YA Highway

THE BIG NEWS THIS WEEK:
This week is Banned Books Week and the blogosphere has been full of great posts about freedom to read. A few of my favorites:

- The American Library Association's official Banned Books 2011 site, and their breakdown of the most challenged books by year, author, and decade. There's also this great interactive infographic on the most banned books of 2010 from the Huffington Post, and the most challenged classic children's books. Welcome to the 21st century, where Harry Potter is the most banned book so far.
- What books should REALLY be banned? The ladies of ForeverYA have some interesting suggestions (how one man's love of his shovel might lead to Arctic drilling! Supernatural nonsense! Also, a drinking game), and Salon says please consider the geeks when putting THE LORD OF THE FLIES on the required reading list "for the love of sweet suffering Jesus."

Field Trip Friday: September 30, 2011

If there's one big difference between famous books and famous movies, it's that no famous book will ever be subject to a 3D re-release. (At least not until we come up with the technology!)

Over the weekend, believe it or not, the 3D re-release of The Lion King continued to come in #1 at the box office as it reached $61.7 million in total profit. This has led the big guys at Disney to announce they'll be keeping the movie in theaters beyond the originally planned two weeks. As Ed, the craziest hyena villain, might say... [insert maniacal celebratory hyena laugh]!

It's pretty clear that the main motivator behind this 3D re-release was to make money, and it's hard to blame the big guys at Disney for that. Still, the event - and the now practically inevitable coming wave of 3D re-releases - raises some questions about the recycling of classic media. Most importantly, when is it okay?

"Remember who you are, Simba." "Hamlet?"

It's true that classic stories create a kind of bonding experience for humanity. This bond can transcend time, place, race, age, social status, and much more. Even The Lion King is based off Hamlet, which is based off the legend of Amleth, which is so ancient no one's sure exactly where it came from. YA fiction is full of stories that have been told before, just in a slightly different/older way (see: Romeo and Juliet). And there's nothing wrong with that - right?

The Lion King is evidently a story/movie/experience that parents want to share with their children, grandparents want to share with their grandchildren, nostalgic teens like me want to share with their friends, etc. And who's to say that re-releasing a movie isn't the same as re-grunting a story about the caveman campfire? (In this case, the campfire is a massive glowing screen.)

On the other hand, you could argue that re-releasing a movie that's already had its ride around the block is even more extreme - and worrying - than other forms of story recycling. What happened to creativity, man? Heck, you could argue that story recycling in any form is a bad thing. The human experience is such a huge and varied thing, there must still be room for some level of originality.

What are your thoughts on story recycling, The Lion King 3D, and originality in fiction? Sound off in the comments! And while you're at it, enjoy this awesomely hilarious Modern Family clip.

The Lion King, Recycling, and Remembering

Welcome to our 98th Road Trip Wednesday!

Road Trip Wednesday is a ‘Blog Carnival,’ where YA Highway's contributors post a weekly writing- or reading-related question that begs to be answered. In the comments, you can hop from destination to destination and get everybody's unique take on the topic.

We'd love for you to participate! Just answer the prompt on your own blog and leave a link -- or, if you prefer, you can include your answer in the comments.

This Week's Topic:
What was the best book you read in September?
Read much this month? What was the best book you've read in September? We'd love to find out!

Road Trip Wednesday #98: Best Book of the Month

At YA Highway, we're all super excited about Robison Wells' debut "dystopian-ish" novel VARIANT, which will be published by HarperTeen on October 4th, 2011. Just have a look at this summary:

Benson Fisher thought that a scholarship to Maxfield Academy would be the ticket out of his dead-end life.

He was wrong.

Now he’s trapped in a school that’s surrounded by a razor-wire fence. A school where video cameras monitor his every move. Where there are no adults. Where the kids have split into groups in order to survive.

Where breaking the rules equals death.

But when Benson stumbles upon the school’s real secret, he realizes that playing by the rules could spell a fate worse than death, and that escape—his only real hope for survival—may be impossible.

Robison was nice enough to answer our interview questions at extremely short notice -- seriously, overnight! -- and we really like the guy. You can follow the rest of his VARIANT blog tour at the Teen Book Scene.

1.) If you had to describe VARIANT in 3 words, what would they be?

Paranoid, Chilling, Surprising.

2.) Who's your favorite character in VARIANT and why is he/she your favorite?

From a writing perspective, I thought that Isaiah was the most fun. I really enjoyed getting into his head. He's a complex character--someone completely opposed to Benson, but with plausible, understandable reasons for the things he does. I think it's easy to fall into the trap that antagonists are trying to stop the protagonist simply because antagonists are Bad Guys. With Isaiah (and many others in The Society) I wanted to show their philosophy as understandable, if misguided--that their gang was really a place where normal people with good intentions could end up.

That said, my favorite character overall is Becky. She was originally planned as a minor character, but when I was writing a scribbled out an unplanned scene (now on page 191) that explained a tiny bit of her backstory, and it turned her into a much more fascinating, troubled character. I liked her so much that I eventually rewrote the second half of the book to feature her more prominently.

3.) All writers have their "darlings." A favorite sentence, a favorite scene. Can you tell us about one of your VARIANT "darlings"?

