Parents (Which I sort of already did but whatever)

Number 1: Yes, I know I haven't updated in a little while. Life happens :P

Number 2: I know that I've already sort of talked about this character in my post about mothers but hey, fathers should be thrown into the mix as well.

Parents are tricky in all genres of fiction, but especially in Young adult. That's because most people think that the best way to capture the mind set of a teenager is to pit them against their parents who totally don't understand them. They're, like, so old fashion.

This gets under my skin, of course, but that's not to say it can't be done well. So let's take a look at stereotypes vs. 3D characters for parents!

Stereotype: This can go several different ways. First, the parent can be there just to be a part of the conflict. They hold the MC back, cause drama in their life, or just don't understand. This usually falls short when the issues they get in fights over are trivial, as opposed to something really debilitating (Like physical and emotional abuse). Bad parents in fiction aren't bad, per say  unless their arguments with their child are trivial and, like, so old fashion. (Ok I'll stop with the 'like' bit).

The other stereotype is the dead parent... yeah. YA books have crazy 'kill off the parents' syndrome, often because they just don't want to have to deal with writing their characters. This can work too, so long as it has purpose in the story. Like the death of the MC's parents come into play or effect them throughout the book.

3D characters: This can go several ways as well. First of all, if you're going to make your parents emotionally or physically abusive, they should have a reason. No one is abusive just to be abusive (Outside of psychopaths but we will get to them later) so every parent who hurts their child must have some kind of reason to do so. There should be an attempt at understanding why the parent does what they do. They shouldn't just be villainized.

The dead or missing parent should also have a reason, as I said, for being dead or missing. At the start of my book, the father is dead and left the MC at a young age. But he plays a really major role in the story both plot wise, and in developing my MC's character.

Or, crazy thought, you could make the parents nice.

Mind blown? I'll give you a moment.

Done? Ok good.

You see, I like reading books about genuinely helpful parents. I love Mo in Inkheart as he is such a carrying, awesome dad. I love Molly Weasley. I like Tris' mom in the Divergent books. Nice parents can be really awesome. They don't have to be the source of conflict. They can help the MC.

That's jut my personal thoughts on 3D vs. stereotypical characters. Of course your opinion is your opinion and I can sometimes be guilty of that 'dead parent' stereotype.

In other news I got another partial request, and then rejection. True I've gotten two partial rejections, but at least I got requests in the first place!

Now I'm kind of a contest guru. I'm obsessively entering in whatever I can find, so fingers crossed for good results!

Not sure what my next special will be on but see you then!

-Authoress Anonymous

Divergent Book Review (This gonna be a long one)

Well this is going to run a little long. Usually my book reviews do get rather specific because I like to analyze what makes books good or bad. In this case... it's bad. The book is a popular Dystopian I'm sure you've heard of: Divergent.

Now first off, when I make these reviews this is all personal opinion. This is nothing against the author who wrote the piece or the people who do enjoy the book because everything gets a something different out of a novel. For me, I didn't get much, but that shouldn't stop any of you for liking the book.

First we'll start out with the spoiler free section of the review for those who haven't read it.

The book is set in a dystopian society where every child at the age of sixteen must choose which "faction" they will belong to for the rest of their lives. These factions are all centered around a seperate virtue: Dauntless, Erudite, Candor, Abnegation, and Amity. The book follows Tris, a girl from Abnegation who shows aptitude for more than one virtue and is named "Divergent". She defects to the Dauntless near the start of the book.

The writing style: I really have no qualms with this part of the book. In fact if there's one thing Veronica Roth has mastered, it's creating a page turner. Sentences are often and short and sweet and move the book along very quickly. She doesn't linger on anything or analyze anything to much and leaves much of the interpretation to the reader. Only problem is, the more interpretation allowed, the more misinterpretation and I think some things in this book rubbed off on me the wrong way.

The characters: Here's where I first started to struggle in this book. The characters. For the most part I either out right hated them or just found them bland and forgettable. Characters are the most important thing to me in books. I can forgive any sloppy plot if I'm in love with the characters. Unfortunately this book didn't do it for me.

