Author: SarahLaPolla

Genre Pressure

~ SarahLaPolla ~ 24 Comments

Since we’re all friends here, I feel comfortable admitting the following to you all…

I’m just not crazy about Battlestar Galactica. There, I said it.

Oh, and you know what author I just cannot, for the life of me, get into? Gary Shteyngart.

I know. Those two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Not on the surface anyway.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I recognize Gary and Battlestar for their objective superiority in their given genres and even would go so far as to say I like them. I’m afraid that’s just not enough for me though. You see, I’m supposed to love them.

This is what I call Genre Pressure. As a fan of well-written science fiction, and as a fan of literary fiction, I should be ALL ABOUT these things. I even love all Brooklyn Jonathans. In fact, I continually pick up stories about self-obsessed writerly types in NYC even though it’s so incredibly lazy and cliche… I eat ’em up though! So why don’t I love Gary?

Genre Pressure works in mysterious ways. It’s the literary equivalent of “he’s just not that into you.” Only, it’s much harder to admit to yourself. No one wants to betray their favorite genre, especially when everyone you completely respect tell you all the time that “OMG You would totally love this!” So usually, I lie.

But nope, not today. I’m coming clean. Well, at least about these two specific examples.

What about you? Who else among us have secretly betrayed their genre of choice for the sake of fitting in?

Strength, Weakness, & Why Everyone Gets Feminism Wrong

~ SarahLaPolla ~ 20 Comments

There was some discussion this week about what makes a so-called “strong female character,” and since I’m often touting that I want that very thing in a novel, I thought I’d offer my two cents. It all started with Natalie Whipple, YA author and my former fake-battle-of-the-band nemesis. She blogged on Wednesday that she hates the term “strong female character” because it usually implies that there is only one way to be strong. In response, and further elaboration, Sarah Jae-Jones examined what it means to be feminine and the variations of “strength” it indicates.

I call myself a feminist and I don’t understand how anyone, male or female, can say they are not one. Feminism is the belief that women are equal to men, and that women have the freedom to make their own choices. That’s all it is. We are not militant radical hairy-legged man-haters intent on ridding the world of all things male. The thing about applying labels to yourself is that, suddenly, you become every negative connotation that label has ever represented.

Another example, though on a far less ideological scale, is the casual science fiction fan. Say you like sci-fi or fantasy to the average person and you become pegged as a Babylon 5-loving, Dungeons and Dragons-playing, convention-attending fanatic. (How many times have I experienced the “judgmental nose crinkle” after one hears my favorite show has the word “vampire” in it? Yeah, a lot.)

The point is, it’s easier to generalize; the extreme of a situation is always more fun to consider than the reality. To me, real strength is rising above those labels and bringing their original meaning back to the forefront. (And yes, I am attending the Rally to Restore Sanity.) Strength is not the ability to be sassy, independent, or fall out of gender roles. (Sorry, but I buy impractical shoes and paint my nails and am afraid of spiders – and I like to think I’m pretty damn strong.) Strength is the ability to be yourself and be comfortable with that person. There are characters who are less self-assured and still considered strong, but we’ll get to that later.

So what do I mean when I say I’m looking for strong female characters? Well, it’s the same as what I mean when I say I want strong male characters. “Strong” women are not necessarily the single-and-proud modern femmes made popular by Sex and the City. Of course, those characters were strong, for the most part. That is, until the movies showed up and demanded Carrie needed a marriage license in order to be happy, even though the person she married was horribly emotionally abusive to her for over ten years.

But I digress.

Actually, it’s not digression. By making Carrie get married, her character was weakened. She represented the “It’s OK to be single!” crowd (started a movement, even!) and making her marry Big instead of just living monogamously ever after or (gasp!) remain “happily single” the way she did in the book, basically lobotomized her. Yet, making a character like Charlotte remain single would’ve just been upsetting. Her whole purpose was to find love and marriage and have babies. Not giving her that happy ending would have weakened her too. It would have said everything she worked for was all for nothing, and that her dreams were meaningless.

