Sympathetic vs Likable Characters

In my reviews, I talk a lot about characters and whether or not they're sympathetic. Many writers want their characters to be likable, especially their main character. After all, the reader has to spend an entire book with the main character, and why would they devote that much time with a character they didn't like? It can sometimes get tricky to keep a character likable, especially when characters begin doing unethical things in the name of the greater good. At what point does a character stop being likable? At what point do they stop being sympathetic? Though the two are related, they are definitely two different concepts that many writers get mixed up. Writers can sometimes become so obsessed with making their character likable that they forget to make their character sympathetic.

But what is the difference? 

When your character is likable, they are someone your reader enjoys reading about. This relies more heavily on personal preference and so it's sometimes impossible to create a universally liked character, though many writers lose sleep trying to create one. A character can be two dimensional, crude, rude, erratic in their actions, and completely unsympathetic, but they may still be likable if there is something about the character the reader connects with and enjoys. A character can be likable because they are sympathetic, but they don't have to be sympathetic to be likable. 

When your character is sympathetic, they are doing something or expressing ideas that the reader can approve of. They are working to save their world, rescue their parents, save their love interest, etc. Even if as a person, they are incredibly unlikable, your character can still be sympathetic by doing the right thing. 

For example, in my review of The Outliers, I talk about how much I disliked the main character, Wylie. This was mostly due to personal preference, as Wylie did things and said things that I thought were rude and uncalled for. However, her overall motivation throughout the story-- saving her best friend-- was something I could sympathize with, and therefore I could continue reading. It's like the idea of people working together in a crisis-- I can deal with not liking a character based on who they are, so long as their actions or ideas are sympathetic. 

But where do you draw the line? How do you know if you're writing a likable character, or a sympathetic one? Or neither? Or both? 

As I said, creating a likable character can be frustrating and nearly impossible, mostly because it generally comes down to personal preference. There are people who love Voldemort, despite the fact that JK Rowling made no attempt to make him likable. You cannot control how people will respond to your characters, just as you can't control how people respond to your personality. So don't even try. Don't focus on making people like your character, make your character consistent with who they are. If you want a stubborn character, don't tone down that trait to make them more likable. Embrace the stubborn part of your character, make it consistent through their actions and reactions, and readers will like your character for being true to themselves. 

On the other hand, creating a sympathetic character is something a writer does have control over, and should pay attention to. Generally, it's not hard to make your character a sympathetic one. Plot motivators tend to make for sympathetic situations-- needing to rescue a loved one, stop a catastrophe, free people from suffering, etc. But you don't need those external motivators to create sympathetic characters, as their beliefs and ideas have a big impact on how the reader views them. For example, your character may be a high class thief only out for personal gain, but their decision not to hurt people while on the job instantly makes him a sympathetic one. 

External elements to create sympathy are the easiest to do. Internal motivators to create sympathy have a much stronger impact. Your character can have both external and internal motivators to create sympathy, or only one or the other. Toeing the lines can create interesting character dynamics and is something authors tend to do frequently. 

In the Second Sons Trilogy by Jennifer Fallon, the main character, Dirk, has external motivators to make him sympathetic, but no internal motivators. He is working to save the kingdom by toppling a corrupt system, not necessarily for the betterment of his fellow people, but more because the structure of the royal court puts him in danger. He is all around unlikable-- arrogant, snobby, and really doesn't do a single nice thing throughout the whole series unless it serves him, despite the fact that he is doing the "right" thing. Jennifer Fallon admitted that she intended to do this with Dirk-- she wanted to see how bad a main character could be while still keeping the reader on his side. And it certainly worked! By the end of the series I thought Dirk was pretty much the scummiest guy you could meet, but he somehow still managed to remain the hero of the story. 

On the other side of the coin, in Vicious by VE Schwab, the main character Victor has internal motivators without much in the way of external motivators. He chases down his best friend who has become a serial killer, and though his expressed motivation is based on revenge (which doesn't make him overly sympathetic), he does acknowledge that he thinks what Eli is doing is wrong. So even though his external motivation is a choice of him getting revenge, his internal motivation makes him sympathetic as it shows he cares about others. 

Characters can be a hard balance. I speak from experience, as they've always been something I've struggled with. But managing that balance, once you have it, makes your book so much stronger overall. 

So, since I threw a lot at once, to sum up: 

Likable Characters are those who are liked by the reader, for one reason or another. All characters are likable in some way. Likable characters are based on reader preference. Generally, good deeds = people like your character, but the reasons a character is likable are as varied as types of literature. 

Sympathetic Characters are those whose actions, motivations, or beliefs, whether its proclaimed from the rooftops or inserted subtly, create sympathy and approval for the reader. They approve of the hero's journey, or at least their reasons for the journey. 

External Motivators for Sympathy are external forces that put the character into a situation that garners sympathy. They can be as literal as people locked in a cage needing to escape, or pressures from other characters to do things they don't want to. 

Internal Motivators for Sympathy are more the beliefs and morals held within the character that propels them to take action and creates sympathy in the reader. They can be stated outright or implied. They still inspire sympathy and originate from the character's belief system. 

Hopefully this helps to shed some light on what I mean when I talk about sympathy vs likability. So writers out there, relax, take a deep breath. Stop pulling your hair out trying to make your characters liked by everyone, and just make your characters true to themselves. 

