Movie Review: Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters

Dear Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters,
You know, I remember when I saw your older brother. I felt quite miffed about changes they made to the book and characters. Changes that, I felt, were unnecessary. But I thought it functioned relatively well as a movie in it's own right. For the most part. (I'm not going to go into Persephone and how much wrongness happened on that front)
Well, Sea of Monsters. You clearly decided to push new boundaries with quality, showing us the lengths a sequel can go to to recover from the failings of the former. So I believe thanks is in order.
First of all, I'm so glad that you decided to make your own opening. I mean, sure, I can see why a dodge ball game with monsters wouldn't be at all exciting. Not to mention better at establishing the character of Tyson before Percy realizes what he is. I'd say this paints their relationship in too positive a light. it makes Percy seem like a decent and non racist person. Which of course we can't have, can we movie? We need your forced conflict. We should have Percy be as selfish and mean as possible to his brother for the majority of the movie.
I'm also glad that we chose not to have Grover captured at the beginning of the movie. After all, isn't that too good of a motivation for Percy to go on a quest? In the book his dilemma with his father not talking to him was a side conflict, pushed aside because he was afraid for his friend. Its a good thing that in the movie he only decided to go on the quest that didn't belong to him because he wanted to be special and prophesy worthy. Going after Grover would be too selfless a motivation. We can't have ourselves liking Percy, can we? And we NEEDED Grover's unbelievable wit. What is our movie without Grover's wit?
And thank you for making Annabeth weak and useless. I always thought that she had too strong a head on her shoulders, being a daughter of Athena. I'm glad you've put her back in her place: looking to Percy for everything. No longer is her character burdened by smarts or clever ideas. Ideas are Percy's job, messiah that he is. And after all, she's JUST the daughter of wisdom. Thank goodness we took out her flaw of hubris and replaced it with good old fashion racism. That makes her even more likable.
Now to be fair, she was racist in the books. Just better written and more complex.
You know what wasn't in the books? Kronos. No. No Kronos wasn't in the books. Not yet at least. Oh he made his little dream appearances and such and Luke was trying to resurrect him with the fleece. But he didn't almost come back to life at the end and have a huge battle. But who wants to see a climax with a giant cyclops?
We also really needed that scene in the belly of the giant monster, didn't we? Gosh. So much character development. Speaking of character development I'm glad we didn't have any sirens. It kept Annabeth from being burdened by depth and made sure that we didn't have any high emotional scenes.
Movie, you understood that far more emotion is found in a million death fake outs. Even though I didn't believe for a second that Grover, Percy, Annabeth or Tyson was dead any of the times you "killed" them, I felt such emotion in those scenes. Oh, and I'm glad you're going to fake kill of Luke every single movie. It really works with the realism of your script.
Not that the actors chose to have much emotion. I'm glad that the chemistry between these characters boiled like a stagnant puddle. It made me take every single attempt at emotion as a joke. This is good, since the actual jokes for the most part weren't funny. Thanks for keeping us on our toes.
Not that your script helped. The dialogue was written very poorly as if to show that you are willing to test the boundaries of cinema. Clever writing isn't needed, you tell us. Puns are the way of the future. And by writing in only a few clever moments we make the audience cherish the laughs they have. This is a true message on life. The amusing is finite. We must appreciate it when it comes in the form of Hermes and Dionysus. 
What I'm really trying to say, movie, is that you are a piece of poorly written, poorly acted, poorly paced, poorly plotted, unengaging, unfunny, cash-grabbing, passionless cinema and that, even removed from the book you did not follow, you do not work on a movie level. I am so glad that you proved that no one should have second chances, at least in the film world.
So we are left with these new facts: Percy is selfish, Annabeth is a useless racist, Clarice is awesome, just poorly written, Luke is the worst villain ever, Kronos can be defeated in a five minute battle and the sea of monsters only has one actual monster IN the sea.
But on the plus side, Tyson was adorable and the effects were good.
-Sincerely,
Authoress Anonymous
PS: I'm not even a hard core fan of the books and you still suck

NaNoWriSe Day 3 (Some progress)

Got back from Disney World at 12:00 yesterday and immediately crashed without writing, but who can blame me?

Fortunately there were some helpful plot bunnies today. I wrote a fight scene that I'm rather happy with. Fight scenes can often be difficult, given that some moves are difficult to translate into words. This one turned out well though.

The subject of progress today was my Young Adult Fantasy. The working title is Double Edged Blades but that could very well change. I'm certainly enjoying my characters but I think the most difficult part will be keeping the plot moving along.

Still, every chapter I complete is another step towards a finished manuscript so I shall trek on. I plan to wake up earlier tomorrow to get a jump on the day.
In the mean time, happy NaNoWriSe everyone!

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

The Bullies (Those soulless brats we deeply resent)

Let's face it: Writers love throwing in bully characters for the sole purpose of humiliating them. Probably because a lot of us were made fun of in school so we want to get back at those bullies by making fun of them for all of the world to see.

Believe it or not, I don't hate this one, depending on how it's done. If the stereotypical bully is a recurring, important part of the plot I will hate their guts. And not in a good way. I don't like one dimensional recurring characters. If you're going to keep the bully around, give them some development.

However sometimes bullies are very minor parts  of a story and only present for a few scenes. In that case, I'm willing to overlook them.

So let's take a dive into the stereotype and the 3D character.

