My Weblog

Beyond Nancy Drew: The New YA Novel

 
By Elaine Viets

Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys, Cherry Ames.

When I was growing up, these were Young Adult books. Except they weren't called YA then. They were books for "young people," a phrase that made me think of those dorky kids who sucked up to the teachers.

Now, there's an explosion of YA books, and I envy today's young readers.

Booklist magazine is celebrating 50 years of YA novels with a year-long print, online, and in-person celebration. Booklist columnist Michael Cart says 2010 had an "unprecedented number of young adult books." When Cart first became involved in YA in the late 1980s, a good year was "250 titles. Today it is more like 5,000 (some say 10,000), and sales are stratospheric, up 22.4 percent in 2014 alone."

I don't have to be feel left out. Cart says "an astonishing 65 percent of all YA books are now being purchased by adults, who have discovered and fallen in love with the genre." Count me in. I fell in love with J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series and asked for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix for my birthday.

This request may be keeping me young. Cart says "societal changes and recent research show that young people's brains are not fully formed until age 25 or so. This has led some observers to posit the notion that people are not now adults until age 26."

And some of us never grow up.

The new YA novels still have Nancy Drew, as well as novels about mean teens, friendship, summer romance. But today's YA tackles topics we never dreamed teens would be allowed to read:

They Called Themselves the KKK: The birth of an American Terrorist Group, by Susan Campbell Bartoletti. We thought the Klan happened "down there" -– in the South, and had nothing to do with good folks in the North. Hah!

Annie on My Mind, by Nancy Garden. This 1982 romance was considered "truly groundbreaking," according to Booklist. "This teenage lesbian love story was the first of its kind to have a happy ending." The word "lesbian" was said in whispers when I was growing up -– gay love was considered unspeakable.

So were the horrors of kidnapping. If the child was found, that was the (happy) ending. Living Dead Girl, by Elizabeth Scott is a different take. Booklist says, "Countless kidnapping books exist in YA, but Scott goes for the jugular . . . spare, intense vignettes explore Alice's psyche as she endures things from which there is no recovering."

No recovering? Never happened in my YA world. Nancy Drew and her pals were invincible. And then there's the forbidden subject of seduction and sexual abuse, even for young men.

 

Boy Toy by Barry Lyga is a "vivid, explicit depiction of a boy's seduction by his teacher. Now 18, Josh relays the residual struggles born of the incident as he becomes involved in a healthy relationship and learns to differentiate between sex and love."

Wow! We had a 16-year-old boy in our neighborhood who had a fling with his high school teacher. His father beamed with "that's-my-boy" pride and the kid's friends envied the lucky dog. That fact that he'd been sexually abused was never considered.

March: Book Three by John Lewis and Andrew Aydin and Nate Powell. The March series of graphic novels is an award-winning account of the civil rights movement, including John Lewis' personal experiences.

Discussions of race relations were unthinkable (and impolite) when I was growing up, and black people knew their place: on the back of the bus. There's also "In the Shadow of Liberty: the hidden history of slavery, four presidents, and five black lives" By Kenneth C. Davis. What? Presidents owned slaves? We never learned that in school. The new YA books fearlessly address the lives and times of enslaved people.

Asking for It, by Louise O'Neill. Rape didn't exist in the YA novels I read. Young women were warned not to let boys "go too far," and we were told to dress modestly because if "something bad happened" it was our fault for "leading a boy on."

Ridiculous, right?

Hooray for the new YA. There's still room for Nancy Drew and light-hearted teen books. But now we can look tough topics right in the eye.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Win the FIRE AND ASHES audio book -- the unabridged MP3 CD read by award-winner Tanya Eby. Click Contests at www.elaineviets.com

Three annoying things

by Donna Andrews of the Femmes Fatales.

I was going to title this “the three most annoying things on the Internet,” but I was afraid the universe would take that as a challenge. So . . . here are three annoying things.  (The book cover at left has nothing to do with the article, but I thought I'd put at least one graphic here, and what better than the cover of my book that comes out next month. Now back to the topic.)