Interview with Cornelia Funke

I'm very excited to have Cornelia Funke, author of the Mirrorworld series and founder of Breathing Books, on the blog today. She is an awesome lady who creates some astoundingly magical worlds. I hope you'll all join me in giving her a warm welcome and a big thank you. I hope you'll check out her website here (which is so super cool!), as well as the webpage for Breathing Books. 

1) What was the most challenging part of writing The Golden Yarn?

To weave all the storylines into one pattern. This world by now delivers so many – which is of course the greatest gift for a storyteller and at the same time it asks for cruel choices. I am currently exploring which characters I’ll follow in Book 4 and which ones have to wait until I write their story separately. But- I love this feeling of a world opening in all directions especially as this one is so close to ours in so many ways.


2) When do you write? Do you have any rituals or routines?

Yes, but they changed vastly over the years. When my children still lived at home I mostly wrote only when they were at school or busy with their friends. As I was the bread winner that was only possible because my husband stayed at home and helped with everything, from cooking and driving the kids to school to lay outing my illustrations and discussing plots with me. Now that my son and daughter more or less live their own independent lives, I enjoy it very much that I can be more flexible. I still organize my work quite strictly nevertheless, as I love to work on several projects at the same time by now. I have a small paper calendar, where stickers name my tasks of the day: ch 9 edit Griffin’s Feather, research Japanese Fairy Tales, cover sketch advent calendar book, ch 10 Color of Revenge, short story Stockholm….these are only a few examples of what they can say. If I don’t get them done I put the sticker on the next page :) But this way makes it very easy for me to have my mind always in just one story, although I wrote more than three at times.

O yes – I always write my first drafts by hand, in A 4 notebooks. I prepare those books for each story, creating a cover from images and sketches. By now I have three fire proof boxes filled with them (after all I live in California) :)


3) How does it feel to read your stories in German versus in English (or any other language for that matter)? Do you feel something is lost or gained with each language?

That’s a very precise description. Yes, they both loose and gain. I especially experience that when I do readings back to back in German and then in English. It is of course still the same story, but it wears different clothes. And it tastes slightly different on the tongue when I read it aloud.


4) Where do you draw your inspiration for your characters? Do you have any suggestions for character building?

I am suspicious of patterns and rules for stories and their characters. I believe that every writer should find his or her unique voice, rhythm, colors….and characters. Otherwise our books may be as predictable as our movie plots one day! Some characters are clear from the very first moment we name them. Others hide and pretend to be someone else. I love to find out more about them with every draft – and I do up to 15 drafts before I hand a story to my editor. Some reveal themselves so late that you have to revise dozens of chapters, but I believe that to allow that makes them come alive in far more organic ways than building corsets for them and their stories which they are not allowed to escape from. The writer’s greatest challenge are the clichés we all work from. We owe our readers to escape them and that mostly is not possible by planning ahead.

One tool though I find very helpful when creating characters. I search for faces on paintings or photographs to have a more multi-layered approach to my characters. Images often say so much more than words. I pin them on my writing house walls, collect them in notebooks and sketch them while writing. My manuscript notebooks are by now filled with such sketches and very often they make me see a character much earlier and quite differently from what I expected him or her to be. A real face says so much more than an abstract description. It doesn’t have to fully match the image in our imagination. But it will always enrichen it. There is such a strange hostility towards illustration and visuals, when it comes to books. So often I hear: doesn’t that cripple our imagination? But books were illustrated on every page in the 19th century and I think it can help our imagination to play – and to see.


5) What do you feel your greatest success has been as a writer? Biggest failure?

I don’t really think in such terms. Especially Success is such a strange and over used word. It measures life and its tasks in such a questionable way. Apart from the fact that it is mostly understood in terms of material gain or celebrity status, instead of creative achievement. For me the most important and meaningful decisions of my creative life were often made against such ‘success’ and ‘failure’ definitions. When I wrote The Thieflord – the book that made my world career – my editor didn’t like it at all and wanted me to change it in ways that I didn’t agree with. I therefore edited it myself – quite a scary step to take :) - but this decision made me into the writer I am. I had a similar challenge with Reckless. My readers and publishers hated me for leaving Inkworld and trying something new. But I decided that this is the world I have to explore and I worked for eight years against the wishes of my readers (and my publishers :) Now many readers love the Mirrors more than any other of my books and once again I grew as a writer. One could say: failure gave birth to success:) I think it often does. We have to dare to fail to grow. If I would use the word success I’d say it was my Mirrorworld App. Creating it opened so many channels in my creativity that I would need six arms and three heads by now to get it all on paper :) Suddenly my worlds were shown in museums and I became much more of an illustrator again – which was quite a surprise!


6) To publish The Golden Yarn, you started your own publishing house, Breathing Books. What transpired with your previous publishing house that made all this come about?

I came back from quite a magical tour in Germany, from readings in huge theatres filled with Mirrorworlders, brilliant reviews and the feeling that I was Sir Edmund Hillary who had climbed Mount Everest by writing these books for eight years. But – at home I found an email from my US and UK publishers asking me to change the beginning and the ending of The Golden Yarn, although it had been published to such passionate reader reactions in Europe. I would never change a published text, unless I feel I can make it better, so …I said No. And when my publishers didn’t accept that I had only one choice – to publish myself. If I had sold the rights to other publishers it would have taken far too long to get The Golden Yarn to my readers. I was tired of the age boxes, publishing works in by now, its merciless commercial thinking and all the tailoring for the markets.


