Thoughts and theories: a list
"...But perhaps you will say, these were all written by men."
"Perhaps I shall. Yes, yes, if you please, no reference to examples in books. Men have had every advantage of us in telling their own story. Education has been theirs in so much higher a degree; the pen has been in their hands. I will not allow books to prove anything."
-- from Persuasion by Jane Austen
1. I don't know why I - no, wait, I do! Someone was had "Poison & Wine" by The Civil Wars on their blog's playlist, and I ended up buying that song and "20 Years" on iTunes, so I could listen to them on repeat.
The Civil Wars are singer-songwriter, mostly happy-for-deep-people acoustic with harmonies. They're a bit like The Weepies, and I think, although I'm not quite sure, there should be an easier way to describe this genre. ("Is 'acoustic' explanatory enough?" I ask my brother. "A-cou-stic. A cue stick?") Because it's not always folk or country or 'indie'...
* * *
2. Young Adult versus 'New Adult':... the theory is New Adult follows on from where YA drops off and covers issues facing those in early to mid-twenties: sex, drugs, alcohol, university, graduate jobs, relationships, independence and so on.
If having 'New Adult' as a genre means that there would be more books about characters in the post-high school years, then I think it could be a very good thing indeed. (When I was at high school, I never had to go out of my way to find books about characters at high school - were there and I stumbled across them all the time. But I feel like I've spent my university years on a Quest: a Quest to find Books about People At University. They're not so easy to find.)
However, I would want the defining features of of 'New Adult' to be the ages of the protagonists - I would dislike it exceedingly if it was also automatically associated with "mature content". Because that could have the effect of dividing YA and 'New Adult' according to what is deemed age-appropriate, and I don't believe that is always helpful for readers who are those ages. There are people over 18 whose lives don't involve sex, alcohol or drugs (or moving out of home, or serious romantic relationships, or what have you ), and readers younger than 18 whose lives do. Books need to reflect that.
I'd want to see the same diversity that one finds in YA at the moment - some books have mature content, others don't.
Personally, my solution would be to expand YA to include older protagonists... and then somehow indicate that some of this YA has more mature content (regardless of the ages of the protagonists). Which is sort of what is happening at the moment. There are books about university students out there. You just have to go looking for them.
* * *
3. There has been a bit about self-publishing going around the internet at the moment. (Hmm. That makes self-publishing sound like a cold.) So this is not merely in response to Shannon Hale's blog post on the subject.
I agree that publishers are quality control: they ensure that what reaches readers has been vetted and edited. And that's an incredibly important job (especially the editing) and we shouldn't think that we could do without it.
Where I disagree - somewhat! - with the opinions I have been reading, is that I don't think publishers' approval is the only sign of approval we should look for. Because I don't think publishers' criteria in vetting books is the same as mine.
Ultimately, they're looking for books they think will sell well.
Ultimately, I don't care how well a book I am reading sells (although perhaps I indirectly care, because if the book sells well it means the author is able to continue being a published author, and this affects me if I want to keep reading what they writes). I'm just looking for books that I will love.
A published book doesn't guarantee that I'll like it. It doesn't guarantee that it'll be well-written (plenty of merely-adequately written books get published... and yes, I happen to like some of them). It doesn't even guarantee that it'll be free of typos or gaping plot holes.
In the light of comments about 'New Adult' and what publishers are prepared to accept (or not, as the case may be), I suspect there's definitely a place for self-publishing and challenging publishers' ideas about what people want to read.
(This debate doesn't really have a lot to do with me: as a reader, how a book is published doesn't affect whether or not I decide to read it. And as a writer, none of my stories are currently in a state that I would deem publishable, and so trying to become published through either means is not something I am currently trying to be.)
* * *
4. I thought this, one woman's open letter of "10 Things I Want My 10 Year Old Daughter to Know", has relevance for people who who are not the writer's daughter. Or 10 years old.
You should never be afraid to share your passions. You are sometimes embarrassed that you still like to play with dolls, for example, and you worry that your friends will make fun of you. Anyone who teases you for what you love to do is not a true friend. This is hard to realise, but essential.
