I've just finished reading The Devil You Know, a new YA book by Australian writer Leonie Norrington, which was just released last month (August 09). I found it incredibly difficult to read. Not because it was poorly written; in fact it was just the opposite. The writing is superb - tight, controlled, fast-paced. But, in creating the world of young Damien and his family, the writing was overwhelmingly real to the point where it was claustrophobic. And this is where the problem is for me.
Damien's life is tough. His mum loves him but she has a few problems, including picking the wrong guys and sometimes drinking too much. They've moved around a lot and are now back up around Darwin, so Damien also has a new school, a nasty teacher and a couple of bullies to contend with. And now, his mum is keen to get back with Damien's father, a violent biker known as 88.
When Norrington describes Damien's feelings as he tries to deal with what is happening in his world, the writing is so true that it's heart-stopping scary. I can say with 100% conviction (drawing on some of my own life experiences) that the descriptions of the fear, isolation and that overwhelming sense of having no way out are frighteningly accurate. I found myself having to put the book down, unable to face reading on because I couldn't bear what was happening and what was about to happen to Damien. And I'm an adult. I'm not a kid having to deal with this stuff, which is, unfortunately, a reality for too many kids.
So I'm not sure who this book is for. It can't be for the kids who have to live like this because it's hard enough having to deal with it in your everyday life without having to confront it in a teen novel. Not even the convenient 'happy ending' (which is the least satisfying part of this book) would make it a good read for kids in this situation because they'd see through the ending, and it's unlikeliness, better than anyone else. So is it for kids from happy, stable family homes to enable them to see into another world? Is it for teachers to help them get a better understanding of what it's like to live with violence? Maybe.
Despite the brilliant writing that is throughout most of this book, for me it ultimately fails because the unrealistic happy ending negates everything else Damien experienced. Particularly when set against the unrelenting hardship portrayed as Damien's everyday life (where even in his fantasies of escape it all goes wrong) it's the writing equivalent of saying 'there, there, everything will be okay after all' and then sending the kid back into the violent home.
There were lots of other things about the story I liked. The characters were all well-drawn and empathetic, the dialogue rang true and the illustrations are fantastic. But an author has to be particularly careful when they write realistic contemporary fiction like this for a young adult audience. Are some kids' lives really like this? Absolutely. Do they deserve to have their stories told? Definitely. Is it a good idea to offer hope at the end of a YA novel? I think so, but it has to be realistic hope. Otherwise it's just another slap in the face.
Showing posts with label young adult fiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label young adult fiction. Show all posts
20 September 2009
28 June 2009
Writing for joy
Although I'm very glad I did my Masters, and I'm looking forward to the future challenge of a Phd, nothing beats writing just for the pure joy of it.
In my current project I'm moving away from issue-based realism, letting go of the logic and just letting fly - mostly with luminous greeen vomit! (not mine, the characters...)
I'm finding the words are flowing more easily as I focus on action-based scenes. Even though some of the scenes are quite tense, and the main character is struggling with memory loss and trauma, approaching these themes from a speculative fiction approach is very different. I'm finding that it's giving my writing a freshness and immediacy with an added dose of zing (kinda like a triple shot of espresso).
The speculative fiction genre gives me more freedom to express a character's internal tensions. There's nothing like gross bodily functions to illuminate how you feel inside!
It seems that, when I get down to basics of what I really love to write, that I don't care as much for the constraints of realism as I thought. What perhaps I need to do is to use what I've learnt about the brain, about resilience, about trauma and memory and to mould and stretch that within the context of speculative fiction writing.
Who knows, I might create a whole new sub-genre hybrid in the process!
In my current project I'm moving away from issue-based realism, letting go of the logic and just letting fly - mostly with luminous greeen vomit! (not mine, the characters...)
I'm finding the words are flowing more easily as I focus on action-based scenes. Even though some of the scenes are quite tense, and the main character is struggling with memory loss and trauma, approaching these themes from a speculative fiction approach is very different. I'm finding that it's giving my writing a freshness and immediacy with an added dose of zing (kinda like a triple shot of espresso).
The speculative fiction genre gives me more freedom to express a character's internal tensions. There's nothing like gross bodily functions to illuminate how you feel inside!
