side of things, authors need to learn not to feed the potential for negative publicity. I've seen an instance of an author responding in the comments to a negative review by posting all their amazon reviews as evidence the reviewer was "wrong." I've seen where people associated with an author have blasted reviews and reviewers on GoodReads. I've seen authors trying to discredit reviewers (though I'm still a little confused on how you discredit someone's opinion unless you can prove it isn't actually their opinion, but...)
People can disagree without it being bullying. People can have opinions without it being bullying. People are allowed to dislike each other without it being bullying.
To put it another way, if I went out with a guy who mis-treated me, you can be sure I would let all my girlfriends know. That doesn't make me a bully to the guy who treated me poorly, it makes me a good friend to those other girls that I've warned away from him. Some of them might choose to go out with him anyway and might end up liking him, but I would never regret telling them about my bad experience.
Instead of beating up the people whose reviews you don't agree with, either walk away from them or write your own very positive review. Be proactive rather than reactive. And for the love of all that is good, don't choose to become an actual bully in retaliation.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Sex in YA... Again
I've talked about sex in YA before. As an author who writes both sexy adult stuff and YA, I see a definite difference in how I personally approach things. I don't believe in shying away from sex in young adult fiction, but I write it differently than I do in my adult work.
To illustrate this, I have a niece who is thirteen. I let her read any and all of my YA manuscripts, and I know she regularly reads published YA with sex in it. A while back, she asked if she could read one of my adult stories, and I said no. Even without finding out whether or not my sister would throw a fit, I was uncomfortable with her reading a specific scene in that story because I didn't feel my niece had the necessary experience to understand what was going on in the heroine's mind (and it was kind of... violent sex). Anyway, this isn't a slam on my niece. A lot of adult readers hate that scene--in my mind because they don't understand the character. That's okay, but I'm not going to willingly hand it over to an unprepared 13 year old.
Turns out, my sister would have indeed been upset. My niece and I were talking book recommendations over the weekend and I asked my sister if anything was "off-limits" as far as content. She basically said "sex", at which point I had to clarify that she meant descriptive sex as opposed to "knowing it happened without seeing it." (I think she'd prefer her daughter read only books about virginal heroines who have no intention of ever being anything else, but whatever...)
The funny thing is, I'm reading a YA right now that is very sexually charged. None of the characters have had sex in it yet, but it's a major topic and a plot driver and very much viewed with want. I'm kind of torn because while it's a very realistic portrayal of how a lot of teens think about sex, it's... a lot. And it got me thinking: where exactly is the line between "okay for YA" and "too much for primetime?"
And yes, that's pretty much how I view things. If it can be on network TV before 10pm, it's probably okay for YA. After 10 or on cable? Odds are it's too much.
But the written word is different. You don't see body parts, they're described. The want is described rather than being viewed through the actions of the actors. So, can you get away with more description, where the viewing equivalent would push it to cable? When does written sex push from PG-13 to R?
I'm really not sure. There's a scene snippet in a manuscript I have on sub right now that I feel is very borderline, and that's with it described through the filter of a character who doesn't want to see it and wants absolutely nothing to do with anything to do with sex. (That virginal heroine? Yeah, her. She's just surrounded by non-virgins.) Another manuscript I have out has a sex scene or two, but they are very fade-to-black in nature.
I'm sure the line is different for every reader, but I'm curious. Where do you draw yours?
To illustrate this, I have a niece who is thirteen. I let her read any and all of my YA manuscripts, and I know she regularly reads published YA with sex in it. A while back, she asked if she could read one of my adult stories, and I said no. Even without finding out whether or not my sister would throw a fit, I was uncomfortable with her reading a specific scene in that story because I didn't feel my niece had the necessary experience to understand what was going on in the heroine's mind (and it was kind of... violent sex). Anyway, this isn't a slam on my niece. A lot of adult readers hate that scene--in my mind because they don't understand the character. That's okay, but I'm not going to willingly hand it over to an unprepared 13 year old.
Turns out, my sister would have indeed been upset. My niece and I were talking book recommendations over the weekend and I asked my sister if anything was "off-limits" as far as content. She basically said "sex", at which point I had to clarify that she meant descriptive sex as opposed to "knowing it happened without seeing it." (I think she'd prefer her daughter read only books about virginal heroines who have no intention of ever being anything else, but whatever...)