Number 1

Falsely personal political emails. I would say “political emails” in general, but that goes without saying, doesn't it? But still, there one ones that are more annoying than average. The ones that identify the candidates only be first name--”Mary needs you!” “Won't you help John now?” As if I automatically know who John and Mary are--all too often they are candidates in some other district or state. The ones that make ridiculous accusations--”Does Donna support cannibalism???”--merely because I haven't donated to their candidate or signed their petition. And, for some reason, the ones that don't come from a human being but from “John's iPhone” or “Mary's iPad.” Maybe it's supposed to be cool and hip, implying that the emailer is dashing off a little personal missive to you in the midst of a hectic campaign, but I find it offputting to be solicited by machines.

Number 2

Any Facebook post that leads to an article that requires more than a few clicks to read. I might be intrigued by a headline that promises “50 best opening lines of all time” or “100 top movies of all time.” But if I then find the site is going to take 50 or 100 pages—slow-loading, ad-laden pages—to reveal the list, I'm out of there. Oh, and any headline that uses the word “genius” as an adjective. (“Ten iPhone tricks that will save you time and money--#4 is genius!”) The dictionaries now list this usage, dubbing it “slang” or “informal,” so I suppose it will work its way into formally accepted usage eventually but to me it's like chalk on a blackboard.

Number 3

Facebook's escalating notification system. I like getting notified about comments, so I can respond to them if appropriate. Notifications about likes are . . . less useful, and I don't see why Facebook has to send me one notification that 6 people liked my post and another notification that 3 people reacted to it. Is there really that much difference? Recently Facebook has started sending me notifications when one of my friends posts after a long time. So far that hasn't proved particularly useful. And with the couple of pages I manage, it's downright annoying how often Facebook encourages me to post to them. If I have something to say, I know how to do that, dammit!

Wait—I lied. Make that four annoying things.

Number 4

Video without transcript. I prefer to absorb information by reading. Lately, all too often, I find what seems to be an interesting link—in an email, on Facebook, in a Google search. But when I get there, I have to watch a video to get the information. I don't care if it's Stephen King revealing the guaranteed secret to becoming as accomplished and successful a writer as he is—I want to read it, not watch it. This probably means that I'm a dinosaur. So be it.

And don't even get me started about video ads with no off button or . . .

Okay, I could come up with a much longer list of annoying things on the Internet if I worked at it. So what are your pet Internet peeves this week?

Happy Independence Day

HANK PHILLIPPI RYAN:  It was the first year I lived in Boston, I'm pretty sure, and city officials asked me to
take part in a July 4 reading of the Declaration of Independence. There were 20 of us, or so, and we stood on the balcony of the old Boston State House--between the lion and the unicorn, where the original declaration of independence was read to the colonists--and took turns treading it out loud again, clause by clause.  I could barely get through my parts without crying.

It has been my tradition, since then, to read it--not necessarily out loud, but we do when the grandkids are here--every July 4. It's a good tradition.

 

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

 

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.

A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.

We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

The joys of decluttering

by Donna Andrews of the Femmes Fatales.

Yes, there are joys mixed in with the pain.

For one thing, you find things you have been wanting to find. I used to have a small earring stand that sat on my dresser.  It had a metal frame around a piece of metal mesh that you could hang your earrings on. I hadn't seen it since I moved into my house, some fifteen years ago. I looked in all the logical places it could have been, to no avail. And I couldn't find a replacement that I liked. I finally settled on an object that serves the same purpose--a picture frame that holds, instead of a picture, a sheet of wire mesh. But I still remembered the earring stand fondly.

And then I found it. Packed in a box with some other completely unrelated stuff that I hadn't needed since the move. I pounced on the earring stand with joy.

Until I realized that it didn't look at all the way I remembered it. It was bigger, and somehow less graceful. I could use it anyway.  But . . .

It went into the sale pile. I now love the picture frame earring holder more.