7) What was the greatest difficulty in starting your own company? Your biggest success?

It would have been quite easy to just publish as EBook, but books have to be also on paper for me. So we had to face the challenge of translation editing, printing, binding and delivering in little more than six months. Not easy even for a small print run. But…it was all worth it when I unpacked the boxes! And so far Breathing Books gave me back the feeling to be connected to my readers, to book sellers, bloggers, librarians and all those other bookophiles, that make my work so magical.


8) How do you think starting your own house will affect you as a writer?

It will give me the freedom to try adventurous things – like publishing The Color of Revenge, my Inkworld sequel, in three installments ( inspired by the publishing ways of the 19th century) I will publish my first picture book written in English and illustrated myself in spring, as things move so much faster, when you do it yourself. I will publish the other two Mirrorworld books with a design I love and with my illustrations in summer and I plan a book of short stories and artwork based on the Mirrorworld App. Additionally I will print small numbers of all my books that are out of print in the US- quite a few- and I will publish some never published in English.


9) What are your goals with Breathing Books? What would you like to see your publishing house achieve?

We want to explore ways to include more illustration, weave art and word together. We’ll continue with what we tried with the Mirrorworld App and keep all my books alive, although they may not sell big numbers. We’ll try to think less of numbers and more about creative adventure.


10) What’s the best feedback you’ve received from your readers? Got any stories?

Oh there is so much! At a reading in Germany I just received a small envelope filled with Golden Yarn – spun by the reader herself. I received letters from the parents of dying children, telling me that my story helped both their child and them. Or from a soldier who told me she survived the desert thanks to Inkdeath. I hear so often that my stories grant shelter from the storm. It is each time a reminder that the responsibility of a storyteller is to catch the beauty and the terror of this world and life in words – for the others.

Art and Truth

There are bars on the window of my hotel room.

The room sits on the sixth floor of an older building, and the brass framed windows open large enough to slide through, without a screen to feign the idea of security. Three white bars stretch across only the opening, bolted to stone and porcelain, with a bold-type logo stretched across the bottom reading ‘Guardian Angel.’

The bars make me want to jump more than the inviting cement waiting at the bottom of the six-storey drop.

Not that I want to die, mind you. I actually enjoy my life and am quite happy with the way things go, most of the time. But it’s difficult to fight that urge to leap from a rooftop, to play chicken with a transit train and lose, or to pull the steering wheel and send my car into a tree. I think it’s that adrenaline of oncoming death, that brief moment before tragedy hits where everything seems to hang still, that I’m really aching for. Something beyond the mundane, the trivial conflicts and strife that do more to drag you down rather than make you feel alive.

Of course, it’s not something that I talk to many about. Urges of destruction are rarely a socially acceptable topic to entertain at tea time, and yet these impulses are very real, and very there. It joins the many other dark little secrets of mine that are not tea-time worthy, and despite the fact that I know others face similar demons and entertain morbid thoughts, we all keep them tucked away, out of sight and out of mind.

But things don’t stay buried. Not in the mind and not in the world. And when wild dogs dig up our skeletons, we have no choice but to answer for them. I believe the more frightening option, however, is that these skeletons stay buried, that we harbour them in secret until the day we die, and those we leave behind have no idea what really took place within us.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, I am not able to silence the demons for long, or keep these morbid thoughts from bleeding out. Most often these themes and ideas creep out into my art. Stories of war, racism, utter despair, and struggle are those that I’m drawn to write. I want to look into the abyss and see what looks back. I want to know what’s hiding beneath everyone’s tea-time demeanour. I don’t want those secrets to stay secrets.

And today, as I leaned against the bars of my hotel room, looking out over the gloomy downtown Seattle and imagining a moment of free falling, I realized: you can’t lie in art. It is pure truth, and the things you create are a reflection of all you are within, the nice things and the not so nice things. It is impossible to create art without truth. Whether that truth is a well-known and accepted one, like the love between a mother and child, or something not so talked about, like the daily struggle against depression, you cannot make art without a reflection of soul taking place.

And perhaps that’s where I’ve gone wrong for the last little while. It’s difficult as a writer to sometimes share your work with others, as that is a piece of raw, unprotected soul that you are offering to them. It can be crushing to have others dismiss or criticize it, and I believe as we grow older, it makes us more guarded and less willing to show those pieces of ourselves, whether in art or otherwise. Without realizing it, we quietly censor ourselves more and more as life goes on, until we are nothing more than our tea-time demeanour, our polite little masks. For me, it’s become more and more difficult to share and create my work, being so overwhelmed by the opinions and criticisms of others, not necessarily about me or my writing, but about what I’m actually trying to say.

Is my message too dark? Will people be offended if I talk about these subjects? How do I portray this in a way that doesn’t make people think that I’m a monster?

On a walk with my boyfriend the other night, we discussed art and what made something “real” art. He made the point that art wasn’t to be shared, that “real” art was something created by the artist, for the artist. And though I argued vehemently, (“Of course art should be shared! It can’t be locked up in a box and forgotten!”) I think there’s definitely some truth in there. When you become so overwhelmed by what everyone else wants, which is very common when getting into the business side of art, you can’t hear your own inner muse. You can’t find your truth, because it gets mixed up in everyone else’s truths. And when you lose your own truth, you either can’t produce anything, falling prey to the devil’s “writer’s block,” or you lose all love for the craft.