So let's break it down and start with our main heroin: Tris.

I like to analyze characters through their authors as I said. And what do you know? Tris happens to be one of Ms. Roth's two favorite characters. Veronica Roth said that "she liked Tris because of how strong she was but also because she could show vulnerability and acknowledge she needs other people to help her."

Ooh boy, did I not get that out of Tris.

This is actually the only character I felt strong emotion towards and unfortunately it was of the negative type. She just made no sense to me. At her core she seemed like a very selfish, cold, violent person but got the feeling she wasn't supposed to be that way. In the beginning of the book she was fine and seemed a bit out of place in the Dauntless society. Which made sense because she was described as smaller and clumsy. But as she got more and more integrated into society and her peers started to accept and love her more and more, I started to dislike her, which I don't think should have been my response. She just seemed to lose who she was to the point that I had no idea who she was.

Let me explain, the only time where I actually believed the character is when she was in her violent or cold state, which as made obvious by my post on the tough girl stereotype, I don't like unless it is explained or makes sense. She does some violent things and really doesn't feel any guilt for it. Occasionally she questions her actions but this is brushed over very quickly I almost feel like it's a lazy attempt to make Tris seem in the right.

The same thing happens with emotions. Occasionally Tris will "almost cry" or "feel guilty" but these moments seem so sporadic and quick I don't understand her motivation for feeling them. I'm not sure what makes her sad or what makes her angry. I just have to take the books word for it and I don't believe what the book is telling me. She also had an unrealistic progression of athletic ability when she suddenly, despite the fact that she was clumsy a few chapters ago, wins a fight based soely on her quick moves and stellar reflexes... against an opponent twice her size. I call major BS on that.

In my opinion Tris was a very selfish main character and I'll get to what irritates me most about her in the spoilers section.

But that's ok, because side characters can often make up for some of the damage the main character causes. I mean, even in Twilight where I hated Bella with a passion I still liked some of the minor characters like Alice.

Unfortunately so little time is spent with the side characters... I mean they're there but they don't really have a discernible personality throughout their conversations. I can some up their characters in about one word. The best friend was honest, the other friend was logical, the other friend was insecure, the bullies were... stereotypical bullies.

Which speaking of which: One of those bullies is named Peter. Peter was the second of the author's two favorite characters because as she described him "he's the kind of kid who tortured insects on the playground." and he is "morally bankrupt."

Why that sounds facinating! But is he sadistic or interesting? No. He's a typical bully. He's kind of like Draco Malfoy if he didn't get any character development. The character who actually did seem sadistic was Eric, one of the instructors for Dauntless. He was one of the few characters I was interested in. Him and Tris' mom, who discussed in an earlier post. I was honestly much more interested in the mom's story than Tris'.

Our final character is Four. The love interest. And I swear he was the only saving grace about this book... until the end. But I'll get to that in a minute. This was someone who's motivations I understood; someone who was cold because of the environment he was put in and he wasn't at all perfect... ok, he kind of was in the fact that he was the perfect dauntless student but he had attitude issues that made him seem like a normal person.

The one problem I had with him was he seemed older. Maybe it's because he was a teacher and I was picturing someone in their twenties. Maybe it was his calm demeanor (Which isn't typical of 18 year old boys) I don't know but because of that I found Tris' relationship with him a bit... creepy. I know his age but I couldn't get a picture of an adult out of my head.

Unfortunately he faltered as well, but I'll get to that in the spoilers section.

The world: This world, on the surface, seemed pretty cool. I did think the design of the dauntless initiation was well constructed and flawed as it should have been (Since true bravery doesn't seem to be highly valued any more). I thought it was cool it was set in Chicago and it seemed like an original premise.

Only problem is, I can't for the life of me decide what idiot politician thought this world was a good idea for creating a stable environment.

