A New Kind of Book Packager?

               

I've been very interested in the development of Paper Lantern Lit. Lauren Oliver is one of the co-founders, and she is one of my favorite YA authors. Her writing is beautiful and I will literally read anything she writes. For those not familiar with the concept, Paper Lantern Lit conceives of a concept and chapter outlines for the book and then audition people to write the story. On some levels, it makes sense. I see some agents putting in a lot of time and effort shaping a first time manuscript, that it makes sense to take that to the next step and become a book packager/agency hybrid. And because they provide an outline, there are no surprises plotwise when they get the finished product from an author. They can control the topics based on the trends they see being profitable. But I still feel like a book packager and an agency fulfill different roles in an author's career and in the marketplace. However, they have been very successful so far, so I'll definitely be keeping an eye on them as they grow.

Crewel and a Roundabout Rant about Misogyny in Fiction

So, awhile ago I read this post about Crewel and gender in dystopian YA novels, and it influenced me to skip reading Crewel. But then my mother, who is a librarian, told me one of her colleagues liked it and she wanted to know my opinion. So I tried to put away my misgivings, but ultimately, Crewel was a painful reading experience for me. I've tried to enumerate why below.

First, the summary from Goodreads:

 

Sixteen-year-old Adelice Lewys has always been special. When her parents discover her gift—the ability to weave the very fabric of reality—they train her to hide it. For good reason, they don’t want her to become a Spinster — one of the elite, beautiful, and deadly women who determine what people eat, where they live, how many children they have, and even when they die.

Thrust into the opulent Western Coventry, Adelice will be tried, tested and tempted as she navigates the deadly politics at play behind its walls.  Now caught in a web of lies and forbidden romance, she must unravel the sinister truth behind her own unspeakable power.  Her world is hanging by a thread, and Adelice, alone, can decide to save it — or destroy it.

Enter a tangled world of secrets and intrigue where a girl is in charge of other’s destinies, but not her own.

#1: It's just not well-written. The world is terribly constructed. It's labeled as dystopian, but dystopian worlds are based in science fiction, not magic. The author never really makes it clear what the main character, Adelice, sees when she weaves the threads of time and space, how she can use the looms to zoom in on the weave of their world. Also, she can just freeze time around her by warping the weave around her so she can hang out in this little bubble with this guy she wants to kiss. That's magic. It doesn't even follow the previously established rules of her own world. And the Creweler, the head Spinster, can make new things. Like she can just weave a lake or whatever she wants. And I don't understand how that works. Are people just standing outside their house and then a lake plops down next to them and they start screaming? Does other stuff have to move apart to make room for the lake? None of this was adequately explained. 

#2: It's a misogynist's fantasy. It has this weird retro sexism going on. And it's definitely not dystopian, because dystopian takes elements of what we as a society are doing now and extrapolate from them to create a possible future world for us. Hunger Games did this quite well. So did classics like 1984. This world that the author has created does not fit that mold. It does not resemble our world, or our future, or even any time in our past really. It's weird. It's like the author took every retro sexist thing she could think of and put it in there, but never commented on it. I mean, sometimes characters sort of mentioned that it sucked but then they would be like, but that's just the way things are. And no one's trying to fight the rampant misogyny, not even in some minor way. The book is about the oppression of everyone, not the oppression of women. Even though women are BLATANTLY being oppressed more than men in this world. Another reason why it's not dystopian. Dystopians feature societies that tried to bring equality for everyone and then later became corrupt and failed or someone seized total power. But the point is that everyone is oppressed equally. 

And hello, calling the weavers Spinsters? You've got to be kidding me. And I cannot believe in a future world where women can only be nurses, teachers, and secretaries. WOMEN CAN'T EVEN BE FARMERS?! Excuse me, women have been the backbone of agriculture since the dawn of time. Another unbelievable part of the novel is that neighborhoods are gender segregated for children. So once you have a boy, you have to only have more boys, no girls (they have control over the gender of the child and stuff, of course), to prevent interaction that could lead to BAD THINGS. Also, only some women have the power to weave for some reason. And when they are sixteen, girls are tested for the ability to weave the fabric of time and space, and the place where they take potential Spinsters is this weird compound that was almost like a brothel minus the prostitutes. If you don't pass the test to be a Spinster, you can't leave, you have to be a maid or a hairdresser or other domestic servant. And the whole group of women are overseen by the Guild, this group of men (don't even get me started on how political office gets passed down through the male blood line). But why would women who can weave the fabric of time and space allow themselves to be controlled by a guild of men??