The funny thing is, I'm reading a YA right now that is very sexually charged. None of the characters have had sex in it yet, but it's a major topic and a plot driver and very much viewed with want. I'm kind of torn because while it's a very realistic portrayal of how a lot of teens think about sex, it's... a lot. And it got me thinking: where exactly is the line between "okay for YA" and "too much for primetime?"
And yes, that's pretty much how I view things. If it can be on network TV before 10pm, it's probably okay for YA. After 10 or on cable? Odds are it's too much.
But the written word is different. You don't see body parts, they're described. The want is described rather than being viewed through the actions of the actors. So, can you get away with more description, where the viewing equivalent would push it to cable? When does written sex push from PG-13 to R?
I'm really not sure. There's a scene snippet in a manuscript I have on sub right now that I feel is very borderline, and that's with it described through the filter of a character who doesn't want to see it and wants absolutely nothing to do with anything to do with sex. (That virginal heroine? Yeah, her. She's just surrounded by non-virgins.) Another manuscript I have out has a sex scene or two, but they are very fade-to-black in nature.
I'm sure the line is different for every reader, but I'm curious. Where do you draw yours?
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Cancer Sucks
Yesterday I got to spend an hour on the phone with my mom. This doesn't sound like such a bad thing... until I tell you that we spent the hour talking about cancer.
No. There is no emergency or reason for panic (at least with regard to me or mine--at the moment).
The thing is, cancer runs in my family pretty hard-core. And today I'm going in for the first step in the process of getting the genetic test done to see if I'm at greater risk for breast or ovarian cancer. That meant I had to fill out paperwork on my family history with regard to the disease.
Here's the deal. I know, in my heart, that at least one of the two tests will come back positive--likely both. I've known since I was a little girl that odds are, cancer's going to get me. It was never an "if," it's always been a "when."
But it's different to watch that piece of paper get filled up. It only goes as far out as grandparents and aunts/uncles/cousins. Of my four grandparents... three had cancer (two died from it). One aunt had it (survived). Her daughter died from it--she was the same age I am right now. Closer to home, one of my sisters is a cancer survivor. (She was diagnosed when she was younger than I am now.) Of the other three, two have had lumps removed that were thankfully benign. My mother did too. Of the two that have been tested--both have the genetic markers.
It's a vicious, vicious, scary-ass disease.
Why am I writing this post today? I'm not sure. Maybe because it's a topic that people don't talk about enough until it's already an issue, and then the conversations start with "I'm so sorry..." Maybe because I'm more nervous about the test than I thought I'd be. Or maybe it's just because it's late and this is what's on my mind. Maybe all of the above.
No. There is no emergency or reason for panic (at least with regard to me or mine--at the moment).
The thing is, cancer runs in my family pretty hard-core. And today I'm going in for the first step in the process of getting the genetic test done to see if I'm at greater risk for breast or ovarian cancer. That meant I had to fill out paperwork on my family history with regard to the disease.
Here's the deal. I know, in my heart, that at least one of the two tests will come back positive--likely both. I've known since I was a little girl that odds are, cancer's going to get me. It was never an "if," it's always been a "when."
But it's different to watch that piece of paper get filled up. It only goes as far out as grandparents and aunts/uncles/cousins. Of my four grandparents... three had cancer (two died from it). One aunt had it (survived). Her daughter died from it--she was the same age I am right now. Closer to home, one of my sisters is a cancer survivor. (She was diagnosed when she was younger than I am now.) Of the other three, two have had lumps removed that were thankfully benign. My mother did too. Of the two that have been tested--both have the genetic markers.
It's a vicious, vicious, scary-ass disease.
Why am I writing this post today? I'm not sure. Maybe because it's a topic that people don't talk about enough until it's already an issue, and then the conversations start with "I'm so sorry..." Maybe because I'm more nervous about the test than I thought I'd be. Or maybe it's just because it's late and this is what's on my mind. Maybe all of the above.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
When Life Hands You Lemons
Sorry about no post last week. No excuse. It just didn't happen.
There's a saying that says: When life hands you lemons, make lemonade. I saw a picture recently that said: Unless life gives you sugar and water too, your lemonade is going to suck.