With most Dystopian societies, you see why they were constructed even if you don't agree with them. They are usually made because some great conflict in the past that made it clear that democracy could no longer reign. Therefore they create a stricter political system that will keep peace among the people.

But with this world you are dividing your people up into five factions that clearly don't agree with each other. You decided to keep peace by pointing out people's differences? WHY? To make matters worth some people don't even get a faction. The factionless are impoverished and without a home. Did the government think it was a good idea to isolate people and make them feel like they don't belong? How does that create peace?

And it's not just that they force people to choose a side, but having an aptitude in multiple areas (Divergent) is forbidden. Why? If you have aptitudes in multiple areas why aren't you celebrated. You have the ability to see multiple sides of an argument and could make a great leader among the people and hold them together. Is this government actually saying that you're a bad person if you're well rounded? No wonder s many of the side characters weren't interesting. They had a one dimensional personality based on one virtue!


Story: So one of the underlying conflicts of this story was tension between the factions I was thinking: "Whoopdee doo! What did you think was going to happen?!" Pointing out peoples differences never got them to cooperate!

Apparently the abnegation and erudite are in a tense situation because erudite claims that abnegation is abusing their power and hoarding stuff for themselves... why are they saying that? If abnegation values selflessness then why would they be doing something selfish? It's not like Erudite is saying the Dauntless are deserting the security forces or Amity is being mean or Candor is lying to increase their power. How does their accusation make sense and why does everyone seem to believe it?

And why wasn't this book about the Factionless and an uprising they make. Wouldn't that conflict make a lot more sense. I feel like we could learn a lot more from that story line. And Tris' arc doesn't really add to this whole conflict. It just makes it seem more implausible.

Spoilers: Alright, here's the part where those of you who want to read the book leave. Because I'm talking about the ending.

The problem with this book is that while it's fast paced and well written, you can see the twists coming from a mile away. There were no real surprises in this book. It's like I figured out a twist and was just waiting for it to get there. Then several chapters later it finally got there. The worst offender of this was Four, who's real name obviously isn't Four. As soon as they established that wasn't his real name I was like "Gee, I wonder if it's that one character they briefly mentioned at the beginning who defected to the Dauntless from Abnegation?" Conclusion: Yep.

There were three things in particular that annoyed me about the ending. First, how insensitive Tris was. I swear one of her friends and both of her parents were shot and she gave it so little thought. She felt more emotion to her love interest who she had barely known for a few months and not her MOTHER! That just pissed me off. I just felt like she brushed these deaths off like: Whatever. Sucks. And then just dropped it! It drove it home for me how much I disliked her character.

Second was Four. Because while the other side characters were quite obviously as boring as peaces of cardboard, Four was secretly a piece of cardboard with a veil in front of him that said "I"M MYSTERIOUS! I SWEAR!" The payoff for his character was disappointing.

Third: The message. Or lack there of, because I'm honestly not sure what I was supposed to learn from this. At the end of the day, hundreds are dead, the factions are in ruin, life is terrible but I'm not sure what came out of it? What was the message? That it's important to embrace more than one virtue? I think most people knew that. That similarities are more important than differences? Been done. That war is bad?

...I'm reaching here. I don't know. It really felt like the massive loss of life was all for nothing and sense the main character seemed to care so little about it, so did I.

Sorry this was a long one... consider it making up for the two weeks I'll be gone. Until then!

-Authoress Anonymous

The tough girl stereotype (And why it's very hit and miss)

So we've talked about Disney Princesses and mothers and villainesses. All have their fair share of stereotypes and things that bother me.

But surprisingly, one of the stereotypes that bugs me the most is the one that goes on the opposite end of the spectrum from the damsel in distress. And that is the tough girl.

Now don't take that the wrong way. I like strong female characters a lot. I'm all for women who can defend themselves and fight with the guys. I love Mulan, I love Katniss, and I love Eowyn who I mentioned in my first post on this topic. But there's something that they do right that others don't do right.

