E.J. Patten's Blog, page 5
August 13, 2011
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin
I found this Excel spreadsheet online yesterday, put out by Scholastic, and thought I would share. It was created by Scholastic education support and lists the quizzes which, I suppose, teachers can administer in class for new books. At least, I think that's what it is. The spreadsheet also lists the Lexile Level, Reading Level, Lexile Code, and word count of hundreds of books. At the bottom, you can find the tabs that break out K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and High School.
For the Reading Level, the first number is the corresponding grade, and the second is the month within that grade. So, a 5.3 (which is what Return to Exile received) means that half of the students in the third month of the fifth grade should be able to read it. The Lexile and Reading levels take into account things like sentence complexity, vocabulary, etc., not content (I don't think they do anyway). Basically, they feed the book through a computer and it spits out the score.
Another interesting thing is the Lexile Code. For example, the code "HL" (high-low) means that the book is intended for an older audience, but it's written for a much younger audience. Around half of the high school books get an "HL". These are generally books that teachers recommend to struggling readers because they are easier to read. It's also interesting to me that there doesn't seem to be much difference between the Lexile Levels for high school and grades 6-8. My Lexile score of 800 is higher than all but 14 of the 42 high school books and 22 of the 65 books for 6-8 graders. On word count, Return to Exile comes in at number 5 overall, across all grade levels. Here are the top five, in terms of word count, with their respective measures:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollow by J.K. Rowling (Lexile: 980 Reading: 7.4 Word: 196,651 Interest Level: 6-8)
Fly Trap by Frances Hardinge (Lexile: 1000 Reading: 8.5 Words: 137,626 Interest Level: 6-8)
Department Nineteen by Will Hill (Lexile: 940 Reading: 7.3 Words: 131,475 Interest Level: HS)
City of Fallen Angels by Cassandra Clare (Lexile: 750 Reading: 4.6 Words: 119,428 Interest Level: HS)
Return to Exile by E.J. Patten (Lexile: 800 Reading: 5.3 Words: 115,135 Interest Level: 6-8)
What's interesting to me about these measures is that they seem to represent short-term understanding (can a person read and understand a sentence), but not long-term understanding (can they read and process the story). Obviously, there's a simple algorithm for measuring sentence complexity (number of commas, number of words, frequency of word appearance, etc.) whereas long-term understanding, say over the space of five hundred pages, is not as easy to quantify, and therefore doesn't appear in lead indicators (evaluative measures used to judge a book before reading it--sort of like judging a book by it's cover, but without the negative connotation). After all, what kind of score could you give to thematic unity, or character depth, or plot complexity? The scores wouldn't mean anything without a common standard, and even then they'd be completely subjective because people would have to assign them. Because of this, long-term understanding is measured by trailing indicators, like post reading quizzes (which is the very thing this spreadsheet is offering). But many of the quizzes I've seen don't measure long-term understanding either because they are made up of simple, multiple choice questions with standardized answers. A question that asks a reader to select the theme from among four options doesn't show that a person understands the theme; it just shows that they can recognize it when they see it. Multiple choice questions represent a consumer approach to test taking because they simplify the world of possibilities and serve up only four options, one of which is right, and the rest of which are wrong. They don't ask a person to consider alternatives, or come up with a better answer. These types of questions narrow a person's focus, blinding them to their own creativity. This isn't a teacher problem; it's a system problem. Teachers, for the most part, do an amazing job given all the roles they fill, their shamefully-limited resources (shame on us and the politicians we support), and the constraints they have to work with. The problem is that our system sucks. We value things that can be quantified and easily measured over things that can't, when in fact there should be a balance between information consumption and original production (not regurgitation).
Now, I'm straying off topic here, but I feel a rant coming on. When kids are young, in kindergarten and first and second grade, and you ask them what they want to be when they grow up, the majority of them will name some sort of creative endeavor: artist, writer, inventor, etc. What's more, they have brilliant, wacky, and creative ideas. My children's imagination is so much greater than my own. They can think of outrageous things that I couldn't begin to dream of. For them, all possibilities are open. They are the ultimate producers. But I know that as they go through the education system, their thinking will become more limited, their imagination will shrink, and they will be forced to face "reality," which is an absolute mess, if you ask me. The things they do so easily now will become so much harder for them because their "education" will turn them from producers into consumers. Then, when they reach college and the "real world," they will be asked to become producers again, and they will struggle, and they will repeat all the mistakes we are making. Their world will have become as limited as their imagination, and I mourn for the day. The system problem doesn't lie solely with multiple choice answers, of course. The problem, in fact, lies with college. Yes, I am blaming college--or rather, the requirements a student must meet in order to get into a "good" one, namely, a high GPA and a high test score on a quantitative test. In other words, colleges don't care if you can produce new things in exciting and creative ways; they only care if you can regurgitate the information you've consumed over the years better than anyone else. I even wrote a free verse poem about it while I was in college: GPA
Open your brain and close your mind,
We have a wonderfully normal distribution for you,
Keep your hands and feet inside at all times,
And we'll make sure you learn what we tell you.
Reason, you'll find, is of an awfully wonderful design,
That allows you to think, and not think, at the same time,
But let's ignore that and move on to the next point,
Which you must learn before the lesson's over.
We're all the same deep down and underneath,
Except for the fundamental differences,
Some perform and some don't but the difference is always normal,
So let's package it and tell you who you are (you'll be the better for it).
Focus on the good, but focus on the bad,
Find the problems and fix them when you can,
Weakness is something that's good in other people, but not good in you,
Because everything is relative, as you'll come to see.
But things aren't relative, they're fixed,
That's how you know we're right,
And you're only as good as your last A, and only as bad as we tell you,
You're not a person, but a collection of grades we give you.
So let us tell you who you are, and when to speak, and what to speak about,
Then we'll tell you how good you are at telling us what we just told you,
And if you tell it well, you'll be rewarded, but if you don't, it'll be recorded
And appear on your permanent record for all to see.