It got me to thinking about a lot of things. As some of you know, there have been... issues (it's a nice, innocent, all-encompassing word) regarding the PRT. The short version is life gave me lemons. Since I don't expect life to hand everything to me, I went off in search of water and sugar. I found some--yay! But the lemonade still sucks.
Basically, what the story boils down to is this--the PRT is going to be on hold for longer than anticipated. Sadly, I can't afford the vodka necessary to make this lemonade rock.
On the other hand, I have this other bottle, and if I let it age for a while it'll make a killer party beverage. So, as much as you don't want to wait and I don't want to wait, that's the option at the moment. On a high note (because even when there's no vodka, I'm a look for the silver lining kind of girl), I'm hoping that when the time comes that I can release PRT 2, Perfectly Human, the rest of the series won't be far behind. As long as I can find the time in between other projects to write them, the remaining four books in the series will all be released within about a 12-24 month period of time.
Will there be other things from me in the meantime? I sure hope so! And I promise if and when I have news, I will let you know.
To that end though, I may step back a bit from blogging. Not quitting, but not stressing over content every week. So, it might be normal post, or a video, or a movie review, or some sort of character sketch. And I may miss a week here or there while everything else in life tries to settle.
But rest assured, I am NOT abandoning Elle and Cass. The PRT hasn't disappeared, it's just taking a break and licking its wounds. They will be back.
There's a saying that says: When life hands you lemons, make lemonade. I saw a picture recently that said: Unless life gives you sugar and water too, your lemonade is going to suck.
It got me to thinking about a lot of things. As some of you know, there have been... issues (it's a nice, innocent, all-encompassing word) regarding the PRT. The short version is life gave me lemons. Since I don't expect life to hand everything to me, I went off in search of water and sugar. I found some--yay! But the lemonade still sucks.
Basically, what the story boils down to is this--the PRT is going to be on hold for longer than anticipated. Sadly, I can't afford the vodka necessary to make this lemonade rock.
On the other hand, I have this other bottle, and if I let it age for a while it'll make a killer party beverage. So, as much as you don't want to wait and I don't want to wait, that's the option at the moment. On a high note (because even when there's no vodka, I'm a look for the silver lining kind of girl), I'm hoping that when the time comes that I can release PRT 2, Perfectly Human, the rest of the series won't be far behind. As long as I can find the time in between other projects to write them, the remaining four books in the series will all be released within about a 12-24 month period of time.
Will there be other things from me in the meantime? I sure hope so! And I promise if and when I have news, I will let you know.
To that end though, I may step back a bit from blogging. Not quitting, but not stressing over content every week. So, it might be normal post, or a video, or a movie review, or some sort of character sketch. And I may miss a week here or there while everything else in life tries to settle.
But rest assured, I am NOT abandoning Elle and Cass. The PRT hasn't disappeared, it's just taking a break and licking its wounds. They will be back.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Writing Cliques
People gravitate towards others like them. Sometimes it's common interests, similar personalities, socioeconomic status, gender, race... all sorts of reasons for it. In high school, we call them cliques. Funny thing is, that doesn't stop on graduation day. And it is very common in the writerly world.
In some ways, this is not a bad thing. You want your crit partners, writing group, etc. to really mesh well so that critiques and brain-storming and the like are as productive as possible. But there's a point when an author steps from behind those closed doors and into the public eye that the responsibility shifts a bit.
There are a lot of examples of this with authors-behaving-badly and spouting off in such ways that it drives away their fans, but what about subtler things? In order to have a unifying base, let's talk Twitter. Many, many authors are on Twitter. Some have huge followings, some don't. Some follow back everyone (or anyone who talks to them) and some don't. I'm not going to make comments based on that since you don't have to follow someone to talk to them.
However, some authors don't seem to get that Twitter is about interaction (and I'm going to pick--anonymously--on some authors whose books I adore here). If all you're doing is shouting into the ether, you're doing it wrong. Most people who follow you on twitter also follow your blog/facebook/website/newsletter... they're already fans. So shouting is pointless.
What's more annoying though? When authors throw out questions or statements that invite discussion but only respond to those in their little circle (the writing clique I spoke of earlier). Twitter is not the school cafeteria where your conversation is just you and your little table of friends chatting, or at least it shouldn't be. People are on Twitter to interact, and if an author chooses to ignore their fans (I'll be generous here with the one I'm thinking of) 90% of the time when they say something that invites discussion, it will serve to alienate fans. Yes, I have unfollowed authors because I liked their work, but I was getting really sick of seeing how they ignored their fans. Other people I know have stopped reading their work entirely because of this.