* * *
5. I haven't read anything by Catherynne M. Valente, but then I stumbled across a couple of her blog posts and liked the way she uses words. So I now have placed a library hold on The girl who circumnavigated Fairyland in a ship of her own making.
A poetry professor once told me that you can never name the thing you’re writing about. If the poem is about death, you can’t say the word death. Poems about memory shouldn’t go on about the thing itself. If you’re writing about grief, you can’t actually say grief, or sadness, or even tears. If you want to talk about love, love is the one word you can’t use.
This is such good writing advice: I suspect I have heard it before and forgotten it. It is good to be reminded.
* * *
6. and now, the shipping forecast by Raven.
Sherlock (BBC), gen, John, Harry, ensemble. After Sherlock's death, John thinks (too much), drinks (not enough) and, on a tide of sisters' ex-wives, cheese and kindness, sails on.
I'm struggling to say anything intelligent to say about this, but I love the way she puts words together. There's a subtle beauty to it. Or something.
I read this because she wrote it - it hadn't occurred to me to read Sherlock fanfiction before.
* * *
7. My brother and I had an argument about the definition of steampunk ("What IS steampunk?" our mother asked). He thought it was science-fiction set in an historical era, any historical era, really, and was often Gothic. I thought it was, by definition, linked to the 19th century, give or take a few decades in either direction, and included fantasy.
After establishing what Gothic is (A slight digression: there was a post about this on Tor.com the other day which I thought was rather simplistic. If you're going to talk about the Gothic tradition, you need to start in the 18th century. That's what we did when I studied it at university. Etcetera. I might write about this in more depth if I can manage to do so without sounding pompous and elitist.), we wound up consulting The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Wikipedia.
The article on Cyberpunk derivatives was particularly useful.There have been a handful of divergent terms based on the general concepts of steampunk. These are typically considered unofficial and are often invented by readers and genre-fans, or by various, authors, artists and producers referring to their own works, often humorously [...] Some “punk” subgenres have been criticised as being overly categorised and unnecessary. In fact, the movement itself has achieved little more than a cult following, but the nontraditional style has provided new expressive techniques for contemporary literature.
I understand why categories are useful. If you make them too general - as my brother was doing for his definition of steampunk, the category risks becoming a bit meaningless. (As, again, my brother was finding with his definition of steampunk...) Sometimes you want to be more precise.
Even if this means creating a genre called "candlepunk"...
* * *
8. Whilst looking for a quote from Persuasion, I discovered that there is a a post-apocalyptic retelling of Persuasion, called For Darkness Shows the Stars.
How cool does that sound? I love Persuasion and I love retellings and I like post-apocalyptic tales. I want to read it immediately! Even though I have just reread Persuasion and wouldn't be able to keep myself from comparing the two and it would probably end badly (for the retelling, that is).
* * *
9. Pinterest continues to provide a wonderful source of procrastination. (What did I do without it?) I enjoy collecting quotes and pictures about reading (I ♥ books), books and films (fandomness), and pictures of interesting braids, and picturesqueness and cute dogs.
My latest collection is of pretty book covers. Because I read a lot of books despite their covers, and even more with covers I am indifferent to. Not enough of the books I read have covers I truly love...
* * *
10. Someone (Shannon Hale, I think) has described books as being 50% what the author writes and 50% the perspective of the reader. Of late I've realised how true this is.
A friend said she had "realised" that the central relationship in a popular series of novels is an abusive relationship.
I think her interpretation is valid but not definitive. Which is to say, I can rebut her arguments, but I don't really believe that my arguments are any stronger than hers are.
Moreover I don't think I would have ever read the relationship as an abusive one for a number of reasons. The things I liked - the things I focused on - in that fictional relationship were pretty functional. (Like communication.)
And then there was the matter of one character reminding me, in some regards, of my brother. That association influences the assumptions I make. I interpreted this character as a young man who makes mistakes sometime, and endeavours to address them. Not someone who is borderline abusive.
This conversation sprang to mind because recently I stumbled across a discussion about a scene from "The Idiot's Lantern", from the second series of Doctor Who.
Mr Connelly is a domineering and cowardly bully (and, reading between the lines, not coping after his experiences of WWII). The episode concludes with - sorry, minor spoilers! - Mrs Connelly insisting, with good reason, that her husband leave for good.