We can't measure a person, so we measure people,
And break you up into grades (it's relative you see),
Put them together, and that's you (and you're the better for it),
But don't worry,
The lesson's over and there's no Reason to think, or not to think,
And when you're done, you'll see, you'll think just like everybody else does,
The way they should; you'll think like me (and you'll have the GPA to prove it).
I actually wrote that poem for a class I took from Hal Gregersen, a master educator who understands the value of creativity and had the flexibility to work it into his curriculum--a flexibility that teachers in primary and secondary education all too often lack due to the push towards mandated, quantitative standardization and ridiculous measures. Wow. I really went off topic there. Anyway, the point is, Lexile measures are cool, there needs to be a better balance between consumption and production, and the system sucks. Down with the man!
For the Reading Level, the first number is the corresponding grade, and the second is the month within that grade. So, a 5.3 (which is what Return to Exile received) means that half of the students in the third month of the fifth grade should be able to read it. The Lexile and Reading levels take into account things like sentence complexity, vocabulary, etc., not content (I don't think they do anyway). Basically, they feed the book through a computer and it spits out the score.
Another interesting thing is the Lexile Code. For example, the code "HL" (high-low) means that the book is intended for an older audience, but it's written for a much younger audience. Around half of the high school books get an "HL". These are generally books that teachers recommend to struggling readers because they are easier to read. It's also interesting to me that there doesn't seem to be much difference between the Lexile Levels for high school and grades 6-8. My Lexile score of 800 is higher than all but 14 of the 42 high school books and 22 of the 65 books for 6-8 graders. On word count, Return to Exile comes in at number 5 overall, across all grade levels. Here are the top five, in terms of word count, with their respective measures:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollow by J.K. Rowling (Lexile: 980 Reading: 7.4 Word: 196,651 Interest Level: 6-8)
Fly Trap by Frances Hardinge (Lexile: 1000 Reading: 8.5 Words: 137,626 Interest Level: 6-8)
Department Nineteen by Will Hill (Lexile: 940 Reading: 7.3 Words: 131,475 Interest Level: HS)
City of Fallen Angels by Cassandra Clare (Lexile: 750 Reading: 4.6 Words: 119,428 Interest Level: HS)
Return to Exile by E.J. Patten (Lexile: 800 Reading: 5.3 Words: 115,135 Interest Level: 6-8)
What's interesting to me about these measures is that they seem to represent short-term understanding (can a person read and understand a sentence), but not long-term understanding (can they read and process the story). Obviously, there's a simple algorithm for measuring sentence complexity (number of commas, number of words, frequency of word appearance, etc.) whereas long-term understanding, say over the space of five hundred pages, is not as easy to quantify, and therefore doesn't appear in lead indicators (evaluative measures used to judge a book before reading it--sort of like judging a book by it's cover, but without the negative connotation). After all, what kind of score could you give to thematic unity, or character depth, or plot complexity? The scores wouldn't mean anything without a common standard, and even then they'd be completely subjective because people would have to assign them. Because of this, long-term understanding is measured by trailing indicators, like post reading quizzes (which is the very thing this spreadsheet is offering). But many of the quizzes I've seen don't measure long-term understanding either because they are made up of simple, multiple choice questions with standardized answers. A question that asks a reader to select the theme from among four options doesn't show that a person understands the theme; it just shows that they can recognize it when they see it. Multiple choice questions represent a consumer approach to test taking because they simplify the world of possibilities and serve up only four options, one of which is right, and the rest of which are wrong. They don't ask a person to consider alternatives, or come up with a better answer. These types of questions narrow a person's focus, blinding them to their own creativity. This isn't a teacher problem; it's a system problem. Teachers, for the most part, do an amazing job given all the roles they fill, their shamefully-limited resources (shame on us and the politicians we support), and the constraints they have to work with. The problem is that our system sucks. We value things that can be quantified and easily measured over things that can't, when in fact there should be a balance between information consumption and original production (not regurgitation).
Now, I'm straying off topic here, but I feel a rant coming on. When kids are young, in kindergarten and first and second grade, and you ask them what they want to be when they grow up, the majority of them will name some sort of creative endeavor: artist, writer, inventor, etc. What's more, they have brilliant, wacky, and creative ideas. My children's imagination is so much greater than my own. They can think of outrageous things that I couldn't begin to dream of. For them, all possibilities are open. They are the ultimate producers. But I know that as they go through the education system, their thinking will become more limited, their imagination will shrink, and they will be forced to face "reality," which is an absolute mess, if you ask me. The things they do so easily now will become so much harder for them because their "education" will turn them from producers into consumers. Then, when they reach college and the "real world," they will be asked to become producers again, and they will struggle, and they will repeat all the mistakes we are making. Their world will have become as limited as their imagination, and I mourn for the day. The system problem doesn't lie solely with multiple choice answers, of course. The problem, in fact, lies with college. Yes, I am blaming college--or rather, the requirements a student must meet in order to get into a "good" one, namely, a high GPA and a high test score on a quantitative test. In other words, colleges don't care if you can produce new things in exciting and creative ways; they only care if you can regurgitate the information you've consumed over the years better than anyone else. I even wrote a free verse poem about it while I was in college: GPA
Open your brain and close your mind,
We have a wonderfully normal distribution for you,
Keep your hands and feet inside at all times,
And we'll make sure you learn what we tell you.
Reason, you'll find, is of an awfully wonderful design,
That allows you to think, and not think, at the same time,
But let's ignore that and move on to the next point,
Which you must learn before the lesson's over.
We're all the same deep down and underneath,
Except for the fundamental differences,
Some perform and some don't but the difference is always normal,
So let's package it and tell you who you are (you'll be the better for it).
Focus on the good, but focus on the bad,
Find the problems and fix them when you can,
Weakness is something that's good in other people, but not good in you,
Because everything is relative, as you'll come to see.
But things aren't relative, they're fixed,
That's how you know we're right,
And you're only as good as your last A, and only as bad as we tell you,
You're not a person, but a collection of grades we give you.
So let us tell you who you are, and when to speak, and what to speak about,
Then we'll tell you how good you are at telling us what we just told you,
And if you tell it well, you'll be rewarded, but if you don't, it'll be recorded
And appear on your permanent record for all to see.