I'm going to break down my pet peeves about the tough girl into a few groups:

1. Nonsensical emotional range:

You know how there's always that tough woman in fantasy or Urban fantasy who takes out ten guys all by herself then says a witty one liner... after killing ten people? That's always bothered me, with men and women heroes. I'm someone who generally likes the loss of life to have weight. When someone dies, I don't like it when it's brushed off especially not with humor. Now in war movies I understand they can't linger on the deaths because it's war and death happens all the time. But they certainly don't make one liners.

With characters who are bad ass killing machines with no problems cutting people down, it usually makes more sense for them to be... non emotional. Because if you have a sense of humor after years of killing people (At least the witty, sarcastic "look at me being witty" sense) you must be pretty sadistic. And I don't want to see that in a main character unless it's supposed to be there. This is prevalent in male characters (James Bond anyone) but especially in tough female characters these days. Writers want their character to be cool and collected and badass but also be funny. And that just. doesn't. work with me. It's not realistic, and it's almost sadistic if you think about it.

It's like in the last Harry Potter movie where Neville blew up a bridge and sent hundreds of wizards falling and screaming to their gruesome deaths. He climbs up onto a bridge and says "That went well."

Except with a girl instead.

An example of a character who handles the gruesome nature of death with a realistic attitude is Katniss from the Hunger Games. She was prepared to kill for survival but she was still disgusted when she did it. She didn't ever laugh or crack a witty one liner with Rue after they blew up the supplies. When she did make a witty retort it was because she knew the audience was watching and she needed to give them a show, which goes to show what people like to watch. That was very well done. It made sense.

Other characters, not so much.

2. Physical downsides of being a woman

I know women like to say: We can be just as strong as the guys. And we can... but not in the same ways. Biologically it isn't possible for us to build as much muscle mass. The average size of women is also considerably less than the size of men. Because of this downside, a punch from a woman may not make as great of an impact as a punch from a man.

Now obviously some women can be stronger than some men because there are wimpy guys or just guys who aren't particularly strong. But think about women in fantasy and urban fantasy: They're usually attractive. That means skinny. That means not as much muscle mass. And if I read about said skinny girl taking down four men twice her size, I'm often tempted to call BS, especially if it's won on strength alone like a fist fight. If the woman has skill with a gun or knife, I'll buy that, because skill with weapons doesn't necessarily mean strength.

This can be done right too. I actually like it when books acknowledge the physical weaknesses of their main heroine. An example of who does this well is Mulan. This movie is constantly making fun of the difference between men and women and pointing out Mulan's disadvantages. She beats the bad guys by using her brain. She shot a cannon at a mountain, caused an avalanche, and destroyed most of the hun army. That's awesome.

Her final fight with the main villain is also awesome, even though I do call BS on her being able to knock his feet out from under him. I mean, his leg is about as thick as her whole body. But she is smart and doesn't try to confront him just with a sword... because she would probably lose. Because Shan Yu is three times her size and is a warrior who has practiced with the sword a lot more than her.

Another character who does this well is Arya from Game of Thrones (I've only seen the TV show so I'm going off of that). This is a tough female character but she's a kid, and a very small kid. But she is taught to use her sword in a way that suits her size, by reverting others force against them and by being quicker than her opponent. She loses fights but that doesn't make her unlikable. That makes her realistic and a better character.

3. Dislikeability

A woman who is too tough and too strong and played up to have little to know flaws... can often come across as an unlikeable character. That's the worst thing. When an author expects people to get behind this character who often has the previous flaws I've talked about, even though the character is actually selfish, cold and just has no redeeming values.

I hate to bring this up, because I know a lot of people like this book, but Tris, from Divergent, pisses me off so much. I've heard she's popular, I know this book is popular but I just can't stand her. I find her selfish, cold and very unrealistic. She actually fails at all three of the things I've mentioned. Someone who becomes more of a robot than an actual character I want to relate to. Her mother and father and many of her friends are killed in the same day and yet she doesn't bat an eyelash. 