I'm not going to sugarcoat it: I just hate the main character. She's a typical, arrogant non-intersectional feminist. For those who don't know, intersectional feminists also fight for the struggles of women of color, trans women, lgbt women, and women of different socioeconomic status. Not just the other privileged white women (and this girl is pale). I don't understand how race works in this book. I think the author thinks that race isn't an issue in the world she's created, but the book reads as racist. For example, Adelice sees this girl and describes her as having "tawny skin" and admires her "exotic beauty" and I'm just like, really? You didn't get the memo about not referring to people of other races as exotic? Okay. And she describes her maid as having stereotypically Asian features, and then says that she understand why the Spinsters take so much care in their looks because they could never let "inferior women" look better than them. WOAH. Is she inferior because she's asian? Because she's a maid? And Adelice doesn't have any introspection about how the inferiority is just a misguided opinion of the Spinsters, she seems to endorse that racist idea. 

Adelice just thinks she's above everyone else. She sees all the other Spinsters as vapid, stupid and overeager, even though those girls don't know anything else but to want to be a spinster. She just whines all the time, "Oh noooo, I have to be pampered and have my hair and makeup done and this is just like, not what I care about because I'm better than those other girls that do and hair and makeup is a waste of time." When Adelice sees that "exotic" girl hanging on a politician's arm, she starts slut shaming her. Also, Spinsters are told not to have sex because that will make them lose their abilities (which turns out to be a lie to control them). And then there are two guys Adelice gets involved with. One guy she just kisses, but the other guy is the one she really "loves." He was married before, and his wife died, and the society took their child away. Horrible, right? And our lovely protagonist thinks, "I don't like that he was married. Not one bit. Even if he isn't anymore." And this was before they ever kissed! And then later she says, "He was a husband, a father, and I'm nothing and never will be." BECAUSE WOMEN'S ROLES DON'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Even though before she was so arrogant about herself. Sigh. And of course the lesbian character killed herself, because all lesbian characters must be crazy or die. 

The problem with this book is that I've only seen a couple of other people comment on these issues. I don't understand how other people are reading this and not even seeing a FRACTION of what I see. The problem with this book is that people are reading it and going, yup that's how women are treated, and just accepting it as normal, and this book just contributes to harmful ideas about women and race and everything, and I just can't. It made me ill at times to read it, and I had to take breaks. I know it's "just a book" but honestly, I feel like people have a responsibility to think long and hard about what they are putting out into the world. Especially in YA, when so many readers are looking for characters like themselves, I think it's lazy to make a book that's misogynistic and racist. I'm sure this was not the author's intention, but it's what happened. I don't mind if characters are racist and misogynistic if it's part of the story, but there's no authorial distance, and that's why the book turned out to be so painfully misogynistic. And I don't know why people can't just take an extra little bit of time to get it right.

This was already long, and I could go on and on about this book, so I'll just stop right here. I think I refrained from swearing, which was a struggle. Tl;dr: it's like an alternate history novel where we somehow managed to develop all this technology but we never progressed past the worst part (and I do mean the worst part) of gender dynamics from the 19th century. Somehow.

Belated 2012 YA Book Survey

I'm a little late with this, but this is a survey adapted from The Book Scout and YA Highway about the YA books I read in 2012. Without further ado:

1. Best book you read in 2012:

Best contemporary: The Princesses of Iowa by Molly M. Backes
Best dystopian: Pandemonium by Lauren Oliver
Best fantasy: The Girl of Fire and Thorns by Rae Carson
Best 2013 release I read this year: Man Made Boy by Jon Skovron
Best post-apocalyptic: Ship Breaker by Paolo Bacigulpi
Best mystery: Forgotten by Cat Patrick

2. Book You Were Excited About & Thought You Were Going To Love More But Didn’t?
Reached by Ally Condie. I enjoyed the first two books in this series, but after reading so many other dystopians in-between, this conclusion just didn't quite satisfy me.

