How Do I Know What I Think Until I See What I Say?

Recently, I found a copy of "Beyond the Chocolate War" by Robert Cormier at a used bookstore. I've been looking for it for a while, so I picked it up and read it last weekend, and then read "The Chocolate War" again, for, like, the 50th time. While "Beyond the Chocolate War" is a serviceable sequel, "The Chocolate War" itself is a brilliant book, psychologically complex and original, honest and brutal. "The Chocolate War" is about the boys that attend Trinity, a private school. Most of the boys are average kids, but there is a secret organization at Trinity called The Vigils, which exists, basically, to make the other kids' lives miserable. The Vigils are run by Archie Costello, an evil mastermind who understands that it's a lot easier to destroy people through their psychological levers than it is to destroy them physically. When kids get beat up, the school administration has to take notice, but when a kid is beat up e...

As a voracious consumer of pop culture, it's strange when I find myself at odds with the zeitgeist - when a bunch of people think something is cool or fun or awesome that I myself think is dumb, or uninteresting, or over. Grey's Anatomy is one such example of this. The book Atonement is another. Atonement is book by Ian McEwan, that was widely praised by critics and readers alike, and that I did not particularly care for. It's out in film form, now, and it may make a better film than a book. I probably won't see it, mostly because I don't see how it's fatal flaw, for me, can be resolved. (I know, I know, I shouldn't be talking smack about Atonement , but I'm going somewhere with this and I need an example. Plus, I'm pretty sure the Ian McEwan isn't going to be hurt by my critique, you know? He's a finalist for the Booker Prize, for Pete's sake, and I'm a wannabe YA writer.) Here's the rundown on the plot (and, by the way, ...

There are a lot of writers out there, professional and otherwise, who don't use critique groups. Until recently, I was one of them. The reason why I didn't use them was because I had had some bad experiences with critique groups in the past. These problems, which seem to be universal, come in various forms: 1. the Nice Group - this group only says nice things about your work. Groups like this are like mutual masturbation - they are better than going it alone, and they're satisfying in the moment, but ultimately you're left with the feeling that there's something more fulfilling out there. 2. the Court - this group revolves around one person. Either by force or by acquiescence of the other members, this group revolves around one writer, and all other submissions are compared to the sovereign. These are boring ego-fests, and a waste of time. 3. the Social Group - this group exists only so its members have an excuse to get out of the house and hang out with ad...

Lately, I've been seeing a lot of lame female protagonists. By lame I mean that they don't do anything. They sit around and wait to be rescued. They whine, they moan, they complain, but they don't get up off their asses and make decisions about anything . They don't act - they are acted upon. (My undergraduate classes in feminist theory are snickering in the back of my head. "See," they're saying. "We told you!") Look, if you're going to have a woman as a protagonist then I had better be able to understand her. This is not the same thing as "liking" her. I'm not a big fan of the "Your Main Character Has To Be Likable" school of thought. I think "likable" in that case is a stand-in for "relatable." I have to be able to relate to your female protagonist.* One of the ways that a lot of writers do this is by making their female protagonists "kick-ass." This is cool. I like the K...

I'm afraid that, since I spend so much time talking about what's wrong with This Book or That Book, I'm going to come across as one of those ceaseless critics who never likes anything and thinks no one can live up to her ideals. This is sooo not true. So, to counteract that impression, from time to time, I'll write an entry about a book I love. For my inaugural entry, I want to talk about one of my most favorite books ever -- The Changeover by Margaret Mahy. I read this book for the first time when I was a sophomore in high school. It was given to me by my friend Ginger, and I initially thought that she was on crack, because the cover of this book was Super Cheesy. The version that she gave me, which can still be found in used book stores, has a girl on the cover gazing up into the eyes of a guy who is glowing with what I suppose should be an ethereal light, but really just seems sort of faded out. To make things worse, the book is subtitled "A Supernatural ...

It will come as no surprise, I hope, to learn that I am a huge fan of E.M. Forster. His writing is excellent, his understanding of motive is divine, and he's a sappy romantic - what's not to like? So when I came across plot problems in my reading of late, I immediately thought of Forster's simple parable of plot. It goes something like this: The King died and then the Queen died. This is not a plot; it is a story, a mere recitation of events over time. The King died and then the Queen died of grief. This is a plot. The key is causality - one event caused the other. Lately, in my reading, I've come across two different plot problems that have been bothering me. These are those: 1. All story, no plot. I recently read a book that, when I started, I was totally psyched about. "Finally!" I thought to myself, "I will get to talk about a book in my blog, because I love this book! It's so insightful and well-written and fresh and I heart it!...

Most YA writers today did not have cell phones when they were 15 years old. Think about that for a second. The people writing books for teenagers right now - the ones who aren't still teenagers I mean - didn't spend hours and hours on the phone talking or texting. They didn't IM, or at least not to the degree that teenagers do now. They weren't "wired." And this lack of technology has been a problem in some books I've been reading lately. Not that every book has to be TTFN, focused on the new technologies of the day. In fact, I personally prefer to keep the tech in my books to a minimum, because nothing will date book faster than technology, except pop culture references (more on this in a later post). So I get why an author would decide not to have his main characters chattering away on cell phone all the time. Watching a character do it is not necessarily more interesting that listening the guy in front you at line Starbucks do it. But there'...