My Complicated Relationship with Classic Literature

Everyone is all abuzz about Go Set a Watchman, the new title from Harper Lee that releases shortly. Literally everyone. Or so it seems. (If you're into it, I hear the Guardian's interactive first chapter, with voice narration available by Reese Witherspoon, is very good. I don't know as I don't plan to watch/read/consume.)

It's interesting to me to watch this new trend in literature, and it comes from an overall trend in society I think. The trend is the Celebrity Author Pedestalling. I can hardly blame JK Rowling for publishing under a pseudonym (this article is worth a read about the field of forensic linguistics, though I understand the original tip came from a blabby wife of an exec at the agency or elsewhere in JKRow's world.) The fuss about Harper Lee is ... confusing.

First, a confession. Due to an odd set of circumstances in my childhood (we moved twice during my high school years so I attended 3 schools in 4 years) I have never read To Kill a Mockingbird. I've also never read Moby Dick. Uncle Tom's Cabin. Beowulf. The Great Gadsby. Old Man and the Sea. Of Mice and Men. Lord of the Flies. The Grapes of Wrath. I don't really regret these absences, though I have The Great Gadsby on a bookshelf. Maybe one day it will out-compete my massive to-be-read pile. I doubt it.

I have, however, read and dissected Macbeth at least 3 times in High School and once or twice in college. I read Gabriel Garcia Marquez's 100 Years of Solitude, which almost killed me, but then was thrilled to find it as an option on the AP English exam that year or the next. I earned a 4 on that exam. (out of 5, which got me out of first year English requirements and composition classes in college.) I've read Dr. Faustus, Madame Bovary, and The Inferno. I've read Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Solzhenitsyn, Ibsen, Camus (in English and in French.) I hated with a pure unadulterated passion Kafka's Metamorphosis. Don't remember ever hating a book so much.

The subject of teaching kids classic lit comes up often in the media. (Here's one very interesting article about it, featuring a number of quotes from children and parents that are eye-opening.)

So we're back to the buzz about this new book, which has it's own odd backstory, almost like a book itself (this post isn't meant to address any of that odd backstory.) But I'm so puzzled by the elevation of this book as the One Thing That Is Awesome About Literature in 2015. There are *so* many good books that came out in 2015 or are due to. So much good stuff last year and the year before. So many books to anticipate. Why all the extreme focus on this one author, this one book? I know there's some element of joy of hearing from an author who didn't publish much, but I fear when we laser-focus on one author, we risk further alienating kids from books because they look at something like this and think, meh. Maybe it'll be assigned reading this year in my son's Honors 9th grade English class. I just asked him about his opinion of To Kill A Mockingbird (which he read within the last year) and he answered, "Meh."

When we've got so much great fiction coming out, so many great authors, I fear a focus on one title by one author will take away the emphasis on these other great titles, pull from the limited time we all have these days, pull emphasis from these other authors writing great works. It's not a rising-tide-raises-all-ships kind of situation, I don't think, when one author's singular work gets this kind of media attention/spectacle. It's not the same as the Harry Potter Phenomenon, best explained as the fact that when kids (and adults) finished reading HP, they moved on to other books. (Here's a great Leaky Cauldron article about that. I searched and read several other articles, but I find the fansite the best for this particular bit of HP-related trivia.)

I've sort of mushed the idea now that I've mentioned Harry Potter, but it brings up a point that helps me finalize this post -- when there are books like Harry Potter out there which can spark imagination and literally get millions upon millions of people to read, why do we need to over-emphasize just one title, just one book, just one author who wrote this book a very long time ago? And when it comes to literature classes and teaching English to kids, why aren't we using contemporary fiction more? I'm sure I'll have more observations as my son gets into his 9th grade English class, but for now, I'm left scratching my head at the idolatry and love for one book, when there are so very many books. It's like falling passionately in love with one poppy in a field with hundreds of thousands of them.

One Potterhead's Take on the Harry Potter Controversy

or 

What To Do When The Story Tells You You're Wrong

or

Watch Sheena Try to Be British

So my hero right now is JK Rowling, who devastated the writing world by saying that it was a mistake to have Ron and Hermione end up together. Here's the full interview. It's really cool insight into Hermione's character by the two people who understand her the most.

The chemistry...it sizzles.

People were quite upset about it, however. Tweets were made, books were burned, the world was destroyed.