I like to think diversity in art isn’t just about the artists themselves, but what you’re really saying. I like to think that the stories and truths within need to be as individualized as the artists, and we should be mindful of looking over each other’s papers too much. When you have too many people trying to stick their thumbs in the pie, you only get a crust full of holes. Inspiration is great, but there’s always a balance to things, and too much outside influence dilutes your individual style.

So, at least for me, that’s what I need to do: write truthfully. Be honest about what I feel and experience as a human. There are always those out there who feel just the same, who need those stories or that art to make them feel connected to someone else. To make them feel not so alone.

At the end of the day, what keeps me from pulling the steering wheel, from taking a swan dive, from leaping to dark impulses, isn’t some stupid ‘guardian angel’, but the fact I know I’m not alone. I know there are others out there like me, because I’ve shared my art and they’ve shared theirs. I know the world is dark and morbid and so am I, but it’s also full of incredible people, whom I hope to understand and who can understand me.

So I’ll be honest, even when it’s not easy. I’ll try to remember the feeling of art as a child, when it felt like my skin was as thick as steel. Because, let’s face it: I will have zero control over my demise when the time comes. I could die tomorrow, and I couldn’t bear to leave anything left unsaid.

Writing Resolutions 2015

I'm a few days late with this post, but as it's the New Year, I know my fellow writers are setting their goals for 2015. I've set some of my own goals as well, but with a certain degree of caution, as in previous years I've been a little overzealous with my writing goals. When you set goals that are outside of your control and then you fail to meet them, it can be pretty disheartening year after year. And why would we waste time setting goals that we can't even meet? The point of new years resolutions isn't to make us feel bad, or to abandon them a week into the new year, but to set ourselves on a path to success.

To make 2015 your Best Writing Year Yet, take a look at your goals and ask yourself: can I achieve this? If the answer is yes, then it's time to make a plan.

You're setting goals, not labeling dreams. A lot of the time when making goals (and I myself am very guilty of this) I get a bit of a big head and begin planning all sorts of things. "I'm going to write nine books this year!" I would exclaim, completely neglecting how on earth I would fit that much writing and that many words into such a (relatively) short time frame. It would be lovely to conquer the world in 2015, but unless I can figure out how to accomplish this and be able to visualize myself achieving this, then it's likely going to remain a dream. Take a look at your own goals and visualize yourself accomplishing this goal and, based on your previous experiences, how long this will take. Just because a goal is overzealous doesn't mean it's not a goal worth pursuing. Sometimes it's just about adjusting the scale.

Don't set a goal that hinges on someone else's decision. This can take a lot of forms. Many writers make the mistake of trying to obtain an agent or editor as one of their new year's goals, when in reality, you have little to no control over it. This goal can mean, as it did for me in previous years, sending out more queries, working on researching more, entering pitch contests and attempting to engage more with potential agents, and that is where you should focus your goal. On actions you can take. If that means 2015 will be the time you perfect your query writing skills, then set that as your goal. Because even if you do everything right, it is still up to the agent/editor whether or not the time is right for the particular work you have. A lot of this business hinges on luck and timing and personal opinion. Just because you didn't snag an agent doesn't mean you didn't spend hours perfecting your pitches, sending our queries, doing research. If you hinge your success on that yes, you're often forgetting all the hard work you've put in. Don't sell yourself short, kids.

Goals need to be obtainable. Don't tell yourself you'll read 100 books this year if last year you only managed five. If you want to set a goal to improve productivity, look at how much you did last year, and then attempt to double that number. Or set a schedule you can keep in order to reach the set goal you want.

Make a plan. If you don't have a plan for obtaining your goal, it's probably going to stay a dream. Plan to read ten pages a day. Or write 1000 words a day. Don't just make a goal to "write more blog posts." Make a plan to "write one blog post a week." When we get into these routines, they become habits and then something we do without thought. More than that, though, we have to use that schedule to push ourselves through those times we'd rather be doing something else. Writer's block, feeling blah, busy work life, too much housework-- the excuses are innumerable, but if you have a set time to sit down and work, it's easier to push those other things aside. After all, just as housework and real life and self-care are all important, so is writing, so we have to make time for it.

How are your writing resolutions going? What did you decide on this year? Share your thoughts and tips in the comments, as I'd love to have your input.

Happy New Year, keyboard kritters, and may all the best muses make nests in your brain.

-Katie

Marketing vs Writing: Where Categories Fall Short

During my daily browsing, I came across a rather rude article about young adult fiction entitled How to Write a Shitty Young Adult Novel. Now, aside from me calling it rude, it is just a satire of many troupes and cliches found in young adult writing. It makes some very solid points, and there's a reason why nearly everything the writer outlined strikes a familiar chord with readers of YA. It left me between a rock and a hard place, because although I was raving mad and spouting my usual "YA is not a descriptor of quality!" I also saw that there was some valid points being made.

I was stuck. What to do. I could have gone to Twitter to post rants squashed down into 140 characters, or I could've ignored it entirely, choked it up to someone else's opinion and moved on with my day. But as I pondered, it occurred to me: why do I feel I have to defend myself? Why do I have to defend YA?