3. Most surprising (in a good way!) book of 2012? 
I read Au Revoir, Crazy European Chick by Joe Schreiber on a whim, and I enjoyed it way more than I thought I would. It's funny, the stakes are high, and you never know what's going to happen on the next page, but it's definitely going to be awesome.

4. Book you recommended to people most in 2012?
I've been recommending books to my boyfriend, my best friend, my uncle, and my father pretty consistently. The most recommended titles would be Divergent by Veronica Roth, The Girl of Fire and Thorns by Rae Carson, and All These Things I've Done by Gabrielle Zevin.

5. Best series you discovered in 2012?
The Croak series by Gina Damico. So amazing! It's about a teenage girl who gets sent to live with her uncle after acting like a juvenile delinquent and finds out he's the mayor of a town of grim reapers, and she's one of them. Damico has created this fascinating world, and I can't wait to read the third book!

6. Favorite new authors you discovered in 2012?
Gina Damico (Croak), Joe Schreiber, (Au Revoir, Crazy European Chick), Carrie Harris (Bad Taste in Boys)

7. Best book that was out of your comfort zone or was a new genre for you?
Chopsticks by Jessica Anthony and Rodrigo Corral. I've never read a YA graphic novel. The story was so-so, but the book was beautiful.

8. Most thrilling, unputdownable book in 2012?
The Catastrophic History of You and Me by Jess Rothenberg. Pretty sure when I finished reading this I cried and hugged the book.

9. Book You Read In 2012 That You Are Most Likely To Re-Read Next Year:
All These Things I've Done by Gabrielle Zevin, as I wait impatiently for the third installment.

10. Favorite cover of a book you read in 2012?
All You Never Wanted by Adele Griffin. So striking.

11. Most memorable character in 2012? 
Anya Balanchine from All These Things I've Done. She's strong in the face of constant adversity, she's devoted to her family above all else, she's a survivor. I have such a vivid picture of her in my mind. Cannot wait for the third book.

12. Most beautifully written book read in 2012?
Why We Broke Up by Daniel Handler. See the quote in #15.

13. Book that had the greatest impact on you in 2012? 
The Fault in Our Stars by John Green. I cried through the last 40 pages of this book, and then spent 20 minutes in the fetal position crying when it was over.

14. Book you can’t believe you waited UNTIL 2012 to finally read?
Across the Universe by Beth Revis. But that had the upside of less wait time between sequels.

15. Favorite Passage/Quote From A Book You Read In 2012? 

"It was a secret time and place, you next to me, untraceable and out of this world." - Why We Broke Up by Daniel Handler

16.Shortest & Longest Book You Read In 2012?

Shortest: Au Revoir, Crazy European Chick by Joe Schreiber

Longest: The Diviners by Libba Bray

17. Book That Had A Scene In It That Had You Reeling And Dying To Talk To Somebody About It? (a WTF moment, an epic revelation, a steamy kiss, etc. etc.) Be careful of spoilers!

The Crown of Embers by Rae Carson

18. Favorite Relationship From A Book You Read In 2012 (be it romantic, friendship, etc).
Elisa/Hector, The Girl of Fire and Thorns series

19. Favorite Book You Read in 2012 From An Author You Read Previously
All You Never Wanted by Adele Griffin

20. Best Book You Read That You Read Based SOLELY On A Recommendation From Somebody Else:
Team Human by Justine Larbalestier & Sarah Rees Brennan

My most anticipated YA reads for 2013:

Series conclusions:

The Bitter Kingdom by Rae Carson (Girl of Fire and Thorns trilogy)

Requiem by Lauren Oliver (Delirium trilogy)

Shades of Earth by Beth Revis (Across the Universe trilogy)

Untitled Divergent Trilogy Conclusion by Veronica Roth

Stand Alones:

The Moon and More by Sarah Dessen

The S-Word by Chelsea Pitcher

How My Summer Went Up in Flames by Jennifer Salvato Doktorski

Revenge of the Girl With the Great Personality by Elizabeth Eulberg

Return to Me by Justina Chen Headley

So many good books coming out in 2013, I can't wait!