Which is silly, since she didn't actually go back and change it. And even if she had, everyone who was complaining would be rejoicing to have more Harry Potter. I'd be the first in line.

But it got me thinking, what would Harry Potter have looked like if it hadn't ended the way that it did. Spoilers abound, but if you haven't read Harry Potter yet, then shame on you and your family. :)

If Harry and Hermione ended up together, Ron could have married Luna. Luna's always been my favorite character anyway, and I think they could have worked out really well, if as soon as Luna became interesting Ron had started noticing. Ginny could have ended up with Neville. Doesn't that just make more sense? Is Ginny Harry's equal, as far as the story is concerned, or is she more of a minor character? Did she sacrifice and save the way Hermione did? Give up her family, and her home, risking her life by Harry's side a thousand times the way Hermione did? Is the best reason why Ginny ends up with Harry because of the family she comes from?

What's beautiful about the way Harry Potter ended, was that Harry ends with the family he's always needed. Those two friends closest to him are now the relations he'd see over holidays. Ron is literally his brother, and through him, Hermione is his sister. But if they had ended differently, would Ron no longer be his best friend if a marriage didn't state it he had to be? Do you really think that Harry had to marry into the Weasley family to be a member of it? Never. Harry would always be welcomed into that home, even if Ron was being a prat. Wouldn't there just be more dinner settings on the table? I wish Luna could have been at that table every Christmas, and Neville too. Love would have been bigger, the story would have ended happier, and in all ways, Hermione would have been happier with the boy she matched better.

I have to say, I totally understand why Rowling didn't make this choice. She decided the ending far before she saw it on the page, and that means so many details had to be placed in the correct place before she could move on. And think of the pressure and the timing. The public was beating down her door, she had to tell the story she had plotted out, even though the story was pushing a different way. There wasn't room to get Ron and Harry to become friends once she set up Ron's entire life and storyline to one direction. And also, it's hard to admit you were wrong about something. Writing is so much about trusting your instincts, and if your instincts can be wrong, then it's hard to trust your own ability.

Now the ending as is, is still brilliant and satisfying, because JK Rowling was as much of a genius when she was plotting as she was when she was prosing. It's a beautiful way to end, and I'm satisfied. I think Ron and Hermione would be a fine couple, though Ron would need to become more confident, and Hermione a bit less critical. I think it's such a gift that we get to see inside her head, and see the process she went through when telling one of the fullest and best stories ever.

But I hope this gift also inspires you, as it has inspired me, to trust the story you're telling, and make the changes the story tells you to make. Don't chase after every plot bunny, obviously, but listen early to the clues the story gives you. The times when you're heading in one direction, and the characters let you know they aren't satisfied with their destination, or that they could be happier in a different way then you think they will. 

Let the characters make the destination. Sometimes you need to lose the plot in order to win the story.

And then you'll be on the way to a happier ending.

~Sheena Potterhead Boekweg

The Importance of Wizard's Chess

Lately, I've been reading through the final draft of Alchemy over and over again, checking for missed edits and strange formatting. It has taught me something invaluable. One, that my writing partners are brilliant, and two, the importance of wizard's chess.



In Alchemy, Sabrina and Melanie both wrote scenes where the characters sit around and play dominoes,or cards. I remember after they wrote them thinking that was kind of weird. I mean, what was the point? Those scenes don't advance to plot. Bad guys aren't attacking, romance isn't developing. Which just shows you how much I learned doing this collaboration, and also how much I had to learn.

But reading through Alchemy now, I get it.

I see the value in character's sitting around the great room in front of a roaring fire playing chess. No, it's not stopping Voldemort. No, it's not advancing the plot, but more important than that, it is giving the reader a reason to care if the good guys win. It's about giving the relationships and friendships time to breath, time to grow, and time to become real. It's about creating a world of a story that is pleasant to live in.

I'm a big fan of dread. I'm a big fan of creepy bad guys with predatory interests. I'm a big fan of danger, and car chases, and fire shooting out of people's hands. But those big moments only matter when you have time to care whether the characters live or die.

Great relationships, be that friendship or romance, need time and quiet moments to make them real. They need conversations while walking through the woods. They need scenes where the characters make quiche just for fun, they need moments of silence, and a smile at the right time. They need wizard's chess, and Christmas. They need moments of what the Happy Ever After will look like, so that after the story is over, the reader will know what life looks like. Moments of wizard's chess, makes a character live forever.

