Shifts in Perception

Yesterday morning, Chicago woke up to yet another few inches of snow. So far this winter, we’ve had a total of 75 (ish) inches of snow—we normally get an average of 36 or so. It’s been too cold for the snow to melt, so it just keeps accumulating, making it difficult to get around. The past few days, though, have been warm enough to melt at least some of it, leaving crusty piles of filthy snow everywhere. Everyone here is so done with winter.

And yet, this morning, when I looked out the window to a fresh blanket of snow, I marveled at the beauty. This is, by far, the prettiest snow we’ve had all winter. The elements all lined up to allow the snow to accumulate on tree branches, the sides of fences, windows, and pretty much any surface cold enough to hold it (which is everything). It was breathtaking. So, after dropping my kids off at school, I went outside to take pictures…and experienced something quite interesting.

Most people were heading off to work and some were walking their dogs, but everyone was clearly disgusted with this new snowfall. And, when they saw me taking pictures, they either looked at me like I was crazy or dismissed me as a tourist. Because what Chicagoan in their right mind would be happy about more snow? Right?

Well, they would be right, and also wrong. I’m a native Midwesterner. I grew up through some wild snow storms, ice storms, power losses, buried roads and cars, etc. Even though we’ve had near record-breaking amounts of snow this winter, this is nothing new to me. I’m as tired of winter as everyone else, and can’t wait to put my snow boots away already! But, this morning was so gorgeous and peaceful that I just had to set those discontented feelings aside and enjoy the moment. I grabbed my camera and went out to celebrate the beauty.

I am hoping that this is the last snow that will stick, and that the temperatures will begin to rise so I can hang up my big winter coat. But that doesn’t mean I want to ignore beautiful moments like this morning. I get why some people might not be able do this, but it still makes me a little sad.

So, what does all this have to do with writing? Nothing. Not really. :) The only parallel is that our characters are just like the people who woke up to yet more snow this morning. Some hated it, some found it picturesque. Characters in our books react in the same ways, but we get more insight into why they react the way they do—we get to see the shift in perception over the course of the story. The character might have started out loving winter, but then grew to hate even the mention of snow. Or, the character might have started out hating winter, but then grew to appreciate the beauty in it. A character’s shift in perception is a part of his journey, and the reader needs to not only see it, but also understand it.

Anyway, in case anyone is interested, here are some of the pictures I took. Enjoy!

 

 

 

 

 

Mapping Your Main Character To Plot

I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine the other day. She was telling me about a friend of hers who she hadn’t seen in about ten years, and how different this person was from who she’d remembered. The reason was the sheer number of things that had happened to her between now and then, and how much she had grown in the process.

Sound familiar? It should. This is the classic formula for a main character in a story. The character begins with one viewpoint, and then ends with something different. The amount of difference depends on the person, of course, and a dramatic difference isn’t needed. What we need is realistic growth, which happens gradually.

That brings up two questions:
1. How do we know, really know, whether our characters grow?
2. How can we make sure that growth happens realistically?

The answer to the first question is relatively straight-forward. We simply look at the character’s viewpoint at the beginning of the story and then compare it to her viewpoint at the end. If they’re different, then we know she has grown on some level. The harder question is to know whether her growth is realistic.

I’ve read many stories where the main character is going along and going along, and then, at the end, *pow*, she ‘gets’ it. I can appreciate that. I’ve had my own *pow* moments, as have others, I’m sure. And, to us, it seems like it has happened all-of-a-sudden-like. But, really, it hasn’t. There were many factors involved, and each one changed us a little bit before that epiphany moment. We’d even begun to act on that epiphany even before it became an epiphany, but we probably weren’t aware of it. These are the kinds of subtleties that need to be woven into the story to ensure realistic growth, even when epiphanies are involved.

So, how do we do this? It’s definitely not easy, and it’s a lot of work, but it is possible. The best way to see it is to map your character's reactions to the main plot points in the story. Is the result some kind of growth? And, if not, is that okay?

In most cases, you’ll want some growth. Even a miniscule amount. My favorite kind of story is where the main character takes baby steps of growth throughout the story, and then takes a single, normal-sized step of growth at the end. Those always seem most realistic to me, and I identify with them better. That said, if the story truly calls for no growth, then there shouldn’t be any.

Laying out the plot and mapping your character’s growth to it will allow you to see the character’s arc clearly, and then you can change it if it doesn’t fit the needs of the story. It’s a lot of work, but you will have a much deeper, more rounded story in the end.

With Great Writing Comes Great Responsibility

Last year, I talked about a study that shows how great writing can make the reader turn fiction into reality—transporting them into the main character’s story and feeling as though it was his own. I’ve certainly experienced this, and I love it. It inspires me to want to write my stories that well.

It also sparked some thoughts that I chose not to share last year, when I wrote that first post. I'm not exactly sure why, perhaps because last year was insanely busy and I had limited time to respond to what could potentially be a controversial post. I haven't been able to shake these thoughts, though, and I'm also looking to start my year off right. So, I'm sharing. :)

Over the years, many writers and readers have mused on how much accountability should be placed on the writer. Responses to this stretch widely across the spectrum. Some say that since fiction isn't real, the reader shouldn't take any of it seriously. Some say that all accountability is on the reader, because the writer is only one person and can't possibly see his/her story how everyone else sees it. Others say that writers should hold themselves accountable for what messages they intentionally (or unintentionally) send.

To those who think fiction shouldn't be taken seriously, I say *PSHAW*. If we don't take fiction seriously, then it has no meaning. Just because a fictional story never happened doesn't make it meaningless. In fact, I find lots of meaning in fiction because the author created everything for a purpose, and it's my job as a reader to discover those purposes. That always gets my brain thinking, and that's pretty much always a good thing...

For those who think the onus is on the reader, well, I think that's partially true. The reader is ultimately responsible for his or her actions. And, the writer *is* only one person and therefore limited. However, there are ways around that. That's where critique partners and beta readers come into play. They provide additional perspectives, which can give the author a wealth of information. It's easy to dismiss one person's feedback as 'oh, well, he just didn't quite get it.' While that may be true, chances are that he won't be the only person to think this, and it could earn you unfavorable reviews. It's in your best interest to listen to him, figure out where and how he got off track, and then fix it so that future readers don't have the same issue.

As for those who say writers should hold themselves accountable for what messages they send, well, this study on a reader's 'experience-taking' makes a good argument for it. It's kind of saying that great writing requires great responsibility.