I've noticed another disturbing trend with big(ger) authors. They will start a Twitter event, whether productivity or character driven, that encompasses more than just their books. They will invite others to join in... and then within that event, they only communicate with those in their clique. Especially when it's a productivity thing (writing sprints, 1k1hr, etc). Those who aren't published and don't get mad words every day are the ones who need the atta'boys far more than some other author with multiple NY contracts under their belt.
The thing is, Twitter offers authors a really great opportunity to mentor fledgeling writers without the mad time-commitment. It's a type of support that is hard to come by these days and is almost a guaranteed way to make those writers (who are invariably readers as well) become lifelong fans.
So... I don't get it.
Sure, I understand the occasional @mention getting lost in the feed, even when asking for responses. And I totally understand not being able to respond to everything all the time (some of those people have thousands and tens of thousands of followers). But to ignore the opportunity to interact with all those people all the time in favor of hanging with just your clique...
Yeah. Not a fan.
In some ways, this is not a bad thing. You want your crit partners, writing group, etc. to really mesh well so that critiques and brain-storming and the like are as productive as possible. But there's a point when an author steps from behind those closed doors and into the public eye that the responsibility shifts a bit.
There are a lot of examples of this with authors-behaving-badly and spouting off in such ways that it drives away their fans, but what about subtler things? In order to have a unifying base, let's talk Twitter. Many, many authors are on Twitter. Some have huge followings, some don't. Some follow back everyone (or anyone who talks to them) and some don't. I'm not going to make comments based on that since you don't have to follow someone to talk to them.
However, some authors don't seem to get that Twitter is about interaction (and I'm going to pick--anonymously--on some authors whose books I adore here). If all you're doing is shouting into the ether, you're doing it wrong. Most people who follow you on twitter also follow your blog/facebook/website/newsletter... they're already fans. So shouting is pointless.
What's more annoying though? When authors throw out questions or statements that invite discussion but only respond to those in their little circle (the writing clique I spoke of earlier). Twitter is not the school cafeteria where your conversation is just you and your little table of friends chatting, or at least it shouldn't be. People are on Twitter to interact, and if an author chooses to ignore their fans (I'll be generous here with the one I'm thinking of) 90% of the time when they say something that invites discussion, it will serve to alienate fans. Yes, I have unfollowed authors because I liked their work, but I was getting really sick of seeing how they ignored their fans. Other people I know have stopped reading their work entirely because of this.
I've noticed another disturbing trend with big(ger) authors. They will start a Twitter event, whether productivity or character driven, that encompasses more than just their books. They will invite others to join in... and then within that event, they only communicate with those in their clique. Especially when it's a productivity thing (writing sprints, 1k1hr, etc). Those who aren't published and don't get mad words every day are the ones who need the atta'boys far more than some other author with multiple NY contracts under their belt.
The thing is, Twitter offers authors a really great opportunity to mentor fledgeling writers without the mad time-commitment. It's a type of support that is hard to come by these days and is almost a guaranteed way to make those writers (who are invariably readers as well) become lifelong fans.
So... I don't get it.
Sure, I understand the occasional @mention getting lost in the feed, even when asking for responses. And I totally understand not being able to respond to everything all the time (some of those people have thousands and tens of thousands of followers). But to ignore the opportunity to interact with all those people all the time in favor of hanging with just your clique...
Yeah. Not a fan.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Why Age Matters
No, this is not a post about how old I am. I'm feeling pretty young lately, so we aren't going to go there. What I do want to talk about is those pesky age guidelines. You know the ones they have for movies or that they've started putting on non-adult books? Yeah, those.
First off, I'm not a fan of them as a hard and fast rule. As they said in Pirates of the Caribbean (PG-13 for those paying attention): "They're more like guidelines." Or at least they should be. "14 and up" should never be taken as "appropriate for everyone over 14" or "inappropriate for anyone under 14." It's really just a heads up that it has some content that the average 14 year-old will be equipped to handle whereas younger readers might not. Simple, right?