We can't measure a person, so we measure people,
And break you up into grades (it's relative you see),
Put them together, and that's you (and you're the better for it),
But don't worry,
The lesson's over and there's no Reason to think, or not to think,
And when you're done, you'll see, you'll think just like everybody else does,
The way they should; you'll think like me (and you'll have the GPA to prove it).
I actually wrote that poem for a class I took from Hal Gregersen, a master educator who understands the value of creativity and had the flexibility to work it into his curriculum--a flexibility that teachers in primary and secondary education all too often lack due to the push towards mandated, quantitative standardization and ridiculous measures. Wow. I really went off topic there. Anyway, the point is, Lexile measures are cool, there needs to be a better balance between consumption and production, and the system sucks. Down with the man!
August 8, 2011
Bieber Dams
Mollusks appear to be unpopular among blog readers, while biebers appear to be the bees knees. Not sure why; what do biebers have over mollusks? So what if biebers can build dams and chew down trees with their sharp, oversized teeth; does that make them better than mollusks? I don't think so...
Sorry. Just googled bieber; apparently he's some kind of singer? I thought that spelling seemed odd. Oh well. Either way, I stand by my original position.
For those of you reading my posts in the hopes of finding actual information, I should have a book update later this week, and maybe I'll do another bit on writing tips soon.
Less than one month to the release of Return to Exile! Rock on Bieber fans! Someday you'll be as cool as mollusks!
Sorry. Just googled bieber; apparently he's some kind of singer? I thought that spelling seemed odd. Oh well. Either way, I stand by my original position.
For those of you reading my posts in the hopes of finding actual information, I should have a book update later this week, and maybe I'll do another bit on writing tips soon.
Less than one month to the release of Return to Exile! Rock on Bieber fans! Someday you'll be as cool as mollusks!
August 2, 2011
Mollusks, Our Ancient Enemies
For some time, I've been intending to warn the world about the dangers of mollusks, our ancient enemies. Some of you might find this amusing. Some of you might find this disturbing and only slightly amusing. Others of you might decide you're hungry and take a break from reading to grab a snack and maybe a refreshing beverage, like a Coke, or maybe some sort of sparkling cider or juice.
BEWARE!
Phylum Mollusca is EVERYWHERE! If my all caps isn't enough to convince you, then just look out your window. Some of you might see a snail, a slug, or a clam. Others of you might see more snails. Maybe a chiton, or a nudibranch; both have hilarious names and become quite aggressive when you laugh at them.
Those readers who live in undersea communities like Atlantis or Cowville (also called Mu), or possibly in your own evil underwater arcology (I'm talking to you Francine! Stop emailing me brochures!) might even see a giant cephalopod--"cepha," from the Greek, meaning "head," and "lopods," also from the Greek, meaning "low priced storage unit for use when moving."
So why are mollusks our ancient enemies, you might be wondering?
They create their own money. Oysters produce both pearl AND mother of pearl. I'll bet most of you didn't even know that pearls had mothers. And the worst part is, mother of pearl is fire-retardant, so our flame-throwers won't even work on them. Just think of it: a huge pearl sitting out there, producing thousands, maybe even millions of fire-retardant baby pearls. How long do you think it will be before they become sentient and take over the world economy? And how do you think the mother of pearl will react when she finds out we've been stringing her children together and wearing them around our necks on formal occasions? Schistosomiasis. I'm not making this word up, though I can see why you thought I might. Seriously, how many funny names can one phylum own? I haven't even mentioned "gastropod" yet, let alone "cillia." Giant squid. Need I say more?Yes. Yes, I need say more. Mollusks are gross. And they're overrunning my yard.Even now, I have a snail hanging on my basement window watching me, always watching. The French know how to treat their mollusks; when will the rest of the world learn?
The truth is, children may be our future, but their mother will be pearl.
And possibly Octomom.
BEWARE!
Phylum Mollusca is EVERYWHERE! If my all caps isn't enough to convince you, then just look out your window. Some of you might see a snail, a slug, or a clam. Others of you might see more snails. Maybe a chiton, or a nudibranch; both have hilarious names and become quite aggressive when you laugh at them.
Those readers who live in undersea communities like Atlantis or Cowville (also called Mu), or possibly in your own evil underwater arcology (I'm talking to you Francine! Stop emailing me brochures!) might even see a giant cephalopod--"cepha," from the Greek, meaning "head," and "lopods," also from the Greek, meaning "low priced storage unit for use when moving."
So why are mollusks our ancient enemies, you might be wondering?
They create their own money. Oysters produce both pearl AND mother of pearl. I'll bet most of you didn't even know that pearls had mothers. And the worst part is, mother of pearl is fire-retardant, so our flame-throwers won't even work on them. Just think of it: a huge pearl sitting out there, producing thousands, maybe even millions of fire-retardant baby pearls. How long do you think it will be before they become sentient and take over the world economy? And how do you think the mother of pearl will react when she finds out we've been stringing her children together and wearing them around our necks on formal occasions? Schistosomiasis. I'm not making this word up, though I can see why you thought I might. Seriously, how many funny names can one phylum own? I haven't even mentioned "gastropod" yet, let alone "cillia." Giant squid. Need I say more?Yes. Yes, I need say more. Mollusks are gross. And they're overrunning my yard.Even now, I have a snail hanging on my basement window watching me, always watching. The French know how to treat their mollusks; when will the rest of the world learn?
The truth is, children may be our future, but their mother will be pearl.
And possibly Octomom.
July 22, 2011
Return to Exile Giveaway on Goodreads
Simon and Schuster is giving away 25 advanced reader copies (ARC) of Return to Exile on Goodreads. You must enter by August 4.
July 19, 2011
How to Write a Book - Part 2: Considerations
As I write this, the thought that keeps spinning through my mind is, "there are thousands of blogs that give great advice on writing; why bother with another?"
The answer: mind your own business, brain!
Lesson 1 in writing : ignore your brain, especially when it says stuff that makes sense.