I have lots, but they're mostly too spoiler-ridden to talk about them. So, I'll go with Chapter Eight, where The Society hauls some of the teens to detention in the middle of the night.

The first draft of the book had a lot of external villains--guards and adults and all sorts of wacky security measures. But during the rewrites I found that it was much more frightening for the villains to be the fellow students. I love this scene because its where Benson realizes that the real bad guys aren't Iceman and Ms. Vaughn, but the other teenagers. I think it saps Benson's hope; it was no longer a case of The Students vs. The School, but the students against each other. And he didn't know who he could trust.

4.) Now about you. We like travel here on the Highway. If you could go anywhere in the world - ANYWHERE - where would you choose to travel? Why? What's the first thing you'd do there?

I have a deep love for archaeology and ancient societies, so most of my dream destinations are along that line: Egypt or Mexico or Peru or Easter Island. But, if I had to choose just one, it would be Cambodia and the ruins of Angkor Wat. Maybe it's because they're less well known, or less excavated, or whatever, but they have a very Indiana-Jones sense of mystery to them--this incredibly beautiful, magnificent place that hasn't gone completely commercial and touristy.

That said, if I could travel anywhere--if money was no object--my dream has always been to go live somewhere for six months or a year, and then go somewhere else for a year, and then somewhere else. I want to see what the culture is really like for the people living there, not just what the tourists see.

5.) Was there a singular book as a kid that inspired you to write or that made you love to read? If so, what was the book? If not, what did inspire you to write?

Definitely. Huckleberry Finn.

I was not a good student in high school. I was a smart kid--I was in all the gifted programs--but I learned quickly that if I could do nothing at all and still get a 'B', then why should I apply myself and try for an 'A'? Consequently, I coasted through my English classes, taking tests and doing homework based on class discussion rather than actually reading anything.

(I know that this seems weird. Most writers talk about how they've had a lifelong love of books, and that they loved going to the library as a kid. That was definitely NOT me.)

So, one day when I was about twenty one, my mom had to go to the hospital unexpectedly, and I knew I'd be sitting in the waiting room for a long time with nothing to do. I didn't have a lot of time to be picky, so I grabbed a book from the shelf almost at random--Huckleberry Finn.

And I loved it. I was supposed to have read it in high school, but I hadn't, and I now realized that maybe some of those other required books might have been worth reading, too. So, I dove in, and was writing books of my own within a few years.

6.) Can you give us a teaser of what's next for you?

Well, there's a sequel to Variant, tentatively titled Feedback. But, that's it for the series--it's just two books, not a trilogy. After that, I don't want to get into details but I think I'm going to stay with a similar genre: modern day normal earth, with a big sci-fi twist.

Thanks for hanging out with us, Robison!

Are You Ready for VARIANT?

Usually when I write a post about grammar, it’s pretty black and white. As confusing as grammar can be, the rules are generally straightforward, once you understand them. But we write fiction, and sometimes fiction makes it hard to follow rules*. So today, I am writing a post in which I have only an opinion. And maybe you will all have opinions too. Because I know I’m not the only one who can be obnoxiously opinionated when it comes to grammar.

So, if you’re writing a novel, the odds are pretty high that it contains dialogue. And sometimes, punctuation rules just do not mix well with dialogue. Some things seem to be commonly accepted as fine. Your character turns five sentences into one because they’re talking so fast, so you don’t use periods in between sentences until the character takes a breath. You probably also use more exclamation marks in dialogue than you do in the rest of the text. And maybe more ellipses, too.

But what about the more subtle things? I’m talking about statements like these: “No, thanks.” “Well, I don’t know.” “Yes, I will.” “I love you, Rover.” Those commas are grammatically correct, but what if that’s not how your character is saying it? What if they’re not pausing where that comma is? When I write dialogue, I think about this. And I leave out commas if I don’t think they fit. My beta readers don’t usually nitpick my punctuation, but occasionally I peruse the SYW section of Absolute Write, and I’ve seen things like this corrected by critiquers there.

Maybe this is something so small, no one else ever thinks about it, but I like the authenticity it brings to dialogue. Sometimes you aren’t saying “I love you, Rover.” Sometimes you are saying, “I love you Rover.” It just reads differently.

What do you guys think? Do you punctuate your dialogue differently, or the same as the rest of the narrative?

*Grammar is important, though. In my opinion, it’s in every writer’s best interest to pay attention to your grammar, just like you would to any other aspect of the craft. 

Commas And Dialogue

WTH. (credit)

Imagine this scenario. You’re on a trip with a few acquaintances. You know them, but you don’t know them, you know? Y’all are heading to parts unknown together, ready to spend an undetermined amount of time getting to know new places and one another.

You check into your: hotel / hostel / tent. The others head out to: go shopping for shoes that cost more than your car / find coffee that doesn’t suck / attempt making s'mores with Kahlua instead of a chocolate bar. You’re alone. Just you…and their backpacks.

Reach in. You know you want to. (credit)

You’re a good person. Of course you don’t snoop. But come on – you’re tempted, admit it. Outside of physical appearance, favorite bands, and maybe a few quirks, you don’t really know these people! What better way to find out who they really are than to dig around in their packs and find out what parts of their lives were important enough to bring on this adventure?