Stereotype: This all depends on the gender. The male bully will usually be a popular jock who everyone loves but who is so mean and evil and shallow and all that bad stuff we're supposed to dislike. He beats up on the male MC, teases the female MC and is just a bastard. He doesn't have any real motivation for doing this outside of maybe, I don't know, the MC is new or different or something.

Same with the female bully except they are usually a super popular, beautiful gossip who uses emotionally crippling scenarios to ruin the MC. (Though wouldn't it be funny to see it the other way around? The male who gossips and the female who beats people up? But I digress) Whatever their gender or their look, they are pure evil.

The 3D character: Again, this depends on handling the bully. If the bully is a small part of your story, why spend time developing him? I personally have a bully around for two scenes and both are used to establish the violent personality of my MC's best friend. He's a tool and I didn't really mean for him to be an important part of the story.

But if the bully is a long term thing, give them something to redeem them. Tragic back story, motivation, it doesn't matter but they need a reason for hating you MC so much. Maybe the MC reminds them of their sibling who died in an accident they caused and because of their crushing guilt they feel a need to pick on the MC for bringing up such terrible memories.

That's just an idea, but I don't want to spend a huge portion of a book with a character who is jut cruel. I know that some kids really are cruel. I knew kids like that. But there's always a reason and that reason should be explored.

Bottom line, keep the bullies in but try to put a new twist on them. Depending on how you use them, they can be very interesting tools.

-Authoress Anonymous

The kid character (Just to start small)

Let's talk today about 'that kid character'. Now depending on what you are writing, this could mean different things. If you're writing fiction for children then your kid character is most likely the main character. But in this case I'm referring more to Young Adult and Adult books. This is the adorable character who often draws affection from most of the good guys. They are innocent, eager, and totally unaware of the harsh reality of life. So let's dive in and see the stereotype and the three dimensional character.

The stereotype: The child is a generic, cute younger sibling, friend or child of the main character, made either for the purpose of showing a harsher characters soft side or giving you a taste of the main characters normal life. Later on in the story they will likely be put in some kind of horrible danger (Kidnapped or something of that sort) and the main character will have to save them. We want to see them succeed because we don't want to see a kid get hurt or killed.

The problem with this kind of character, however, is that they're not really a character. They're more a tool to pull out feelings from the main character or motivate them to do something. Outside of a bubbly, innocent exterior, they are a plot device. And you never want your character to just be a plot device.

The 3D character: A kid becomes a character when they start making contributions on a deeper level. Maybe they help the main character out, maybe they make an emotional contribution outside of just making the readers go "aw!" Maybe they actually have some insight into a situation that adults couldn't see. The kid should have an arc like anyone else. It also helps if you don't just put them in there to be kidnapped.

A good example of a stereotype turned 3D in books is Prim Everdeen from the Hunger Games. She did basically start out as an innocent, adorable motivator to get Katniss into the Hunger Games. But later on in the books she contributes more. We get to see her connect more with her sister. She's a good nurse and she really wants to help people. Plus she's a little older than a typical younger sibling which allowed for a little more depth.

In anime, a character named Edward is a good example of a 3D kid character. She is from Cowboy Bebop (Yes I said she.) and she is bat s*** crazy insane. However, she's a genius, and can hack practically anything which helps the rest of the adult crew when they're trying to catch bounty heads. She is never kidnapped and she rarely is any danger at all. But she's still very helpful and her character doesn't need that 'Oh no! She's in danger!' aspect to make her awesome. Edward is still one of my favorite characters of all time.

In my book I have a character a little similar to Edward, except for she is more of a twelve year old stuck with a six year old mind. She isn't a hacker, but she can shape shift into a cat, which gives her the opportunity to spy on the villains. She contributes and she rarely gets into fights with them. I actually play with the idea of kids just being innocent because that's what a lot of the other characters think about her to. When things start getting darker, they want her to stay out of it, so she decides to prove she is useful to them. Even though she's young, she's not stupid.

And that's the key. Children aren't just innocent, adorable balls of fun. They are very smart and perceptive and they understand more than some people think. They can be a great tool so use them to your advantage!

-Authoress Anonymous

Characters (And the Joys they bring me)

Well it's been a little while since I did a series on something. I've done a series of posts on romance and a series of posts on women in fiction and now I'm just going to do a series on characters in general.

A little while back I did a post on my favorite characters in books and movies and how predictable they often are. Well now I'm just going to talk about every kind of character. And I mean every type. These posts will be categorized by stereotypes but will also verge into the characters that really go the extra mile to become less of a category and more of a real person.

So as a preface to this series, I'd like to talk about what characters mean to me.

I may have said it already on this blog but characters are my absolute favorite thing about both writing and reading. To create identifiable people who are almost as real as people in real life is a real treat. I like to fall for characters, become obsessed with characters, memorize every iota of the characters back story and rant about it to whoever will listen. When a character doesn't have a back story, I make it up, because I can.

In my own books I take character very seriously, to the point where I will do hundreds of character activities just for fun. I want to get to know my characters beyond what I write about them on a page. I know some things about my characters that most people will never know.

And that is a wonderful thing. Somehow I think characters reach people even better than a plot or a theme. Characters are the things we can relate the most to and the aspects of a novel that pull us the most into the book. They must be carefully constructed or you don't really have a novel.

Take as much care with your characters as you do your world and your theme. Because it's only through people that said plot and theme can really come across.

