CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] [Fwd: Re: just the story]
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Alixwrites at aol.com <Alixwrites>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:07:28 EDT
In a message dated 8/9/2006 11:07:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, cassiewilson at comcast.net writes:
It's hard to say how kids would react to a continuous ist person or kid-type
narrator voice, but it seems to me that it would get pretty old and boring with one book starting to sound a lot like another. More to the point, where did editors or publishers get the idea that they have the freaking right to tell writers how to create art? This isn't fashion where everyone wants to be the one with the latest theme and they use and use it till everyone's sick of it and can't wait for something new to come along. This is art we're talking about, and no one should be dictating it.
I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the hostility toward the idea of children's books written with a child as the viewpoint character. This isn't some modern trend, but rather, is pretty much the goal of all children's books and, indeed, all books -- to have a voice which is true to the characters
(whether first or third person). This is part of the art of writing children's books.
As a children's (YA) author who has gotten a lot of mail from teens, it's been my experience that they like books and characters that "sound like them" rather than sounding like an older person preaching to them. I don't think this is necessarily true only of reluctant readers. I like characters I read about to sound like real people too! This does not mean, of course, "writing down to" readers by making characters sound stupid (which is perhaps what sparked the concern). But certainly, teen characters should be like teens and not like 40-year-old authors. Otherwise, kids could just read adult books . .
. or talk to their mothers. I don't believe this precludes literary devices or beautiful words -- just that they have to be consistent with one's characters. In this way, we respect our teen readers, as well as our characters. Most of us write for kids or teens because we feel like we still *are* in some ways, kids, and therefore, we are in the Zone, so to speak when writing
"as" them. Writing this way comes naturally.
Of course, there are exceptions to this, authors with strong, distinctive voices, such as the late Roald Dahl or the pseudonymous Lemony Snicket. And occasionally, experienced authors such as Richard Peck (whose modern young-adult books were all written in authentic teen-sounding voice) make the switch from writing in the child's voice to writing later books as an adult looking back (though usually, books with this POV are considered adult books, even if narrated by a child, e.g., TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD). And yes, we have occasional books like THE BOOK THIEF (which I believe was published as adult in Australia) whose adult narrator is Death. But these books are the exception, rather than the rule. All rules may be broken by those who have the desire and especially the skill to draw readers in even with an unusual viewpoint character. Frankly, not all aspiring authors with the desire have the skill to make it work, though, and a children's book needs to be something a child wants to read. It's not just about money. It's about reaching readers.
Editors help books reach readers also. Yes, they have the right to make suggestions about voice. Even with an author who is "in character" and adept at voice, there is sometimes the accidental slip into "real life" voice
(meaning the author's own, adult voice, the one we use with our friends because they'd look at us like we were crazy if we talked like teens), and it is the job of the editor to point this out, just as it is the editor's job to point out holes in the plot or places where they don't quite understand a character's motivation. Editors don't just correct the spelling or punctuation. They serve as a knowledgable final reader of the manuscript before it becomes a book
-- not a friend who will rubber-stamp the book or a critique group who has heard the book so many times they can't give it a clear critique, but a person who has read a great number of books and who knows and loves the project at hand as much as the writer. One of the most rewarding experiences of being a writer is being able to work with someone who is intelligent and deeply invested in my project.
I, for one, am grateful to have my editor's input because by the time the book reaches my editor, I am so close to my characters that I can't see their flaws, their inconsistencies, or their "adult thoughts" as my editor would say. My editor does. But a good editor will also let a writer know that she is free to take or leave the editor's advice. If I believe that my main character is so gifted that he would have a thought my editor considers "adult" then, I am free to leave it (and have).
To imply that the act of a writer being edited makes the book "by committee" and the comparison to OPAL MEHTA is insulting to both writers and editors. Refusal of the writer to be edited is a form of vanity which hurts the book
(Many will recall, perhaps, Anne Rice's response to criticism of her BLOOD CANTICLE. If not, look it up on Amazon.com). The relationship between editor and author is a symbiotic one, but that certainly is not the same as books being created by committee. Although I am grateful for my editor's guidance, she freely admits she could not write a book, or certainly not *my* book. A book comes from an idea that sparks in the author's head and catches fire. An editor may suggest structural, language, even plot or character changes, but if they are good suggestions, they will spark a separate flame.
But, unlike the author who originally posted, I see many, many kids' books these days that sound like they were written by and for adults. And some adults will praise them, and those kids who want to read them, may. But from my mail, I'd guess that books that sound more like kids are probably better choices for reluctant readers, as that is this month's topic.