The ladies of SATC were by no means the originators of ambiguously happy endings in the form of marriage. Elizabeth Bennett wasn’t suddenly in less control of her life because she married Darcy at the end of Pride and Prejudice. What made Lizzie strong was her intellect, wit, and refusal to adhere to the restrictions of her time. We’d root for her no matter what she’s done because of who she is. If she ended up single at the end, she wouldn’t be tragic or a martyr. She’d still be Lizzie, who got there on her own terms.

There is also what I’ll call plot-based strength. Think of Ryan Bingham from Up in the Air (made famous by George Clooney in the movie). In Ryan’s case, independence and freedom are not always positive strong points. He is solitary and convinces himself he wants it that way. Then we see how lonely that life is, and just when we think he can finally connect with someone… he doesn’t. The ending is incredibly sad, but the novel sets it up to be that way. Sad endings aren’t always deep and happy endings aren’t always an easy way out. But, in Ryan’s case, his sad ending existed to make the reader reflect. Like Lizzie, it almost didn’t matter if the character found happiness through another human being or whether he decided being alone is what he really wanted. It was his time, place, and circumstances that made him who he is. If we knew him in real life, would we consider him a strong, confident man? Maybe not. But he does make for one strong character.

Back to my original question, now: what do I mean when I say I want strong characters? I want people who transcend the labels, who are multi-dimensional, and who’s endings are in keeping with what they want or deserve. Words like “strong” or “weak” only apply to how you write your characters and what types of lives you want them to have.

To me, the weakest character in all of literature is Bella Swan. She is passive, unremarkable, and has no purpose other than to be the object of crazy-stalker-boyfriend’s affection. She is the poster child for low self-esteem and teaches girls all over the country that it’s OK to be controlled, bitten, and obsessed over, as long as the boy is cute enough. (Oh, and it’s perfectly fine to carry his claw-happy offspring, as long as you wait until marriage and give up your humanity.)

The reason all of this makes Bella weak, other than the obvious, is because through it all, we’re still supposed to think of her as our heroine, and not as the tragic figure she really is.

Writing good characters, like feminism, is about choices. Whether your character is male or female, ask yourself if they were responsible for their story’s conclusion, and, if they weren’t, can it be considered redeeming or poignant.

An Ode to the Hard Way

~ SarahLaPolla ~ 9 Comments

I read some entertainment news this week that made me stop and pause. That is, after my anger subsided. You see, on publishing’s beloved blog, GalleyCat, it was announced that procrastinating’s beloved time-suck, Awkward Family Photos, is becoming a TV show. The article is here, and it also brings up another success story that we know and, well, have mixed feelings about.

We all remember that Shit My Dad Says was a hilarious Twitter feed that became a less funny book and is about to become what I assume will be a god awful TV show. Likewise, I assume Family Photos will have a similar “so quirky it’s forced” premise and may or may not star a has-been celeb like Willie Aames or George Hamilton.

Blog/Twitter feed to book to TV deals, as a whole, are not bad things. Blogs becoming books seem like a logical next step in the right instances, and adding TV to that mix can work, again, with the right subjects. What bothers me so much about Awkward Family Photos is the same thing that bothers me about the recent trend of fake Broadway musicals like Rock of Ages. They completely disregard the talent and importance of original writing just to make a quick buck.

These blog-to-TV shows are every other typical family sitcom disguised as a recognizable brand. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why this is good in theory. Rehashing something we already know is fun, for about a minute. (Remember the Geico Cavemen show? Exactly.) We can sing along, we see familiar faces, and we’re in on the joke. It makes us feel special. But attention-grabbing gimmicks do not a lasting career make. Once people realize they’ve been duped into watching just another According to Jim, these blog-to-TV shows will get canceled.

Now, if your life dream is to produce one massively successful project that will make you tons of money in one fell swoop, even if it means being a nobody a year later, then go for it. I will not stand in your way; I will even support your endeavor. (Everyone likes money, right?)

But if you want to be authors – as in, real, this-is-my-career authors – then do not get discouraged by this flashes in the pan. Things like integrity, patience, and talent not only matter, but they will be what make you last in this business.

I realize I’m sounding a bit Pollyanna and I apologize. My faith in writers, publishing, and humanity in general can’t be snarked out the way the rest of my emotions can. (Usually.)

Lastly, relevant to nothing, I leave you for the weekend with this awesome rendering of various Harry Potter characters’ social media pages (courtesy of @NathanBransford)!