-Authoress Anonymous

Music (And the inspirational qualities it possesses)

I love music. I'm envious of it in fact. I'm envious of it's elusive ability to capture the realm of emotion with such perfection. Music can accomplish with emotion what words never can.

But as annoying it is that musicians can so accomplish what we authors cannot, it can also be inspirational. I know that I personally have created several playlists for my writing. Songs for action packed, epic scenes, songs for characters, songs for happy tones and depressing tones. But especially songs for pure emotion.

I find instrumental songs to be the best for this category. Songs that do not use words and are thus, somehow beyond a plain of existence we can totally understand.

I often turn to one composer in particular for my instrumental needs. Her name is Yoko Kanno. Ms. Kanno is a Japanese composer who can literally compose for every single genre. From heavy metal to beautiful classical pieces that fully capture emotions from joy and exhilaration to heartbreak and agony. Her work that isn't instrumental is sung in anything from English to Japanese to a language that she just...  made up herself. I know. Don't you just love those people?

She has music for just about every genre and every mood so I highly recommend checking her out. Look up Yoko Kanno playlist on youtube and you'll have a lot to work with.

What kind of music do you use for inspiration? Let me know.

Death Scenes (And my love hate relationship with them)

Since I'm back from the lovely writing workshop I suppose I'd better blog about what I've learned I'm good at. You know, my greatest strengths in writing. I have a lot of weaknesses too but there are a few things that just flow more easily onto the page when I type.

One of those things is death scenes.

Ah, death scenes. How I both love and despise you. What is it about you that makes me such a time bomb of emotional instability?

Well it's the reader and writer at war inside me of course. The reader in me is screaming, "HOW COULD YOU?! YOU ARE A TERRIBLE HUMAN BEING AND YOU DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE!" But the writer is saying, "Good, good! Make your readers cry! Squeeze every drop of depressing you possibly can out of these words. Dance puppets, dance!"

This is all going on at the same time while I write death scenes. I can't help but feel both self hatred and joy when I write because I am good at death scenes. I don't know what that says about me as a person but I'm good at making people cry.

So this year at the workshop I decided to try an experiment. I met a friend while I was there who was very empathetic and easily prone to tears. She cried at everything... well not everything... but she got easily invested in characters so when it came time for them to die she was sobbing. It was a kind of empathy that I really admired in her (Being a cold, heartless, cynic myself)

So I decided to try an experiment. I had written a death scene for my current project that was undoubtedly the saddest thing I ever wrote. It was so brutal I was crying when I wrote it and I don't really cry at books. So I wanted to take this scene that my friend had no prior emotional investment in and see if she would cry.

She did. Hard. And she screamed at me. Even though she didn't know this character. And I couldn't stop smiling because, well, SUCCESS!

Now, that's just my empathetic friend but imagine if she had been with these characters for four books. The reaction would be much more intense.

It's interesting that this is my talent because I've never witnessed death. The people I've known who have died I haven't been particularly close to. I don't know what it's like to feel that empty and can't right from experience. I just create it in my head somehow. I imagine the feeling. According to people who have read my stuff I'm pretty close.

Death scenes are also difficult for me to write in an emotional sense because I always seem to kill off my favorite characters. In fact in my top ten characters for my book every single one of them dies, almost dies or is psychologically tortured. Or sometimes more than one of these. It's just because I love them that much I guess.

What are your strengths in writing? What scenes come the easiest to you?

-Authoress Anonymous

My favorite characters (And how they're predictable)

I'm a predictable person when it comes to what I like. If you know me you can pretty much pick up any book at all and pick out my favorite character. If it's the right type of book. Generally it has to be fantasy, dystopian or adventure based in some way. Not realistic fiction. That's a bit more complex. But with those other genres it's pretty easy.

Basically most of my favorite characters are complex, sarcastic, middle aged men. Which is weird. Because I'm not at middle age yet so you'd think I'd still like the younger love interest.

I do not.

Not that I don't like those characters. I do. I just don't ever find myself as interested in them. Maybe it's because I'm a writer and I'm drawn to a more mysterious character I don't know as much about. If I don't know as much about them then I can fill in the gaps for myself and have a ton of fun thinking what might be their back story before the author themselves reveal it. Maybe it's because I have a very dry wit and you usually don't find that kind of humor in younger characters. Maybe I just like characters with a dark streak or a dark brooding past. Younger characters haven't had much time to have a dark brooding past. They're not even two decades old.

So let's dive into my psyche shall we, and find out why I like the characters I do.

1. I like bad guys

I'm not going to deny it. I have a soft spot for villains. In almost every book, move or anime I have a villain that I just enjoy the hell out of every time they make an appearance. 

I blame this on events deeply rooted in my childhood (Though that makes it sound really dramatic doesn't it?). My main playmate when I was a kid (Four or five) was my brother. My brother was the type of person who loved to stage epic battles between his action figures. Battles between good and evil that involved death and triumph. It's a lot for a five year old to absorb. Especially when said five year old's brother tried to make the battles complex. Like the bad guys sometimes won. Or if the bad guy didn't win and died, he had a son that he left behind. Or he had a tortured past. Or he and the main good guy used to be best friends.

Yep. Guess that explains my dark side. My brother instilled it in me at a young and impressible age.

But I'd like to clarify that my favorite character isn't usually the main bad guy. Like Voldemort wasn't my favorite character in Harry Potter. Sauron wasn't my favorite character in Lord of the Rings. And Lord Citius wasn't my favorite character in Star Wars. I like the side villains because they're generally less evil and more complex. And I can hypothesize a lot more about their fall from grace.