According to this study, experience-taking works when the reader solidly identifies with the main character. Which is what should happen! It’s why we write fiction, right? Well, it’s why I write fiction. And I want to write the most believable, relatable characters I can because then my readers will identify with them and enjoy the story. Lisa Libby, assistant professor of psychology, says "Experience-taking can be a powerful way to change our behavior and thoughts in meaningful and beneficial ways." Which is great! But...what if the change isn't meaningful or beneficial? What if it's hurtful?

I could rant for hours on the hot-jerk-boyfriend that’s prevalent in YA stories today, but I won’t bore you with that. Instead, I’m going to make one observation about one scenario that scares me:

An author writes an amazing story, in which a good person is partnered with a rotten significant other. Then, that rotten person suddenly changes and becomes a good person. I can't count how many times I've seen this formula in YA stories... And teen girls are devouring them. Is it enough to just be happy that they're reading? I'm not so sure.

For readers in the throes of experience-taking, I think this is a recipe for disaster. These readers are taking on a character's experiences as their own, and, according to Ms. Libby, are making conscious or unconscious decisions based on them. Which means they will be stuck in an unhealthy relationship, believing on some level that the rotten significant other will suddenly change. I won't say that's impossible, because it could happen. But it's *highly* unlikely. And this will begin the pattern of lousy relationships because they will be looking for a person that doesn't exist. That scares the crap out of me, and I don't think our teens (boys or girls) deserve that.

So, there's my thoughts. Feel free to share your own.

ETA:
To be clear, I don't think that tough subjects should be bypassed in YA fiction. Quite the opposite, in fact. Books are a safe arena for broaching these subjects, and not addressing them does a disservice to teens. They are quite capable of taking these things on and dealing with them in effective ways, and don't deserve 'dumbed down' books that pretend all is hunky dory with the world. What I take issue with is putting rose-colored glasses on the story, and then giving it a fairy-tale ending. I think our teens deserve much more than that.

What’s In A Name?

When your parents gave you your name, they probably didn’t open a baby book, close their eyes and point, and pick the name their fingers landed on. In fact, it’s likely that there’s a reason behind the name you were given. I.E., they liked it the way it sounded, they liked what it means, another member of the family had it, etc.

The same holds true for naming our characters. More so, actually, because we authors have more insight into what kind of people our characters are. Our parents didn’t know who we were going to be when they named us because we were still babies. But authors get to look at the character as a whole person, and we have the opportunity to make the name match the personality.

I’ve seen writers do the random baby book thing, and, to me, that makes it seems like they don’t care enough about this character to put any thought into choosing a name. If they don’t care, then why should I care? However, if they take the time to figure out who this person really is and then choose a name that reflects that personality, it shows. I can’t write a single word of my story until I know my main character well enough to name him/her. Once I have that, then his/her personality has an easier time shining through.

I probably spend an inordinate amount of time choosing character names, but, to me, it’s worth it. It’s part of my world-building and structuring of the story.

Baby name books are too tedious for me to use, but I’ve found a few websites that are very useful. My favorite is Behind The Name. The database of names on this site is enormous, and it’s searchable. You can search by name or you can search by the meaning of the name. The meanings often include a history of the name and people who’ve carried it. They also have a site for surnames.

After I have narrowed the name choices down to a handful, I double check the meanings on these sites.

Baby Chatter 

Baby Names 

Baby Name Wizard 

Sometimes sites will have different meanings for the same name, and I like to make sure I’m taking all of that into account. So, this is why I cross-check everything. Once I’m done, I’m 110% sure I’ve chosen the best possible name for my characters.

How do you choose your characters’ names? Do you have a favorite site or book for researching names?

Rules of Storytelling, Part One

Last month, one of Pixar’s storyboard artists posted her 22 Rules of Storytelling. There is SO MUCH good stuff here. I posted the link a few weeks ago, and now I’ve had some time to digest some of the information. I’m going to take a few of these ‘rules’ at a time and talk about them over the next few weeks.

Today’s topic: Characters.

A good, strong, solid character is what transforms a story from good to amazing. A few of the ‘rules’ capture the essence of what character should be, but I want to expand on that a bit. I’ll take them one rule at a time.

Rule #1: You admire a character for trying more than for their successes.

Yes!! I can’t count how many books I’ve read where the main character gives up before even trying because he comes to the conclusion that the task is impossible. When I was growing up, my mother always used to tell me “you never know unless you try.” That’s what I always want to scream at these characters. If the task is impossible one way, then try a different way. Or don’t do everything at once. Or, do something else completely! But characters need to DO something. I would rather see characters try and fail than give up before anything has happened.

Rule #6: What is your character good at, comfortable with? Throw the polar opposite at them. Challenge them. How do they deal?

This is instrumental in showing the reader what kind of person the main character is. As the saying goes, you see a person’s true character when he is under stress. I can’t think of a stress greater than being completely out of your element. How does the character react? What personality flaws surface? How do these flaws affect those around him?

Rule #13: Give your characters opinions. Passive/malleable might seem likable to you as you write, but it's poison to the audience.

Most definitely. Everyone has opinions. Even the most easy-going people have opinions. Those who don’t have opinions just aren’t interesting, so why would we want to read about them? Your character doesn’t need to spout his opinions to anyone who will sit still long enough to listen. In fact, he might be very reserved about expressing opinions. But the reader needs to know these opinions because it forms a bond between the two. Actually, if the character doesn’t share opinions with other people in the story, but the reader gets to hear them, it makes that bond even stronger because the reader feels like he’s getting privileged information.

Rule #15: If you were your character, in this situation, how would you feel? Honesty lends credibility to unbelievable situations.

This gets into the blurry line between the author and the characters. All characters are manifestations of the author, albeit some more obvious than others. Hence, the author needs to know what he would do in any given situation. Then, he needs to figure out what the characters would do. Which brings me to the next rule...

Rule #18: You have to know yourself: the difference between doing your best & fussing. Story is testing, not refining.

For storytelling to be at its most effective, the author needs to imagine situations where he has no idea what he would do in a particular situation, so he must make his best guess. Honest guess, that is—the author may not like the answer, but honesty will bring authenticity to the story.

Rule #21: You gotta identify with your situation/characters, can't just write ‘cool'. What would make YOU act that way?

This is taking the above rule and switching it around. If the character needs to go to a certain, horrible place, what would it take for him to get there? Honestly and truly? Take that answer and run with it.

Next week, I’m going to delve into the more plot-related ‘rules,’ so, if that interests you, be sure to stop by!

When Fiction Becomes Reality?

People are always doing new studies and looking at things in a different way. It’s fantastic. It helpsus grow and change. Wouldn’t it be cool if someone did a study on the effectsof reading fiction? How the brain processes the information and what happensafter the story is over? Well, someone finally did. 