There's a balance, of course. Too much happy, and the story is over. Too much dread and actions, then the readers might put the book down. You have to paint with light and dark colors. Paintings are often better that way. Clearer at the very least.

Just remember that your readers will have to live in this world you're creating. Make it a pleasant place...sometimes. Or make it the darkest dankest hole you can imagine, and have your characters sit around and play chess. Give the reader a chance to rest inside a book. Give the reader a chance to recover.

And then beat them the heck up.
~Sheena

Sheena is the author of Funny Tragic Crazy Magic (99 cents yo, for a short time) and the coauthor of Alchemy which launches in two weeks.

Movies Versus Books

I know I blog a lot about movies and television shows.  I think it works better than discussing books since most people have seen the movies I’ve seen, and a lot less have read the books that I have read.  And while I enjoy story-telling in any media, I have to say, I do prefer books.

Yeah the chairs look comfortable, but......

Movies

Movies and TV have an advantage.  They can set the scene immediately.  What takes a page or two in a novel takes two seconds on film.   Watching a movie is easy and takes considerably less brain cells than reading  (there is nothing like watching TV and zoning out).  Although there are definitely some movies that are complex and require some serious concentration to follow like Inception and Memento (two movies that I think are awesome).  Even then, just presenting the visuals does a lot of the work for the audience.  Because of this, everyone (or nearly everyone) watches movies or TV, but not everyone reads books.

Books

...wouldn't you prefer this.

But books offer something that movies and TV can’t.  You may have to piece the images together from a string of words, but you can also delve deeper into the POV characters.  A good book draws you in and lets you feel what the characters feel and experience what they experience, not just see it.  And to me that is the power of books that you just can’t get from watching a movie.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that movies can’t be emotional or moving.  Many movies have brought me to tears, but it isn’t the same way that books move me.  Books can (not all do) go deeper into the thoughts of the characters.  Make me relate more to them, understand them better and feel more for them.  That is something that can’t be translated to film (although it has been tried through cheesy voice over narration--like in the Twilight movie).

Example-Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows

We have all seen our beloved books turned into movies and even when it is done really, really well, there is something lost in the translation.  Rarely are the movies as good as the books, and even rarer are they better.

Spoilers:  If you haven’t read or seen Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows yet, do not read on.

I thought the movie Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was well-done, but it could not compare to the emotion in the book.  Especially in the scene when Harry realizes that he has to die, and he walks willingly towards his death.  When I read this scene in the book, I was sobbing.  I had to stop every few pages and wipe my eyes because the tears were so thick the words were all blurry.  I had spent seven books with Harry, and I loved him.  I felt for him and empathized with him, and seeing and feeling him accept his death was emotionally draining.  Of course the movie didn’t have as big of an impact on me.  Sure there were tears, it’s not really that hard to make me cry, but nothing like it was when I read this scene in the book.  I did read the book first, but I still don’t think the movie had the emotional impact that the book did.

To further illustrate my point, here is a brief excerpt from Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (the beginning of chapter thirty-four right after Harry realizes that he has to die in order to kill Voldemort).

“Finally, the truth.  Lying with his face pressed into the dusty carpet of the office where he had once thought he was learning the secrets of victory, Harry understood at last that he was not supposed to survive.  His job was to walk calmly into Death’s welcoming arms.  Along the way, he was to dispose of Voldemort’s remaining links to life, so that when at last he flung himself across Voldemort’s path, and did not raise a wand to defend himself, the end would be clean, and the job that ought to have been done in Godric’s Hollow would be finished:  Neither would live, neither could survive.

He felt his heart pounding fiercely in his chest.  How strange that in his dread of death, it pumped all the harder, valiantly keeping him alive.  But it would have to stop, and soon.  Its beats were numbered.  How many would there be time for, as he rose and walked through the castle for the last time, out into the grounds and into the forest?”

Honestly, how do you capture this in a movie?  Actors can show emotion through body language and facial expressions, but the thoughts going through the character’s mind cannot be captured, and that is what pulls the reader in deeper so that we can really understand what the character is thinking and feeling.   Only books can do this.

Show don't Tell

I think that this is the real meaning of show don’t tell, to delve deeply into the thoughts and feelings of the POV character that the reader is almost experiencing them as well.  It’s not about adding more details, but the right details, the ones that the POV character would notice and described reflecting the character’s personality and mood. 