Really villains are just some of the most interesting characters because we want to know, as readers, where they went wrong. How did they fall so far and reach this point? What terrible things brought them to this state? Is there any humanity left in them? Is their hope for redemption?

With the main character and love interest, we nearly always know the good guy is going to make the right decision in the end, even if there are challenges and they are tempted by the bad side. Unless the book or movie is some character study about a fall from grace. Or a Shakespeare play. In YA in particular, the main good guys usually overcome the challenges. It's the side villains who are less predictable. We want to see if maybe there is more to them or if they'll do something good in the end.

And even if they don't we can always write alternate endings.

2. If they aren't a straight villain: They're still screwed up.

Even if my favorite character is on the "Good side", they still are very messed up. They still have done something bad in the past or make a huge mistake over the course of the book, they've had something horrible happen to them and they're jaded because of it, or it's just hard to get a read on them.

Or in my ideal character: All four.

Let's take a look at some of my favorite characters shall we?

Snape (Harry Potter): He's done something bad in the past, he's had horrible things happen to him, he's jaded, he's hard to get a read on and he switches sides about fifty thousand times (Or not really. We just think he does. I LOVE SNAPE!)

Darth Vadar (Like I need to tell you): He's screwed up, has made mistakes but was ultimately redeemed. My favorite kind of villain!

Basta (Inkheart): He's a villain, it is implied that he has had terrible things happen to him and he's not a nice guy over the course of the book. We also never find out in detail what happened to him so gues who's imagination got to go wild!

Joe Solomon (Gallagher Girl's series): He worked for an evil organization in the past, he's made mistakes, it's hard to get a read on him, and he's bad ass (Like James Bond if he wasn't a sexist pig and was actually an interesting character)

Boromir (Lord of the Rings): He was tempted by the ring and almost killed Frodo to get it. That's a pretty big mistake. (Also my second favorite character is Golum so... yeah, do I even need to list what's wrong with him?)

Haymitch (The Hunger Games): Horrible things have happened to him, he's made mistakes, he's jaded and he's a sarcastic drunk as an extra plus!

Spotting the trend now? I could list a lot of others and honestly the only reason that a sarcastic, mysterious, middle aged man with a bad streak isn't my favorite character in every single book I read is because sometimes there isn't one of those in the book.

Funny enough, they aren't my favorite characters because I'm attracted to them or anything like that. I would not want to date these guys. They would be trouble. I do feel like this kind of character is often liked by women who really want a project. Someone to fix. That's fine for them but I'm just that nerdy writer who likes characters because they're good characters.

It's a concept that a lot of people fail to understand when I say: My favorite character is Haymitch. They reply "You like him? Peeta is the hottest."

Since when did your favorite character have to be the one you're attracted to? Thank God I didn't say Effie.

-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

Bella Swan (What she tried to accomplish and why she failed)

Alright. Here it is. The inevitable post. I am finally going to talk about one of the most infamous heroins of all time.

I think everyone has done this. We've heard almost everything bad about her. She's pretentious, she's whiny, she's boy dependent, she can't take care of herself, and she's all around a very bland character. Nothing new.

But I'm going to go a little deeper into why I think a lot of people hate Bella so much, particularly regular readers. It's not just because she's a poorly constructed character, but also because we can see what she was intended to be. She had a blue print all lined out but then the work crew came in high as a kite with all the wrong building materials.

If that makes any sense.

So let's start from the beginning. I'm going to break this up into two sections:

1. The Self Insert Principal 
I often like to analyze main characters through their author because often said character has a lot in common with the person who wrote them. We are told to write what we know, so why not create a character with a similar thought process and belief system as you? Bella Swan was without a doubt based off of Stephanie Myer, even down to the appearance (Brown hair, brown eyes and pale skin).

But there's a real danger with doing this kind of thing. And here's why.

See, I'm quite involved in writing fanfiction. It's a fun hobby for a writer. It can help you improve your basic craft, but it also gives you a pass on world building and character development because you're working with characters that already exist. Even so it can still help you fine tune and practice. But if you've ever looked on fanfiction.net, you see a rather infamous trend. Self inserts.

Self inserts are original characters inserted into a world like Harry Potter or Twilight to live the story with the main characters, and thus live out the author's dreams. They are character's based off of the author, with emphasis on based off of because a self insert is not so much a correct portrayal of the author but a reimagined perfect version of who the author wishes they were. So if the author is a nervous, shy, nonathletic girl with acne, they suddenly become witty, kickass and of course: the most beautiful thing any of the guys have ever seen.

And you know what? That's fine for fanfiction. Because really the basic goal isn't to create a realistic character. It's for fun and it's usually written to fulfill some sort of fantasy. Let the writer dream a little. Now if it's poorly written that's another story but, you know.

Bella Swan suffered from the self insert principal. Because she was the ideal imagining of Stephanie Myer. Everyone loved her though there was nothing about her that actually made her friendly, inviting or warm, boys thought she was attracted and many of them vied for attention, and she ends up as the love interest for not one, but TWO, supernatural hotties.

That makes her more of a cardboard character and it strongly figures in to point number two of why she is so hated.

2. An Insult to the group she was meant to draw in


Bella Swan certainly wasn't your typical teen girl. She hates shopping, she's anti social, she's clumsy and bad at sports, she's sarcastic, she likes high literature, and she has two supernatural boyfriends.