It seems that, when I get down to basics of what I really love to write, that I don't care as much for the constraints of realism as I thought. What perhaps I need to do is to use what I've learnt about the brain, about resilience, about trauma and memory and to mould and stretch that within the context of speculative fiction writing.
Who knows, I might create a whole new sub-genre hybrid in the process!
23 June 2009
Sci fiction and 'issue' fiction in YA writing
In the past two weeks I've read two YA novels: Give me Truth by Australian writer, Bill Condon and The Sky Inside by a US writer, now living in Germany, Clare Dunkle.
Condon's book fits under the 'issue' genre in that it deals with the lives of two teens, David and Caitlin, whose parents are going through marriage problems and separation. It's written in multiple first-person perspective, with each of the main characters narrating in alternate chapters.
Dunkle's book is classic sci fi, set in a futuristic world of made-to-order children, lifelike robot toys, deadly game shows and an environment controlled by consumerism. It's written in the third person point-of-view.
I chose to read Condon's writing because I was interested in how he would use the multiple first-person narration, and because he's an Australian writer. Plus I'm interested in the 'issue' genre. I chose to read Dunkle's book because I read the blurb on the back and it sounded awesome.
I read Give me Truth first. I read it quickly: the story moved along well, most of the writing was very good; some of it was excellent. There were a couple of key scenes that really packed an emotional punch. The issues were true to life, the characterisations realistic and believable. But I got to the end of the story and felt, well, 'meh' probably best describes it. Although it was a good book from a writer's perspective - well edited, good use of language, etc etc; it was, well, a bit boring. I really hate to say that because I'm aware that like any writer (including me) I am 110% sure that Condon put everything he had into this book. But I'm being honest here, and the book really left me cold.
In contrast, Dunkle's book had me hooked from the first sentence. It was fast-paced, scary, thrilling with great charactersation, impressive world building and attention to detail. Although I prefer to read (& write) YA fiction that's in the first person perspective, I really got drawn into this book. It wasn't perfect - some of the plot devices (eg game shows where people die) are hardly new. And some passages of description were a little clumsy. But I loved, loved, loved this book.
Perhaps it comes down to a personal preference - I like sci fi more than realism. But that's not true. Freaky Green Eyes, by Joyce Carol Oates, was an issue book, firmly realistic, and it packed a powerful punch.
I think the problem with Condon's book was that it was too realistic - it was so lifelike that it was a bit like life itself. Parents go through divorce and it sucks, and they may even do things that scare us, but life goes on. For me, the book just didn't do or say enough to hold my interest.
For me as a writer (as yet unpublished in trade, unlike Condon) I guess the point to take from my experience of reading these two books is that, if you're going to write realism/issue fiction, it needs to have a little extra - a dramatic twist, a fresh angle, something a little out of the ordinary - if it's going to truly hold the readers' interest. Because if that something special isn't there, the book won't connect with them. And really, that's the whole point of writing.
Condon's book fits under the 'issue' genre in that it deals with the lives of two teens, David and Caitlin, whose parents are going through marriage problems and separation. It's written in multiple first-person perspective, with each of the main characters narrating in alternate chapters.
Dunkle's book is classic sci fi, set in a futuristic world of made-to-order children, lifelike robot toys, deadly game shows and an environment controlled by consumerism. It's written in the third person point-of-view.
I chose to read Condon's writing because I was interested in how he would use the multiple first-person narration, and because he's an Australian writer. Plus I'm interested in the 'issue' genre. I chose to read Dunkle's book because I read the blurb on the back and it sounded awesome.
I read Give me Truth first. I read it quickly: the story moved along well, most of the writing was very good; some of it was excellent. There were a couple of key scenes that really packed an emotional punch. The issues were true to life, the characterisations realistic and believable. But I got to the end of the story and felt, well, 'meh' probably best describes it. Although it was a good book from a writer's perspective - well edited, good use of language, etc etc; it was, well, a bit boring. I really hate to say that because I'm aware that like any writer (including me) I am 110% sure that Condon put everything he had into this book. But I'm being honest here, and the book really left me cold.
In contrast, Dunkle's book had me hooked from the first sentence. It was fast-paced, scary, thrilling with great charactersation, impressive world building and attention to detail. Although I prefer to read (& write) YA fiction that's in the first person perspective, I really got drawn into this book. It wasn't perfect - some of the plot devices (eg game shows where people die) are hardly new. And some passages of description were a little clumsy. But I loved, loved, loved this book.