Just One Day Hype and the Amazing Writing of Gayle Forman

Gayle Forman is an amazing writer.

I first picked up her debut novel, If I Stay, one summer, but I couldn't finish it. At the time, it just struck some chord inside me in a way that was really disturbing. Needless to say, reading it was not an enjoyable experience. But some months later, I picked it up again, and that time I was ready. And I am so glad I gave it a second chance.

Forman has this amazing ability to take two characters and have you completely invested in the outcome of their relationship in just one book. She can accomplish in a single novel what people spend multiple books in a series or multiple episodes on a tv show trying to convey. I didn't think I could care more about those characters, but then she released the follow-up, Where She Went. I had a feeling at the end of If I Stay that these characters might not have a happy ending soon after where the book ended. But that was the beauty of the book: it could give these characters that happy ending as far as I, the reader, was concerned. So when I heard about Where She Went, I waffled. Another book by Gayle Forman! About characters I love! But what if she breaks my heart with what she writes for these characters? I don't know if I can spend another book inside Mia's grief-stricken head. And then Forman did something I completely didn't expect: she switched narrators. All of a sudden we were in Adam's head. Again, I waffled. But this is so different from the first novel! There's no magical realism, there's a different narrator...but of course I was silly to doubt, because after reading the book I was forced to utter a phrase rarely ever heard leaving my lips: "The second book was better than the first!"

Where She Went is devastatingly beautiful. To describe it in words other than Forman's own seems futile. And because of my love for those two books, I felt fairly confident Forman's next two book series would be amazing. And after reading the first two chapters on the Facebook page for the series, I can affirm that yes, these books will be amazing. I'm already in love with the chemistry between the two leads, and the condensed time frame of their story is going to make this book extremely intense. I can guarantee Forman is going to break my heart and put it back together again multiple times just in the first book. Tears are guaranteed to be shed. 

I had the pleasure of meeting her at an event at the Word Brooklyn bookstore and although I acted calm, inside I was jumping up and down, squealing with excitement. She's every bit as lovely as you hope she is after reading her books. I told her how much I loved her first two books, and I hope that I get a chance to meet her again and tell her how much I like her next two - because my enjoyment of them is guaranteed. 

Go like the Facebook page to help unlock the third chapter of the book! She's also doing a giveaway for Just One Day - just click the widget on the righthand side of my blog to find out how to enter.

And if you haven't read If I Stay, do yourself a favor and go read it. Just...keep a box of tissues nearby. You're probably going to need it. 

Instead of a Portal World, Try Peeling Back the Layers of Our Own

This post about portal fantasies gave me some food for thought. The author of the post is wondering why no agents are interested in representing portal fantasies in the vein of the Chronicles of Narnia. Many agents feel that portal fantasies have low stakes because the danger never affects the protagonist's home world. I tend to agree with that sentiment. I remember that I liked The Magician's Nephew, the prequel to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, much better than the actual first book. In the prequel, the White Witch actually comes into the human world and wreaks havoc, while in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, the entirety of the action takes place within the portal world. I also find it a bit unbelievable when the residents of the portal world are these amazing, powerful beings who need a human to solve all their problems.

On another note, the author of this post notes that there is little YA fiction that involves space travel and alien planets. I think that is largely because for a long time, those premises were relegated to the hard sci-fi section and as YA doesn't have a ready made market for hard sci-fi, people may have been confused as how to sell these books in the young adult market. However, I think this is changing, due to the popularity of the Across the Universe trilogy and the recently published Mothership by Martin Leicht and Isla Neal.

Also, the author suggests that "Maybe the lack of portal fantasy is a metaphor for the belief that modern teenagers don’t want to travel to strange new worlds, even in their reading." I think this whole discussion about portal fantasy ignores the fact that perspective is crucial to the story being told. I have nothing against exploring a strange new world, but I don't need it to be introduced to me via a portal fantasy premise. To me, that seems like an extra step, and I'd like to cut out the middleman. Every time I read a new book, I, the reader, fill the role of the protagonist of a portal fantasy as I enter the world this book is showing me. I greatly prefer straight fantasy because the perspective is from the natives of that world. Some writers might find it hard to introduce their new world and use a portal world as a shortcut, however, for the most part, I find this to be lazy writing and story-telling. In Cinder by Marissa Meyer, for example, Meyer sucked me right into her futuristic Beijing retelling of Cinderella with a cyborg protagonist. I never say "never," so a well-written portal fantasy can certainly suck me in, but for the most part, I prefer a different premise.