And you know what? Minus the supernatural boyfriend part, those characteristics completely reflect me in high school. I wasn't ever interested in shopping or things other girls liked, I had trouble engaging in social situations because I was paranoid and didn't like small talk, I was and still am terrible at sports and any athletic activity, my wit is dry, and hey: I like Great Gatsby, Hamlet and Fahrenheit 451. The people I'm friends with are largely the same way. You'd think that with all of these similarities, Bella Swan would really draw us in and make us sympathize with her.

But there's a huge problem.

See, a large portion of the book is Bella Swan whining about how terrible her life is... but she has nothing to whine about. Everyone loves her. She doesn't face being a social outcast like many of us with her personality traits do. Instead she's completely embraced by the community and boys.

You know what most people like Bella Swan have to deal with? I'll give you a list: Social ridicule, weird stares when you voice your opinion, the sound of muffled laughter when you are enthusiastic about a literary analysis, dried fruit thrown at you, being picked last for any sport, never getting a date to any homecoming or prom dance, being ostracized by boys, struggling with your identity and wondering if you are in fact doing something wrong.

Did Bella face any of those things? No. And yet she still complained. When people like Bella in the real world complain, it's often justified because they are going through a very difficult time, emotionally and mentally. They struggle with who they are as a person and wonder if they should abandon who they actually are in order to get more friends and be accepted. Bella's complaining was never justified. She was the tortured teenager without the TORTURE.

And instead of it being a dream come true for us nerds, it insulted us. It insulted us that someone like us could have so little problems and yet still be so sullen and dismissive of it. It insulted us that she could be so ungrateful. And it insulted us that this was how we were being portrayed to the public.

There were other little things about her personality too that seemed phoned in. Like that "loving great literature thing" I mentioned. Two of Bella Swan's favorite books are Romeo and Juliet and Wuthering Heights. Why were those her favorite? Because Stephanie Myer wants to use SYMBOLISM of course.

Plus Bella's love for Romeo and Juliet always bothered me because she seems like she's just saying she loves it. She says she used to have a crush on Romeo. No one had a crush on Romeo. He was a shallow jerk. He wasn't meant to be a heart throb. Just because I acknowledge that Romeo and Juliet is a great peace of prose (Because it really is) doesn't mean I don't think the plot and characters are kind of stale. Romeo and Juliet succeeds because of it's master writing. And if Bella was ACTUALLY a literary buff she would probably recognize that too. Plus her use of comparison to the work is completely messed up. Shakespeare is undoubtedly rolling and crying in his grave.

Twilight would have infinitely better if Bella wasn't a perfect re-imagining of Stephanie Myer in the life that she wanted. What if Bella actually struggled with her identity as a person and was ostracized because of her sullen attitude and dry wit but then connected with Edward because he was also ostracized? Then maybe the story could partially be about Bella slowly learned to let down the walls she had been building up do to years of social failure and bullying. Eventually a romance would develop between her and Edward and because she's so desperate not to lose the one person she's learned to trust, him being a vampire isn't so creepy to her. If it followed that plot I may have gotten into Twilight, despite the sparkling vampires.

But it wasn't like that. Funnily enough, Bella Swan's story is more liked by the extroverted shallow girls that often made fun of us introverted sarcastic girls in high school, and the ones Bella is actually supposed to connect? Let's just say we have placed her proudly on our dart boards.

So that's my psychological analysis of what make's Bella a hateable character. The other things other people have mentioned certainly play into it but the reasons I blogged about are my personal qualms with her character. Hope you enjoyed.

-Authoress Anonymous

PS: Tomorrow I think I'm diving into my first book review... it's going to be Divergent. We'll see how that goes.

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

Villainesses (And what makes them fall short)

Here's a fun talk: Villains. I love villains. If anyone is to ask me who my favorite character in a book or movie is, it is almost always: A) a villain, B) someone with a dry wit or C) A really tortured character

Or D) All of the above. LOOKING AT YOU SEVERUS SNAPE!

But besides that, my favorite villain usually isn't... a woman. And this is not because I don't the women can't be completely awesome villain because I think they can. But the problem is the angle directors, writers or actors often take with a villainess.

And that is: They make their main weapon their sexuality. Yeah. You know who I'm talking about. I call this Poison Ivy Syndrome, named after a villain from Batman who charms men by her use of her beauty and poisonous plants which usually make men fall in love with her so that she can horribly kill them. But that's all that special about her.

And there's the problem. Her main weapon is the fact that she is attractive and can manipulate men. Which makes her completely nonthreatening to women. I often don't find female villains as threatening as male villain because A) I am a woman and B) I am a straight woman. Why should I be intimidated by someone who's power doesn't really affect me?

This is probably only a woman's standpoint because I'm sure men find them very intimidating. But characters like poison Ivy also give woman a bit of a bad name: That we're manipulative and evil and crazy. Now, this is true with some women but certainly not the majority.

That being said, their are certainly villains who are women and are done right so lets look at a few of them:

Bellatrix: Oh yes, everyone knows this one. This woman's weapon wasn't that she was beautiful (Though Helena Bonham Carter certainly is). It was that she was bat. shit. crazy. insane. Honestly, this woman was as terrifying and powerful as she was oddly hilarious. When ever I read about her I enjoyed her presence even if my heart was pounding. This especially holds true to her portrayal on screen (Which is phenomenal). There's a certain scene in the sixth movie right after Dumbledore is killed. The death eaters are marching through the forest to escape. But Bella isn't marching. She's skipping. And giggling. And singing. Then she sets Hagrid's hut on fire while jumping up and down, squealing like an excited school girl.