Lesson 2 in writing : this is not a blog on the craft of writing, even though I may occasionally post on the subject. This is less of a writing lesson and more of a moronic statement about my blog.
Lesson 3 in writing : eat Pop Tarts. I say this only because I'm hoping that someone who works for Pop Tart Industries will read this blog and send me Pop Tarts. Also, it's a little known fact, but Pop Tart Industries controls 99% of the world's book blogs, and by mentioning them, you can ensure your book receives only positive reviews. It's true. Look it up.
Okay. Now I've forgotten what my point was.
According to the title of this post, I'm supposed to discuss "considerations"—whatever that means. It sounds like something I just made up. Hm.
Well, until I remember, let's pick up where I left off on the last "How to Write a Book" post: with the masons.
I had a concept: in a dystopian future where games turn deadly, masons hide secret symbols in the crumbling ruins of the United States Capitol—secrets that could stop the games forever and save us all.
Let's call our protagonist "Dogniss Nevergreen" for simplicity, and let's name the story "The Lost Hunger Symbol."
If it wasn't obvious already, the pitch line is: The Hunger Games meets The Lost Symbol. The pitch line lets the reader (particularly, the agent and editor) know how to categorize your story. It's like saying, "if you liked these two books, you might also like mine."
Next, I need to identify how my story is unique.
The great paradox of publishing is that publishers want an easily categorized story, so they can predict sales, and, at the same time, they want a story that's unlike anything else on the planet. In other words, they want something that's the same in a unique way.
My story is the same in that...
It's YA. There is a game. A secret group has hidden symbols.
My story is different in that...
The game takes place underwater. The symbols are hidden in electronic transmissions. Dogniss must reach the surface before he can interpret electronic symbols. At the end of the game, the winner gets a lifetime supply of scrumptious Pop Tarts.
The things I choose to focus on within the story can also help me tell a different story. Is Dogniss trying to escape or is he trying to change the game from within? Does the secret group appear in the story or do they just leave clues behind that allow Dogniss to escape? There are literally thousands of questions I could ask, and I could easily get bogged down. This is bad. Don't do this. If you get bogged down in questions, take a break, eat a Pop Tart, and try writing something.
Before I start writing, I don't need to answer all of these questions--many of these questions don't even occur to me until I start writing--but I like to answer the big ones.
What is it about my story that I believe will appeal most to my chosen audience? This is my focus point, the thing I organize around, and the place where I should start the book.In The Lost Hunger Symbol, I might focus on the death of the secret group, or the horrible conditions in which Dogniss lives. Do I want to explore who Dogness is as a person and how he reacts to events, or do I believe that my readers will be more interested in the puzzles, or in the mystery of the secret order? Each of these things can feed into the story, but if I try to balance all of these elements equally, I won't do justice to any of them, my story will lose focus, and my readers will get bored. I need ONE focus point, and that's where I start.How is my story different from other stories, particularly popular stories, and are those differences substantial enough that it's worth writing the book?To help me focus, I'll usually do a sort of "brand design schematic" in my head. This is basically where I take words, images, ideas, music, bits of dialog—anything that I want associated with my story—and I lay them out on a grid. This grid comes to represent the space I want to "own"—the areas where my story is entirely unique.
Harry Potter "owns" several things now because of the books: lightning bolt scars and the phrases "the boy who lived" and "he-who-must-not-be-named," to give but a few examples. Identifying these things beforehand helps me further refine and target the story. It helps me generate mood and focus on things that, I believe, matter to my readers.
Alright. Enough for now. If others out there in the blog-o-sphere-o-verse have tips for picking and refining the right concept for a story, please make a comment. And, if Pop Tart Industries is watching (I know you are), I like the blueberry ones.
The answer: mind your own business, brain!
Lesson 1 in writing : ignore your brain, especially when it says stuff that makes sense.
Lesson 2 in writing : this is not a blog on the craft of writing, even though I may occasionally post on the subject. This is less of a writing lesson and more of a moronic statement about my blog.
Lesson 3 in writing : eat Pop Tarts. I say this only because I'm hoping that someone who works for Pop Tart Industries will read this blog and send me Pop Tarts. Also, it's a little known fact, but Pop Tart Industries controls 99% of the world's book blogs, and by mentioning them, you can ensure your book receives only positive reviews. It's true. Look it up.
Okay. Now I've forgotten what my point was.
According to the title of this post, I'm supposed to discuss "considerations"—whatever that means. It sounds like something I just made up. Hm.
Well, until I remember, let's pick up where I left off on the last "How to Write a Book" post: with the masons.
I had a concept: in a dystopian future where games turn deadly, masons hide secret symbols in the crumbling ruins of the United States Capitol—secrets that could stop the games forever and save us all.
Let's call our protagonist "Dogniss Nevergreen" for simplicity, and let's name the story "The Lost Hunger Symbol."
If it wasn't obvious already, the pitch line is: The Hunger Games meets The Lost Symbol. The pitch line lets the reader (particularly, the agent and editor) know how to categorize your story. It's like saying, "if you liked these two books, you might also like mine."
Next, I need to identify how my story is unique.
The great paradox of publishing is that publishers want an easily categorized story, so they can predict sales, and, at the same time, they want a story that's unlike anything else on the planet. In other words, they want something that's the same in a unique way.
My story is the same in that...
It's YA. There is a game. A secret group has hidden symbols.
My story is different in that...
The game takes place underwater. The symbols are hidden in electronic transmissions. Dogniss must reach the surface before he can interpret electronic symbols. At the end of the game, the winner gets a lifetime supply of scrumptious Pop Tarts.
The things I choose to focus on within the story can also help me tell a different story. Is Dogniss trying to escape or is he trying to change the game from within? Does the secret group appear in the story or do they just leave clues behind that allow Dogniss to escape? There are literally thousands of questions I could ask, and I could easily get bogged down. This is bad. Don't do this. If you get bogged down in questions, take a break, eat a Pop Tart, and try writing something.
Before I start writing, I don't need to answer all of these questions--many of these questions don't even occur to me until I start writing--but I like to answer the big ones.