Reading (and writing) an entire book with this deep of a POV would be exhausting (not to mention the pacing would be so slow), and that is why there are times when telling is okay, when it is best to pull back from the POV and/or summarize.  But those big moments like when the hero is knowingly facing certain death but going on anyway without hesitation, you need to delve deeper and make the reader feel it too.

I know this isn’t easy.  I struggle to keep going deeper and deeper at those big moments.  It is easy to describe what a character is doing, but it is much harder to describe exactly what a character is thinking.  And in trying to achieve those moments of deep penetration I can’t help think of the quote.  “Writing is easy; you just open up a vein and bleed.”

So tell me what do you think are the differences between movies and books?

~MaryAnn

On Writing Betrayal: Friends & Lovers

Et Tu, Brute?

Ah, so my day to post, sadly, does not come on the Ides of March, but I cannot resist taking this opportunity to talk about a subject near and dear to my heart.

Betrayal

Betrayal comes in so many flavors.

The enemy you thought was your friend: Who wasn't shocked - shocked, I say - when Mad Eye Moody, who had helped Harry Potter so much during the school year, revealed himself as Barty Crouch Jr., an agent of Voldemort?

Best friends who do bad things: Julius Caesar was willing to fight off an assassination attempt until he saw his best friend, Marcus Brutus, among his assailants. It broke his heart. "Et tu, Brute?"


Love Triangles: Everyone loses, including Camelot, when Guinevere and Lancelot can't control themselves.

But, but, but - what if, for some reason, Harry still had to work with Barty throughout the rest of the series even after all he'd done? What is Julius survived and got a chance to meet with his best friend, Marcus? What if Camelot didn't have to fall, and Art & Gwen & Lance had to work things out (and found a way to)?

What happens if the betrayal isn't the end of the story but the middle?

The heart of my current WIP is betrayal. Here's the very short blurb on it (aren't they the worst to try to do well?)
 

Hunted by Queens and Barons, and hidden away behind walls and silence by a desperate mother, an Heiress of the Sea chooses her new servant, Dyln, to trust.

She chose wrong.

Dyln knew he would lie to Pearl, steal her away, and betray her to her enemies. He just didn't expect to fall in love with her first.

I've almost shelved this story more times than you can imagine.

Twilight gets a lot of flak because of the 'Edward the Stalker' factor. And just as disturbing,  Bella's acquiescence, even enjoyment of it. As I plunked down words on this story, I couldn't help but think, "Dyln's behavior is so much worse than anything Edward ever did to Bella."

Is it even possible to write a story with a romantic element where one character betrays the other so completely? The Prosers came to my rescue in my darkest hour with some excellent advice. The thing that seems to matter most is not just the act of betrayal itself, but the brutally honest portrayal of the consequences of that action and the reactions of all the characters involved.

Here are a few more things to consider:

Fiction is Real Life made Bigger

People read fiction for a lot of reasons. Exploring dangerous. terrifying situations from the comfort of an easy chair (with a cup of hot cocoa and a fuzzy blanket) is just one of the perks. Fiction can be an ideal medium to examine painful, difficult issues. Betrayal is very real. Who hasn't had a secret splashed all over school or work even though you only told your best friend and swore her to secrecy? And, equally, who hasn't also betrayed someone's confidences at least once? By conflating mundane betrayals (no matter how painful they are) into the life-and-death, save-the-world conflicts of novels, readers can think about all sides of an issue in an environment that isn't quite so close to the heart.


Make Everybody a Sympathetic Character

Okay, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for Barty Crouch Jr. Sure he had a bad dad, but he's an evil psycho who never really had any other intention but to feed Harry to Voldemort. Marcus Brutus, though, that's another story. And Guinevere and Lancelot take it to a whole nother level. Gwen and Lance are complete characters, good and bad, imperfect, conflicted. Betrayal is most realistic when a reader can sympathize with all the characters involved.

Good Motivations = Bad Actions

Barty Crouch Jr. gets his, Julius Caesar dies, Camelot is destroyed. But, if  a large portion of the story is the aftermath of betrayal, then the motivations of the characters becomes hugely important. In my WIP, from the very start Dyln has his reasons for deceiving Pearl (which, by the end, you might even agree with). After he realizes he loves Pearl, his motivations to deceive her change, BUT his actions don't.