Apparently not.
For those of you who haven't seen The Avengers (also PG-13), there's an exchange that goes like this (from IMDB):
BRUCE BANNER: I don't think we should be focusing on Loki. That guy's brain is a bag full of cats. You can smell crazy on him.
THOR: Have a care how you speak. Loki is beyond reason, but he is of Asgard. And he is my brother.
BLACK WIDOW: He killed eighty people in two days.
THOR: He's adopted.
The delivery of the line is spot-on and, in the theater, the bit gets a lot of laughs. But apparently someone has started a petition against Marvel over the line. If you read the article linked, one parent said:
(his daughter, who is adopted, was not old enough to discern the humor behind the line.)
“I almost laughed, too; the line is well played. But the laughter stuck in my throat when all of the joke’s implications crashed down on me. My daughter never got for a second that it was supposed to be a joke.
“‘Are people laughing because they think adopted kids are bad? Am I bad?’”
Now, I'm a really lenient parent as far as ratings go, but we'll get to that in a minute. The problem is, the movie is PG-13, which for those who have ever paid attention means "Parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13." (From MPAA) That means, you take your younger kids at your own risk. You, as the parent, have decided it's okay for them to see. The production company, director, etc. is not responsible for your child. Now, maybe these parents who are up in arms have kids over 13 who were traumatized by that line, but again, the parent is responsible for knowing their child and what that kid can handle.
As for my children, we don't shelter them from much, but I know exactly what buttons not to push with them. My son gets very upset over extremely realistic violence against children. Pretty much anything else goes for him. I try to avoid "disturbing images" because I can see those inducing nightmares, and I really just don't want to deal with that. My daughter... doesn't really seem disturbed by much of anything. I make a point of knowing my children and what they're sensitive to. Considering the violence (including brother-on-adopted-brother, man-on-woman, etc) included in the film, a line that took all of two seconds to utter should not be the area of most concern. If your child is not old enough to get the joke, and is not old enough to understand when you explain it, then your child is not old enough to be at a PG-13 film. My daughter is seven. She got the joke. I can't imagine how old the child in question is.
The same goes for books. My son (10 1/2) is out-growing middle grade fiction, and we are very carefully dipping his toes into YA. It's a fine line of balancing his interests with the appropriateness of content, but we're walking the tightrope together. Hunger Games, yes. Twilight, no. While he enjoyed Zombie Tag, I won't let him read any of Hannah Moskowitz's other books yet. Will he, at some point, read something he's not ready for? Sure. It's called growing up. And we'll deal with it when it happens. In the meantime, I love the age recommendations on YA books. Do I always listen to them? No. But if it says "12 and up," I don't even question giving it to him. "14 and up," I'm more cautious. That's my job as a parent, and I thank the movie and publishing industry for making it easier on me.
What are your thoughts? With ratings there, whose responsibility is it to police content before letting kids get their hands on it?
First off, I'm not a fan of them as a hard and fast rule. As they said in Pirates of the Caribbean (PG-13 for those paying attention): "They're more like guidelines." Or at least they should be. "14 and up" should never be taken as "appropriate for everyone over 14" or "inappropriate for anyone under 14." It's really just a heads up that it has some content that the average 14 year-old will be equipped to handle whereas younger readers might not. Simple, right?
Apparently not.
For those of you who haven't seen The Avengers (also PG-13), there's an exchange that goes like this (from IMDB):
BRUCE BANNER: I don't think we should be focusing on Loki. That guy's brain is a bag full of cats. You can smell crazy on him.
THOR: Have a care how you speak. Loki is beyond reason, but he is of Asgard. And he is my brother.
BLACK WIDOW: He killed eighty people in two days.
THOR: He's adopted.
The delivery of the line is spot-on and, in the theater, the bit gets a lot of laughs. But apparently someone has started a petition against Marvel over the line. If you read the article linked, one parent said:
(his daughter, who is adopted, was not old enough to discern the humor behind the line.)
“I almost laughed, too; the line is well played. But the laughter stuck in my throat when all of the joke’s implications crashed down on me. My daughter never got for a second that it was supposed to be a joke.
“‘Are people laughing because they think adopted kids are bad? Am I bad?’”