The basic premise isthat when the reader can fully lose himself in the book’s main character, hefeels as though he’s experienced everything that character has experienced. Notin the same way that a vivid imagination can guess what the experience mighthave been like, but actually feeling like he’s gone through the experience. It’scalled ‘experience-taking.’

“Experience-taking changes us by allowing us to merge our own liveswith those of the characters we read about, which can lead to good outcomes,”said Geoff Kaufman, who led the study as a graduate student at Ohio State. Heis now a postdoctoral researcher at the Tiltfactor Laboratory at DartmouthCollege.

Interesting, huh? Andwhat an experience for readers! And how amazing that we writers can give thisto them!

The next question, ofcourse, is how do we do this? Well, we have to build complex, realistic characters that trickthe reader into believing they are real people. They need quirks, opinions, biases,body language, flaws, everything. When those attributes exist, readers will beable to identify with one or more of them, and then they’re off—stealingexperiences from our characters. :) Who knew great writing could be sopowerful?

The key to creating stronglinks to main characters is how and when to reveal certain details aboutlifestyle, quirks, opinions, etc. It’s all about the timing of the delivery. One of the studies in the article illustrates this.

In one experiment, 70 male, heterosexual college students read a storyabout a day in the life of another student. There were three versions - one inwhich the character was revealed to be gay early in the story, one in which thestudent was identified as gay late in the story, and one in which the characterwas heterosexual.Results showed that the students who read the story where the characterwas identified as gay late in the narrative reported higher levels ofexperience-taking than did those who read the story where the character’shomosexuality was announced early.

In other words, if thecharacters are established as real people first, with traits that the readercan identify with, then it won’t matter how many differences they have down theroad. That connection has already been made, and the reader can go with it. Howcool is this?? Seriously, my inner geek is really excited.

This just reinforcesthe importance of character, and how we need to make them so real that theyfeel like actual, physical people that a reader can lose himself in.

What do you think of all this?

What Main Characters and Authors Have In Common

I’ve always been a plot-writer. When I get ideas, it’s almost always in the form of some incident or object, and then the character appears later. As a result, they were never as fleshed out as they should have been. I used to read that way, too, not caring so much for the characters as long as something exciting was happening. But I’ve grown to appreciate a robust, realistic character in the past few years, and that has extended to my writing.

However (and that’s a BIG however), that doesn’t mean I had an epiphany and could suddenly write these amazing characters. It just means I knew I needed to write them, so I set out to figure out how. And I discovered that I was far better at writing minor characters than main characters. It seems completely backwards, and it’s taken a long time to figure out why that is. But I think I’ve finally clued in to something…

I think most main characters are a huge reflection of the author. Yes, all the characters come from the author, and the minor characters might have fewer shared traits, but there are shared traits. The main character might not even share many traits with the author, but I think there is one thing that’s almost always in common: how they see the world.

I’ve always been the wallflower—on the outside looking in, watching people and seeing how they work, what makes them tick, how their paths will lead to either success or disaster, etc. I’ve always been too shy to be part of a group, so I observed instead. And, let me tell you, you can get some pretty deep insights into people when you spend so much time doing this. I feel that I understand people pretty well, and I can translate that understanding into subtle body language or tone of voice in my minor characters.

But what about the main character? Unless the story is being told in third person omniscient, there is no one observing him. We are in his head and can hear his innermost thoughts, fears, biases, etc, on an intimate level. But is that enough? Well, as I’m discovering, it isn’t.

Which brings us back to how the author and main character see the world. As I said before, I think I see people pretty well, but I don’t have a clue how they see me. They could see my shyness as a quiet sophistication, or they could think I’m snobby. I have no idea. And this is how my main characters see the world, too. They see others clearly, but they don’t have the first inkling how the world sees them. Depending on the story, that could still work. BUT, the author should know how the world sees them because it impacts the story, even on the tiniest level. And sometimes that tiny bit is what brings a book from good to great.

In order to compensate for this, I’ve created a set of exercises to add to my character worksheets. I take all the minor characters (who have significant roles in the story) and write a journal entry, from  their perspective, about what they think of the main character. Some really interesting things have come out of this, and it allowed me to add a bit more depth to my main character.

Have you ever done anything like this? How does your main character see the world, and how to you compensate for his/her shortcomings?

Authors Are Such Characters

I used to wonder if all authors had multiple personality disorder. I mean, we can’t write the same story with the same kind of character over and over again, so, where does it all come from? Are authors cracked? Do we lead secret lives that no one, even ourselves, knows about?
Probably not. :) Which still leaves us with the question of where all these characters come from. How can one person create so many different kinds of people?

Well…we don’t. It only looks like we do. :)

To write effective characters, you need to know people. I don’t mean knowing the different types of people—that’s too general. You need to know people on an individual level. It usually starts with your friends and family members, then it might include coworkers and friends of friends and such. Basically, you’re observing the little details in what they do and how they react to various things, and how that translates into who they are as a whole.

After you’ve done this with enough people (in sufficient detail) then you might find yourself making predictions about how someone might react or what choice he/she might make in a given situation. And you might even be right.

This is the groundwork for creating fully fleshed out, believable, and relatable characters. It’s not the type of character that’s important, it’s the person behind the character. People are individuals with independent thoughts and reactions, and observing others with a keen eye for detail will get you one piece of the character puzzle. That’s the good news. The bad news is that it’s only one piece. :)

You also have to know yourself. Really know yourself. Your strengths and weaknesses, neuroses, biases, quirks, likes and dislikes, emotional scars, etc. And, you need the ability to dig deep within and pull out experiences from various aspects of your life. That’s the other piece of the character puzzle, and often the hardest to assemble coherently. After all, this means we have to face every aspect of ourselves, even the parts we don’t like so much.

After you put those two pieces together, you have a formula for great characters. They consist of various aspects of the author, plus some enhancements based on experiences with other people. And the root personality of each character comes from the author, because that’s the best way to fully understand the characters. If we don’t understand our characters, then how can we expect the reader to? That’s kind of like explaining calculus when we don’t understand it ourselves. Not very helpful. :)

Just to be clear, this applies to ALL characters, main and minor. Minor characters are no less important than main characters, and don’t deserve to be typecast. The more realistic all the characters are, the better experience the reader will have. And then you’ll have a fan who will look for more of your books.