Have a wonderful weekend, everybody! And if you find yourself getting restless, you can always go take some awkward photos and hope for the best.

Lessons from Peggy Olson

~ SarahLaPolla ~ 9 Comments

Last night on Mad Men, my role model, Peggy Olson, after once again refusing the advances of that guy who saw her naked, asks him why he always “makes her reject him.” I can relate, Peggy. Only my lament is usually to writers. Rather than make my question hypothetical like Peggy, I thought I’d share the most common types of writers that elicit this response, using other fabulous Peggy quotes, of course. Hopefully you won’t recognize yourself, but maybe you’ll be able to save others.

1. “Stop barging in here and infecting me with your anxiety!” It usually goes something like this: I receive a query that doesn’t interest me, so I reply with my form rejection. The writer immediately replies, thanks me for my rejection, and sends another query pasted below. I’m still not interested and send a slightly more personal rejection. Writer responds with, “OK how bout this?” This only reminds me of that kid in junior high who keeps asking out the girl who just wants to be friends. It makes me feel bad, but it doesn’t make me respect you as a writer. It comes off as desperate and unprofessional. Wait a few weeks to query again, and be sure to remind agents what your previous project was so we know who you are.

2. “Clients don’t always know what’s best.” OK, I’m stretching with this quote because instead of “clients,” I will say “potential clients,” and the reason the rejected ones don’t always know what’s best is because they don’t look. An agent shares submission guidelines, what they are looking for, and what they are definitely not looking for are on company websites, agent-directory sites, personal blogs, and on Twitter. If writers are ignoring these outlets, then they just made an extremely competitive business that much harder to break through. If my name is one of many on the “sent” list, or if you attach a query instead of pasting it, or you send me a pitch for something I do not represent, then your email is going to get deleted without being read. Likewise, if you send something via snail mail, it not only takes longer to get a response, but you risk having your query lost in the mail. Or, in the case of larger agencies like Curtis Brown, you could get trapped in the General Slush Pile, queries not addressed to specific agents. Few live to tell the tale.

3. “You have everything and so much of it.” It’s easy to understand why writers would want to stand out to agents, to try to get noticed in a sea of queries. What most of these writers don’t understand is that the best way to get noticed is to have an appealing project. The “look at me” queries are usually 90% biography and 10% project. If you are pitching a nonfiction project that only you can write, then yes, you should include background information. (I should point out that I am not looking for nonfiction, unless it’s of the narrative kind.) When parents talk about their kids as a way of saying “I’m qualified to write YA because I’ve spoken to a child before” it just sounds ridiculous. Same is true for the people who are doctors or lawyers or former CIA agents – working in a field you write about gives your book authenticity, but it doesn’t automatically make you a talented writer. The project you are pitching should always be the focus of your query. Everything else is useless if you don’t have a good idea or ability to write.

4. “I wanted other things.” This comes after I read a manuscript, decide to pass on it, but am willing to read a revision. When the revision comes, I’m always excited to read it because I know it’s a project with potential that hasn’t yet been reached. Sometimes, disaster strikes and the writer does one of two things: 1) he or she does a substantial revision, but does not address any of the issues I wanted addressed, or 2) he or she does exactly what I suggested and nothing else, making the overall product appear poorly constructed and not well thought out. Sadly, another rejection has to be given.

5. “Frankly I’m disappointed by your presentation.” It doesn’t get any clearer, writers. Sometimes the only reason agents “must” reject you is because we are just not impressed by your project. That never means “we are all disappointed;” it just means “I” am, whoever that “I” may be. Don’t take things personally, ever, in this business because rejections come with the territory.

The moral of most of my stories here on the blog is to just be professional and considerate when dealing with agents. Respect their wishes, both in terms of how they want work submitted and when they want you to stop sending them work.

Ultimately, there will be someone out there who will respond positively to your work, and what’s important to remember is that the agents who rejected you won’t feel bad or ashamed when your book gets published. We’ll just think, “See? That project that wasn’t for me really did find a better home. Good for you, writer who now has a good name within the industry!”

But, if you’re anything like those immature men who won’t leave Peggy alone, we won’t have to be gracious at all because, chances are, you are still out there… making people keep rejecting you.