And Rose, 20 year Tyler who has grown up without a father and who has only seen a snapshot of what Mr Connelly is like, says to the Connelly's teenage son:Rose: Tommy, go after him.
Tommy: What for?
Rose: He's your dad.
Tommy: He's an idiot.
Rose: Of course he is. Like I said, he's your dad. But you're clever. Clever enough to save the world, so don't stop there. Go on.
I thought this was good advice - just because Tommy's parents have separated, it doesn't mean that his relationship with his father has to end. He can salvage something from that relationship; his father can still be a part of his life.
Those contributing in this online discussion disagreed. "Telling someone to give an abusive parent a second chance is terrible advice!" they said. "It always ends badly. If you have an abusive parent, it really is better to not have them in your life." Then they proceeded to debate whether Rose should have known better.
They were speaking from personal experience. But that view point would never have occurred to me, because I don't have any experience of abusive relationships. Neither do my parents. (One theory for this state of affairs: Due to their age or profession, none of my ancestors went to war, and so there wasn't a legacy of alcoholism, mental illness and inadequate communication which the war seems to have left other families.)
I still - even having read dissenting views - believe that Tommy has a chance of turning his relationship with his dad into something positive.
But I've now realised that my interpretation isn't the definitive one.
If the text remains open for my interpretation, then it follows that it remains open for others' interpretations, too. Other readers bring their own experiences to the table and they colour their interpretations, just as my experiences colour my interpretations.
Of course, some texts are more conclusive than others... and I'm tired and this isn't an essay, so I don't have to keep writing (and keep looking for supportive evidence). Hurray! I can give up and go to bed instead.
"But how shall we prove anything?"
"We never shall. We never can expect to prove any thing upon such a point. It is a difference of opinion which does not admit of proof. We each begin, probably, with a little bias towards our own sex; and upon that bias build every circumstance in favour of it which has occurred within our own circle; many of which circumstances (perhaps those very cases which strike us the most) may be precisely such as cannot be brought forward without betraying a confidence, or in some respect saying what should not be said."
~ Herenya
"Perhaps I shall. Yes, yes, if you please, no reference to examples in books. Men have had every advantage of us in telling their own story. Education has been theirs in so much higher a degree; the pen has been in their hands. I will not allow books to prove anything."
-- from Persuasion by Jane Austen
1. I don't know why I - no, wait, I do! Someone was had "Poison & Wine" by The Civil Wars on their blog's playlist, and I ended up buying that song and "20 Years" on iTunes, so I could listen to them on repeat.
The Civil Wars are singer-songwriter, mostly happy-for-deep-people acoustic with harmonies. They're a bit like The Weepies, and I think, although I'm not quite sure, there should be an easier way to describe this genre. ("Is 'acoustic' explanatory enough?" I ask my brother. "A-cou-stic. A cue stick?") Because it's not always folk or country or 'indie'...
* * *
2. Young Adult versus 'New Adult':... the theory is New Adult follows on from where YA drops off and covers issues facing those in early to mid-twenties: sex, drugs, alcohol, university, graduate jobs, relationships, independence and so on.
If having 'New Adult' as a genre means that there would be more books about characters in the post-high school years, then I think it could be a very good thing indeed. (When I was at high school, I never had to go out of my way to find books about characters at high school - were there and I stumbled across them all the time. But I feel like I've spent my university years on a Quest: a Quest to find Books about People At University. They're not so easy to find.)
However, I would want the defining features of of 'New Adult' to be the ages of the protagonists - I would dislike it exceedingly if it was also automatically associated with "mature content". Because that could have the effect of dividing YA and 'New Adult' according to what is deemed age-appropriate, and I don't believe that is always helpful for readers who are those ages. There are people over 18 whose lives don't involve sex, alcohol or drugs (or moving out of home, or serious romantic relationships, or what have you ), and readers younger than 18 whose lives do. Books need to reflect that.
I'd want to see the same diversity that one finds in YA at the moment - some books have mature content, others don't.
Personally, my solution would be to expand YA to include older protagonists... and then somehow indicate that some of this YA has more mature content (regardless of the ages of the protagonists). Which is sort of what is happening at the moment. There are books about university students out there. You just have to go looking for them.