Disclaimer: in the vein of too much internal monologue, this does not necessarily apply to first drafts. First drafts need a certain amount of exploration, and character is often a big part of that. Some writers manage to know their characters inside and out before they begin writing, but most tend to discover them along the way. So, if you don’t get your characters perfect the first time around, don’t worry! That’s what revision is for. :)

Writing Inside Out

I think that the hardest part of writing is unlearning everything you know and then relearning it with a completely different perspective.

For example, when I first started writing stories, I wrote them exactly the way I would verbally tell them to someone. As a result, my writing was riddled with telling phrases like ‘he felt/saw/heard/knew,’ or ‘she noticed/realized/thought/etc.’ When verbally telling someone a story, the person you’re telling just wants to know the basics of what happened so he can get to the climax as quickly as possible. So, when we verbally tell a story, we tend to focus on what’s happening on the surface.

New writers tend to take this practice and apply it to their writing. I did. It’s what I knew, and, verbally, it worked. But it doesn’t completely work on the page, and it took me several years to figure out why.

When we write with the intent to show the reader what is happening to the main character, we are focusing on what’s happening outside the character. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's good to see what's happening very clearly, otherwise the reader will be confused as to what's going on. But we can't leave it at that. To get a fully rounded experience, we need to know how everything affects our characters. In order to know this, we need to see what goes on inside the character. In other words, we need to write from the inside out.

This is something that *must* be done in first person, because that’s its nature. First person is inside the head of the main character, so everything the reader sees must be from the perceptions, biases, misconceptions, and assumptions of the character. Everything I see gets interpreted through my own experiences and perceptions—as a result, there is an inherent bias, whether I intend it or not, simply because I have to process information based on the things I know. The same is true for characters written in first person.

So, when writing a character in first person, it’s best not to focus on the main character’s exterior, especially facial expressions, when exterior events affect him in big ways. These observations are fine for minor characters because we're not supposed to be in their heads. But, for main characters, this doesn't work well because it takes us out of his head and makes us observers rather than letting us experience her situation for ourselves. Instead, focus on what’s happening inside his head. What emotions are going through him? What thoughts do those emotions trigger? Then, how will he act as a result? In other words, write him from the inside out.

Third person is slightly different because its nature is on the outside looking in. However, limited third still needs some of the closeness that first person gives the reader, but it's often not there. There is a way to get it, though, and the process is exactly the same as first person. As you're writing your story's events, insert some of your character's thoughts here and there. Not necessarily separated out in italics with s/he thought tags, but woven into the narrative itself.

For example:
Uh-oh. Mom was fuming. Cassie had really messed up. Would she be grounded for a month? Or more? If she was, then how was she going to meet up with Jason like she'd promised? If she didn't help him, then he was going to fail his midterms and suffer the beating of a lifetime from his father. She had to think of something.

The above paragraph is written from Cassie's perspective. We are given her particular perceptions, assumptions, and thoughts about the world around her and what might happen to her as a result of her actions. Essentially, we are in her head and the focus is on her from the inside instead of what she's doing on the outside.

If we experience the emotions and thoughts of the character, then we’ll understand his resulting actions and form a close connection to him. This creates a stronger and more enjoyable reading experience, which we all strive for. :)

Immortal Beloved by Cate Tiernan

New name, new town, new life. Nastasya has done it too often to count. And there’s no end in sight. Nothing ever really ends... when you’re immortal. But this time is different: Nastasya knows that this new town must hold her salvation—or her death.
Nastasya was born into darkness, and has embraced it her whole life. Four hundred years ago, a tragedy robbed her of her birthright, and she’s been living a lie ever since. Now, four centuries of exploring the depths and limits of dark power has left Nastasya feeling sickened unto death. If she continues down this road, she will end up as a very dark, twisted, evil thing—with unthinkable power. Or she can begin the long, painful road toward light, and reclaim the destiny that others tried to destroy. They’re rare. You may have never met one, never sat next to one on a plane, never eaten in the same restaurant at the same time. But the Immortals are there. Have always been there. Will always be there. Moving among humans, playing out their own cursed fate. Sometimes subtly, sometimes with huge, sweeping implications for mankind. But no one will ever know. Except you.

When I first picked up this book, I was skeptical. It didn’t really sound different from most of what’s already out there, but something about it made me want to give it a try. And, boy, am I glad I did.

Nastasya is such an interesting character. She’s both cowardly and strong, which makes for an intriguingly unique (and realistic) combination. She is independent and strong enough not to lose her head over Reyn, whose hotness is truly lust-worthy. It’s even more refreshing that she doesn’t do the “Why doesn’t he like me? What’s wrong with me?” whiny thing. Instead, she just accepts the situation for what it is and moves on. I loved that about her.

But she’s also a practiced coward. Born over four hundred years ago, she’s undergone some pretty serious loss, trama, and rough times. As a result, she’s turned running away into an art form. Before anyone even gets the remotest chance of getting close to her, she’s gone. She reinvents her appearance, adopts a new name, and self-medicates herself into oblivion. It’s only when she meets her fellow partiers—Innocencio, Boz, Stratton, Cicely, and Katy—that she forms some semblance of friendships. But they’re not really friends, because there’s no depth there. She doesn’t know them and they don’t know her, because she won’t let them in. And when Innocencio freaks her out by breaking a human’s back, she runs. Again. It’s so...Nastasya. :)

The self-assured Nastasya conflicts so well with the cowardly Nastasya that, once I picked it up, I could not put this book down. Nastasya goes on a reluctant journey of self-discovery, and ends up finding a place for herself in the world that she doesn’t want to run from. The road isn’t easy (not by a long shot), and it’s clear there is much more to her story regarding Innocencio, and even Nell, which I’m guessing will come in the next book.

Tiernan did a fantastic job of establishing Nastasya’s story and giving us the full picture of her life, while still teasing us about what is to come. This is one of the best examples of character development I’ve ever seen, and I can’t wait to see what happens next.

Realistic vs. Believable Fiction

In the last few weeks, there has been some interesting discussion on author Nancy Kress’s blog and The League of Extraordinary Writers regarding the believability of the Hunger Games books.

That got me thinking about the whole concept of realistic vs. believable. Which is more important? Can you have one without the other? Or must they have equal weight? Let’s look at the definitions:

re•al•is•tic 
1. interested in, concerned with, or based on what is real or practical: a realistic estimate of costs; a realistic planner.
2. pertaining to, characterized by, or given to the representation in literature or art of things as they really are: a realistic novel.
3. resembling or simulating real life

be•lieve 
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so 2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to
3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person)
4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation
5. to suppose or assume; understand

So, basically, one can see if something is realistic either by the way something is shown, or by relating to it with personal experience. In either case, it’s a tangible or specific kind of thing. If one finds something believable, then one may not know whether it’s real, but it’s been presented in a way that looks/sounds/seems plausible.