Speak Loudly

~ SarahLaPolla ~ 6 Comments

It is unfathomable to me that there are people who walk among us who still try to ban books. And yet, just this past month, someone-whose-name-doesn’t-deserve-another-Google-hit tried to ban Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson because he thinks rape is akin to pornography. (Remind me never to go on a date with that guy, by the way.) Ms. Anderson eloquently responded to the matter here.

This dirt bag caused the literary world to shake its head in annoyance, anger, and a little bit of laughter since, after all, the irony of trying to ban a book is that the minute you state your intentions, that book immediately becomes more widely read than it would have without the extra attention. He also has good timing because what better time to pick up a copy of Speak and other banned books than this week, the beginning of Banned Books Week?

There’s a good NY Times article about ways to celebrate this week, and of course reading books that cause controversy are worth reading any time of year. Banned books are more than just sex scenes, even though the people who try to ban them are often too dense to understand that. Books that are questioned by the “authorities” are those that speak to a larger truth. Truth, obviously, is something that should be kept hidden from young minds so they grow into the world unprepared and, as a result, end up just as closed-minded and ignorant as book banners.

Banned books not only spark conversation and debate, but they are also the ones that usually go down in history labeled “classics.” You can support these important titles by buying them and reading them, but as writers, you can support what they stand for by producing them yourselves. It should go without saying that no one sits down to write a novel with the intention of getting it banned. Scenes of violence or sex might cause controversy, but gratuitous or heavy-handed devices won’t get you very far. Plus, readers see right through those flashy “look at me” tricks.

Instead, focus on the heart of these books. Don’t shy away from topics that are difficult to write about and don’t sugarcoat life’s harsh realities. Sexual identity and orientation, racial tension, religious conflict (internal and external), domestic violence, and degradation are all important issues that teens and adults face. Use your words for issues that matter and support others who refuse to adhere to simply what is safe. If you can write, then you should speak.

Entitled

~ SarahLaPolla ~ 17 Comments

“And I am a writer, writer of fictions, I am the heart that you call home; And I’ve written pages upon pages, trying to rid you from my bones.” – The Decemberists, The Engine Driver

In a recent writing session, I asked former colleague/YA writer/all around awesome person, Tracy Marchini, when she gave her novels their titles. The answer: “right away.” Under normal writing circumstances, I wouldn’t have even asked because obviously the title comes first. But this wasn’t a normal writing circumstance for me – I was writing fiction.

As most of you know from following the blog, I’m (painfully slowly) writing some YA fiction at the moment (again, a painfully long moment that will someday lead to a finished novel, I hope). I’m enjoying the process immensely, when I find the time for it, but in my mind, I still would not refer to myself as a writer of fiction. To me, I’m still a personal essayist who simply ran out of (true) things to say for the time being.

With my non-fiction, which includes these blog posts, I think of a title first. Sometimes that’s all I have. I either think it sounds clever or captures the spirit of what I’m writing about. With essays, themes are layered, but they usually revolve around the same central issue. Novels rarely can be wrapped up so tightly. Their titles range from encapsulating an idea to a particularly good line of dialogue to a one-word, thought-provoking concept. The endless possibilities make my brain hurt, which is why the file currently frowning at me from my desktop reads “UntitledYA.doc.”

How do you all think of titles? Do they come first or do you, as the quote above says, write pages upon pages before you can rid title-block from your bones?

Write a Paranormal Bestseller W/out the Paranormal

~ SarahLaPolla ~ 10 Comments

So you wanna write a bestseller…

Only trouble is you don’t even like vampires, let alone want to write about them. I feel your pain, realistic fiction writers. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good paranormal story, but there’s a certain timelessness to realistic fiction whose story remains true generation after generation. I’d love to see a strong return to the realistic, adult or YA. There are some great realistic titles on the bestseller list now, but the charts are still largely dominated by paranormal romance, urban fantasy, and post-apocalyptic sci-fi. Again, not that there’s anything wrong with that… but for those of us who think real life still has an important place on the bestseller list, here are some tips for cashing in on that paranormal success without ever mentioning the V-word:

1) Write a vampire/werewolf/zombie/angel novel without using vampires, werewolves, zombies, or angels. There will always be people who cling to these creatures, whether they’re biting people, romancing people, or being comically self-referential. But when these novels reach bestseller status, it’s safe to assume they are being read by more than your typical genre fan. What “the masses” are responding to within these characters are not their supernatural abilities or folklore, but rather what they represent. Vampires seduce us, yet suck us dry. Werewolves are wild and have the power to make us just like them. Zombies are mindless followers out to destroy those with free will. Angels are our saviors in whatever crisis we face. We all know people like them in our lives, and they don’t always come from another realm of existence.