I could scream it until my face turns blue. YA, MG, NA, or adult is not a descriptor of quality. There are bad books everywhere. The title of that article could have been changed to at least a dozen other things. After all, isn't SF/F mocked for being "unrealistic" and "using magic or science to solve problems without difficulty"? Isn't romance and chick lit often thought of as just as wooden and hollow? Isn't literary and contemporary mocked for being dull or pretentious? It doesn't justify it, and mocking any genre or niche of fiction seems like the childish thing to me. Do you really have to elevate yourself above others just to feel good about what you enjoy? Then perhaps you need to reevaluate yourself before you start looking at others.

But why do people feel the need to dictate for others what is appropriate and not? 

We're told to avoid trolls. The internet is full of them, as well as real life, and they only wish to make people angry with whatever fodder they can come up with. Articles like this are no different. Sure, they may be accurate in their criticisms sometimes, but I fail to see what is being gained by shaming others for what they like. Whether its reading YA or MG, or enjoying My Little Pony, or falling in love with 50 Shades of Grey, or playing video games when you've become "too old" for something so silly, we all have or do something others may consider "childish" or "inappropriate" because you are not the target audience.

It comes down to, in my opinion, a lot of marketing bleeding into our perception of what is "normal." The marketing department of a publishing house decides vampires are the new hot ticket and begins to sell them to teenage girls, but when teenage boys begin reading them-- or adults, or even young children-- suddenly there's a societal problem. The books were not made with teenage boys or adults or children in mind, so it's not approrpaite for them. We use different shaming tactics--"Kids shouldn't have access to books with content like that." "Do you feel smart reading that book? Because obviously it's meant for kids and kids are stupid." "Ew, you actually want to read about ponies/vampires/X, isn't that for girls?" At the end of the day, content is content, and people don't fit into neatly made categories. Again, everyone else seems intent on deciding what is right for you.

Yes, there are people with their own opinions, and though they don't have to be wrong, it doesn't make the opinions of people who love, read, and write YA any less valid. Just because someone sets up a blog or works as a journalist does not mean they know what they're talking about. Hell, that includes me. I think it is important to remain aware of the effect categories, trends, marketing, and "target audiences" have on our writing. When we only focus on the idea of categories and what's appropriate for who, we forget that our art needs the freedom to grow and change, just as we do. If we get used to our comfort zones and never try to break boundaries, try something different, try to create something instead of just manufacturing something, then teen fiction has already been left to rot.

Ursula Le Guin said it best in her acceptance speech at the National Book Awards:

"Right now, I think we need writers who know the difference between the production of a market commodity and the practice of an art. Developing written material to suit sales strategies in order to maximize corporate profit and advertising revenue is not quite the same thing as responsible book publishing or authorship.

[...]

Books, you know, they’re not just commodities. The profit motive often is in conflict with the aims of art."

 Don't create the "Chosen One" story because you know it will sell. Don't sacrifice the needs of the story because someone else gets squeamish. Create art, then worry about where it fits later. Once you publish something, it's in print and there forever. Would you rather your debut be something you really care about, or an old story repackaged with different names?

If you're practicing art and not producing products, then you'll never have to defend yourself, because if you care about the craft, you'll always intend to improve. In my opinion, it's the beauty of art: it inspires growth, change, and emotion. But products don't inspire anything. They fill a need and are forgotten about when it no longer has use.

Even then, I can't bring myself to mock a book I feel is nothing more than a product. The business is subjective and there are many people who were touched or inspired by books that have put me to sleep. That's the magic in reading and the shortcoming of categorizing. A category only tells us the most basic of information. A shirt may be orange, but there are thousands of shades of orange. We put words like "Sunset orange" or "Urban fantasy" to try and narrow it down, but just as it pales in comparison to actually looking at a colour, a category cannot begin to encompass what's really found between pages.

Let Sleeping Books Lie

Photo credit goes to Adrian Gaucher (@nobidieshero) Check out his site www.tencrazyminutes.com

A good friend of mine who also doubles as my extra special beta reader loves to hang around bookstores with me and discuss what we're reading. Who doesn't? We often refer things to each other, but try, try, try as I might, I could never convince her to read Scott Westerfeld's Leviathan series. (Which is amazing if you enjoy steampunk.)

She absolutely refused, not because of the genre or content, but because she had been burned by Scott Westerfeld once before.

She read his Uglies series and absolutely loved it. Originally, it was set to be a trilogy, but somewhere along the lines Westerfeld decided to write a fourth book in the series, after the trilogy had seen some success. She loathed this fourth book and claimed it completely ruined the series for her. She refused to read anything else he'd written because, as we began coining it, he was sure to pull another "Westerfeld."

We'd used to the term to refer to writers who couldn't let a series lie, and that term got much use in our conversations. Which author had pulled a Westerfeld? Was it someone we adored? A series we loved?

Recently, while perusing through Chapters, I came across the newest book to the Shiver series, Sinner, which features around a character in the Shiver series, Cole St. Clair, and follows him and his love life after the end of Forever. I have yet to pick it up, but I know I will. Because first of all, I don't believe in judging books before reading them and because I absolutely adored the Shiver series.

Which made me kind of angry, standing in that bookstore and facing a new book in a story I thought was finished. Did Cole St. Claire's story leave questions unanswered? Oh hell yes, but not in any way did I feel like I needed to know more. It felt finished, and I had a sense of closure reading the last book. He still had things he needed to accomplish in his world, but they didn't seem focal enough to need a whole book about it.