Now, I'm a really lenient parent as far as ratings go, but we'll get to that in a minute. The problem is, the movie is PG-13, which for those who have ever paid attention means "Parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13." (From MPAA) That means, you take your younger kids at your own risk. You, as the parent, have decided it's okay for them to see. The production company, director, etc. is not responsible for your child. Now, maybe these parents who are up in arms have kids over 13 who were traumatized by that line, but again, the parent is responsible for knowing their child and what that kid can handle.
As for my children, we don't shelter them from much, but I know exactly what buttons not to push with them. My son gets very upset over extremely realistic violence against children. Pretty much anything else goes for him. I try to avoid "disturbing images" because I can see those inducing nightmares, and I really just don't want to deal with that. My daughter... doesn't really seem disturbed by much of anything. I make a point of knowing my children and what they're sensitive to. Considering the violence (including brother-on-adopted-brother, man-on-woman, etc) included in the film, a line that took all of two seconds to utter should not be the area of most concern. If your child is not old enough to get the joke, and is not old enough to understand when you explain it, then your child is not old enough to be at a PG-13 film. My daughter is seven. She got the joke. I can't imagine how old the child in question is.
The same goes for books. My son (10 1/2) is out-growing middle grade fiction, and we are very carefully dipping his toes into YA. It's a fine line of balancing his interests with the appropriateness of content, but we're walking the tightrope together. Hunger Games, yes. Twilight, no. While he enjoyed Zombie Tag, I won't let him read any of Hannah Moskowitz's other books yet. Will he, at some point, read something he's not ready for? Sure. It's called growing up. And we'll deal with it when it happens. In the meantime, I love the age recommendations on YA books. Do I always listen to them? No. But if it says "12 and up," I don't even question giving it to him. "14 and up," I'm more cautious. That's my job as a parent, and I thank the movie and publishing industry for making it easier on me.
What are your thoughts? With ratings there, whose responsibility is it to police content before letting kids get their hands on it?
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Throwback Thursday: Music Edition
It's kind of funny writing YA as an adult. Silly things that are different now than they were back in the day and all that. Music is another part that kills me. I write to "soundtracks," but the music is... not necessarily what a lot of teens listen to.
For example, the soundtrack to Pretty Souls contained not one, but two, remakes of songs from the 80s. "Wicked Game" and "Islands in the Stream." Both were very different from the originals, updated and all that, but remakes nonetheless.
And then there's Memory Keeper. For whatever strange reason, the band that most speaks to me with regard to that story is Bon Jovi. Yes, I know they are still around and still putting out music, but I've been listening to them since they had longer hair than I do.
I'm not sure if I listen to "throwback" songs and bands when I write YA just because I love them or if it goes deeper than that. If the music and singers from when I was a teenager help me to tap into the recesses of my memory to harness a younger me. All I know is the one time I tried to create a soundtrack with all "new" music, I couldn't write to it. I completely lost focus when listening.
So, I'll stick with old school since it seems to work for me. And just for fun, a little Bon Jovi for your listening pleasure.
For example, the soundtrack to Pretty Souls contained not one, but two, remakes of songs from the 80s. "Wicked Game" and "Islands in the Stream." Both were very different from the originals, updated and all that, but remakes nonetheless.
And then there's Memory Keeper. For whatever strange reason, the band that most speaks to me with regard to that story is Bon Jovi. Yes, I know they are still around and still putting out music, but I've been listening to them since they had longer hair than I do.
I'm not sure if I listen to "throwback" songs and bands when I write YA just because I love them or if it goes deeper than that. If the music and singers from when I was a teenager help me to tap into the recesses of my memory to harness a younger me. All I know is the one time I tried to create a soundtrack with all "new" music, I couldn't write to it. I completely lost focus when listening.
So, I'll stick with old school since it seems to work for me. And just for fun, a little Bon Jovi for your listening pleasure.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Looking at Some New Options
Last week I talked about decision making. At the time I was weighing things, I only saw three options. I took a deep breath and looked at what the first step would cost me.
The answer? Too much. This is a fact that saddens me on many many levels.
However, it also made me look at things in a new way. Option 1 was completely off the table. Option 2 could be done with some modifications, but I didn't really like it. Option 3 was never really an option in my mind anyway.
So, what's a girl to do when faced with that?
Make some new damn options.