2) Get adult/YA crossover fans without being creepy. Twilight Moms freak me out. Taken literally, these desperate housewives lust after teenage boys who can literally tear them apart with their teeth. That’s wrong on many levels. However, Twilight Moms, much like adult fans of Harry Potter and The Hunger Games, are not to be taken literally. To the crossover fans, these novels are more than just cool spells, hot teens, and kickass heroines. They’re about choices and battles and taking on more than you’re ready for. They speak to our senses of responsibility, memories of falling in love, and feeling as if the fate of the entire world is in our hands.

3) Want artistic recognition? Think Kafka. Gregor Samsa woke up one morning and found himself transformed into a giant insect. Hilarity does not exactly ensue. Instead, his family hides him and he slowly loses his humanity. The question on every English major’s mind is, “what does it mean?” and it should be the question on yours when you go to write. Addiction? Sexual identity? Divorce? Death? Insanity? What is your character hiding, and what has he become?

4) Buffy Doesn’t Always Have to Stake Things. Your female lead doesn’t need a man to kill things for her, whether those things are vampires or spiders. She’s vulnerable, yes, and sometimes she makes really poor choices, but don’t we all? Write a heroine who’s realistic and fallible, but who can still completely hold her own in a so-called “man’s world” without resorting to cheap flirtation or playing the damsel.

5) You Don’t Need an Apocalypse to Prove that Life Sucks. The world is going to end in a fiery blaze of concentrated evil and we will all be left to face the consequences, possibly resort to cannibalism or turn into a zombie, and finally we’ll be forced to form a small band of survivors intent on saving us from ourselves. Or, in other words, we are going to go through some serious shit at some point in our lives, stuff that could potentially destroy our very essence if we allow it to consume us. So, let’s not do that and learn to live again, maybe with the help of a close friend or love interest, but not necessarily.

Go forth and write the next bestseller… and get real.

A Fine Line Between Book Love & Hate

~ SarahLaPolla ~ 34 Comments

We are book lovers. The written word is what we’re passionate about. We can spend hours upon hours upon hours discussing our favorite titles, under-appreciated authors, overrated novels, and what we love about writing our own stories.

If you love something as much as we love books, you have the ability to hate it with the same level of passion. Now, there are plenty of books we just don’t like. Not our thing, don’t read a certain genre, we’re not the intended audience, etc. But I’m not talking about those gray areas. Maybe it’s because I didn’t get much sleep last night and woke up a little cranky, but – let’s talk about books we loathe!

I think the first book I ever truly hated was Johnny Tremain. My 6th grade class had to read this in some sort of combination English and Social Studies lesson. Now, I’ve heard Johnny Tremain referred to as a classic and it even won the Newbery Award in 1944. To my 11-year-old mind, however, this was the most boring thing I ever had to read ever. And I read a lot! Maybe I should return to it with my mature, adult eyes, but whenever I think of this book, I can’t help remembering how much I wanted to throw it across the room and how much I hated my 6th grade teacher.

A novel that comes in as a close second on the hate-scale is another that I was “forced” to read in my youth. In A.P. English, we had to read Bartleby the Scrivener, which might have been the first time I wrote a mini-rejection letter in my head: “Dear Herman, I love the idea you’re going for here, but the execution is god awful. Sorry, I’ll pass.”

But, like I said, the story of Bartleby still intrigued me; I just “preferred not to” read it. It wasn’t until my teacher then suggested Billy Budd by Melville that I knew true hate, and it’s the reason I’ll never read Moby Dick. Two examples of an author’s long-winded, incredibly dull storytelling skills are all that I need, thank you. Sorry to any Melville fans; I’m sure there are things to admire about his sentence structure, style, and command of language. I just don’t see it. I ended up telling my teacher about three-quarters through that I just couldn’t finish. She seemed sympathetic to my cause and still gave me credit for reading it.