I was laughing at her antics but yet there was still a feeling of discomfort at how crazy she was. And even though I was laughing I think my face was frozen into a WTF face. Because, Dumbledore just died and I should be sobbing.

But I just can't because of Bellatrix.

That's the trick with her character. She has an edge to her that makes her both funny, uncomfortable and terrifying which is something you really need from a villainess.

Lust: Ok so first off: I doubt most of you know who this is. Second off: I know the title makes it seem like she's the exact opposite of what I like in a villainess. Because her name is Lust. Lust is a character from a little anime known as Fullmetal Alchemist, which happens to be my all time favorite. Lust is one of the first villains introduced in the series, though she isn't the main villain.

Yes, she is beautiful and this does come in handy. But half the time she isn't even using her beauty to her advantage. It just kind of works for her. And besides being beautiful: Lust is scary and intimidating. Maybe it's the voice, maybe it's her mysterious presence or maybe it's her sharp finger nails which can grow to any length and pierce through anything at will, but she is a deadly combination of charm and scary.

This combo still could have failed (And it did in an alternate telling of Fullmetal Alchemist known as Brotherhood) but Lust was an incredibly interesting character at her core. So though she was beautiful, she still seemed like a real person with her own problems and flaws and you really grow to like her throughout the series. When she seems more real, she also seems more scary. Whereas Poison Ivy got little to no development and just wanted to take over the world.

Alphard: Again, probably none of you have heard of this. She's from an anime called CANAAN which is much more underground than Fullmetal Alchemist. My explanation of this one is short:

1. The main character and Alphard's rival is a woman and therefore there isn't much exploitation of sexuality needed as the main character wouldn't be affected by it.

2. Alphard is a complete bad-ass with great aim with a gun and superb skill in hand to hand combat. Why charm the guys when you can kick them to kingdom come?

3. She also has the "interesting character" factor going for her.

4. She's the head of a terrorist organization and she's only in her early twenties

And that's about all I need to say.

Disney Princess Villianesses: The funny thing is, I think kids films handle villains who are women the best. Because they can't be overtly sexual in anything. It's Disney. Their villains actually have to be intimidating and scary.

And boy are they! Some of Disney's best villains are women. Everyone remembers Maleficent, Ursula and the Evil Stepmother because they were just so cruel, hateful and honestly more interesting than whatever Disney princess they were up against. They could turn into monsters, they had evil minions and they didn't need men for their evil schemes.

Usually they worked for something like revenge rather than taking over the world. Ursula wanted revenge for being shunned by the mermaids, the evil queen wanted revenge because she was no longer the prettiest in the land, Maleficent wanted revenge because she didn't get a birthday invitation (That's got to be my favorite. What, you didn't try to kill the daughter of a king when he snubbed you? Clearly you aren't having a sensible reaction).

If there's one thing Disney did well, it was definitely villains and the women are no exception.

So that's all for the villains talk today. And while I know most of you think Bella Swan is a villain she was not in this post (But it is coming. Dear God it is coming)

Tommorow I'm talking about a bit more obscure stereotype that irritates me. See you then!

-Authoress Anonymous

PS: I also got my first rejection yesterday! Woohoo! Let it begin!

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

Disney Princesses (And why they're kind of fascinating)

And no, I don't mean fascinating characters. Because a lot of them, especially the early ones, aren't the least bit interesting. I mainly take interest in the princesses because you can see them evolve through time based on what man's definition of a perfect woman was in the time period.

Don't believe me? Let's take a look.

Snow White: This movie came out in the late 30's and it's no surprise that the woman portrayed was reserved, submissive, lived for house work and of course was beautiful. She just loved to help the seven little men in the cottage by doing all of their work. She was also innocent which was an attractive trait at the time because innocent women were relatively gullible and therefore didn't question men as much.

She also had the most grating and damn annoying voice every put on the big screen, rivaled perhaps, by Jar Jar Binks.

Cinderella: She's blonde and beautiful but most importantly: Hard working. This is particularly interesting because this movie came out in 1950. This was shortly after World War II in which woman had actually obtained a lot of power. They got real jobs while the men were over seas and practically helped run the country. But with the end of World War II, domestic work was once again the proper thing for a woman. This was heavily advertised even by the government. Women were empowered by World War II and it took a lot of propaganda to bring them back to house wife status and give the jobs back to the men.

Cinderella was a picture perfect example of this submissive housewife who was saved from poverty by a strong man. She was reworded for her domestic work and made a princess, so therefore all women should do domestic work and they will be rewarded.

Aurora: This is a princess largely based on the look of the "perfect girl" at the time. We're still in the fifties (1959) but this wasn't exactly a "look at this domestic woman" approach. This was a princess who didn't do much at all. But she looked like the perfect woman of the time. Long blonde hair, full red lips, blue eyes and of course, a waist the size of a tooth pick (Take a look at fifties dresses. You'll see what I'm talking about) She still relied on a man of course. And besides sing and dance and be unconscious she did nothing. But hey, men at the time liked that kind of thing. She was more of eye candy or an arm decoration than an actual character.

Ariel: Disney took a break from the classic Disney princess for awhile and The Little Mermaid didn't come out until 1989. It was a huge jump. By this time the heroins started actually doing something. Acting on their dreams for a man, taking matters into their own hands, selling their souls in order to have a chance at a man...