Both in the Uglies series and the Shiver series, the fourth book was an after-the-fact addition. It appeared after a grace period where there was little to no lead in from the book previous to it. It's a case of what I consider "not letting go."

Another case could be seen in the Daughter of Smoke and Bone series. Though the "trilogy" ended, most of the end of the final book was used to set up conflict for the next series. This sequel baiting gives you an "ending" that isn't complete, that has raised just as many questions as it answered. This, sometimes, I feel is a bit more annoying, just because it is more in your face. It's as though the author or publisher promised you an ending by calling it a "final" book, only to pull out the rug at the end and say, "If you want closure, you have to read this next series of books." It feels a bit more like trickery, not so much in the storytelling as the way that it's marketed. At times, I feel like if it just called itself a series or a saga and then the writer produced however many books were needed to tell the story, it wouldn't be an issue.

Why do writers do this? What's with the obsession with trilogies when some stories just don't fit in three books? There are probably a million answers, some more justifiable than others. But no matter the quality of the follow-up book, it will ruin the series, because the story was finished. This new story? You're slopping fresh clay on top of a finished statue. And why?

Because fans, and authors, love the world. Let's face it, fans can't let go. All you have to do is look to Firefly to understand that. Often, fans will respect a proper ending, but the real hardcore fans, the ones every author dreams about, the ones that create art of our work, write their own fanfiction, who stay up all night dreaming about where your characters will go after the end, will never be happy. In some ways, these fans are toxic. Because even when you present them with the utmost perfect ending, they still want more.

But how can you shame them for that? Fans want more of your art because they love it. That's the dream.

The publishing business, as well, loves to see writers keep writing. At the end of the day, publishing is a business and houses want to be in the black when it comes to sales. What makes the most money in books? Series. Hook a reader with your first book, and they'll gladly buy a second and third and fourth. I faced this a little myself when I got my own agent. I had written a stand-alone book to sell as my debut. There was no way to continue this story. I massacred one of my main characters, I obliterated the villain and completely resolved the conflict. There was nowhere, NOWHERE, for the story to go without feeling horribly contrived, and yet my agent still pushed for it to be turned into a series, as it would "sell better." But, caught up in the glitz and glamour of agent life as well as being a little young and naive, I said, "Of course I can turn my single book into a series."

But every time I sat down to write the sequel, I ran into walls. It felt contrived in every way. I wrote that book, scratched it, and began again at least three separate times. But the book wasn't to be written, because there was no story left there.

Can I blame the agent for pushing a series where there wasn't one? I feel like I can, because although everyone needs to eat, the bigger paycheck should never be the thing driving art. When all you're looking at is the income, you forget about the bigger picture, the story, and it is so easy to lose it to cliche or crappy, half-formed ideas. Art that is rushed or forced isn't art anymore, it becomes a product. If that's what you want to be at the end of the day, someone like James Patterson who pumps out books like they fly out of his ass, then by all means. There are many others out there with similar views of books as something to be mass produced.

Then there comes the authors, the writers, those of us who can't let go. I can hardly fault a writer being in love with their world or their characters. After all, isn't that why we do this? But, I think the inability to let go of something you've written is not done so much out of love, but out of fear. This world is established, these characters are flushed out, the plot makes sense, and if you're published and selling well, people really like it. It's so much easier to come up with new conflict for characters that already exist than to start from scratch with a new idea. But that is what we must do.

There are so many ideas out there, so many stories to be told, and so many that aren't being told, because people favor the hero's tale, the simple plotline, the easiest path from A to B. I feel, as authors, we have to have the strength and the knowledge to know when to stop. To know that the series you've written is finished, and it's time to move on.

If Maggie Stiefvater had spent all her time writing more Shiver books, she never would have created the Scorpio Races or the Raven Boys. If Scott Westerfeld never let go of Uglies, we wouldn't have Leviathan. Not to mention, if they had clung to these ideas, they would have long ago faded away into obscurity. No idea lasts forever, no matter how many books you can pump out of it.

How do you succeed in this business? How do you create a really good story?

1) Know Where To End A Story

2) Always Try Something New

I may be the minority here, but when I sit down with an amazing book series, I want closure. The end is always my favourite, and it leaves me feeling empty when the story is left half-done or a finished story is revived, to walk amongst other books like the living dead. Endings are hard, because after we reach it, there's no going back, no adding to it, no time to fix plot holes with more story. It is a finality, and it opens the door for criticism, as there's no more hiding behind the mystery of "more to come."

"To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong." Joseph Chilton Pearce.

I think Pearce puts it best.

Cheers,

-Katie

Authors, have you been "leading" your audience?

We've all been there. You've picked up a new book and you're whipping through pages. You love some of the characters, the story has got you hooked and you're definitely enjoying the ride. But then you begin to notice something strange. You seem to be "led" in certain directions, not by the character or the narrator, but the author. You notice the way certain characters are described seems over the top, while other major characters are mostly ignored in comparison. How does it make you feel when you realize the author is trying to manipulate you into feeling certain ways about their book?