After a betrayal comes to light, it's then that the characters must each grapple with those motivations and reasons (and excuses). And that, I think, is when the reader can put the most of themselves into a story. They can grapple a bit with their own experiences with personal betrayal. And that's why it's so important to... 
 


Keep the Characters Together

I recently became aware of a family feud that happened in the early 1900's. One part of the family wronged another member over some land. The injured party moved half a state away and never, ever spoke of his relations again. Descendents had no idea there was another side of the family until someone mentioned the incident in passing - 75 years later.

Surprising? Yes. A good story? No.

Most often in real life, people dealing with betrayal will still have to interact with each other. Kids in High School will still be in classes together. Sports and dances will necessitate unavoidable encounters, and don't even start on the gossip (employment works almost equally well in this scenario - is that sad?). As in real life, so in fiction: friends and lovers who betray each other shouldn't have the luxury of just checking out. Physical barriers (they're trapped together somehow) can keep them together, or an ideological reason (they must still defeat a greater evil, and they can only do it together), or some other circumstance. But they must be drawn back to each other again and again. The tension and hurt has to be worked out center stage before the reader.

Consequences

This is the part where I learned the most from the Prosers. Bad stuff happens. All the time. What matters is how the parties react to the bad stuff. Will Pearl just shed a few tears when she finds out what Dyln's done and say, "But Dyln is so dang hot, I just have to love him no matter what..." Hek no! Whether friends or lovers, if the betrayal is to be resolved, there must be consequences, and the consequences have to be equal to the crime.

For the Betrayer

In Sunday School when I was little I learned that repentance was a process. I was taught a cute mnemonic device to help me remember. It just so happens that I think these 6 R's of repentance are the very things I, as a reader, must see in a character if he's to have any chance of being redeemed in my eyes.

1. Recognize - until he realizes he's done something wrong, nothing will change.
2. Remorse - yeah, he'd better feel really, really bad.
3. Restitution - he has to try to make it better. Even if he's not successful, he's gotta try to fix it.
4. Reveal - confess to the person he betrayed face to face and be willing to take what's coming to him. (in church we were also taught, of course, to confess to God and ask forgiveness - so if there's some appropriate deity in a story, this could also be worked in)
5. Resolve - to never do it again. If he keeps up the same behavior it means he hasn't learned anything and his cred is shot with me.
6. Resolution and/or Rejoice - for the story to have closure there needs to be some level of resolution between then betrayer and betrayee (I just made that up), even if it isn't a perfect happy ending.

For the One Betrayed

Hurt is always going to be the first emotion in a betrayal, but after that I see two viable paths for the person who has been betrayed. Often these paths intertwine before the story ends as things get sorted out.

Revenge and hatred are the first option. How much of that natural hurt will be funneled into rage, and how that anger plays out depends in large part on the character. It can be a powerful source of tension, but ultimately, doesn't very often lead to a happily ever after.

Forgiveness or at least understanding is the second option. Things will never be the same again in the relationship (whether friends or lovers), but can a second path be forged by the two? Can understanding motivations, or having a heart softened by the repentance of the betrayer actually lead to a satisfactory relationship? It's tricky to make this believable to the reader, but I think more satisfying in the end.


An Example from Burn Notice

*If you haven't watched the Fourth Season, Don't Read This!*

Okay, a perfect example comes from the perennial Proser favorite, Burn Notice. In the fourth season, Michael is hot on the trail of some bad guys (motivation) when he accesses a counter-intelligence agent's computer and inadvertently gets him burned. Ack! Michael knows how that feels (sympathetic character). When the agent, Jesse, shows up on Michael's doorstep looking for help, Michael takes him in w/o telling him he's the one who burned him (further betrayal). He thinks they can work together to bust the bad guys and maybe get Jesse reinstated (motivation). But soon Fi and Sam and even Mom are lying to Jesse, too. (Not to mention there's a little heat between Fiona and Jesse) We feel for everybody - it's a total mess of betrayal.

Jesse finds out half-way through the season what everyone has done to him. He almost kills Fiona and vows to take out Michael (hurt & revenge). I'm not sure Michael is capable of repentance, but over the next episodes there is a lot of working stuff out (sticking together to defeat a greater evil), coming to a new understanding and ultimately a satisfying ending (probably Jesse shooting Michael was somewhat cathartic for him, too, don't you think?).