I also located my golden clam. When I was in second or third grade, my dad installed a salt-water aquarium in my classroom.  A clam died, and the teacher cleaned out the shell and gave it to me. I suspect I was supposed to take it home to Dad as a subtle hint that the classroom needed a new clam. Instead, I taped it together with white first aid tape, drew eyes on it with a marker, named it Winifred H. Clam, and began writing stories about his adventures walking around the world underwater. (Yes, his. My grade-school self didn't know that Winifred was normally a feminine name.) My teacher showed some of my stories to a friend--possibly a writer--who was so impressed that she sent me a small gold-colored clam charm. Which had disappeared over the years until last week, when I found it in one of the boxes of stuff I hauled out of my parents' house. It's in my dresser now, where I can look at it if I want a reminder of how early I found my destiny as a writer.

And then there are the mysteries. When Mom moved into the assisted living, nearly a decade ago, she gave me a small flight bag--a souvenir of our family trip to Germany several decades before--containing her "good" jewelry. She's never expressed any interest in reclaiming the jewelry, and now that she's in memory care, I doubt if she even remembers it. So I began sorting through, to see what had some value, either sentimental or monetary, and what could go into the sale.

And I found a mystery.

I found three small ivory-colored Bakelite ring boxes. (They're NOT going into the sale!) The first one contained a small pearl ring--I'll need to find a jeweler to tell if it's real or not. The second contained two rings. One appeared to be cheap metal and green glass, although I'll have it checked. The other was marked as 14 carat gold, but set in it is what appears to be a piece of resin containing a small moth. The third contained a wedding and engagement ring set. I assumed at first that they were my maternal grandmother's--Mom was an only child, so nearly all of Mummaw's things came to her.

But folded up and tucked in one of the ring slots was a small slip of paper that read: "January 12, 1945. I'll love you through eternity."

I have no idea who wrote that--and to whom. In January of 1945, my father was still in the army, stationed in the Phillippines.  He and Mom didn't meet until he moved to Yorktown--not only after the war but after returning to and receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin.

My grandparents were married December 30, 1920. I can theorize that the note refers to their 25th anniversary--but why January 12? Not their engagement date.  I don't know when my grandfather asked my great-grandfather for my grandmother's hand. My great-grandfather said my grandmother was too young, and I'd always heard they eloped shortly thereafter.

I'll try asking Mom, but I suspect she won't remember. I can scour all the other papers in my files to see if I can match the handwriting. It could turn out to be my grandfather's--since he died when I was twelve, I don't really know his handwriting the way I do my grandmother's and my parents' handwriting. And it's always possible that the slip of paper was tucked in the wrong box and has nothing to do with the rings.

In other words, the rings may remain forever a mystery. And, solver of mysteries that I am, I have a hard time accepting that.

Any theories? Any suggestions on how I can research the rings?

 

 

 

I need a new metaphor

by Donna Andrews of the Femmes Fatales.

I need a new metaphor.

For years, whenever I wanted to express extreme disinclination for doing something, I'd say "I'd rather have a root canal."

I hadn't ever had a root canal, mind you, but I'd heard from people who had and I knew what was involved. Didn't sound like fun. Didn't sound that different from medieval torture.

So it became my go-to metaphor.

"Have you seen Halloween XXIII?" "No, I'd rather have a root canal."

"Have you tasted my crab dip" "I'd rather have a root canal. And besides, I'm allergic."

"Hey, would you like to ride the Super Cyclone roller coaster?" "Can I have a root canal instead?"

You get the picture.

Then my dentist informed me that I needed a root canal.  The tooth on which he had filled a very deep cavity had, as he put it, "gone south." He put in a quick call to the endodontist he usually refers patients to, who was down the hall and agreed to see me right away.

I wanted to turn tail and flee, but the pain in my jaw wasn't going to get any better.  So I dragged myself slowly down the hallway.  Cue the ominous music in the background.

To my astonishment, I now like my endodontist. I mean, really, really like him. Our first visit, he told me that he'd been traumatized when his dentist ignored his complaints that the anesthetic wasn't working well enough. So he vowed never to cause his patients pain.

And he didn't. I had two root canals, about six months apart. (There seems to be a dental ordinance requiring teeth who want to have their roots canaled to behave themselves until the weekend--preferably a long weekend when you are out of town. My previous two root canals happened right after Malice Domestic and Bouchercon.) But while I wasn't eager to have another, I wasn't dreading it.