In real life, snooping ain’t a good idea. But in fiction – why not? I’ve said before that writing a book is like taking a road trip with your characters. But in this case, there’s no risk of Amalia opening the door to find you sitting there with her backpack in your lap, a guilty expression on your face and her deck of Sexy Bikers playing cards spread out on the bed. There’s no way Mason is going to unzip the tent to discover you scrolling through all of the Beyonce albums on his iPod. YOU CAN’T GET CAUGHT.

However, you can get mauled. Cuidado. (credit)

Get in there! What’s that bulging in the front pocket of Jamie’s bag? A ziplock filled with diet pills? Pot? Fresh cherries? A collection of human hair? (Uh, I'd be booking a ticket elsewhere if that's the case.)

And what about Gina – why did she bring only long-sleeved shirts on a summer trip through the southwest? Is she insecure about her body? Is she hiding scars? Does she simply enjoy showing off the fact that she’s immune to embarrassing pit sweat? (Anti-perspiring bitch.)

R2D2 despises B.O. (credit)

Pick up your characters’ bags, tip them out over the floor and snoop away. What you find will take you past that superficial level that comes at the start of the relationship and give you a much more real sense of who they are.

And don’t give Mason too much guff about his Rule the World obsession. (Although if you hear him singing it in the shower, he’s really just asking for Internet infamy. YouTube away.)

What's in Your Character's Backpack?

 THIS WEEK IN WRITING

- What's in a name? A lot, says agent Sarah LaPolla. (And if you can't think of the perfect one, you can always use this random title generator, via Michele Wells.)

- What authors can learn from the bestseller list, by Alan Rinzler.

- The NYT looks at children's authors who broke the rules.

- Also at the NYT, Dwight Garner talks trash about slow writers. Agent Jessica Papin at DGLM finds the piece fatuous.

- Author Amy K. Sorrells on how a professor she hated changed her writing for the better.

- Why are fifth graders better writers than college freshman? Jeff at Boys Don't Read solves the murder mystery.

- Author Jonathan Auxier is all for sarcastic characters, but not sarcastic authors.

- How to write fiction without the "right" ethnic credentials, from author Mitali Perkins.

- Writing is dangerous. Just ask Aaron Sorkin, who reportedly broke his nose while working on dialogue.

- Adventures in Children's Publishing has "Finding the Heart of Your Story: A Tip from Donald Maass."

- Author Ashley Perez discusses low-tech writing strategies.

- Writing, the "big idea," and anxiety disorder, from author Karen Healey.

- 20 most awe-inspiring writer's rooms (via libraryland).


THIS WEEK IN READING

- The 30th annual Banned Books Week starts tomorrow, and includes a "virtual read-out" with authors reading out loud online from various banned works. The HuffPo has a list of the 11 most surprising banned books, and Art From the Chasm has a great set of banned book posters. In the meantime, censorship is alive and well: Sarah Ockler reports on the #SpeakLoudly Missouri school district's newest plan for dealing with her and Vonnegut.

- Diversity in YA has a list of great books for National Hispanic Heritage month.

- The Olive Reader, Harper Perennial's blog, has some recommended book blogging practices.

- The Honey Badger gets a book deal.

- USA Today has the newest list of adult authors rushing to write YA.

- Kabi Hartman at The Millions looks at "the talking cure" in YA.

- For every retweet of the message here, Random House will donate $1 to literacy programs in Asia and Africa.


THIS WEEK IN PUBLISHING

- "I love that ebooks exist. This doesn't change the part where, every time a discussion of ebooks turns, seemingly inevitably, to 'Print is dead,' ... what I hear, however unintentionally, is 'Poor people don't deserve to read.'" Seanan McGuire on poverty and the digital divide.

- Two posts about common agent misconceptions: Agent Jessica Faust at BookEnds says looking for an agent is not like applying for a job, and author Natalie Whipple says you are an investment, not the boss.

- Author Janice Hardy asks, "Should authors charge for school visits?"

- In the aftermath of last week's #YesGayYA discussion, Lydia Sharp has a partial list of agents open to LGBTQ stories and authors, and author Sarah Rees Brennan talks about Gay in YA and the Circle of Suck.

- PublishAmerica is at it again, this time targeting Christian authors.

- Caroline Tung Richmond has some encouragement for when your first book goes on sub and doesn't sell.

- Agent Meredith Barnes says, "Y'all finish your books before getting our hopes all up and stuff!"



THIS WEEK IN OTHER STUFF

- The "girl in pink" from Rebecca Black's "Friday" video is one of the coolest teenagers ever. (via Jessica Love)

 - Author Mitali Perkins will be editing "a compilation of funny short pieces written by some of today's best YA authors, people who grew up along the margins of race and culture in North America." She's considering submissions through January 15, 2012-- head over to her blog for more details!

- In an effort to capitalize on their connections to Harry Potter, Oxford University has put its name to a line of Oxford-inspired furniture.

- Making the rounds this week: Borders employees vent their frustrations with former customers.

- Amazon is being accused of maintaining an unsafe working environment in its warehouses.