It sounds like a bit ridiculous, doesn't it? But it's true. As authors, we attempt to manipulate readers in many different ways. We ask ourselves "How can I make readers sympathize with this character?" "How do I play out this relationship so X character will not be seen as an idiot?" It's not a bad thing to be aware of what effect our writing is having on our readers. After all, we want readers to feel sympathy if we kill off a character, we want their hearts to swell and sink with each exciting plot point. But I believe there's a limit, and after a certain point the author is not so much telling a story as leading a reader through it.

The book I'm currently reading has a bad habit of trying to "lead" me, and it's not a new occurrence among young adult books. When the MC is introduced to a new character, "leading" authors tend to specialize the introduction. Is this your character's love interest? They'll probably have a cool entrance where they are the spotlight of the scene, where your MC is overly focused on them. Their descriptions may seem overdone, or they over focus on features that are supposed to be desirable--their attitude, their clothing, or even just the fact that they're "a good person but a little crazy in certain respects." Not all of it is negative, but it definitely feels like the author is pushing a character forward, like a helicopter parent putting their child on a pedastal and saying "Okay, go ahead and adore him."

It's perfectly reasonable that your MC should see your love interest as the spotlight, but sadly it's come to a place where it seems a character's role can be predicted based solely on how the author presents them upon their first couple scenes. When you MC meets the "third wheel" character, the person your MC may flirt with but not ultimately "fall in love with," the way that character is presented takes away all our mystery. They're introduced as a side character, with some thrown in tidbits about their life, but for the most part they recieved about as much attention as the description of your MC's house. So, why should I care about this character, when based on your introduction, I know he not only won't stand a chance of being with the MC, but that his part will probably be cut down or minimized? The author is saying without words that he is not worth me paying attention to.

There is a thin line between narrator and author at times. The narrator can be your MC, or simply the voice that has developed to tell your story. When you're in the MC/narrator's head, you need to ask yourself what it is they are focusing on AT THIS VERY MOMENT. I think a lot of authors get caught up in what's to come, and it ends up tarnishing the moment. Take the introduction of a love interest. Your MC has no idea what future lays between them and this new character. It's exactly the same as meeting a new person in real life. Yes, there are moments (especially as a teenager) when meeting someone is love at first sight, where birds are singing and the heavenly choir is christening your union. But about 99% of the time that is NOT the case, so why is it that YA likes to paint it the opposite way? When your MC meets their LI, you need to focus on the real moment feelings of the characters, instead of instilling little author clues of "Hey, there might be romance here!" Because honestly? The best romance is the one you never saw coming.

Leading readers in this way can be severely limiting, but also can be used as a great tool if you're aware of what you're doing. A great example of this would be Unearthly by Cynthia Hand. Throughout much of the book, the author leads you to focus on Christian as being the main love interest. The way she paints him makes the reader make a lot of assumptions about him, meanwhile Tucker was introduced and played out in many of his initial scenes as a side or background character. And this made so much sense for the book, because our MC, Clara, at the time is fully invested in Christian, putting him in the spotlight in her mind, while Tucker is just that annoying kid in class. As opposed to many other books, which use leading to bring the reader to the conclusion the author wants, Cynthia Hand led her readers to cliched conclusions, allowed the reader's assumptions to get the better of them, and then twisted it and changed the entire flow of the story to create a thrilling and surprising tale. (If you dig angels and haven't picked it up yet, YOU MUST.)

I like to think of leading readers as using blinders on a horse. As an author, you can highlight certain traits, bring the reader's attention to specific details, and by doing so you are putting blinders on them. This is not necessarily a negative thing, as sometimes readers and horses need to be focused, but if you leave them on all the time, the reader will not be able to fully experience your world. They will only have the story you drew for them, the conclusions you led them to, which takes away from one of the most important and exciting parts about reading: discovery.

Writer Anxiety

As writers, I think we all share a tendency for anxiety. After all, if you want to be published, there's a lot of waiting you'll have to do. Waiting on beta readers, waiting on agents, waiting on editors, waiting, waiting, waiting. With waiting comes a lot of time to think, and that is where the anxiety comes in.

Anxiety can affect a person in many different ways. At my child services agency, I get a glimpse of how anxiety can play out. Sometimes it's with physical/verbal assault, withdrawing, screaming, pacing, destroying property, lashing out at people-- it's incredible how many reports I get about the kids doing INSANE things, and the only explanation the report offers is "This client suffers from anxiety issues."

Sure, we may not be jumping people in the street (and yet as I write this, I remember, a writer did this recently...) but anxiety does still affect us, and can cause us to act without thought.

For example, anxiety may cause us to:

--> Respond to an unsavory review (Always a bad idea, even if you're trying to be civil.)

--> Prod a agent/editor for a response (Not always a bad plan, but if you're nudging a week after they got your manuscript, they may think you're not as well-versed in the industry as you should be.)

--> Jump to conclusions. (This is a big one. Anxiety can eat away at your thoughts, until you think, "So-and-so MUST think this, because it's been so long/hasn't been long enough/ect" This can cause us to act impulsively, which may reflect badly on our professionalism.)

--> Vent. (Venting is a good thing, but there is a TIME and PLACE for everything. Venting to friends and family? Go for it. Venting about an agent on a public forum? NOT SMART.)

--> Lash out. (Sometimes we get it in our heads that these gatekeepers in our way just want to crush our dreams. NOT TRUE, but thoughts can worm their way in when we least want them to, and this may cause us to send a hurtful email. Also a major career killer. Industry professionals talk, remember that.)