What is it about my story that I believe will appeal most to my chosen audience? This is my focus point, the thing I organize around, and the place where I should start the book.In The Lost Hunger Symbol, I might focus on the death of the secret group, or the horrible conditions in which Dogniss lives. Do I want to explore who Dogness is as a person and how he reacts to events, or do I believe that my readers will be more interested in the puzzles, or in the mystery of the secret order? Each of these things can feed into the story, but if I try to balance all of these elements equally, I won't do justice to any of them, my story will lose focus, and my readers will get bored. I need ONE focus point, and that's where I start.How is my story different from other stories, particularly popular stories, and are those differences substantial enough that it's worth writing the book?To help me focus, I'll usually do a sort of "brand design schematic" in my head. This is basically where I take words, images, ideas, music, bits of dialog—anything that I want associated with my story—and I lay them out on a grid. This grid comes to represent the space I want to "own"—the areas where my story is entirely unique.
Harry Potter "owns" several things now because of the books: lightning bolt scars and the phrases "the boy who lived" and "he-who-must-not-be-named," to give but a few examples. Identifying these things beforehand helps me further refine and target the story. It helps me generate mood and focus on things that, I believe, matter to my readers.
Alright. Enough for now. If others out there in the blog-o-sphere-o-verse have tips for picking and refining the right concept for a story, please make a comment. And, if Pop Tart Industries is watching (I know you are), I like the blueberry ones.
July 16, 2011
The Merits of Bad Reviews
My agent, Steven Malk, pointed out this atrocious review for Wildwood by a reviewer on Amazon. The reviewer attacked the book as anti everything, giving it the "worst title (she) could give - anti-Christian, anti-God." I haven't read Wildwood, but if even half the stuff the reviewer attributes to author, Colin Meloy, and illustrator, Carson Ellis, is true, then they are absolute geniuses, and the book should be read for that reason alone. This is a piece taken from the review:
"Her (Alexandra--the antagonist) symbolism is disturbing - she adorns herself with the feathers of eagles...and before you think that is okay, look up what the eagle means in heraldry. Eagle generally equals God. Her official crest is a twist of bramble over a trillium. For Roman Catholics, reflect on that. Twist of bramble = crown of thorns, trillium = trinity. (Again, look into heraldic symbolism.) Alexandra is also credited with creating the `life' of Prue, our protagonist. Prue's parents, desperate to conceive a child, followed the advice of a carnie fair woman, and met Alexandra on a ghost bridge after they rang a bell. (Soooo Jadis in Carn!) Alexandra touched Prue's mother's belly and created life. It's either a metaphor to Elizabeth or Mary in the Bible... but in both cases, it smacks of anti-Catholicism. In return for a child, Prue's parents promise their second child, if they ever have one, to Alexandra. (Hence, the Rumpelstiltskin reference above.) Why does she want the child; to replace her dead son? No - she wants to sacrifice the innocent life and let an ivy vine feed on Mac's flesh and blood (anti-Catholic in it's symbolism); she will then control the ivy (vague reference to controlling the Church and Her people) and direct it to destroy South Wood and all the other Woods and creatures."
I mean wow. If the author inserted this symbolism on purpose, he's brilliant. If he did it on accident, he's secretly brilliant. Either way, even if it was all true, and the author and illustrator were secretly attacking the Roman Catholic Church, the chance that a child might be familiar enough with heraldic symbolism to interpret its meaning, and thereby decipher the encoded effrontery, is staggering. This doesn't sound like a blatant attack on anything. Philip Pullman killed God in his series--that's blatant. The devices used in Wildwood sound more like those you'd find in a classic fairytale.
But, once again, even if it was all true, I find the review far more disturbing than I could possibly find the book. Christ's message was always one of love and tolerance, but this review from a self-declared Christian is full of hate and vitriol. She attacks and labels every person that could possibly disagree with her viewpoint and, in the process, she generates sympathy for the author.
In other words, she undermines the very thing she's trying to accomplish. In children's lit, one of the keys for gaining reader engagement is to generate as much sympathy as possible for your protagonist. The reviewer of Wildwood has effectively generated sympathy for the author, which has lead to increased sales. If you look at the comments on the review, you will see that many people, who were on the fence, decided to buy the book based on the review.
Not all bad reviews do this--particularly when the reviewer at least makes an attempt to sound reasonable--but crazy bad reviews... why, those are pure gold .
"Her (Alexandra--the antagonist) symbolism is disturbing - she adorns herself with the feathers of eagles...and before you think that is okay, look up what the eagle means in heraldry. Eagle generally equals God. Her official crest is a twist of bramble over a trillium. For Roman Catholics, reflect on that. Twist of bramble = crown of thorns, trillium = trinity. (Again, look into heraldic symbolism.) Alexandra is also credited with creating the `life' of Prue, our protagonist. Prue's parents, desperate to conceive a child, followed the advice of a carnie fair woman, and met Alexandra on a ghost bridge after they rang a bell. (Soooo Jadis in Carn!) Alexandra touched Prue's mother's belly and created life. It's either a metaphor to Elizabeth or Mary in the Bible... but in both cases, it smacks of anti-Catholicism. In return for a child, Prue's parents promise their second child, if they ever have one, to Alexandra. (Hence, the Rumpelstiltskin reference above.) Why does she want the child; to replace her dead son? No - she wants to sacrifice the innocent life and let an ivy vine feed on Mac's flesh and blood (anti-Catholic in it's symbolism); she will then control the ivy (vague reference to controlling the Church and Her people) and direct it to destroy South Wood and all the other Woods and creatures."
I mean wow. If the author inserted this symbolism on purpose, he's brilliant. If he did it on accident, he's secretly brilliant. Either way, even if it was all true, and the author and illustrator were secretly attacking the Roman Catholic Church, the chance that a child might be familiar enough with heraldic symbolism to interpret its meaning, and thereby decipher the encoded effrontery, is staggering. This doesn't sound like a blatant attack on anything. Philip Pullman killed God in his series--that's blatant. The devices used in Wildwood sound more like those you'd find in a classic fairytale.