* * *
3. There has been a bit about self-publishing going around the internet at the moment. (Hmm. That makes self-publishing sound like a cold.) So this is not merely in response to Shannon Hale's blog post on the subject.
I agree that publishers are quality control: they ensure that what reaches readers has been vetted and edited. And that's an incredibly important job (especially the editing) and we shouldn't think that we could do without it.
Where I disagree - somewhat! - with the opinions I have been reading, is that I don't think publishers' approval is the only sign of approval we should look for. Because I don't think publishers' criteria in vetting books is the same as mine.
Ultimately, they're looking for books they think will sell well.
Ultimately, I don't care how well a book I am reading sells (although perhaps I indirectly care, because if the book sells well it means the author is able to continue being a published author, and this affects me if I want to keep reading what they writes). I'm just looking for books that I will love.
A published book doesn't guarantee that I'll like it. It doesn't guarantee that it'll be well-written (plenty of merely-adequately written books get published... and yes, I happen to like some of them). It doesn't even guarantee that it'll be free of typos or gaping plot holes.
In the light of comments about 'New Adult' and what publishers are prepared to accept (or not, as the case may be), I suspect there's definitely a place for self-publishing and challenging publishers' ideas about what people want to read.
(This debate doesn't really have a lot to do with me: as a reader, how a book is published doesn't affect whether or not I decide to read it. And as a writer, none of my stories are currently in a state that I would deem publishable, and so trying to become published through either means is not something I am currently trying to be.)
* * *
4. I thought this, one woman's open letter of "10 Things I Want My 10 Year Old Daughter to Know", has relevance for people who who are not the writer's daughter. Or 10 years old.
You should never be afraid to share your passions. You are sometimes embarrassed that you still like to play with dolls, for example, and you worry that your friends will make fun of you. Anyone who teases you for what you love to do is not a true friend. This is hard to realise, but essential.
* * *
5. I haven't read anything by Catherynne M. Valente, but then I stumbled across a couple of her blog posts and liked the way she uses words. So I now have placed a library hold on The girl who circumnavigated Fairyland in a ship of her own making.
A poetry professor once told me that you can never name the thing you’re writing about. If the poem is about death, you can’t say the word death. Poems about memory shouldn’t go on about the thing itself. If you’re writing about grief, you can’t actually say grief, or sadness, or even tears. If you want to talk about love, love is the one word you can’t use.
This is such good writing advice: I suspect I have heard it before and forgotten it. It is good to be reminded.
* * *
6. and now, the shipping forecast by Raven.
Sherlock (BBC), gen, John, Harry, ensemble. After Sherlock's death, John thinks (too much), drinks (not enough) and, on a tide of sisters' ex-wives, cheese and kindness, sails on.
I'm struggling to say anything intelligent to say about this, but I love the way she puts words together. There's a subtle beauty to it. Or something.
I read this because she wrote it - it hadn't occurred to me to read Sherlock fanfiction before.
* * *
7. My brother and I had an argument about the definition of steampunk ("What IS steampunk?" our mother asked). He thought it was science-fiction set in an historical era, any historical era, really, and was often Gothic. I thought it was, by definition, linked to the 19th century, give or take a few decades in either direction, and included fantasy.
After establishing what Gothic is (A slight digression: there was a post about this on Tor.com the other day which I thought was rather simplistic. If you're going to talk about the Gothic tradition, you need to start in the 18th century. That's what we did when I studied it at university. Etcetera. I might write about this in more depth if I can manage to do so without sounding pompous and elitist.), we wound up consulting The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Wikipedia.
The article on Cyberpunk derivatives was particularly useful.There have been a handful of divergent terms based on the general concepts of steampunk. These are typically considered unofficial and are often invented by readers and genre-fans, or by various, authors, artists and producers referring to their own works, often humorously [...] Some “punk” subgenres have been criticised as being overly categorised and unnecessary. In fact, the movement itself has achieved little more than a cult following, but the nontraditional style has provided new expressive techniques for contemporary literature.