Nothing is definite yet, but I think I know where I'm going from here. There are going to be people who won't be happy about it. My hope is that they'll understand I'm kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. I'm hoping that by next week I'll have actual news to share regarding the fate of my favorite supernatural crime-fighters. Right now, I need to make sure Option A isn't going to kill me down the line.
Thank you, everyone, for your patience. I appreciate it more than you know.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Pulling Up My Big-Girl Panties
Sometimes this writing thing is hard. I don't want it to be. I mean, I like writing, I like revising, I like editing. I don't lurve blogging, but I don't hate it either. So why can't it be as simple as writing a book, editing the hell out of it and putting it out there. You know, so I can move on and write another book?
I've been giving a lot of thought to self-publishing lately. I know quite a few people who have or are doing it and they're happy. They seem to be doing well. But I follow some of them on Twitter and it feels like all they ever do is promo.
Promotion is the single most dreaded part of being an author for me. I hate going up to people and saying "buy my book" or even "this is my book and it got a really great review from ______." I suck at that stuff, and I have ever since I was little. When I was a girl scout I was lucky if I hit the 50 cookies badge every year. And those were GIRL SCOUT COOKIES. Those things practically sell themselves!
So, I look at self-publishing and as much as I think some of my books would do as well (even with my crappy sales skillset), I'm leery of branching out in that direction. But... that means sitting on things I'd like to see out in the world. It means trying to decide what to do with some of my work at all.
This is not a pity party. I have it better than a lot of writers out there. Between this me and the other me, I have quite a few stories out. I have publishers who I like working with and who like working with me. But not everyone publishes YA (sad sad fact of life), and not all publishers who do YA do it well. Plus, all my YA stuff is novel-length which means it takes more work than shorter pieces. So, I can't put everything out when I want to. And, right now I know it's making some people not happy with me.
There's stuff sitting on my hard drive right now that I need to make some decisions on. Self-pubbing is one option. There are others. All of them are a little scary. But eventually I have to do something because even letting them collect dust is me making a choice. It's just the chicken's choice. So, I'm pulling up my big girl panties (because one should never fight demons in any other kind of panties) and staring down my options. Hopefully it won't be as hard a decision as I'm worried it will be. But I want to thank each and every one of you who has been patient (and those of you who have been less so). You're the reasons I'm staring down my demons at all. You're the ones who make the fight worth it. So thanks.
Now where did I put my sword?
I've been giving a lot of thought to self-publishing lately. I know quite a few people who have or are doing it and they're happy. They seem to be doing well. But I follow some of them on Twitter and it feels like all they ever do is promo.
Promotion is the single most dreaded part of being an author for me. I hate going up to people and saying "buy my book" or even "this is my book and it got a really great review from ______." I suck at that stuff, and I have ever since I was little. When I was a girl scout I was lucky if I hit the 50 cookies badge every year. And those were GIRL SCOUT COOKIES. Those things practically sell themselves!
So, I look at self-publishing and as much as I think some of my books would do as well (even with my crappy sales skillset), I'm leery of branching out in that direction. But... that means sitting on things I'd like to see out in the world. It means trying to decide what to do with some of my work at all.
This is not a pity party. I have it better than a lot of writers out there. Between this me and the other me, I have quite a few stories out. I have publishers who I like working with and who like working with me. But not everyone publishes YA (sad sad fact of life), and not all publishers who do YA do it well. Plus, all my YA stuff is novel-length which means it takes more work than shorter pieces. So, I can't put everything out when I want to. And, right now I know it's making some people not happy with me.
There's stuff sitting on my hard drive right now that I need to make some decisions on. Self-pubbing is one option. There are others. All of them are a little scary. But eventually I have to do something because even letting them collect dust is me making a choice. It's just the chicken's choice. So, I'm pulling up my big girl panties (because one should never fight demons in any other kind of panties) and staring down my options. Hopefully it won't be as hard a decision as I'm worried it will be. But I want to thank each and every one of you who has been patient (and those of you who have been less so). You're the reasons I'm staring down my demons at all. You're the ones who make the fight worth it. So thanks.
Now where did I put my sword?
Thursday, May 3, 2012
I'm a Grown-Up Now. Really.
There's a funny thing about parents (being one, having them...). When I was growing up--especially during my teen years--I couldn't wait to get out of the house and away from my parents. Then I went to college (Yay, adulthood!), only to find out that while they couldn't enforce a curfew anymore, my parents still had control over a lot of things.