And wouldn't you know it, after writing that, Youtube doesn't have one single video that's usable. *sigh* Guess you'll just have to hop on Netflix and watch season 4 again.
 

~Susan

The Chaos Method of Book Editing

(First of all, I'd like to thank the talented Karen for being my awesome guest blogger last week She has amazing stories about networking.)

It may sound odd, but I've decided that I ♥ boxes. We moved into our new house last Friday. At first it was as fun as Christmas to tear into the boxes to see what was inside, but now that we're finally unpacking things that aren't absolutely essential to survival, I get a little pang every time I rip open the lid.

 You see, as long as the box is still shut up tightly, the things inside can't escape and make a mess. It's a beautiful thing. When you are writing a rough draft, it's probably a good idea to keep your plot inside some kind of a box. Some things have to be 'unpacked' before others or your story won't make any sense at all.

But your plot wasn't meant to stay neatly compartmentalized. A good plot should be out there where your characters will trip over it, get so frustrated with it that they kick it and break their toes. You know things are working when plot lines start whacking into each other like pool balls.

 J.K. Rowling is an absolute master at this. If you read Harry Potter as intensely as we do in our family, you will start to notice a pattern that looks something like this:

Something exciting happens to Harry
He wants to talk about it with Ron and Hermione
Other people's plots get in the way
Daily life gets in the way
Finally he talks to them and they come up with a plan
Something exciting happens to Harry
He wants to talk about it with Ron and Hermione...

In Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix, Harry has just finished detention with an evil hag named Delores Umbridge. When she touches the raw skin on the back of his hand, the scar on his forehead sears with pain. He hurries off to tell Ron and Hermione, but when he gets to the Gryffindor common room:

 1--Everyone is celebrating because Ron has just been made Keeper of the Gryffindor Quidditch team. Ron is too happy to discuss evil hags at the moment.

2--To make matters worse, Ron's feelings are hurt when he finds Hermione sound asleep by the fire.

3--Hermione is asleep by the fire because Fred and George have given her a potion to put her to sleep. They are testing magical joke products on first year students, and Hermione would stop them if she was awake.

4--Before Harry can explain this to Ron, Katie Bell calls Ron away to get new Quidditch robes.

5--Angelina pulls Harry aside to tell him that Ron isn't a great keeper, and she'd like Harry to help him practice.

6--Finally he wakes up Hermione, who says she's tired because she's been making hats for the house elves. After ping ponging through all these subplots, Harry finally gets the chance to tell Hermione what happened. Hermione suggests that Harry should talk to Dumbledore, but Harry is too upset at the way Dumbledore has been treating him, so the next morning, he decides to write a letter to Sirius.

7--On his way to the Owlery to mail the letter, he runs into Nearly Headless Nick who warns Harry to take a different corridor because Peeves is playing a trick in the main corridor.

8--Then Mrs. Norris, the cat, brushes past his legs.

9--He gets to the Owlery, mails a letter, sees a thestral, and runs into Cho Chang, the girl he has a crush on. Then Filch accuses Harry of being in the Owlery so he can order dungbombs. Harry wants to talk about these strange events to Ron and Hermione... And the cycle continues.

 Whose story is this, anyway? 

The whole Harry Potter series is filled with that kind of pattern. Harry spends much more time reacting to the other character's plots than he spends on his own. It could be argued that the other character's plots become his plot. Of course, the part I just summarized came from a chapter in the fifth book in the series. J.K. Rowling has had a lot of time to give her characters stories that can trip Harry up. That's the main reason every one of her books gets exponentially larger. It's harder to do in a stand-alone novel, or in the first book of a series, but it's so worth it.

I'm not privy to the inner workings of J.K. Rowling's mind, obviously. But I doubt that things happened in this order in the first draft. I imagine everything was much more compartmentalized in the beginning. One gargantuan box held Harry's story, and stacked on top of that was a box containing Hagrid's story, and another box had Fred and George's joke shop in it.

Eventually though, she was wise enough to unpack all the story ideas and let them play with each other. I imagine her thinking, "Hmm...things are going too smoothly for Harry right now. What can Filch do to mess things up? And it's probably time to move on to the next piece of Fred and George's story. And I know! Peeves is always good for at least half a page of frustration."

Wait a minute, what's a thestral?