The reason these terrible-to-me books were read at such young ages is because after high school, people stopped forcing me to read things I might hate. In college I didn’t love everything I read, but I certainly didn’t hold any violent grudges toward them.

You tell me: what’s the one title you can’t barely think about without feeling enraged?

 
Just Say No to Bad Books! 
(but respect other people’s opinions about them because everything is subjective!)

No Sleep Til: Part 2

~ SarahLaPolla ~ 7 Comments

Yesterday was the Brooklyn Book Festival, which is a massive gathering of literary folk in Brooklyn Heights. It’s sort of like a mini-BEA, or like a literary state fair. This is my third year going to the BBF, and like last year, there were lessons to be learned:

1) I am even older this year. Like last year (see link above), there was a party to attend in Brooklyn the night before the BBF, but unlike last year, I opted for a quiet night in instead. Likewise, I ended up leaving the festival earlier than planned because I was too tired to go on. I hope both of these decisions are just signs of an oncoming cold instead of the alternative – being spent by 3:00 at the age of twenty-six.

2) Book nerds are like happier postal workers. Rain and wind are no match for them. The weather at the BBF this year was pretty dreadful, but hoards of people still gathered at Borough Hall, ready for literary fun.

3) Children do not grow up any faster in NYC, except when they do. In a YA panel called “Concrete Jungle Where Dreams Are Made Of” (!), three YA authors discussed setting their stories in NYC. Rebecca Stead (When You Reach Me) grew up in New York, and assured a Q&Aer that kids in New York don’t grow up any faster than those in the suburbs. This completely contradicted a point she made earlier, which was that one of the things she loved most about growing up in a city was that it forced kids to mature earlier. Despite the conflicting messages, I know what she means. Certain sensibilities, such as being cautious and aware of your surroundings, are slightly more beyond-your-years than children who know all of their neighbors by first and last name. However, the nature of being a child – unsure, trusting, ideological – remains intact. The city doesn’t take that away from them.

4) Air Supply is terrible. As Steve Almond pointed out in a “It’s Only Rock n Roll (but I like it)” panel, a true music snob is able to completely de-lust himself or herself after discovering the object of their affection listens to, say, Air Supply, un-ironically. I feel the same about others’ literary tastes. Also on this panel were Jennifer Egan and Colson Whitehead, both of whom I enjoyed tremendously.

5) I didn’t hear or see the word “Franzen” once. OK, this isn’t so much a lesson as it is something I found reassuring. My love of Freedom and appreciation of Franzen aside, it was nice to know that literary people are able to talk about something else. Then again, I did leave early.

6) “No Sleep Til” refers to Astoria (Queens), not Brooklyn. The Beastie Boys must have never slept.

Sadly, I did not get to see two panels I had been looking forward to. One featured Ben Percy, whom you should all be reading. He’s like a Gen-X version of Cormac McCarthy and his new novel (The Wilding) is just as amazing as his short stories. (And I’m not just saying that because he’s a CB author.) The other panel was a humor discussion that involved John Hodgman. “Discussing” humor, in general, is not funny, but anything involving John Hodgman usually is.

Lastly, my client Feliza-Rose David is awesome and so is her blog, which is where I found this jem of a Ke$ha parody called Writer’s Blok by author Jackson Pearce over the weekend. Enjoy, writer-friends!

Happy Anniversary, Me!

~ SarahLaPolla ~ 18 Comments

Little known fact: this week marked the one year anniversary of Glass Cases publications.Such an innocent time, back then. Hard to believe we once lived in a Snooki-free world.

First and foremost, THANK YOU for keeping this blog alive and for supporting me and for being all around amazing!!!

As you might be able to piece together, this blog started when I was a wee assistant, not really sure if I’d make it in this crazy, mixed up world of publishing (OK that’s only half true). But, as my position with Curtis Brown changed, the blog did become a little more industry-related, but only in terms of writerly education; I still leave the business side of things to be explained by those who are far superior at it than I.

Anyway, this post today is just my chance to look back at the blog that I still can’t believe people read, and to express my thanks to all of you, particularly those who have contributed stories.

Thanks again for everything, readers! Have a great weekend.