A really good way for me to talk about this is to discuss a recent YA book I've read and loved: Croak by Gina Damico. This is a book that introduces the reader to a strange new world while still keeping the stakes high for the "real" world. In this novel, Lex is sent to live with her uncle after a recent run of delinquent behavior. Little does she (or her parents) know that her uncle is a Grim, someone who sends departed souls to the afterlife. Lex arrives in the little isolated mountain town of Croak, one of a few places where Grims live and work together. Non-Grims don't see these places for what they are, and the magic of the places send them away confused. The Grimsphere is another layer to our world, and Grims can still move freely through the rest of the world. One of the Grims goes rogue and starts Damning criminals (preventing their souls from reaching the Afterlife), but soon the Grim starts Damning innocent people as well. The eternal souls of the entire human world hang in the balance, which gives this story high stakes and makes it so compelling.

All in all, when I was younger, I read a fair amount of portal fantasies, but I've since left those stories behind, and I look with excitement to the future of YA fantasy. I'm only a lowly intern at the moment, but someday down the road when I'm an actual agent, I would love to represent something like Croak. For those interested, there are currently two books in the series with a third on the way. Add it on Goodreads here. By the way, how cool is that cover?

You Are Not Entitled to a Successful Publishing Career

Part of this post really resonated with me. Alvina Ling talks about an encounter she had with a writer at a SCBWI conference:

"'The problem is, agents and publishers aren't knocking on my door.'

I didn't have a response for this, and we were already walking away from each other, so I just continued on my way. But later I replayed the conversation and marveled at the woman's attitude. It was as if she felt she was somehow entitled to be published, that it shouldn't be so hard.

I don't know the woman's background--perhaps she'd been coming to conferences for years and was just speaking from extreme frustration. Or maybe it was her first conference, and she was disappointed by what she had learned. But I'm really not sure what that woman wanted me to say. That it should be that easy? Did she want me to somehow feel guilted into publishing her? That I'd say, without having read anything she'd written, that I'd publish her book?"

The nature of my job as a literary agency intern means I have to reject a great deal of people every week. I work at a smaller agency (in terms of the number of agents, not clients), and we receive about 400 queries a month. I've been here 4 months, and out of all those queries, I've probably requested about 25 full manuscripts, and of those 25, I've actually reported on about eight I felt were good enough to show to one of the agents. And of those eight, they've taken on exactly...none. Since I've been there, I think the agency has signed two new clients. As a small agency, most of their time in the office (like other agencies) is spent on their existing clients. They talk to their authors, they call editors they think are a fit for the manuscript they're shopping, they discuss foreign rights, they talk to Amazon about problems with their authors' ebooks, they read their authors' new manuscripts, and type up editorial notes and pitch letters, among other things. Most of their reading is done outside of the office. Your manuscript may not be bad, it may be just good - instead of great. For an agent to spend their precious time reading your manuscript, it has to really pique their interest (I think it's safe to say every agent wants to find that manuscript that makes them miss their subway stop).

So you can start to see how hard it is to get published. 

There are plenty of reasons why an agent will pass on your manuscript that have nothing to do with the quality of your plot or writing. I've passed on things because they're too similar to books my agency already represents. This is a huge problem. I see a lot of queries where people gush that they love X author or X book that we represent, and then proceed to pitch something that is almost exactly the same. I'm glad that you have the same taste in books as our agents, but there's not room on our list for something that's exactly the same as what we always represent. Selling both books would become a problem.