In Ms. Kress’s case, she found the premise behind the Hunger Games unrealistic, but many people still found it believable. So does that mean believability is more important than realistic? Maybe. It all comes down to how it’s done.

Many science fiction or fantasy novels are based on ideas that aren’t realistic: spaceships, cryogenic freezing, magic wands, dragons, etc. However, the best of these stories are solidly constructed such that the unrealistic becomes believable. Achieving this goal can be done by creating a rich and thorough setting with established rules.

Take Candor, for example. In the real world, it’s not possible to brainwash someone through subliminal messages (not to this extent, anyway), but the story is so solidly constructed that the reader can believe it’s possible in this instance. Same with Harry Potter. Rowling built her world with so many intricacies and details that the reader can totally believe there’s a whole world of magic hidden from normal humans.

But what about people? What does it mean for characters to be believable and realistic? Here, I think the need changes drastically. I think characters need to be equally realistic and believable. Actually, with characters, I think the terms realistic and believable are synonymous. For example, it’s neither realistic nor believable that a parent would briefly pop in on a beloved child in the hospital, even if that child was a teenager or a legal adult. Not without a good reason, anyway. A really good reason. No. That parent would be at his child’s side for the duration, providing all the love and support he could.

This also applies to groups of people. Here, however, there is a need for caution. It’s easy to lump a group of people together and think of them as one, and then assign them a certain behavior. Some examples:
Career women don’t spend enough time with their families.
Old people can’t keep up with the times.
An oppressed populace doesn’t have the will to rebel.
It’s more accurate to say that some career women don’t spend enough time with their families. Or that most old people can’t keep up with the times. Or that most oppressed people don’t have the will to rebel against their oppressors. But it’s neither realistic nor believable to make a statement like this about all of them.

A crowd /populace/category/etc. of people is really a group of individuals. And individuals react differently to different things. This needs to be taken into account as a group evolves over time. Change doesn’t happen easily within a group, but it does happen. And it almost always starts with an individual.

This post is now entirely too long, so I’ll stop. But I’d love to know what you think. Do you think believability is more important that realistic? Do you think it extends beyond what I’ve talked about here? Do you think I’m wrong? Please, do tell!

You’re My Hero!!

Today, I want to devote my blog post to all my favorite heroes and heroines in all the books I’ve ever read. Er, actually, that’s probably not a good idea. If I did that, then I’d be here all week...so maybe I’ll limit it to the top ten of each.

My top ten favorite heroines, in no particular order:
Bryn—Raised by Wolves by Jennifer Lynn Barnes
DJ Schwenk—Dairy Queen by Catherine Murdock
Raine Benares—Magic Lost, Trouble Found by Lisa Shearin
Theodosia—Theodosia and the Serpents of Chaos by R.L. LaFevers
Nya—The Shifter by Janice Hardy
Nastasya—Immortal Beloved by Cate Tiernan
Aislinn—Wicked Lovely by Melissa Marr
Cammie Morgan—Gallagher Girls by Ally Carter
Jenna—The Adoration of Jenna Fox by Mary Pearson
Calpurnia Tate—The Evolution of Calpurnia Tate by Jacqueline Kelly
Frankie—The Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-Banks by E. Lockhart

My top ten favorite heroes, in no particular order:
Oscar Banks—Candor by Pam Bachorz
Bo Marsten—Rash by Pete Hautman
Connor—Unwind by Neal Shusterman
Marcus—Little Brother by Cory Doctorow
Titus—Feed by M.T. Anderson
Chris—Shift by Jennifer Bradbury
Marcelo—Marcelo In The Real World by Francisco X. Stork
Seth—Fragile Eternity by Melissa Marr
Jerome Foxworthy—The Moves Make the Man by Bruce Brooks
Enzo (I know, he’s a dog...but he’s a *male* dog, so it counts)—The Art of Racing in the Rain by Garth Stein

Putting this list together started out as a fun thing to do, and the only goal was to see what it looked like in the end. But, once it was done, I noticed something. I relate to all these characters on a very deep and fundamental level. See, I’m very much an explorer-type—external or internal. I’m all about trying to find what else is out there, or what else is within myself.

Many of these characters are the same way. Whether it’s taking your identity by the horns, as in Jenna’s case, or learning how to step back and see the big picture, as in Marcelo’s case, all of these characters have stepped into the unknown. Either by choice, circumstance, or necessity. Dealing with the unknown requires courage and determination, and I have a healthy respect for those qualities.

These are the kinds of characters I endeavor to write. I want my own characters to have as many layers as these do, and I want them to have to deal with the discomfort and fear that comes with the unknown. After all, that’s when you’re true colors shine...

So, what about you? Who are your favorite characters? Are they the ones that you want your own characters to live up to?

Character Worksheet Templates

How many of you use character worksheets when you’re starting a new story? Do you find them useful? Do you reference them often, or do you fill them out and then never look at them again?

I use a basic template for my characters, and I do find them useful. The level of depth is different for main and minor characters, but I find that I reference them more than once while I’m writing my stories. In case you’re curious, here’s my templates:

Main Characters Name: Age: Birthday: Physical Description: Personality Description: Hometown: Type of Neighborhood/Description of Home:   Father’s Name: Father’s Background and Occupation: Mother’s Name: Mother’s Background and Occupation: Siblings: Position in Family (oldest, youngest, etc): Family Relationships: Friends: Enemies: Influential Person or Event: Grade in School: Grades: Attitude Toward School: Favorite School Subject: Least Favorite School Subject: Favorite Sports: Favorite Foods: Hobbies: Dress Style: Religion: Attitude Toward Religion: Relationship with Boys: Relationship with Girls: Leader or Follower: Ambitions: Strongest Positive Personality Trait: Strongest Negative Personality Trait: Temperament: Consideration for Others: How Other People See Him/Her: Opinion of Self: Other Traits: Notes:

Minor Characters Name: Age: Physical Description: Friends: Enemies: Siblings: Education Level and Grades: Occupation: Hobbies: Personality Description: Dominant Characteristics/Traits: Physical Tag (a mannerism or nervous habit): Voice and Vocal Tag (voice pitch, frequently used word or phrase): How Other People See Him/Her: Opinion of Self: Other Traits: Notes:

FYI: If you like these templates and want to use them, you can download a copy here.

All these details are good to know, especially if you have to set the story aside for whatever reason and you don’t pick it back up for several months or years. With these worksheets in place, you won’t need to reinvent all these details.