Wait what?

Ok, so Ariel still fell in love at first sight and made some pretty stupid decisions out of her desperation for one guy. But she made a little more effort. She was still beautiful of course. She had red hair and she showed her navel (Which showed that rules for women were looser at this time). I hate Ariel but I'll get into why in a later post.

Belle: Oh yeah. The first brunette princess. And I don't count Snow White because her hair was black and she was a doll, not a human being. Belle was the first princess to do the following: Be intelligent and love reading, have an imagination that extended beyond boys, not fall in love at first sight, stand up for herself and get angry with reason, be emotionally deep, have standards.

Yeah, I like Belle, and she really showed that women were starting be appreciated as people rather than eye candy or just creatures who needed a man to complete them.

I know a lot of people claim Beauty and the Beast was a tail of one poor girls Stockholm's Syndrome, but this is completely unfair, especially considering that she didn't warm up to the beast until he stopped being a dick and actually tried to impress her and be nice to her. He had to make the first step. Belle wasn't shallow and she was also genuinely kind and smart. The first really three dimensional woman character, I believe, in a Disney film. Though she unfortunately may have created the "I'm misunderstood but beautiful" cliche I see a lot of... (The Bella Swan rant is coming)

Jasmine and Pocahontas: I'm including these two together because they came out just a few years apart and accomplished about the same things. Just one better than the other. Both pandered to the growing popularity of "exotic beauties" which was growing in the 90s. And they were still women who did things other than think about men.

Jasmine actually rejected a lot of men and fell for Aladdin, not because he was dashing but because he seemed to understand her. They seemed to be friends before love interests. And even when someone came along who looked like Aladdin she pushed him away. This proves she actually was attracted to a personality. She still had to be saved by Aladdin, but he was the main character.

Pocahontas actually saved John Smith in the movies but she was a much less interesting character. Pocahontas wasn't a good movie either, and it she still fell in love at first sight which was a bit of a step back. But she still did stuff.

Mulan: I love this woman. She is my favorite by far, even though I don't even think she's a princess... were there princesses in China? I don't think so... but I digress. Mulan came out in a time that woman power was becoming popular. You had shows like the Power Puff Girls and other girl super heroes becoming popular and fighting with the guys. So Mulan joined the parade and single-handedly saved China. Go her! Plus her original motivation was to save her father, which I really like because I like observing family ties in stories. She falls in love with a man later but she does get to know him first. And she beats the Hun leader... 'nough said.

Tiana: It's too bad that this movie is underrated because I really like it. Tiana is an example of a woman who worked for a dream that didn't involve marriage. She wanted to own her own restaurant and make a name for herself. Reasonable dream. Much like Belle, she also doesn't take any of Prince Navin's crap until he starts to change. She never gives up her dream but she eventually adds Navin to it and I love her story arc. She worked for her dreams and was independent but not completely cut off from men.

Rapunzel: Last one I promise. Not only do I feel Rapunzel had reasonable motives and a very likable personality, but her relationship with Eugene was well developed, even if it only happened in like a day. They had nice conversations with each other and they didn't actually get married until later. Rapunzel is also strong without being Mulan tough, which I really like in a character because I don't believe a woman needs to be physically strong to be well developed.

We really see from the transition from Snow White to Rapunzel the transformation of the Disney princess based on societies standards and we can see that in books too. So I'll be observing some of these tropes in the next few days.

In other news: The query letter is sent! Now it is a waiting game. Take a deep breath...

-Authoress Anonymous

Start with a friendship (Then maybe happen on a romance)

I guess I'm just in a romance kind of mood, aren't I? It's funny that I get so passionate about this kind of thing since I'm not a fan of romance... maybe that's why.

I want to talk for a moment about romance in Harry Potter and how little there was of it in comparison to adventure, magic and FRIENDSHIP.

I put emphasis on friendship because that's how I like my relationships done. They start as friendships and they happen to be something more. They progress slowly. Like most relationships. Throughout the Harry Potter books the focus was on Ron, Harry and Hermione as friends. There were some moments of sexual tension between Hermione and Ron but it wasn't obvious until the 6th book (In my opinion). Then it developed.

And it made sense because they had been friends for six solid years. That's a long time to know someone and when you're that close to them, it's natural to start feeling something more. Before the 6th book, Hermione could have just as easily gone with Harry. Likewise, Ginny and Harry's relationship made sense too. It started out as a crush, then Harry saved her life and then eventually feelings developed when they were older.

Not only is this realistic but, as Tex said in his recent comment, it leaves possibilities open to the readers to play with pairings in their minds. (And readers get into that stuff. They have WARS. And I always pick the wrong guy but that's a post for another time)

I'm going to go back to my books for a minute. There are actually three romantic relationships that end up happening in these books. But at the start of my writing I only knew that one of these was going to happen.

I'm not going to give names because I don't like spoilers but I'll label them: the main character, was always going to end up with boy 1. I was going to have it progress slowly because they didn't have enough page time in the first few books for be to develop the relationship outside of a crush. But I did have it planned.

However I had another relationship that just sort of... happened. Main character's best friend (Who is a very violent, stubborn and impulsive character) get's into trouble a lot and this other character always happened to be around when it happened. We'll call him boy 2. Boy 2 doesn't like to see others hurt when he can do something about it so when MC's Best friend is getting kicked around, he ends up saving her and almost gets the crap beaten out of himself (Cause he's kind of a wimp. But I still love him to death).