I've passed on things because their premise is too similar to projects that have over saturated the market. For example, I will almost always pass on something with vampires, unless the query really grabs me. Sometimes a project just doesn't fall under the scope of what the agency represents. For example, short story collections, poetry, and books written for an academic audience are not a good fit for our agency. Also, every agent has their personal list of things that make them groan when they see them in their inbox, because it's just not their cup of tea. I'm just an intern, so I don't take my personal preferences into consideration, but personally, I groan when I see a story with fallen angels or a story where the protagonist is 'fated,' 'destined,' or 'bound' to their love interest. However, if the author makes me like the manuscript despite my biases, that shows they are a strong writer.

I see the attitude she's talking about a lot in queries. There was one query in particular where the author felt compelled to inform me that even if I pass on their work, they "intend" to get published. The people who praise their own writing in their query, or who blog about how easy it should be for them to get published (I do google you, authors, I do), really turn me off. If you send me a strong query, and your sample pages deliver on what was promised in the query, that's all you need. It's cool if you have writing credits, degrees, and memberships in various writing groups, but none of those are relevant if I'm not compelled by your story and your writing.

Not everyone is going to be a successful writer. Just like not everyone is going to be a successful doctor, lawyer, actor, artist, musician, etc. My family members joke around and ask me, "How many dreams did you crush today?" However, not everyone should be a published writer. For the most part, I'm confident when I reject people that they will keep writing for fun even if they never get published, or that even though they're not right for our agency, someone else will publish them. Fact: some people are just not good writers. Some people will never get better, and some people just need to write a couple more manuscripts to develop their skills before they query again.

Most published writers have day jobs, and only a very small percentage of writers can live off their writing. Even the most successful authors didn't get that way overnight. Meg Cabot has talked about the hundreds of rejection letters she received before she got published, and even then, her books weren't that successful. It wasn't until the Princess Diaries movie came out that she was able to republish her old books, and they became successful as well. John Green, arguably one of the most popular and talented writers in YA, wasn't a best-selling author at first, and he worked really hard to earn a devoted following that is largely responsible for his current overwhelming success.

Bottom line: Getting published is hard. Getting published is a business. Agents want to represent good writers and stories, and editors want to publish them, but nobody owes you anything. You have to work for it.

I Want to Be John Green When I Grow Up

I'm pretty open about the fact that I love John Green and think he's a genius. I saw him at the National Book Festival back in September, and it was the highlight of the festival for me. He was very humble despite his extreme popularity. As soon as he realized that he had been announced a little prematurely and everyone was waiting for him, he jogged up onto the stage. My mother, who is a librarian, was not prepared for the amount of screaming that accompanied his arrival. It's very rare for authors - YA or otherwise - to get that kind of reception, and it's because John Green engages so intensely with his audience, cares so deeply about world issues, and treats his teenage readers as intellectual equals that he  is met by screaming fans everywhere he goes. It also doesn't hurt that he's not afraid to make a fool out of himself for our entertainment on occasion.

He is just as well spoken in person as he is in his videos. He spoke beautifully about his belief in the intelligence of teenagers and how thankful he is to have the opportunity to make communities and effect change through the platform he has as both a bestselling YA author and a Youtube sensation. When there was a question and answer section, a teenage girl asked him a question about whether he subscribes to the postmodernist belief that "the author is dead." As soon as she said "postmodernist," a lot of people in the crowd sort of snickered and I could tell they thought this girl was trying too hard to ask a question that was really pretentious. I knew exactly what she was talking about, but I guess a lot of people were confused by the question. John was a completely amazing human being, as per usual, and he showed his usual belief in the intelligence of teenagers and their questions and answered it as if it was the most important question he'd ever been asked. He clarified the question for the audience and launched into a thought-provoking answer about how his Internet presence has affected his books and career in ways he never could have predicted when he first started writing, before he was famous. I could go on and on about how much I love John Green, and how he's a beautiful human being, but maybe I'll save that for another post.

Anyway, that was all to preface this interview with John Green that I wanted to share. The whole interview is worth reading, but I think this bit underscores the point I made above, that John Green truly values the input of teenagers and is interested in making them feel like they can make a difference in the world:

SH: If you could handpick the ideal reader for your book, how would you describe that reader?
JG: Thoughtful, intellectually curious, self-conscious 17-year-old. (That is to say: all 17-year-olds.)

Now go forth and read something by John Green (if you haven't already. But really, what are you really waiting for?).