That said, I don’t think it’s enough. It’s like reading someone’s resume, actually. You’d never hire someone just by reading a resume, would you? Nope. You’d bring him in to interview first, so you can put a personality with the information on the page. And then you can decide whether or not to hire him.

The same thing is true in writing. I don’t think you can just start writing a character’s story with only facts in a worksheet to go by. You need to get to know him first, and there are many ways to do this.

I actually used to get to know my characters while writing the first draft, but it often presented too many surprises. I had to go back often to revise or rewrite before the first draft was even finished, because it was clear the characters needed to go in that direction. That drove me crazy.

Now, I do journaling from my main character’s perspective. I have her ‘tell’ me her story in her own words, as though she’s writing in her diary. This allows her personality to shine through, as well as her voice, mannerisms, quirks, and beliefs. It’s incredibly helpful.

For minor characters, I don’t do this kind of journaling. However, I can often glean information about them from my main character’s ramblings, because she often shares her opinion on various people and their actions. So, instead, I will focus more on the worksheet for them, and make a few additional notes here and there. It’s come in handy many times, because it’s often hard to keep track of who has what color hair or eyes, or what that person’s sibling is named.

So, while I find them useful, I also believe that they are nowhere near enough. Much more is needed in order to bring your characters to life. This is how I do it. What’s your method?

Do Your Characters Take Over?

Fellow blogger Sherrie Petersen recently did a fantastic post about characters.  She talked about how characters can become so real that they take over your story and go in directions that don’t jive with your plans. It’s an awesome post and you should go read it. Like, now.

Anyway, that got me thinking. I’ve had this happen to me, but it’s never gotten to the point where my characters have undermined my original story plan. It came close a few times in my early novels (the ones that are now in drawers). When they started going off track, I took a step back to see if this was what the story really needed. If it was, then I’d readjust my plan. If it wasn’t, then I’d adjust my characters to get them back on track.

Recently, though, it doesn’t really happen to me anymore. I hadn’t noticed this until I read Sherrie's post, and I wanted to figure out what changed. I think part of it is my writing process, and the rest has to do with me...

My writing process:
First Draft: a hand-written, god-awful mess that no one would be able to decipher except me. This ultimately gets turned into an outline, because that's about all it's good for.
Second Draft: a translation of the outline into story form. Basically, it’s the raw material, or lump of clay, that will be molded into a full-fledged story in subsequent drafts.
Third thru Zillionth Drafts: adding in layers of characterization, subplots, subtext, etc. Just like with a sculpture, it’s the details that make a story so convincing.

In my first draft, I do a lot of brainstorming. I mean, a lot. This is where I give my characters free reign and let them go wherever they want, however they want to get there. I can afford it at this point because I haven’t committed to anything yet (as in, I haven’t written 100 pages that I might end up deleting). So I let my characters go nuts until they've collapsed on the ground, twitching from overstimulated indulgence.  :)  While they recover, I lay out all the places they went, keep the best and toss the rest, and then I start laying out the story’s timeline. This eventually turns into the outline. It’s a lot of work. Okay, it’s an INSANE amount of work. But, when I’m done, I feel confident that I’ve got the best path possible for my characters. So if they try to go off course later on, I can put them back on track without the slightest blink. :)

But, as I said earlier, this is only part of it. The rest of it is me as a writer, and how I see my stories. I draw many parallels between my stories and my kids. They are both creations that came from me, and I am responsible for them. For my kids, I’m responsible for guiding them toward becoming decent human beings that contribute to society. That means they don’t get to do all the things they want, because not all of it is good for them. I see my stories the same way. The characters may want to go off toward X, but I know they need to go to Y because that’s what’s good for the story. It’s not easy (neither is parenting, btw), but I always find a way to muddle through and find a good balance that will keep the characters true to themselves, as well as to the story.

Nathan Bransford also did a great post on this subject a few months ago, which is definitely worth reading if you haven’t already.

Anyway, that’s how I balance characters with story. How do you balance yours?

Why Should I Care?

Recently, I read EVIL GENIUS by Catherine Jinks. It was enjoyable and funny with good plot twists, but I didn’t love it. At first, I thought it was because it was a bit too long and the story’s flavor wasn’t something I naturally gravitate toward. But, after reading the sequel, GENIUS SQUAD, I discovered that wasn’t true. The reason I didn’t love these books is because they evoked very little emotion from me.

The obvious question is ‘why?’ Why didn’t these books evoke much emotion? The main character has interesting problems and grows in wonderful ways. The minor characters play good roles both in the story and the main character’s growth. Plus, the story was engaging. So why wasn’t there much emotion involved?

I didn’t see it while reading the first book, but it became obvious in the second. The way both stories are written, the language used to tell the story, keeps us at a distance from the main character.

Okay, but, is that really a problem? He’s not real, so why should we care how much distance there is between us? Well, in real life, how do long-distance relationships usually turn out? Sometimes they’re fine, but often times they fail because there isn’t enough closeness.

I think fiction is very similar. The closer we are to the main character, the more emotion we’ll feel, the better we’ll understand his motivations and actions, and the louder we’ll cheer for him. If there’s distance, then he becomes this person who did this thing in a story. Kind of like reading about people in the news. We might enjoy what they did or feel sad about what happened to them, but then we forget everything because we don’t know them on a personal level. If we did know them, you can bet we wouldn’t forget anything.

I think this is the hardest part of writing fiction, especially for introverted writers. I’m an introvert, and hold myself at a nice, safe distance from people I don’t know well. In my early novels, I did the same with my main characters. Often, the minor characters were easier to know than the main character – which was another part of me coming out. I’m good at reading other people, but hide myself a little too well from others. As a result, the most common advice I got from fellow critiquers was to give them more of my main character. In order to do that, I had to do something far scarier: expose my main character completely, thus exposing myself. Yikes!

But it’s necessary. One of the biggest things I learned growing up is that we can’t really know someone unless there’s no distance between us. If there’s distance, then there’s room to hide faults and shortcomings. And if a character hides his faults from us, then how can we identify with him? A little, yeah, but not completely.

So, I guess what I’m saying, in a very round-about way, is that, in order to evoke emotion for a fictional character, we have to create a realistic relationship between that character and the reader by eliminating all distance between them. How much distance is between you and your significant other? Maybe a little...we do need personal space, after all. But there can’t be any between a character and a reader. They must be so close that the two people become one, so the reader is almost living vicariously through the character.