It took me a lot of years before I came to realize a simple, disturbing truth.
Your parents are never out of your life.
There's a window where their influence is small-ish. It comes between college graduation and having children. During that window, it's rather easy to only deal with them when you want (and/or for special occasions. Note: the fewer siblings you have, the fewer special occasions there will be.)
But once you have kids, all bets are off. Not only will your parents likely want a relationship with their grandkids, but your kids will want one as well. And you--in your attempts to be the Best. Parent. EVER!--will want that for them too. So, you'll visit more. And you'll visit longer.
And suddenly, that nice bubble you had carved out to be parent-free will get smaller and smaller. At first, you won't notice, and you'll probably even appreciate it. (Hell, there are some parts you'll appreciate even when the tiny-bubble panic hits.) But then the dreaded moment comes when you do something for you--like get a tattoo--and there's no bubble left at all. That look your mother perfected when you were growing up? The one that lets you know in no uncertain terms that you have disappointed her? Yeah. She hasn't forgotten that one, and now that she has wrinkles it is even more extreme.
But you get over that because it's your life and you like your tattoo. And for a while you think you're building your bubble up again. Not a big one, just big enough to breathe.
And then one day, you're talking to her all happy about the fact that your kid is gobbling up The Hunger Games like it's the best thing ever (seriously, the little man is skipping TV to read), and she responds with something along the lines of "Oh really. And now the eleven year old is reading the same books as the nineteen year old." Uh... yes? But it smashes the bubble all over again and you question your fitness as a parent. (This one took less time to get over than the tattoo. I will ALWAYS encourage my kids to read books that challenge them and their views of the world.)
So, yeah. Unless you cut all ties with your family, your parents are going to be a major factor in your life forever. Even if they aren't physically around, they color the choices you make. So, dear readers, a few pieces of unsolicited advice from me to you. 1) Come to grips with your parents sooner rather than later. 2) Savor those years where you have the nice bubble going on. Use it to learn to love yourself so you can withstand the bubble-shrinking assault. 3)Try to be the kind of parent that respects your kids' bubbles from early on.
It took me a lot of years before I came to realize a simple, disturbing truth.
Your parents are never out of your life.
There's a window where their influence is small-ish. It comes between college graduation and having children. During that window, it's rather easy to only deal with them when you want (and/or for special occasions. Note: the fewer siblings you have, the fewer special occasions there will be.)
But once you have kids, all bets are off. Not only will your parents likely want a relationship with their grandkids, but your kids will want one as well. And you--in your attempts to be the Best. Parent. EVER!--will want that for them too. So, you'll visit more. And you'll visit longer.
And suddenly, that nice bubble you had carved out to be parent-free will get smaller and smaller. At first, you won't notice, and you'll probably even appreciate it. (Hell, there are some parts you'll appreciate even when the tiny-bubble panic hits.) But then the dreaded moment comes when you do something for you--like get a tattoo--and there's no bubble left at all. That look your mother perfected when you were growing up? The one that lets you know in no uncertain terms that you have disappointed her? Yeah. She hasn't forgotten that one, and now that she has wrinkles it is even more extreme.
But you get over that because it's your life and you like your tattoo. And for a while you think you're building your bubble up again. Not a big one, just big enough to breathe.
And then one day, you're talking to her all happy about the fact that your kid is gobbling up The Hunger Games like it's the best thing ever (seriously, the little man is skipping TV to read), and she responds with something along the lines of "Oh really. And now the eleven year old is reading the same books as the nineteen year old." Uh... yes? But it smashes the bubble all over again and you question your fitness as a parent. (This one took less time to get over than the tattoo. I will ALWAYS encourage my kids to read books that challenge them and their views of the world.)
So, yeah. Unless you cut all ties with your family, your parents are going to be a major factor in your life forever. Even if they aren't physically around, they color the choices you make. So, dear readers, a few pieces of unsolicited advice from me to you. 1) Come to grips with your parents sooner rather than later. 2) Savor those years where you have the nice bubble going on. Use it to learn to love yourself so you can withstand the bubble-shrinking assault. 3)Try to be the kind of parent that respects your kids' bubbles from early on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)