- "The Big Sexy Problem with Superheroines and Their 'Liberated' Sexuality," from Laura Hudson at Comics Alliance-- good read even if you're not a comics fan.

- Nathan Bransford says social media is like a party-- it's great until your parents show up. (This analogy does not work for me, because my mother out-partied everyone else at my wedding and still commands the respect of the hardest partiers I know. If my mom shows up, y'all best put on your A game.)


THIS WEEK IN CONTESTS

- Three book bloggers have created "You Give, We Give." Donating books or money will provide angel tree donations this holiday season, and earns you entry points toward one of their fabulous prize packs-- they have several for US, UK, Australian, and international winners.


THIS WEEK IN THE RANDOM

Draw a stickman. No really. It's awesome.

Misery Bear gets writer's block. (via Jennifer Laughran)


This is NSFW. But it's one of the funniest things I've ever seen. (this and stickman are via Kirsten)



Have a great weekend!
~ Kate Hart

Field Trip Friday: September 23, 2011

No ghosts were harmed during this interview

Ready to have your socks scared off? Next up in our series of Different Roads to Publication we've nabbed spectral sensation Dawn Miller for an inside look at the somewhat secretive business of ghostwriting. (Okay, yeah, ghostwriting doesn't have anything to do with ghosts ;) For any readers unfamiliar with the term, a ghostwriter is someone paid to write books that are officially credited to another person.)

How did you stumble into ghostwriting?

My agent, Kathleen Ortiz, approached me about doing a work-for-hire job. I wasn't exactly sure what it would entail, but I thought it sounded interesting and agreed to send sample pages of my work. At that time, I knew nothing about the project except that it was YA and a third-person past tense sample was needed.

Can you discuss a little of the process for us? Do you receive an outline and character list to follow? 

 I'm not sure what a typical ghostwriting job is because we're a secretive bunch. However, my experience has been that I'm given a detailed synopsis (we're talking ten - fifteen pages) and any supporting materials (such as previous books in a series, character lists, & important settings). I'm given the freedom to flesh out characters and veer slightly from the synopsis as long as every thing ends up where it needs to be. Obviously, I'm not killing characters or changing major plot points without permission.

Once I've completed a draft, I send it to my agent and she suggests edits. I can't use beta readers and that's probably the toughest part. I'll do another round or two of revisions based on my agent's feedback before she sends it to the publisher. From there, it takes a normal path.


Is it hard picking up the voice of a character or style of a story that you didn't create?

I think ghostwriters are mimics by nature. We have to be flexible if we want to work. After I spend enough time with a character - either by reading and re-reading the synopsis or writing the first few chapters - it comes very easy. Actually, I think it may be easier than when I'm working on a character of my own invention. With ghostwriting, it's all laid out for me. I can check the style sheet and make sure I'm hitting the right notes. Can't do that with my own work.

What are some pros and cons to ghostwriting in your opinion?

I love ghostwriting. Until my first job, I'd always written first person present tense and mostly fantasy or dystopians. Now, I have experience writing in different genres and tenses which makes my writing stronger.

I won't lie, ghostwriting is paid work. And getting paid is a very, very good thing.

As for cons, I think the toughest thing is tight deadlines. I'm a fast drafter, but having a publisher deadline that's three months out is insane. Doable, but insane. I've developed a nasty case of carpal tunnel pounding out drafts.

I've been asked if it bothers me no one will ever know the books I worked on. Honestly, no. Unlike writing for myself, I don't form an all-consuming attachment to these books. It's a lot like a nine-five job. I can turn it off-and-on, and don't spend all night wondering if I should do X,Y,Z. When the book is gone, out of my hands, that's that. I tend to think of myself as the nanny, bringing it up properly, and then returning it to its parents. I'm totally fine with that.

If you could ghostwrite a sequel to any book in the world, which one would it be?

Oh, man. That's tough. So many of my favorite books are series or trilogies already. I think writing a "supporting character" book staring John Green's Colonel, Hassan, Lacey, and Tiny Cooper would be hilarious. I can only imagine how perplexed they'd be by one another.

But I'd never, ever want to touch John Green's work. I'd go all Wayne's World, "I'm not worthy" on it. 

Thanks Dawn!!


Dawn Miller is represented by Kathleen Ortiz of Nancy Coffey Literary. To learn more about Dawn and her writing check out her personal blog, www.dawnRaeMiller.com And also be sure to stop by her new group blog, YAcurator.





Part one of the Different Roads to Publication: Self-publishing available here.

Different Roads to Publication: Ghostwriting

Welcome to our 96th Road Trip Wednesday!

Road Trip Wednesday is a ‘Blog Carnival,’ where YA Highway's contributors post a weekly writing- or reading-related question that begs to be answered. In the comments, you can hop from destination to destination and get everybody's unique take on the topic.

We'd love for you to participate! Just answer the prompt on your own blog and leave a link -- or, if you prefer, you can include your answer in the comments.



This Week's Topic:
What are your all-time favorite book covers?

Road Trip Wednesday #97: Going Undercover

I see you over there, Space Needle.

You've completed what you think is a polished draft of your manuscript, and now it's time to consider your next steps. Depending on where you are in your process, sending the manuscript to beta readers, to your agent, to your editor or querying might be your next intended course of action.