To do that, the reader needs to be directly in the story. We need to show it to him, not tell it. Telling is distance; showing is transporting the reader right into the scene. Then, if your character is well-developed, then the reader will experience everything you show him through your character’s actions, dialogue and monologue. And the reader won’t be able to help but feel connected to this imaginary person.

All this is hard work. Really hard work. But, if we don’t do it, then our readers won’t connect. And, if they don’t connect, why should they care about what happens to our characters? If they don’t care, why should they read our work?

Change in Your Characters

When Cheryl Klein spoke on plot at Prairie Writer’s Day, there was one thing she really hammered home: your main character must change. It’s part of the definition of internal plot.

I’ve heard the same thing from many others, and it’s rare that I enjoy a story where the main character doesn’t change. So this idea of change must be true, but my question is this: what does change mean, and how is it applied?

Webster’s definition of change: to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone; to transform or convert; to become different; to become altered or modified; to become transformed or converted (usually fol. by into); to pass gradually into

Hmm. Sounds pretty drastic, especially if your character is a baby-stepper. Some characters are good at altering a particular mindset, eliminating or adding to a huge part of his normal life, or even changing of who he is. Others...not so much.

If your character is resistant to change(like many people in the real world), what do you do? What if his life is not too bad the way it is? Does that automatically mean his story will flop? I don’t think so.

I think that there are varying degrees of change. With a character who’s open to change, his growth must be more drastic than the ones who aren’t open to change. With a character who’s not open to change, he still needs to grow in some way, even if it’s simply taking one tiny step toward the change he needs to make.

I think a lot of writers make a huge mistake in this area. They think their characters need to change, so they change them, regardless of whether it’s the right kind of change for that character. But how do we know what the right kind of change is? It’s all in the character, and writing what’s consistent with what your character would do, given the circumstances he’s under.

For example, I’ve said before that I didn’t think Frankie’s change was consistent with her character in THE DISREPUTABLE HISTORY OF FRANKIE LANDAU-BANKS. Given what we knew of her, and how good she was at getting what she wanted, her initial confession didn’t fit her character. Nor did her actions afterward fit.

Conversely, Connor’s change in UNWIND makes perfect sense. What starts off as self-preservation turns into a desire to help more than just himself. Given the circumstances he’s been in, he’d have to be a horrible person to not take this path. Readers don’t generally like reading about horrible people. : )

Anyway, I guess my point is that, yes, a character must change. But the level of change must be consistent with who your character is.

Stepping Out of Character?

Martha Mihalick, editor at Greenwillow, was another speaker at this year’s Prairie Writer’s Day conference. Her topic was Character: how to create really good ones, and why it’s so important.

Basically, plot springs from the character. Sure, you could have a chain of events, but without a believable character to carry it out, you’ve got nothing. So how do you create a well-rounded character? Ms. Mihalick tells us all...

Characters are flawed. That’s what makes them real, and that’s how readers identify with them. They are more than character types, such as The Jock, The Nerd, The Quiet Kid, The Queen Bee, etc. They move the story forward through their virtues and flaws, which means they MUST be more than a type. It also means they drive the plot – the plot never drives them.

So how do we create these wonderful characters? Ms. Mihalick had many helpful things to say on this.

On a characters objects and possessions:
What does your character carry around in his/her pockets? And why?
How does he/she dress (i.e. what is his/her sense of style)?
How is his/her bedroom decorated?
What is his/her most prized possession?
What are his/her opinions of the various things in life?

On the people a character interacts with:
Who are your character’s friends? Enemies?
Who lives in his/her town? Neighborhood?
How does he/she treat these people?
What are his/her relationships with parents? Siblings? Other family?

On a character’s actions and reactions:
What makes your character laugh? Cry?
What does he/she do when frightened?
Introvert or extrovert?
Body language.

On a character’s opinions:
Optimist or pessimist?
Liberal or conservative?
What is his/her opinion on certain kinds of music, movies, and books?

Put all of this together, and you’re on your way to creating a very real character.

Now that we’ve created him, how do we reveal him to the reader? Through a combination of action, dialogue, and monologue. But only those things that are relevant to the story. If your character thinks wearing socks with sandals is appalling, but is has nothing to do with the story, there’s no reason to bring it up. The same goes for the people and surroundings. Only bring in the things that have direct relevance to the story, build it, and move it forward. Everything else can stay in your notes.

Now we know how to build a complex main character. How do we build a minor character? According to Ms. Mihalick, use the same things. The minor characters must be as complex as the main character, even though we won’t see as much of it. But if you, the author, know the depth of your characters, then that will come across to the reader. The same thing goes for villains.

She parted with a list of books that contain well-developed characters:
TRACKING DADDY DOWN by Marybeth Kelsey
ME AND THE PUMPKIN QUEEN by Marlane Kennedy
LILY’S PURPLE PLASTIC PURSE by Kevin Henkes
THE LAST APPRENTICE by Joseph Delaney

Thus, adding to my towering TBR pile. :) Hope you enjoyed this as much as I did!!

Valiant by Holly Black

Plot Summary: When seventeen-year-old Valerie runs away to New York City, she takes up with a gang of squatters who live in the city's subway system. But there's something strange about Val's new friends. When one of them talks Val into tracking down the lair of a mysterious creature with whom they are all involved, Val finds herself torn between her newfound affection for an honorable monster and her fear of what her friends are becoming.

I read this book some weeks ago, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I didn’t expect to, mostly because this is essentially a story about drug use, and that’s not my cup of tea. But it was the way drug addiction was presented – not exactly softened, but not exactly the whole terrorizing experience either – plus, this kind of drug would tempt anyone into becoming addicted. Ms. Black walked a very fine line here, and pulled it off well.

VALIANT has been criticized for the sex and drugs content, and the general “raw” flavor of the story. But, for me, this is what made it work. Sure, there are some bad situations, lousy choices, and terrifying consequences, but don’t real drug addicts go through that? I think Ms. Black told the story she set out to tell, and intended it for an older YA audience.

As with all my book discussions, there are SPOILERS below.

Valiant. Valerie. The two are not synonymous. Valerie starts out this story as far away from Valiant as possible. But, through a long and dark road, she makes it there.

The drug Val gets addicted to is called Nevermore, and is essentially faerie magic in powder form. Users of this drug are able to perform magic themselves – making people give them money or expensive jewelry, turning garbage into cupcakes, etc. Val gets addicted to this drug, along with two of her new friends. The third friend, however, has the sense to stay away from it. He works for a troll, distributing this Nevermore to the faeries living nearby, and his whole reason for being seems to be to protect his brother from himself.