Later in the book there was another situation where boy 2 stopped MC's best friend from doing something she would regret, again almost getting himself killed. This wasn't really because he was attracted to her, just because he doesn't like seeing others in danger. When they started having conversations in book 4 I realized that I really liked them together and it could work. But I built their relationship first on a friendship. That's what I think made it work the best.

The third relationship was a case where I knew the two characters were friends in the past but had a bit of a falling out (Which I'm totally not going to get into because it's a MAJOR spoiler) and writing their conversations I realized that that friendship might have been something more (I love making up things when it actually feels like I'm discovering them). Just the tension in their conversations reflected that.

I wasn't even going to make anything of it on page because I wasn't sure how to do it because these were two of my hardest characters to write. Then my friend, who happened to love both of these character, insisted I write a scene, even if I didn't put it in the book (Because she wanted to read it). I did and it happened to work. So one romantic involvement became three. What do you know?

There's still very little actual scenes for romance because I try to keep the focus on the life threatening stuff. But I find that relationships are not only more realistic, but a lot more fun to write if they start out as friendships. Because then you discover the relationship which is ever so much fun!

-Authoress Anonymous

YA Romance (What irks and surprises me about it)

First off, I'm not against romance in YA. I do think it's a relevant issue. Many teenagers are experiencing their first relationships in high school and reading romance gives them something to relate to. It's one of the most fascinating things in the world to many teenagers, especially girls, so it doesn't surprise me that a lot of books focus on it.

But that being said, I've always have had issues with this genre and how it speaks to teenage girls. So I'm going to outline a few of these in today's post.

1. He's hot... and that's about all I've got


A lot of YA romances that I've read are based solely on attraction. On the beauty of the man's eyes and hair and face and abs and sparkling skin. And that's fine as an initial spark. Teenagers are often first attracted by the appearance. Which is why a lot of nice guys get snubbed. But then these relationships based soely on attraction continue and the books tend to mistake them for true love. Case in point: Twilight.

I hate to reference Twilight. Everyone has. But it's just so hard not to, especially when talking about YA romance. So do forgive me for bringing it up here.

In Twilight, paragraphs (Long paragraphs) are used to describe Edward, the gorgeous and sparkly vampire, over and over again. But no amount of brilliant golden eyes or gorgeous pale skin can hide one obvious fact: He has the personality of this sentence.

2. Different does not make interesting: 
Sure Edward has cultured hobbies and is protective but that doesn't really make a personality. It makes him "different" but not interesting (Which was the same problem with Bella but that's a post for another time). He was, in fact, perfect. Which doesn't exist. It really doesn't.

Contrast our vampire with Jacob, the werewolf. This boy had tons of personality. He was supportive and kind and a good friend yet he still had flaws. He had anger issues, he got jealous, sometimes he was selfish. But that's teenage boys. And personality comes with flaws, not just the good things. It's a combination of strengths and weaknesses that make a character interesting and makes us want to root for them even when they make bad decisions. (And yet Jacob still gets the shaft. So obnoxious)

So you can't just add "different" qualities and expect them to translate into personality in your writing.

3. True love... in high school
Yeah, this one especially irks me. Because 99 times out of 100, you do not find your true love in high school. Sure you hear those stories about the childhood sweethearts who married and lived happily but those are few and far between, especially in today's society. (I knew a girl in high school who had thirteen boyfriends in one year. That shouldn't even be possible).

 Most girls and boys aren't mature enough to handle a serious relationship in high school. They still have a lot to learn and a lot of room to grow in who they are before they can actually commit themselves to another person. The reason you see a lot of couples get married in college or shortly after is that they have grown up and become comfortable with themselves as a person. That makes for a healthier relationship.

So romantic advice aside, it's obvious why it really irks me when Bella and Edward get married right out of high school because of "true love". Because you never made a stupid decision when you were that age did you? The reason this bothers me is this was a relationship based solely on attraction. I never really saw any chemistry between the two. It's not like they ever had moments where they were just having fun and laughing with each other, fixing a motorcycle instead of gazing into each others eyes (Like what her and Jacob did... I should probably stop talking about him)

Initial attraction does not equal true love, especially not in high school. I don't care if the guy is a vampire, it just doesn't happen.

So yeah, those are my three main problems with romance. But have I seen YA romances that do it right?


Yes.

Funny enough, they're usually dystopian too. Hunger Games I thought handled the romance well in the fact that the whole thing wasn't really love at first sight. Katniss was mostly playing it up for the camera to stay alive. That's awesome. Plus she still had a reason to like him outside of his looks. He kind of saved her life when she was starving. That gets him points. It's mostly his generosity and kindness that attracts her.

Second example is Matched. This is sort of a forbidden love type story since you're arranged to marry someone based on logic. However, big shock, the main character starts falling for another boy, even though the person she's matched with has been her best friend. And I can see why she falls for the other boy.

Initially it's not because of his looks, but just because he's mysterious. Which teenage girls definitely go for. But she starts falling for him because of his personality, which is also quite interesting. This is an example of a character with different hobbies, who actually is done right (Like Edward could have been). And I loved this character. I actually got into the romance in this book and I don't do that very often because romance isn't my genre.

So that's my post on YA romance today. Wow... long post. Thanks for reading if you're even still here!

-Authoress Anonymous