Pause.

Take a breath.

I've learned many things over the course of my processes. One of the most useful bits of knowledge is the sure understanding that time away from my manuscript improves my work. The longer I stay away, the better.

Closeness with a manuscript dulls our ability to see the whole work objectively. You may be too focused on a single issue, or on tinkering with dialogue. You may feel like you know a character so well that you can't see how her actions are inconsistent over the course of the story.

Think of your story as a city skyline. When you are standing in the city, all you see are the buildings around you. Skyscrapers block the view of the other side of town. But get on a boat and head away from the city. The further away you get, the bigger the picture. You are able to see how buildings and open spaces and color and light interact through the entire skyline, rather than in one spot. You can see things you would never have been able to see if you hadn't put distance and time between you and your work. Move back from your manuscript. Stop obsessing over that one scene or dilemma; wait to return to your manuscript until you can see the interplay of your characters, your plot, your crafting, your pacing.

How long with that take? In my experience, the longer the better. The couple of weeks it might take for beta readers to get notes back to you is good. The time it takes to write an entirely different novel while your first is fermenting in a drawer is even better. I've been away from manuscripts long enough to forget characters exist. Which makes it easier to chop the losers when I realize they don't belong. I've been away from manuscripts long enough to forget the plot twists or phrases that really do work. My delight in these cases becomes an assurance that This Is Good. The ability to delete and the ability to love our work is essential for writers.

LDRs are torture. They are a test of patience, endurance, love and trust. Apply patience to your writing process, knowing it will get better the more time you spend on it. Prove your dedication to your craft by enduring the time apart from your work. Love your work enough to want it to be the best possible. Trust that time away from your work will result in a joyful reunion with a manuscript whose flaws you can see objectively, but that are no longer overwhelming.

How long do you stay away from your manuscript before returning to revisions?

Time and Space: Creating a Long Distance Relationship With Your Manuscript

So there you are, sitting with your Shiny New Idea, playing around with some sort of outline or synopsis or train of thought that helps you decide if it's Worth Pursuing. You're waiting for it...waiting for it....then all of the sudden BAM, you get the realization that:

WAIT FOR ME!

I'm not a published author. I don't have a book contract, and I don't have a novel in print. I don't even have a novel on submission right now. So trust me when I say I don't have all the answers, or even ANY answers, when it comes to writing the book that will be "The One."

But I have learned a few things in the course of my very amateur writing career.

It is better to write the book that's in your heart than to write what you know will sell.

I don't care how long it takes to pound out plot points, to write out character charts. I don't care if the Book in Your Heart is messy, and painful, and controversial. I don't care if it's new and experimental and full of flaws. If you love it, write it. If it hurts, write it. If you cry when you read that scene at the funeral; if you laugh when you read your MC's dialogue; if you have minor heart palpitations when you skim over that first kiss - write it.

Even if your first draft is crappy, the Book in Your Heart will be a thousand times better in its weakest form than a book that you write only to sell.

Agents and editors can tell when you're writing to trends. They know when you're pandering to the masses, trying to write something good instead of something you love. They know, and they don't want it. There are already too many people who sacrifice art and beauty and passion for something dull and weak. Don't be one of them.

Even if the Book in Your Heart does not sell, the time you spent writing it will never be wasted. But if you write a book that does not speak to you, even if you make a killing on royalties, some piece of your soul will always regret it.

Creating art is often a lonely process, and often there are few rewards. But the incredible thing about art is that it's a reward in and of itself. It feeds YOU, even if it doesn't feed your bank account. Write for that reason. Write because even if the Book in Your Heart never sells, you have gained something eternal, something more priceless than money. You've gained experience, and you've found passion.

The Things I've Learned

I was always a shy kid—reticent with strangers, blushing and soft-spoken. But when I was little I was still capable of being brave about certain things. I acted in school plays—I was the jester once in The Princess and the Pea--and in sixth grade even played a song on my guitar in front of an auditorium of parents.

Something changed around high school. It was the beginning of ninth grade, and I got up in front of the class to share a clay sculpture I'd made illustrating one of our summer reading assignments. But my hands would not stop shaking. As I tried to explain the piece, I found myself stuttering my words. My heart raced. My palms grew sweaty. My throat seemed to be filled with sand.

Suddenly, my shyness had turned into full-blown anxiety. It happened again and again: the panic attack during band class, the day I hyperventilated during work. I'd once wanted to be an actor or a musician—now that was out of the question. I stayed away from the spotlight, sure that if I stepped into it, I'd turn into a shaking, stammering mess.

Writing was easier though; it was solitary and quiet. I could express myself without, you know, having to speak. And I did well distinguishing myself through my words. I formed intense creative friendships and enjoyed great relationships with teachers. Eventually I went away to college and entered an honors writing program. I knew I'd be happy there, but I didn't realize that I would be challenged.

But then I met James, another student who loved writing poetry. We shared poems over the quad and edited in our dorm rooms together late at night. One day, during my third semester at school, he asked me if I wanted to take part in a reading he was doing. He didn't know me as anything but fearless about my writing. He didn't know the truth.