But, once again, even if it was all true, I find the review far more disturbing than I could possibly find the book. Christ's message was always one of love and tolerance, but this review from a self-declared Christian is full of hate and vitriol. She attacks and labels every person that could possibly disagree with her viewpoint and, in the process, she generates sympathy for the author.
In other words, she undermines the very thing she's trying to accomplish. In children's lit, one of the keys for gaining reader engagement is to generate as much sympathy as possible for your protagonist. The reviewer of Wildwood has effectively generated sympathy for the author, which has lead to increased sales. If you look at the comments on the review, you will see that many people, who were on the fence, decided to buy the book based on the review.
Not all bad reviews do this--particularly when the reviewer at least makes an attempt to sound reasonable--but crazy bad reviews... why, those are pure gold .
July 13, 2011
How to Write a Book - Part 1: Approach
<!-- /* Font Definitions */@font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}@page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;}div.Section1 {page:Section1;}-</style><span style="font-family: inherit;">The first draft of The Hunter Chronicles Book 2 is finished and I sent it to my editor at Simon & Schuster yesterday. Huzzah! </span><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Today, I'm starting on a new series. Nearly a year ago, I pitched several ideas to my agent, Steven Malk of Writer's House (this is his informal title; his formal title is Steven of the Very Helpful Insights, though I usually just call him "Glorious One" to keep it simple (he prefers it that way, if you're thinking of querying him. May your query letters abound o' Glorious One! *Note: the Glorious One is not accepting query letters at the moment, as far as I know. **Note: referring to your agent as "the Glorious One" is not recommended)). </span><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Steve has an amazing eye for market and story. He knows what publishers will buy and what readers will read, and where the two occasionally meet. From the half dozen or so ideas I sent him, he picked one he thought had real potential and we've been going back and forth on it ever since. </span><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Finding a good idea, especially one that hasn't been done before, is very difficult. In children's lit, if I write a book involving children and magic, I will get compared to Harry Potter, and if I write a book that touches on mythology, I will get compared to Percy Jackson. J.K. Rowling and Rick Riordan weren't the first to write on these subjects, but they did it best, and became the standard. They <i>own </i>the space, at least for the next decade or two. </span><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><span style="font-family: inherit;">That doesn't mean I can't write a book about a demigod that goes off to school and learns he's a wizard; it just means that if I do, I need to write it in an entirely different way. I need a different approach, and defining the approach begins when I move from idea to concept. </span><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Example idea:</b> <i>boy discovers he's a demigod and goes to school to become a wizard. </i></span><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Derivative, right? Now for the concept… </span><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><b><br style="font-family: inherit;" /></b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Example concept:</b> <i>an orphaned boy discovers he's a demigod after his goddess mother appears to him in a bowl of egg whites. Upset that he's been orphaned, the boy rejects his heritage and attends a school for outcasts, where he learns to become a wizard, and finds out his father is a god-wizard hybrid named Kronos-Voldemort. </i></span><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Okay, wow… I actually like that concept now that I've written it. But the point is, approach matters more than the idea. Don't get me wrong—a bad idea will kill a book</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">—</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">but the right approach can save many bad ideas, whereas not even the greatest writing can save a bad approach. Great writing and a bad approach is called "literature" and nobody wants to read it. </span><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><span style="font-family: inherit;">The approach is my jumping off point. An approach includes my choices for milieu, plot, character, prose style — everything I will need before I write a single line of the actual book. Only when I've finished the book will I have a "story." </span><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><br style="font-family: inherit;" /><span style="font-family: inherit;">That's all for now. Next time, I'll either forget to follow up on this, or I'll write something about a dystopian future where games turn deadly, and masons hide secret symbols in the crumbling ruins of the United States Capitol — secrets that could stop the games forever and <i>save us all</i>... (:$@$$:)</span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com...' alt='' /></div>
July 5, 2011
Questions and Answers
E. J. Patten Revealed Q&A from Simon & Schuster
Q. How would you describe your life in only 8 words?A. Trap-builder by day, shadow by night. Frequently exhausted.Q. What is your motto or maxim?A. Power, without compassion, is the greatest evil there is.Q. How would you describe perfect happiness?A. A good book and time to read it.Q. What's your greatest fear?A. A squirrel uprising. Also, dentists.Q. If you could be anywhere in the world right now, where would you choose to be?A. I generally prefer to be "on" the world, but if I had to be "in" it, I would probably choose a cenote near Cancun.Q. With whom in history do you most identify?A. Eggsplint Poppycock, the Nearly Unknown. He was the most famous beet farming serf in the small Roman village of Snarquisquid in the forgettable middle part of the 4th century.Q. Which living person do you most admire?A. My wife.Q. What are your most overused words or phrases?A. "Quite," "Really," and "That's my spork."Q. What do you regret most?A. The eighties, followed closely by cordaroy pants.Q. If you could acquire any talent, what would it be?A. The ability to acquire more talents.Q. What is your greatest achievement?A. Convincing my wife to marry me.Q. What's your greatest flaw?A. That when asked a question about my greatest flaw, I make a joke out of it.Q. What's your best quality?A. I care.Q. If you could be any person or thing, who or what would it be?A. A squirrel leader leading a squirrel uprising against dentists.Q. What trait is most noticeable about you?A. My goatee. It's very prominent.Q. Who is your favorite fictional hero?A. Harrison Ford.Q. Who is your favorite fictional villain?A. Darth Vader.Q. If you could meet any historical character, who would it be and what would you say to him or her?A. I would want to meet Caesar, and I would say, "Beware the ides of March...also, Brutus is plotting to kill you. You might want to look into that. Oh, and, er, could I borrow some money--you being an emperor and all? Just until my next advance comes in, I swear I'm good for it! No? Fine then, forget what I said about the ides!"Q. What is your biggest pet peeve?A. My biggest pet was a golden retriever named "Bridger," and please don't call me Peeve. Oh. I misread that. Do I still have space to ansQ. What is your favorite occupation, when you're not writing?A. Being unemployed.Q. What's your fantasy profession?A. Being Harrison Ford.Q. What 3 personal qualities are most important to you?A. Compassion. Adaptability. A sense of humor.Q. If you could eat only one thing for the rest of your days, what would it be?A. Burritos stuffed with pizza, bread pudding, and french fries.Q. What are your 5 favorite songs?A. Not necessarily in order: "Foruna Imperatrix Mundi: O Fortuna" by Carl Orff. "Battle of Evermore" by Led Zepplin. "Wish You Were Here" by Pink Floyd. "Viva La Vida" by Coldplay. "Black Wings" by Tom Waits. On Books and Writing
Q. Who are your favorite authors?A. The ones that write books. But, more specifically:In middle reader/YA: J.K. Rowling, Roald Dahl, Lewis Carroll, Brandon Mull, James Dashner, Dan Wells, Rick Riordan, Suzanne Collins, and many others.In adult fiction: J.R.R. Tolkein, Steven Erikson, Neal Stephenson, Orson Scott Card, Umberto Eco, William Gibson, Susanna Clarke, and many others. Q. What are your 5 favorite books of all time?A. Not in order: Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, Neuromancer, Ender's Game, and Snow Crash.Q. Is there a book you love to reread?A. Harry PotterQ. Do you have one sentence of advice for new writers?A. Write, and stop reading any writing advice that can be distilled down to a single sentence.Q. What comment do you hear most often from your readers?A. I love it, I Love It, I LOVE IT! And I'm also very confused...