Even good writers make mistakes, and it's never a bad thing to take care of your own well-being. There's no sense in being miserable, so here are some tips to combat those nasty voices in the back of your head:

--> Do something else. Distracting yourself is the best way to get your mind off publishing issues. Write something else, work on your next project, or spend some time away from the writing world. Go for a walk, build a birdhouse-- do something productive. You get nothing done by worrying.

--> Kill those thoughts. Anxious thoughts can leak in at any time. I've found the best way to handle them is to shut them down immediately. Whenever I start to think, "Why hasn't my agent responded yet?" or the like, I immediately sweep them from my mind and tell myself, "This is something I have no control over." And I change my train of thought. I can drive myself mad if I don't change my thought process.

--> Relaxation techniques. Sometimes that tension worms its way into your muscles. Take some time to de-stress. Enjoy a bath, write in your journal, do something you enjoy that will not add any stress or anxiety.  If you're kinder to your mental health, it's easier to get back into that writing flow later.

--> Process through your worries. If you have some fear you cannot shake, start at the beginning and work through logically. Don't try to catastrophize the worst situation. Work it through and reassure yourself that patience is the best option (or perhaps it is time for a nudge-- just make sure you never send an impulse email.)

--> Educate yourself. The more you know about the publishing process, the less stress you'll face. Learn about wait times, etiquette, and the things agents/editors expect from you. That way, when you face a tough situation, you know how to handle it and you'll deal with less stress and anxiety in the long run.

What are your ways of dealing with writer anxiety?

Happy writing!

Peace,

-Katie

"I'm Just Trying To Protect You."

So, my blog pals, the other day I was in the bookstore with the beloved beta. We did our usual thing, we had lunch, I gave her my new ms, we slayed a dragon, rode on a pirate ship, talked about books we liked, she gave me books to read, and we saved Starbucks from a terrorist plot. All in a day's work. But she handed me Silence by Becca Fitzpatrick. Now, I'll admit I read Hush Hush. It was a guilty pleasure for a while. But I grew out of it. I bought Crescendo, but haven't been able to read it.

Why did the beta hand me this book? Because of the back blurb. It's a bit of text from inside the novel, not uncommon. What stopped me dead is that I saw the dreaded phrase, used in the context that makes me cringe:

"I was just trying to protect you."

Just typing out those words makes me cringe. Really, there's nothing wrong with that phrase, and many successful and excellent books use it. But I use it because it's an excellent example of how writers are justifying bad behavior.

I blogged on abuse in YA here, but I really wanted a chance to explain what about this phrase really grinds my gears.

I'm going to pick on the fantasy writers today, because I see it here most often.

When we write urban fantasy, straight fantasy, or any of its sub genres, we immediately have to adjust ourselves to the idea that, though we may be painting an image of our world, it's distorted somehow. If we create a world in which magic exists, we have to let go of the logic that says "that's not possible" and make it believable as well as interesting. This detachment from reality is fantasy's greatest strength, and it's greatest flaw.

If we write fantasy, we have to continually draw back to reality. We have to make the magic seem real. The beasts seem believable. The world building flawless. Because we detach that logical part of our brain, it's easy to drift off into cliches and stereotypes, because that's what's easy.

And this is what I believe is the problem with most UF/F relationships in young adult. Say we have a girl and a boy. The boy is a creature of some sort and the girl is being hunted by other creatures. The boy needs to protect her. There's nothing wrong with this, and this is the basic story line of many successful books. But somewhere along the line, I think many let the extravagance take them too far, and they drift too much into cliches. The action and danger of the plot bleeds into the romance to keep the tension up. Soon we have a situation where our creature boy is protecting our main character a little too much, and suddenly we're bordering on abusive behavior.

The main reason I hate this phrase so much, is as soon as one person NEEDS to protect another, you've created an unbalanced relationship, which is unhealthy. You have set a precedent and you have to work backwards to get out of that. Just because you're writing in a world that's distorted from out own, and your MC doesn't have all these SUPER SPECIAL AWESOME POWERS doesn't mean you NEED an unbalanced relationship.

Many writers use the excuse of the circumstances of the plot, the details of the fantasy realm, or the repercussions from whatever creature-problem the love interest has to justify their abusive situations. We tolerate a vampire physically abusing his girlfriend because he "needs to feed" or the werewolf boy being super jealous because werewolves by nature are "protective of their loved ones." The use of fantasy has detached the logical part of our brain, until suddenly we're tolerating something in fiction that we would normally be horrified at.

But as fantasy writers, we NEED to bring that bit of reality back in, especially within relationships. There's nothing wrong with having a twisted or abusive relationship, but be honest about it. Don't hide behind phrases like "I wanted to protect you." Just think about your main characters for a minute. If you were in their situation, would you tolerate what the love interest did to you?

Just because your MC is a human in a field of creatures doesn't mean she should be roped into an abusive relationship any normal girl would run from. If you want to create a twisted relationship-- great! Go do it! But if you want to create a relationship readers will sigh at, will tell their friends about, will dream about, then put effort in. Make it real. Make the characters want to be together, and connect on another level other than "OMG, we're gunna die." Just because he has fangs and hides a pair of wings under his jacket doesn't mean they can't have a normal, functioning relationship.

Peace,

-Katie