I'm not sure what made me risk it. I didn't want to disappoint my new friend, I guess. So that Friday afternoon in the Student Center, I got up on stage with my scribbled-on journal in hand. I felt the familiar fear mounting. I felt my pulse start to race as I surveyed the audience—James, and my boyfriend, and my friends, and some teachers, too.

And then I looked down at my words. They were my words, written by my own hand. I knew how they were supposed to sound. I knew, deeply and truly, what they meant. As I began to read, something amazing happened. My fear started to drain away. What did I have to be afraid of? I knew my words were good; I'd written them, after all!

That's not to say that I didn't get nervous after that. But that first poetry reading during my sophomore year changed me. By the time I was a senior, I was reading my thesis to a room full of parents under glaringly bright stage lights. Because I never doubted my own writing, I never doubted I'd make it out alive at the end of a performance. And this confidence helped me normalize my fear of public speaking. By graduate school, I was able to get up and teach a class full of college freshmen.

It's funny how writing can do that. When you take pride in your work, it can force you to face your fears and demons without even realizing it. Whether you're afraid of rejection, or speaking in front of a room full of people, so long as you're confident about what you write, you've already won half the battle.

How Writing Helped Me Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Public Speaking

The Backstory:

Early this week, the Publisher's Weekly Genreville blog, written by Rose Fox, posted an article by authors Sherwood Smith and Rachel Manija Brown entitled "Authors Say Agents Try To 'Straighten' Gay Characters in YA." The upshot of their complaint:

The agent offered to sign us on the condition that we make the gay character straight, or else remove his viewpoint and all references to his sexual orientation.

The ensuing discussion was mostly supportive. Much of it took place on Twitter using the hashtag #YesGayYA. Author Scott Tracey, whose debut Witch Eyes features a gay protagonist, wrote two blog posts about the controversy: One encouraging readers to put their money where their mouths are, and another clarifying his thoughts on related issues. Brent Hartinger wrote from the perspective of someone who's been writing gay YA for ten years, as did Robin Talley. Rick Lipman said "to be shocked by this is a point of privilege."

Agent Sarah LaPolla discussed the interplay of business decisions and personal morality, and Malinda Lo broke down the numbers on LGBTQ YA published in the US. She also answered the question "How hard is it to sell a gay YA?" back in April.

The controversy was picked up by the Guardian, and in slightly more snarky form by io9.

Sherwood and Brown made a point of not naming the agency in question, but reportedly, rumors began to swirl behind the scenes, claiming Nancy Coffey Literary and Media Representation was to blame. So many clients and colleagues contacted the agency about the accusations that on Thursday, agent Joanna Volpe posted a rebuttal at Colleen Lindsay's "The Swivet," saying:

[T]here is nothing in that article concerning our response to their manuscript that is true.

As a footnote, Lindsay had this to say:

In the spirit of righteous indignation, I retweeted the story. Almost immediately I was contacted by several well-respected agents - a couple of whom had already read and rejected the manuscript in question, based on the same editorial concerns - who called into question the facts behind the blog post. I later discovered that not only did I know the agent in question, but that this person was actually a dear friend of mine, someone who most certainly wasn't homophobic.

Rose Fox posted an excerpt from Volpe's statement, with the comment that she'd offered to post the entire thing with some changes, but Volpe decided to take it elsewhere. Fox also gave the authors' reply, which was also posted on their own blogs (Smith's here, Brown's here).

We confirm that it was the agency we referred to. We stand by every word we wrote in our original article. ... We did not wish to name them, because we preferred to focus on the larger issues. We did not spread rumors about them, and we don’t know who did.

Both parties are urging the industry to focus on the larger issue here: LGBTQ fiction.

But of course few people listened. So here we are.

Reactions

As always, there are three sides to every story: one, the other, and what really happened. The only people who know the gospel truth are the people who sat in on that phone call. I'm not claiming any scenario as "the real story" or trying to determine guilt; my goal is just to round up the discussions in one place with as little commentary as possible. 

So what do we know? Aside from the claims made in the articles at Genreville and The Swivet, we know that homophobia happens. I don't think I need a link to back that claim. In publishing specifically, we know authors have been asked to "straighten" characters before, or told their gay main character would be a hard sell. We also know books have been banned for LGBTQ content. There are approximately a thousand more links I could toss in, but Cleolinda Jones did a great job of illustrating the challenges that LGBTQ lit faces.

However, we also know the agency's rebuttal was posted by Colleen Lindsay, an ardent supporter of LGBTQ fiction. We know the agency represents authors who publicly self-identify as something other than straight, and authors that post about LGBTQ-related issues, and books with LGBTQ characters (some of which are not published yet and cannot be linked to).*

Other than that, all we have are the following opinions.

This is all a big misunderstanding.
Agent Jennifer Laughran doubts either party acted maliciously. "I don't disbelieve anyone in this case," says an anonymous commenter. "(I)t sounds like a trainwreck of miscommunication, and the agency, being the entity of power in the dynamic, bears the brunt of the responsibility for the miscommunication." Kelly McClymer disagrees, saying perhaps the authors, who seem well-versed in the dynamics of privilege conversations, should have clarified: "Anyone who has ever confronted codespeak (of any kind, not just anti-gay) this way knows what happens next: a complete denial. However, at that point, this particular agency team may have been able to better explain the reasons to turn YA to MG that didn't have anything to do with LGBT characters."