I understand why categories are useful. If you make them too general - as my brother was doing for his definition of steampunk, the category risks becoming a bit meaningless. (As, again, my brother was finding with his definition of steampunk...) Sometimes you want to be more precise.
Even if this means creating a genre called "candlepunk"...
* * *
8. Whilst looking for a quote from Persuasion, I discovered that there is a a post-apocalyptic retelling of Persuasion, called For Darkness Shows the Stars.
How cool does that sound? I love Persuasion and I love retellings and I like post-apocalyptic tales. I want to read it immediately! Even though I have just reread Persuasion and wouldn't be able to keep myself from comparing the two and it would probably end badly (for the retelling, that is).
* * *
9. Pinterest continues to provide a wonderful source of procrastination. (What did I do without it?) I enjoy collecting quotes and pictures about reading (I ♥ books), books and films (fandomness), and pictures of interesting braids, and picturesqueness and cute dogs.
My latest collection is of pretty book covers. Because I read a lot of books despite their covers, and even more with covers I am indifferent to. Not enough of the books I read have covers I truly love...
* * *
10. Someone (Shannon Hale, I think) has described books as being 50% what the author writes and 50% the perspective of the reader. Of late I've realised how true this is.
A friend said she had "realised" that the central relationship in a popular series of novels is an abusive relationship.
I think her interpretation is valid but not definitive. Which is to say, I can rebut her arguments, but I don't really believe that my arguments are any stronger than hers are.
Moreover I don't think I would have ever read the relationship as an abusive one for a number of reasons. The things I liked - the things I focused on - in that fictional relationship were pretty functional. (Like communication.)
And then there was the matter of one character reminding me, in some regards, of my brother. That association influences the assumptions I make. I interpreted this character as a young man who makes mistakes sometime, and endeavours to address them. Not someone who is borderline abusive.
This conversation sprang to mind because recently I stumbled across a discussion about a scene from "The Idiot's Lantern", from the second series of Doctor Who.
Mr Connelly is a domineering and cowardly bully (and, reading between the lines, not coping after his experiences of WWII). The episode concludes with - sorry, minor spoilers! - Mrs Connelly insisting, with good reason, that her husband leave for good.
And Rose, 20 year Tyler who has grown up without a father and who has only seen a snapshot of what Mr Connelly is like, says to the Connelly's teenage son:Rose: Tommy, go after him.
Tommy: What for?
Rose: He's your dad.
Tommy: He's an idiot.
Rose: Of course he is. Like I said, he's your dad. But you're clever. Clever enough to save the world, so don't stop there. Go on.
I thought this was good advice - just because Tommy's parents have separated, it doesn't mean that his relationship with his father has to end. He can salvage something from that relationship; his father can still be a part of his life.
Those contributing in this online discussion disagreed. "Telling someone to give an abusive parent a second chance is terrible advice!" they said. "It always ends badly. If you have an abusive parent, it really is better to not have them in your life." Then they proceeded to debate whether Rose should have known better.
They were speaking from personal experience. But that view point would never have occurred to me, because I don't have any experience of abusive relationships. Neither do my parents. (One theory for this state of affairs: Due to their age or profession, none of my ancestors went to war, and so there wasn't a legacy of alcoholism, mental illness and inadequate communication which the war seems to have left other families.)
I still - even having read dissenting views - believe that Tommy has a chance of turning his relationship with his dad into something positive.
But I've now realised that my interpretation isn't the definitive one.
If the text remains open for my interpretation, then it follows that it remains open for others' interpretations, too. Other readers bring their own experiences to the table and they colour their interpretations, just as my experiences colour my interpretations.
Of course, some texts are more conclusive than others... and I'm tired and this isn't an essay, so I don't have to keep writing (and keep looking for supportive evidence). Hurray! I can give up and go to bed instead.
"But how shall we prove anything?"
"We never shall. We never can expect to prove any thing upon such a point. It is a difference of opinion which does not admit of proof. We each begin, probably, with a little bias towards our own sex; and upon that bias build every circumstance in favour of it which has occurred within our own circle; many of which circumstances (perhaps those very cases which strike us the most) may be precisely such as cannot be brought forward without betraying a confidence, or in some respect saying what should not be said."
~ Herenya