In my imaginary first draft of Harry Potter 5, Harry didn't see thestrals while he stood in the owlery. Instead, what happened was that somewhere in the editing process, J.K. Rowling realized that she wanted thestrals to play an important part at the end of the book. So she had to fit them in to the book in several major places. She does that by creating a mystery around the thestrals. Only Harry and Luna can see them, so he fears he is going crazy. Smaller references to thestrals scattered throughout the book serve to keep them fresh in our mind so that we're not thrown off guard when they become important at the end.

 In the first draft of my own novel, Earth's Gate, a dragon and a griffin showed up in the last quarter of the book. Adding major magical elements to the last quarter of a fantasy novel is usually a bad idea, so I had to sift through my novel to find places to reference them. I added a meeting with a captive griffin to the first chapter, and a bear attack in chapter 5 got turned into a dragon attack. Then I started finding ways to add references to the creatures everywhere I turned, and pretty soon I had an unexpected sub-plot. J.K. Rowling's thought process was probably so much more organized than mine that they are barely comparable. Still, I would pay good money to get a sneak peak at her first draft. 


Ring, ring! 

 In television shows, have you ever noticed the way that phone calls come right at the end of important conversations? (This even happens in my beloved Burn Notice.) When I'm editing a story, I like to at least consider having the phone call happen at the least opportune moment. I like to think of it as the Chaos Method of Book Writing. Unpack all your boxes. Shake well. See what happens. But be sure to save your first draft. Just in case.

Check out this amazing blog post, in JK Rowling's own words.

 Do you write your subplots one at a time? Is your mind organized enough to keep them all chugging along at the right pace? If so, how do you do it? I'd love to hear your tips.

Caricature and Character

Lately, I’ve been writing Harry Potter.

Yes, yes I have. I’ve also been writing Shannon Hale’s, The Goose Girl, and Megan Whalen Turner’s, The Queen of Attolia.

Okay, I can only wish I was writing them for the first time, but I have been copying them and plotting them out and trying to glean every ounce of craft I can from them. And I’m hoping a few things will start to sink into my thick cranium.

Caricature

Now before I begin this magnum opus, I have to give a disclaimer. Having had exactly one college writing course (graduate level technical writing – not exactly a repository of literary nuance), I may have my definitions a little skewed, but I see caricature as having certain characteristics over-emphasized and others minimized. Like the pictures that street artists draw, or like a helium balloon, larger than life, but filled with nothing but air. Am I getting close?

Early on in figuring out this writing thing, I learned the importance of well rounded characters, deep backstory, motivation and on and on. But what I think I see in copying JK Rowling is how much, and how successfully, she relies on caricature. Sure, the main characters in Harry Potter all have characterization in spades. But how many other beloved characters are basically overly exaggerated caricatures? When I hear Crabbe & Goyle, I think lumbering, not-too-bright brutes. Percy? Fudge? Filch? Even the names of the characters are so evocative of their traits. And yet I love to loathe Lockhart and Umbrage, particularly because they are overblown.

Character

Megan Whalen Turner, on the other hand, takes great pains to make sure almost every person in her novels is complex, both personally and in their relationships with other characters. The father of the main character could be considered a moderately minor character, but we learn that he’s had a turbulent relationship with his son: disappointed expectations, not being able to save his son from himself, pride, acquiescence to his son’s choices, but never quite being settled with it. He is completely realistic in his actions and reactions. And yet, in four books, this well-rounded, this utterly human man has remained nameless.

These are, imho, two brilliant authors with two equally brilliant approaches. As a writer of MG and YA, I mull these things over in my head. When is it appropriate to use caricature and when is deeper characterization needed? Are there types of writing or age groups that respond better to one or the other?

Walkin’ Down the Street

And when I start putting the same assessments into real life I realize we’re probably wired to make snap judgments, to sort and categorize: Look! it’s the bubbly intern, the frazzled mom, and that salesman that always makes us feel a little greasy.

Maybe all we really need of the pimply cashier slouching at the end of the self-checkout is for him to be a caricature in our lives. But sometime, something might happen that lets us see a little deeper to the kid saving for college and worrying that he’ll need to pay the electric bill instead because his mom lost her job. Maybe in real life, even more than in books, it’s important to try to see beneath the surface and find the real person behind the caricature.

What do you think? How do you view caricature and character?

~ Susan

For more, visit:

meganwhalenturner.org

www.jkrowling.com