Perhaps it comes down to a personal preference - I like sci fi more than realism. But that's not true. Freaky Green Eyes, by Joyce Carol Oates, was an issue book, firmly realistic, and it packed a powerful punch.
I think the problem with Condon's book was that it was too realistic - it was so lifelike that it was a bit like life itself. Parents go through divorce and it sucks, and they may even do things that scare us, but life goes on. For me, the book just didn't do or say enough to hold my interest.
For me as a writer (as yet unpublished in trade, unlike Condon) I guess the point to take from my experience of reading these two books is that, if you're going to write realism/issue fiction, it needs to have a little extra - a dramatic twist, a fresh angle, something a little out of the ordinary - if it's going to truly hold the readers' interest. Because if that something special isn't there, the book won't connect with them. And really, that's the whole point of writing.
4 June 2009
Writing in the 3rd person
Sometimes I think a lot of my issues around character/plot would be more easily solved if I felt more comfortable writing in the third person. I've written quite a few short stories from the third person perspective, and Curse of Fire, the kids' reader I had published a few years ago, was also written from the third person perspective.
Most kids and YA books are written in first person, though, and I really like the immediacy of first person writing. But I've just finished reading Justin D'ath's 'Hunters and Warriors' and I was a few chapters in before I realised he was writing in the third person. The main character's perspective was so fresh and immediate I even went back to double check D'ath hadn't started off in first person & changed mid-track!
To keep my mind off Girl in the Shadows for the moment (I won't be able to face the inevitable rewrite for some months yet) I'm jotting down ideas for a new YA manuscript. This story will have two strong main characters, both who have interesting stories to tell. So do I have a go at writing in the omnipresent third person? Or do I try a different tack and have a go at writing from multiple first-person perspectives?
I'm about to start reading Bill Condon's 'Give me truth', which uses double first person perspective. I'll be interested to compare his handling of the narrative this way with D'ath's third person, to see which draws me in most strongly. Maybe if it's a clear winner one way or the other, I'll know which way to start off my next project.
Most kids and YA books are written in first person, though, and I really like the immediacy of first person writing. But I've just finished reading Justin D'ath's 'Hunters and Warriors' and I was a few chapters in before I realised he was writing in the third person. The main character's perspective was so fresh and immediate I even went back to double check D'ath hadn't started off in first person & changed mid-track!
To keep my mind off Girl in the Shadows for the moment (I won't be able to face the inevitable rewrite for some months yet) I'm jotting down ideas for a new YA manuscript. This story will have two strong main characters, both who have interesting stories to tell. So do I have a go at writing in the omnipresent third person? Or do I try a different tack and have a go at writing from multiple first-person perspectives?
I'm about to start reading Bill Condon's 'Give me truth', which uses double first person perspective. I'll be interested to compare his handling of the narrative this way with D'ath's third person, to see which draws me in most strongly. Maybe if it's a clear winner one way or the other, I'll know which way to start off my next project.
14 May 2009
At a cross roads
I've just got another rejection for Girl in the Shadows - the second in a couple of weeks. At least this one had some encouraging words to say, but it really has put me in a position where I need to rethink what I'm doing as a writer.
I've been working at a writing career for 10 years now, with only minor success. I worked really hard at Girl in the Shadows; it's the best writing I can do. It's probably good writing, maybe even very good. But the fact is that it's not good enough.
That's a really difficult thing to come to terms with as a writer - the fact that your work is not good enough for publication. I'm feeling pretty raw about it at the moment and right now my feeling is to just give up on the hope of getting a publisher for this manuscript. Maybe I'll try again in 6 or 12 months, or maybe I won't.
I need some time to step back from the whole writing dream. Rethink my goals. And give myself some time to get over it.
I've been working at a writing career for 10 years now, with only minor success. I worked really hard at Girl in the Shadows; it's the best writing I can do. It's probably good writing, maybe even very good. But the fact is that it's not good enough.
That's a really difficult thing to come to terms with as a writer - the fact that your work is not good enough for publication. I'm feeling pretty raw about it at the moment and right now my feeling is to just give up on the hope of getting a publisher for this manuscript. Maybe I'll try again in 6 or 12 months, or maybe I won't.
I need some time to step back from the whole writing dream. Rethink my goals. And give myself some time to get over it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)