Val doesn’t get sucked in right away, which I found both believable and refreshing. Some books thrust their characters into situations before they’re ready, and it makes the story jarring. Not enjoyable. But Val got into her addiction gradually, which, I’d guess, is how it happens for many addicts. She spirals out of control, but then does something that not all addicts can do – she gets herself out of it. And she does it on her own (with a small support group), but no one does it for her. I respected her immensely for that.

Val is the kind of character that is deeply flawed, and not entirely likable at first. But if you stick with her, she eventually shines. Bravo to Ms. Black for taking the chance on writing such a character, and succeeding.

The Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-Banks by E. Lockhart

Plot Summary:
Frankie Landau-Banks doesn’t like to take “no” for an answer. Even when it means she can’t join her boyfriend’s all-male secret society – a society that does nothing but sit on the golf course and drink beer. She’s smarter than any of them, and knows she can take their lame pranks to a whole new level...

For me, this story started out a bit slow. I wasn’t so interested in awkward, fourteen year old Frankie. All I needed to know was that she “bloomed” over the summer before her sophomore year, and had heard her father talk about the Loyal Order of the Basset Hounds.

After Frankie settled in to school for her sophomore year, things got very interesting...and I couldn’t put it down.

As with all my book discussions, there are SPOILERS below.

Frankie is unique. She has the unusual gift of objectivity. That is, she is able to set her emotions aside and see things for how they really are. Not how she wants them to be. Not how others want her to see things. Not how her emotions or preconceptions might be skewing the facts. And she is able to act, based upon this objectivity, in order to get, or keep, the things she really wants. That’s partly why she’s such a good debater and strategist (the rest is good, old-fashioned smarts).

This kind of personality is often seen as cold, calculating, and heartless. Clearly, Frankie is none of these things. She truly loves her boyfriend, Matthew. She cares for her friends. And she still found ways to get what she wanted without sacrificing or hurting them. Someone like her would likely end up in a position of power, like the CEO of a successful company. Or a high position in politics. And she wouldn’t get there by stepping on those around her.

In the end, Frankie loses what she’s gained. She loses her boyfriend, she loses her anonymous position as leader of the Order of the Basset Hound, and she nearly loses her best friend. But what does she learn from it? To do things differently next time? Or to be more careful and not make the same mistakes again? Nope. The lesson she comes away with is “I guess I have to hide parts of who I am, or everyone will look at me like I’m a freak.” I find this both frighteningly real, and sad because it’s so real.

Because of who she is, who she’s been established to be throughout the whole novel, I don’t think the ending fits her character. Frankie has consistently shown us that she can think strategically, even when her emotions are rearing and she’s terrified she’s going to lose her boyfriend. It’s clear that she can’t help it – this is just a part of who she is. It’s how she functions, like breathing.

Hence, I just can't believe that she'd tell her boyfriend how she was the real mastermind behind all the brilliant pranks that Alpha had been taking credit for. That's a huge mistake that someone like her could only make if she were caught up in massive emotions. But she isn't. Right before she tells him, she has a logical, even-keeled discussion with herself and realizes that Matthew will never see her for who she is, never accept her as the strategic genius who provided them with so much fun.

If Frankie is who she’s been set up to be, she would never have fessed up in this manner. By telling Matthew, she’s handing him all the power...clearly something she doesn’t do. Instead, she’d have figured out how to retain her power.

So, I think that, instead of telling Matthew, she’d have told the school board on her own. Maybe even written the confession letter before it had been requested. This clears Alpha so he doesn't get expelled, and it puts him in her debt. Also, I could definitely see her stealing back the confiscated Disreputable History book and giving it to Matthew at the most opportune moment. Thus, putting the Order in her debt. Sure, she’d still be kicked out of the “in” crowd. But she’d probably be famous for years after she’d graduated. Not speaking up means she remains anonymous.

That’s what I think the real Frankie would have done. And I’d have cheered her on, because I absolutely loved her.

There are not many heroines written with Frankie’s personality. It’s refreshing to see this explored from all sides, and not shunted into the usual “bad guy” or “sidekick” box. So, thank you, E. Lockhart, for turning objectivity into a superpower. No matter how it may look, it's really not so bad.

I Am the Messenger by Markus Zusak

Plot Summary: Meet Ed Kennedy—underage cabdriver, pathetic cardplayer, and useless at romance. He lives in a shack with his coffee-addicted dog, the Doorman, and he’s hopelessly in love with his best friend, Audrey. His life is one of peaceful routine and incompetence, until he inadvertently stops a bank robbery. That’s when the first Ace arrives. That’s when Ed becomes the messenger. Chosen to care, he makes his way through town helping and hurting (when necessary), until only one question remains: Who’s behind Ed’s mission?

Some time ago, I picked up THE BOOK THIEF with low expectations. I thought it odd that the main character was a girl, yet the narrator was Death, and didn't think it would come across well in the story. I was pleasantly surprised. :) So, I headed out to pick up other books by the same author, and selected I AM THE MESSENGER.

The story starts out well, piquing my interest and keeping me glued to the pages. Ed’s growth is fantastic. He questions his place in life, steps up to do the things he needs to in order to better his life, as well as the lives of those around him. Each mission he accepts makes him stronger, more sure of himself, and more interesting. He goes from a passive observer to an active member of life, and the writer geek in me was giddy with glee.

Then, we find out who’s behind Ed’s mission...

As with all my book discussions, there are SPOILERS below.

After Ed receives his final mission, a mysterious man appears. It turns out he’s been responsible for the whole thing. The missions, the events, people’s reactions, everything. Absolutely everything.

In fiction, who is the only person that can be responsible for everything that happens in a story? The author. That’s right. The mysterious man who comes to talk to Ed is the author. Markus Zusak. I screamed “are you kidding me?” then nearly threw the book across the room. Nearly, because I can't bring myself to actually throw a book. But this is the closest I've ever come.

If Zusak had simply appeared, said “I did all this to you because I wanted to. Sorry, kid,” and then walked away, I’d have still liked this book. But he didn’t. He sat down, rehashed every single aspect of the story, explaining how it has led to Ed’s growth as a better person. Basically, he told us everything he'd already shown us throughout the entire story.

I haven’t been so insulted as a reader since...well, since never. I am perfectly capable of reading a story and gleaning what the author wants to say, as well as taking away my own meaning. It seemed like Zusak didn’t think that I, or any of his readers, was capable of doing this. So he stuck himself in there just to make sure.

Honestly, I’ve never had such a violently negative reaction to a book before, so I'm unfamiliar with this territory. According to Amazon, this book is classified as YA. I’m wondering what young adults think of this book, and whether they would agree or disagree with me. Anyone know?