I know I said that if a tough girl is to be done right, maybe they have to be colder. But Tris didn't start out that way. She just morphed from a pretty normal teenage girl to this harsh, unlikeable, "brave" person and it was supposed to be OK. If this was on purpose it would have been fine but we're supposed to like this character. And I just can't get over how mean spirited she is. It's not like with Katniss where she's not only trying to play to the crowd but she also does recognize her flaws and tries not to lose herself. Tris is also trying to play to her new sector and get recognition but she does lose herself along the way. The book just doesn't realize it. Which is really sad.

I'll talk more about this in my eventual review of Divergent and leave it at that for now. Maybe it's just a personal thing but Tris really rubbed me the wrong way.

So that's all for the tough girl. I may do something else on this in the future but until then we'll leave it at this.

And yes... tomorrow is the inevitable Bella Swan rant.

Be afraid.

-Authoress Anonymous

Mothers in Fiction (An Advancement or not?)

Anyone noticed this lately? An overpowering working mother with no time for her kid because she's too busy making her place in the world?

How about this? The mother that just doesn't understand her child because she's SO old fashion

And how about an evil step mother?

I must admit I don't really like the rep a lot of mothers are getting in YA fiction, particularly in contemporary pieces. (And in fantasy half the time the suffer from off screen death)

So lets look at a few mothers done right.

Molly Weasley: We all know this woman. It's too bad because a lot of people considered her to be a typical housewife rather than a progressive female character. In fact a reporter (Female reporter, might I add) even told J.K. Rowling "But she's just a mother."

Which understandably irked J.K. Rowling. She didn't see what was so wrong about a woman choosing to raise a family and not throwing herself into the working world. In fact Rowling is a mother herself, adding insult to injury.

This little encounter was one of the things that led J.K. Rowling to the infamous "Molly kills Bellatrix scene." She was going to have Molly do something strong to show she was just as powerful as the men, even if she did choose to raise a family. And I respect her for that. Molly Weasley was a kind and caring mother who worked hard and cared deeply about her children. And that is not a crime. It's a choice.

Rachel Morgan: Heard of her? She's from the Gallagher Girl series. And this is one of the few series where I've seen a teenager who totally looks up to her mom and wants to be like her. A typical conflict is "My mom doesn't get me. So old fashion. I never want to be like her." Rachel Morgan however, is portrayed in a positive light.

She's a very strong woman (And a spy) and she cares about her daughter just as much as any mother so we don't have the "Strong working woman neglects her family scenario". And because Cammie likes her, we like her. I like the portrayal of strong mother-daughter relationships.

Natalie Prior: This is the mother from Divergent. And before we go any further, I would like to mention that I strongly dislike this book and most of the characters in it. Honestly. But that's going to a review for another time. Natalie Prior is one of the few characters I like because she was both selfless and kind but also brave so you could see why she transferred from Dauntless. And the lengths she was willing to go to to protect her daughter are quite admirable. She's also very smart and wary of the danger Abnegation faces. I mainly just like her for being a strong character who seemed submissive and classic "gentle woman" but turned out to be very brave. She was one of the only characters in that book who actually surprised me.

Which is why it's a shame that her daughter showed so little emotion towards her... but that's a review for another time.

In my book: Admittedly, my mother character doesn't have a huge role in the book because she doesn't get as much page time but I made an effort to make a good relationship between her and the main character, her daughter. I'll go ahead and say: Her name is Christina, since that's not really giving anything away. Christina is a working woman but she still cares about her daughter. She is strong and sharp tongued and doesn't cry much though this is largely due to the fact that she tries to be strong for the main character. And while she is still flawed (Because she sort of keeps a lot of secrets) she wouldn't give up her daughter for anything.

I wanted to see more positive mother-daughter relationships so I wrote one.

So that's my schpiel on mothers and making them three dimensional characters in YA fiction. Tomorrow I think I'm going to talk about villainous and their prose and cons. (But the Bella Swan rant is coming... oh it's coming)

Thanks for reading!

-Authoress Anonymous