Volpe's post was accusatory and derailing.
"This response leaves the high ground right about here: 'One of our agents is being used as a springboard for these authors to gain attention for their project. She is being exploited,'" commented author Scott Westerfeld. "The post by Rachel and Sherwood was extremely carefully framed as being an industry-wide problem. The response here has been reframed as a personal attack on Rachel and Sherwood," says commenter Jonquil. "Given that they did not name your company or the agent, how is [the agent] being exploited?" asks commenter Gretchen. "While I'm happy to see a response from the agency, particularly one so supportive of YA diversity," adds commenter Jinian, "I don't think the evident assumption of bad faith on the authors' part is warranted."


The agency won't admit a misunderstanding was possible.
Many were disappointed that even the post's title seemed defensive. "(I)f you agree that there's a chance of miscommunication here, given that you can't read another person's mind/intentions by internet however much it might seem possible," said commenter N.K. Jemisin, "and given that Rachel and Sherwood have made every attempt to stay on the 'professional behavior' side of the ledger... is this aspersion on their intentions necessary? It doesn't make you look good, by comparison." Another commenter pointed out that "(p)art of the problem with anti-gay sentiments is that they aren't always an intentional thing. That's the thing about privilege: When you have it, you don't know it's there until you examine it."


The agency is exaggerating the harm done to its own reputation. 
"I just want to point out that from a random observer-- not an 'insider'-- perspective, nobody's reputations were trashed until this post was made," said one commenter. Another responded, "As another (different!) outsider, I'd like to point out that the identity of the agent in question was essentially an open secret due to the rumor mill; that Joanna's response specifically mentions the numerous calls and emails from those who knew she was the one accused; and that to discount the power of the rumor mill in the tight-knit, borderline incestuous publishing industry is foolhardy."

Several commenters claimed that because they hadn't heard the rumors online, the agency's response wasn't justified (and y'all know you laughed at the self-proclaimed "nosy" person). But commenter Julie Particka says, "Rumors in high school didn't get started because they were blasted over morning announcements either. The writing community isn't so large that the authors telling a couple people couldn't eventually get back to Joanna. Too many people wanted to know who the agent in question was--that's how stories get spread."

Meanwhile, commenters on the authors' blogs have referenced locked posts made by the authors in advance of their PW article; Swan Tower refers to "evidence I've seen that you haven't." Obviously these conversations could be completely innocuous, but some see the mentions as proof that rumors were being spread. To be fair, commenters are also claiming to have secret knowledge supporting the agency. (Swan Tower also points out, per Lindsay's request, that Volpe is not the agent in question, but merely speaking for the agency, and that there's "a lot of telephone going on, which isn't helping matters at all.")


The book just wasn't up to par-- that's why the authors had to find a new agent. 
"I'm not clear," commented Jim C. Hines. "(I)s the comment toward the end taking a shot that 'Obviously, the *real* problem is that their book sucks!' from Colleen or from Joanna?" Later, he adds, "(Y)our comment reads -- to me -- as a pretty clear slam on the quality of the book in question, based on the fact that these two authors chose to look for a different agent who could represent them both equally."

Lindsay responded, "It's not a cheap shot. I was pointing out something that agents actually take into consideration when looking at a book under these circumstances. If both of these writers' agents felt that the project was not marketable as is, then there are most likely problems with the manuscript, problems that can range anywhere from having a bloated word count to too many POVs for a kidlit story." Agent Michael Bourret also read and passed on the book in question for unrelated reasons.

Lindsay later clarified for commenters that cutting a POV is not the same as cutting a character, and that "(m)iddle grade works best with one POV. Five POVs in any work of fiction is an editorial nightmare." Another anonymous commenter pointed out, "I don't know how you missed it, but the authors said they were also (or maybe it was instead, I don't have the link open) asked to remove references to said character's sexuality. 'It can be told to the readers in the later novels!' You know what that sounds like? It sounds like making the non-heterosexual characters invisible. Again."


People need to study up on the conventions of middle grade literature.
"Maybe it's just me," says commenter David D., "but 'The first bit of editorial feedback we gave was that they change the book from YA to middle grade, which would mean cutting most of the romance entirely' doesn't really fit with the statements supporting YA literature and diversity within it. If writers want to write YA work with the attendant emotional and narrative complexity...why not first facilitate that rather than suggest a direction that strips those things away?"

This is the one place I'm going to blatantly state an opinion: Just because the authors want to write a YA with complexity doesn't mean they have. Voice is tricky to get right and tricky to edit, and it behooves authors to play to their strengths-- it's possible the agent saw a potentially good MG voice and encouraged it.

Other commenters saw the suggestion of removing romance from MG as an excuse to de-gay the story, but it's a suggestion often made for writers in that age group. "My agent has asked me to change one of my novels from YA to MG and to remove the romance, but there were no gay characters involved," explains an anonymous author. "The story was simply more marketable as MG, and my agent thought it a good direction to take my career (because of how flooded the YA industry has become). It's very possible (there's no way to know really) that Ms. Smith's and Ms. Brown's novel was simply better suited to MG in terms of character arcs, world building, and plot, and Ms. Stampfel-Volpe [sic] simply thought it would be an easier revisions (and eventual submissions) process than trying to keep the book as YA."