Q. How would you describe your life in only 8 words?A. Trap-builder by day, shadow by night. Frequently exhausted.Q. What is your motto or maxim?A. Power, without compassion, is the greatest evil there is.Q. How would you describe perfect happiness?A. A good book and time to read it.Q. What's your greatest fear?A. A squirrel uprising. Also, dentists.Q. If you could be anywhere in the world right now, where would you choose to be?A. I generally prefer to be "on" the world, but if I had to be "in" it, I would probably choose a cenote near Cancun.Q. With whom in history do you most identify?A. Eggsplint Poppycock, the Nearly Unknown. He was the most famous beet farming serf in the small Roman village of Snarquisquid in the forgettable middle part of the 4th century.Q. Which living person do you most admire?A. My wife.Q. What are your most overused words or phrases?A. "Quite," "Really," and "That's my spork."Q. What do you regret most?A. The eighties, followed closely by cordaroy pants.Q. If you could acquire any talent, what would it be?A. The ability to acquire more talents.Q. What is your greatest achievement?A. Convincing my wife to marry me.Q. What's your greatest flaw?A. That when asked a question about my greatest flaw, I make a joke out of it.Q. What's your best quality?A. I care.Q. If you could be any person or thing, who or what would it be?A. A squirrel leader leading a squirrel uprising against dentists.Q. What trait is most noticeable about you?A. My goatee. It's very prominent.Q. Who is your favorite fictional hero?A. Harrison Ford.Q. Who is your favorite fictional villain?A. Darth Vader.Q. If you could meet any historical character, who would it be and what would you say to him or her?A. I would want to meet Caesar, and I would say, "Beware the ides of March...also, Brutus is plotting to kill you. You might want to look into that. Oh, and, er, could I borrow some money--you being an emperor and all? Just until my next advance comes in, I swear I'm good for it! No? Fine then, forget what I said about the ides!"Q. What is your biggest pet peeve?A. My biggest pet was a golden retriever named "Bridger," and please don't call me Peeve. Oh. I misread that. Do I still have space to ansQ. What is your favorite occupation, when you're not writing?A. Being unemployed.Q. What's your fantasy profession?A. Being Harrison Ford.Q. What 3 personal qualities are most important to you?A. Compassion. Adaptability. A sense of humor.Q. If you could eat only one thing for the rest of your days, what would it be?A. Burritos stuffed with pizza, bread pudding, and french fries.Q. What are your 5 favorite songs?A. Not necessarily in order: "Foruna Imperatrix Mundi: O Fortuna" by Carl Orff. "Battle of Evermore" by Led Zepplin. "Wish You Were Here" by Pink Floyd. "Viva La Vida" by Coldplay. "Black Wings" by Tom Waits. On Books and Writing
Q. Who are your favorite authors?A. The ones that write books. But, more specifically:In middle reader/YA: J.K. Rowling, Roald Dahl, Lewis Carroll, Brandon Mull, James Dashner, Dan Wells, Rick Riordan, Suzanne Collins, and many others.In adult fiction: J.R.R. Tolkein, Steven Erikson, Neal Stephenson, Orson Scott Card, Umberto Eco, William Gibson, Susanna Clarke, and many others. Q. What are your 5 favorite books of all time?A. Not in order: Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, Neuromancer, Ender's Game, and Snow Crash.Q. Is there a book you love to reread?A. Harry PotterQ. Do you have one sentence of advice for new writers?A. Write, and stop reading any writing advice that can be distilled down to a single sentence.Q. What comment do you hear most often from your readers?A. I love it, I Love It, I LOVE IT! And I'm also very confused...
July 1, 2011
Behind the Book
This morning, I wrote this "Behind the Book" expose of Return to Exile for Simon & Schuster, and thought I'd post it:
Years ago, I had a story idea: a group of kids get the powers of their Halloween costumes and go on an adventure to save Halloween. For a time, I worked somewhat indirectly with the producer of "Jurassic Park" and "Minority Report" to mold the idea into a mediocre screenplay that neither of us much liked. We parted ways and he kindly offered to buy the story rights, but I held on, believing that I could turn it into something much better.
I should've sold the rights. The only thing I kept from my original story was the name Sky Weathers. I like the name. It renders images of hope and survival, weathering storms and reaching beyond your inherent limitations.