Best, Alex Flinn
The road to stardom is paved with Diva wannabes. Diva, a new novel from HarperTempest this October. _www.alexflinn.com_ (http://www.alexflinn.com)
Received on Thu 10 Aug 2006 09:07:28 AM CDT
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:07:28 EDT
In a message dated 8/9/2006 11:07:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, cassiewilson at comcast.net writes:
It's hard to say how kids would react to a continuous ist person or kid-type
narrator voice, but it seems to me that it would get pretty old and boring with one book starting to sound a lot like another. More to the point, where did editors or publishers get the idea that they have the freaking right to tell writers how to create art? This isn't fashion where everyone wants to be the one with the latest theme and they use and use it till everyone's sick of it and can't wait for something new to come along. This is art we're talking about, and no one should be dictating it.
I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the hostility toward the idea of children's books written with a child as the viewpoint character. This isn't some modern trend, but rather, is pretty much the goal of all children's books and, indeed, all books -- to have a voice which is true to the characters
(whether first or third person). This is part of the art of writing children's books.
As a children's (YA) author who has gotten a lot of mail from teens, it's been my experience that they like books and characters that "sound like them" rather than sounding like an older person preaching to them. I don't think this is necessarily true only of reluctant readers. I like characters I read about to sound like real people too! This does not mean, of course, "writing down to" readers by making characters sound stupid (which is perhaps what sparked the concern). But certainly, teen characters should be like teens and not like 40-year-old authors. Otherwise, kids could just read adult books . .
. or talk to their mothers. I don't believe this precludes literary devices or beautiful words -- just that they have to be consistent with one's characters. In this way, we respect our teen readers, as well as our characters. Most of us write for kids or teens because we feel like we still *are* in some ways, kids, and therefore, we are in the Zone, so to speak when writing
"as" them. Writing this way comes naturally.
Of course, there are exceptions to this, authors with strong, distinctive voices, such as the late Roald Dahl or the pseudonymous Lemony Snicket. And occasionally, experienced authors such as Richard Peck (whose modern young-adult books were all written in authentic teen-sounding voice) make the switch from writing in the child's voice to writing later books as an adult looking back (though usually, books with this POV are considered adult books, even if narrated by a child, e.g., TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD). And yes, we have occasional books like THE BOOK THIEF (which I believe was published as adult in Australia) whose adult narrator is Death. But these books are the exception, rather than the rule. All rules may be broken by those who have the desire and especially the skill to draw readers in even with an unusual viewpoint character. Frankly, not all aspiring authors with the desire have the skill to make it work, though, and a children's book needs to be something a child wants to read. It's not just about money. It's about reaching readers.
Editors help books reach readers also. Yes, they have the right to make suggestions about voice. Even with an author who is "in character" and adept at voice, there is sometimes the accidental slip into "real life" voice
(meaning the author's own, adult voice, the one we use with our friends because they'd look at us like we were crazy if we talked like teens), and it is the job of the editor to point this out, just as it is the editor's job to point out holes in the plot or places where they don't quite understand a character's motivation. Editors don't just correct the spelling or punctuation. They serve as a knowledgable final reader of the manuscript before it becomes a book
-- not a friend who will rubber-stamp the book or a critique group who has heard the book so many times they can't give it a clear critique, but a person who has read a great number of books and who knows and loves the project at hand as much as the writer. One of the most rewarding experiences of being a writer is being able to work with someone who is intelligent and deeply invested in my project.
I, for one, am grateful to have my editor's input because by the time the book reaches my editor, I am so close to my characters that I can't see their flaws, their inconsistencies, or their "adult thoughts" as my editor would say. My editor does. But a good editor will also let a writer know that she is free to take or leave the editor's advice. If I believe that my main character is so gifted that he would have a thought my editor considers "adult" then, I am free to leave it (and have).
To imply that the act of a writer being edited makes the book "by committee" and the comparison to OPAL MEHTA is insulting to both writers and editors. Refusal of the writer to be edited is a form of vanity which hurts the book
(Many will recall, perhaps, Anne Rice's response to criticism of her BLOOD CANTICLE. If not, look it up on Amazon.com). The relationship between editor and author is a symbiotic one, but that certainly is not the same as books being created by committee. Although I am grateful for my editor's guidance, she freely admits she could not write a book, or certainly not *my* book. A book comes from an idea that sparks in the author's head and catches fire. An editor may suggest structural, language, even plot or character changes, but if they are good suggestions, they will spark a separate flame.
But, unlike the author who originally posted, I see many, many kids' books these days that sound like they were written by and for adults. And some adults will praise them, and those kids who want to read them, may. But from my mail, I'd guess that books that sound more like kids are probably better choices for reluctant readers, as that is this month's topic.
Best, Alex Flinn
The road to stardom is paved with Diva wannabes. Diva, a new novel from HarperTempest this October. _www.alexflinn.com_ (http://www.alexflinn.com)
Received on Thu 10 Aug 2006 09:07:28 AM CDT