(For more on YA versus MG, start here.)


The authors have a bad case of sour grapes. 
"While some are suggesting that it's just as bad to take what the agent says at face value, I honestly doubted the complete veracity of the original post," says commenter Michelle. "There were quite a few facts missing, as well as accusations that seemed overblown and inaccurate. ...(A)fter analysis of both sides, I'll simply refer to Occam's razor."

"I've followed both these authors' blogs for a very long time," says an anonymous commenter. "Just last week, Sherwood Smith was publicly bemoaning the lack of quality YA sci-fi. When I first read the genreville article, I was most shocked to see the genre in which they were writing. It didn't at all match what they've been saying about the apparently poor state of young adult, or young adult dystopians. Something about the story rang false to me. It felt calculated." (I assume anonymous is referring to the Brown's recent posts about how tedious and one-dimensional YA dystopians are, and their general disappointment in YA science fiction.)

Similarly, Josie R. on the DGLM blog said, "Meh. The writers wrote a book that needed fixing. They didn’t want to hear it needed fixing, so rather than fix it, they climbed on a soapbox, cried about how mean agents were to gay characters, and let everyone’s righteous indignation soothe their egos." In another comment, Lindsay said: "Framing the entire discussion around an incident which appears to be nothing more than two overly-sensitive writers reacting to editorial criticism they didn't want to accept is a bad idea."


The authors are out for publicity.
The authors themselves refer to the affair as "a publicity blitz."


Everyone loves to demonize the gate keepers.
An anonymous editor commented: "This kind of tantrum from authors is not rare. Throwing agencies and publishers under the bus has become a bit of a game online, and people seem all too willing to get their hating in guilt-free. It seems to base itself in this idea that authors are these innocent underdogs and agencies are corporate shills. This view is ignorant of the industry reality."


No really, let's focus on the real issue here.
"In a way, I'm glad it opened up the larger conversation about diversity in mainstream YA, though. It's one that's needed to happen for a long time," says teen commenter Maggie Desmond O'Brien. 18-year-old Ali Marie also has a level-headed look at the controversy. (I love that teens are a voice of reason here.)

"To me, the salient point is not the specifics of this particular interaction, the identity of this agency, or who said what and why, or if this agency has a bias against queer characters," commented Deborah J. Ross. "The point is that this censorship-by-gatekeeper happens all the time. If not to these two writers, then to many others. ...We should be looking for ways to work together toward that goal, as allies and partners, not pointing fingers." Polenth Blake also warned that focusing on specific people draws the discussion away from the actual problem.

Jane at Dear Author probably comes closest to summing up my thoughts: She's concerned about the tone of the agent's post, but thinks the book "sounds like a hot mess." The end result: "It’s a classic case of she said / she said with some dangerous oil on the fire... It all gets away from Malinda Lo’s excellent point. Less than 1% of YA books feature LGBTQ teens."

"(T)hese teens have no authors and no characters against which to mirror themselves, to investigate their identity safely or to feel they’re acceptable in the world," says the anonymous counselor at Child Therapy and Mental Health. "Without such a model, we will continue to see young people in our therapy rooms who struggle to know if they are mad, bad or simply gay. Diversity in publishing is a very real pre-requisite to good mental health."

One good thing to come of all this: Many publicly affirmed their openness to gay YA, including agents Janet Reid, Kristin Nelson, Amy Boggs, Suzie Townsend, and Kate McKean, as well as editor Navah Wolfe. (Please note many of these posts were written before NC Lit's rebuttal.)

Finally, I'd like to repeat Scott Tracey's paraphrased call to put your money where your mouth is: Buy the LGBTQ books that do exist. Money talks. Insert other financial cliche here. Or better yet, insert Tanuki Green's fabulous list of YA sci fi and fantasy with major LGBTQ characters. Check out the comments on "The Forgotten B in LGBTQ Fiction." Subscribe to blogs like "I'm Here, I'm Queer, What The Hell Do I Read?" or Gay YA, which has the Ultimate Gay Reading List.

---

I'm keeping comments closed here, because Colleen is doing an admirable job moderating at The Swivet, and I don't envy her the task one bit. You can also head over to the Absolute Write forums, where they have an active discussion about it, or to the authors' individual blogs.

*I have read that Reisz's work includes LGBTQ characters but have not read the books myself.

Disclaimers: Three YA Highway bloggers are represented by Joanna Volpe. Two more are represented by FinePrint, which is not officially connected to NC Lit, but does share a suite and other connections with them. FinePrint is also Colleen Lindsay's former agency.

While I have tried to keep this round up as neutral as possible, I will also say that I've corresponded with agents at NC Lit before and like them a great deal. I do not know Smith or Brown. 

Any opinions not cited otherwise are my own and do not represent the opinions of anyone else at YA Highway or their respective agencies, nor my own agency.

Field Trip Friday Special Edition: #YesGayYA