When I returned to the story years later, and decided to turn it into my debut novel, I realized that I wanted it to be a different kind of story, something grander and richer, more heroic and epic than what it had been. I was inspired by Tolkien's rich milieu stemming from a sprawling history with long-lived characters and forgotten stories. Lovecraft inspired me to abandon existing mythologies and create an unknown and sometimes frightening world within our own. For story themes, I looked to the Middle East. For action and pacing I looked at Percy Jackson, and for narrative voice and story development, I turned to Harry Potter.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows was a particular source of inspiration. I love the way Rowlings forced Harry, Ron, and Hermione to wander, confused and lost, depending only on each other, with no clear way through until they chose it. She gave them lots of options, muddied the waters, and wove a tale that more closely resembles the complex world we all face. It's a much harder and far less common way to tell a story, especially in speculative fiction where characters are often given a quest with a difficult yet obvious path to the end.
While these things inspired me, I wanted Return to Exile to be fresh and original, which required a different sort of approach.
This may disgust you, but when I was a kid, I loved to go to the garbage dump and find "treasures" in the trash. My family was fairly poor and I used to dream of things I could invent to make us rich. With Return to Exile, I recalled those fond and somewhat disturbing memories and I worked them into the story, giving Sky and his friends equipment they built for themselves using mostly garbage.
To flesh out the characters, I thought long and hard and decided to base each of the core monster hunters—Sky, Crystal, T-Bone, Hands, and Andrew—on a fairytale so that I could work in specific themes.
Sky was Hansel and Gretel, following breadcrumbs. Crystal was Pinocchio, a broken girl full of lies, struggling to become real. T-Bone's family came from the nursery rhyme "there was an old woman who lived in a shoe." Hands, like Little Red Riding Hood, visited his grandpa at the old folks home on Riding and First, a home "run by wolves." And finally, Cinderella inspired Andrew, as is most apparent in his two wicked stepsisters who speak like characters from a Jane Austen novel (is there anything more wicked than this?).
Many of these fairytale origins slipped into the background as I developed the characters, but you can still see them if you look closely.
Return to Exile is filled with hidden things. Like Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings, it's the kind of story that's not only enjoyable the first time around, but also replete with subtle textures and clues, and meant to be read more than once. It's an epic fantasy adventure full of complex characters, hard choices, unique monsters, long-lived hunters, sprawling histories, terrible secrets, and powerful forces threatening to rip the world apart. Read it and reread it. I think you'll like it.
June 28, 2011
Anatomy of a Monster
Creating monsters, whether for stories, or in real life, takes some work. Especially in real life. It's not as simple as swapping human bits with animal bits, or digging up dead body parts and reanimating them in a lightning storm, or sprinkling glitter all over your skin and talking in a low voice, or changing your name to Larry.
Trust me. These things don't work. If they did, you'd be reading a blog written by a glittery penguin with the head of an ostrich, and Mark Twain's eyebrows. Also, I would be called Larry, and as I am clearly not called Larry, but E.J., it is clear that these things don't work. Not alone anyway.
If your goal is simply to create something for your story characters, or your bored friends, to hunt on a deserted island, boarding school, or starship, then by all means, hunt the glittery penguin. The penguin's motivation is simple: it's very hungry and Mark Twain's eyebrows have given it ideas about the fine quality of human meat. It must die. Cut it off from the glitter supply that's made Mark Twain's eyebrows sentient, and you've got an ending.
But lately, it seems, glittery penguins are beginning to get the cold shoulder in most mediums, particularly books.
Monsters have become not just something to kill, but something to understand, something to root for. In many instances, monsters have become the new hero by conquering their dark nature and rising to the story challenge.
Characters like Professor Lupin and Hagrid in Harry Potter, or the Cullen family in Twilight, or Rauschtlot in Return to Exile (yes, I just referenced my own book) are perfect examples. These types of characters represent a dramatic and encouraging shift in the way we tell stories. Thinking in terms of us versus them and good versus evil has led to some of the worst behaviors and wars in history.
Nearly everyone is good in their own mind, and if they're good, then those who oppose them must be evil. When both sides see themselves as right and good, war, in all its shapes and forms, is the inevitable outcome. And when I say war, I'm talking about everything from heated arguments between individuals to conflicts between nations. That's not to say that there aren't good and bad things--because there are--but good and bad people are a different matter entirely.
The best monsters are not creatures of external horror, but of internal complexity. Give them terrible urges and needs. Give them reasons to be better than they are. Show them struggling against their natures. In other words, make them like us. Because in the end, none of us are human.
We are all monsters.
Trust me. These things don't work. If they did, you'd be reading a blog written by a glittery penguin with the head of an ostrich, and Mark Twain's eyebrows. Also, I would be called Larry, and as I am clearly not called Larry, but E.J., it is clear that these things don't work. Not alone anyway.
If your goal is simply to create something for your story characters, or your bored friends, to hunt on a deserted island, boarding school, or starship, then by all means, hunt the glittery penguin. The penguin's motivation is simple: it's very hungry and Mark Twain's eyebrows have given it ideas about the fine quality of human meat. It must die. Cut it off from the glitter supply that's made Mark Twain's eyebrows sentient, and you've got an ending.
But lately, it seems, glittery penguins are beginning to get the cold shoulder in most mediums, particularly books.
Monsters have become not just something to kill, but something to understand, something to root for. In many instances, monsters have become the new hero by conquering their dark nature and rising to the story challenge.
Characters like Professor Lupin and Hagrid in Harry Potter, or the Cullen family in Twilight, or Rauschtlot in Return to Exile (yes, I just referenced my own book) are perfect examples. These types of characters represent a dramatic and encouraging shift in the way we tell stories. Thinking in terms of us versus them and good versus evil has led to some of the worst behaviors and wars in history.
Nearly everyone is good in their own mind, and if they're good, then those who oppose them must be evil. When both sides see themselves as right and good, war, in all its shapes and forms, is the inevitable outcome. And when I say war, I'm talking about everything from heated arguments between individuals to conflicts between nations. That's not to say that there aren't good and bad things--because there are--but good and bad people are a different matter entirely.
The best monsters are not creatures of external horror, but of internal complexity. Give them terrible urges and needs. Give them reasons to be better than they are. Show them struggling against their natures. In other words, make them like us. Because in the end, none of us are human.
We are all monsters.