Then this past weekend, while out of town for a nephew's baseball tournament, I detected the early but unmistakable signs that another molar was going south.When I got back to town, I called my endodontist's office.

He wasn't in. I could see his partner, though.

I wasn't, initially, very happy.  I adore my endodontist.  I didn't actually know his partner. I reassured myself that my endodontist wouldn't be partners with someone he didn't see eye-to-eye with on important issues like, say, not hurting your patients. Still . . . I was anxious.

So after he confirmed that yes, the tooth was toast, I came right out and asked if he shared his partner's dedication to not causing pain. And was very relieved to hear that if possible, he believed even more strongly in it. And he was as good as his word.

Now I'm on the other side of my third root canal. I have prescription-strength Advil to deal with any post surgical pain.  I'm supposed to stick to softer foods for a few days, and not chew on the root canaled side. But I still really like my endodontists.  Both of them. So while I hope I never have to see them again, it won't be the end of the world if I have to.

Just one problem. I need a new metaphor.  "I'd rather have a root canal" just won't work anymore.

Any suggestions?

 

 

Talking about Talking!

 
HANK PHILLIPPI RYAN: Time for our Tuesday chat--and so hey.  We'll talk about talking. Do you love it? I do. Giving speeches, and presentations,  and classes, and speaking at book clubs. I'm trying to remember the very first one I did--certainly it was in 2007-ish, the launch of my first novel PRIME TIME--oh, no, that's wrong. It was before the book even came out, at the Swampscott Massachusetts Public Library.  Yes! And in fact, I kept the newspaper clipping about it--it's on my fridge. (Wow, that's been there a long time...)

And aw, they called me a "fledgling author." (I still feel like that.)  Do you remember your first book event?

CATRIONA MCPHERSON: My first speaking event as a published author - I'm drawing a veil over those 9am phonology lectures - was in June 2005 at an independent bookshop in Castle Douglas, in Galloway. My first novel -AFTER THE ARMISTICE BALL - had just come out and the room was packed with family and friends who'd booked hotel rooms and blown up airbeds in my house. Few of them had ever been at a book launch before (I know I hadn't) and none of us knew what was supposed to happen.

Luckily the shop staff kept us right. I have no memory of what I said, but I have a clear recollection of my sister Audrey saying "I'd rather die. I'd rather be dead. Aren't you terrified?" when I was about to start speaking. Aspep talks go . . . Also, there was some heckling in the Q&A. A woman asked "Do the words flow out of your pen?" and my oldest friend (and honorary fourth sister) Catherine shouted "The words flow out of her mouth!" 

LAURA DISILVERIO: I do get a kick out of book events. It's such fun to hang out with people who value books and writing, especially book groups!  If I'm remembering right, my first book event was at my local Barnes & Noble (still there, thankfully!) in May of 2010 when TRESSED TO KILL came out. That was my first published book, part of the Southern Beauty Shop series I wrote as Lila Dare. A local bakery, Little London, baked a cake and iced it to look like the cover of the book. It was delish! (I couldn't find any photos of that event, but here's a cake made to look like a later books--SWIFT RUN.) There were a couple hundred of my friends and family members there, and the staff was very helpful. It was a great party, really. I sold and signed a lot of books, and schmoozed with my friends and anyone else who drifted by, and gave out the bookmarks all successful authors told me were the crucial promotional item to have on hand. I had a blast! 

  Not all events are like that, of course, especially when I was knew to the writing biz. Many a time I sat alone in a book store or library, staring at the empty chairs and trying to look like I was passionately engaged with examining my nails or searching through my purse for something. I've also done events for the benefit of the one or two wonderful people who showed up.

HANK: And now we've all done so many of them--and it's such a major part of my life!

CATRIONA: I was talking to a group just yesterday. It was - get this - the 80th anniversary of Elk Grove Book Club.

HANK: And such a terrific way to make new friends.  I know I've gotten more confident about them, have you?  I used to read my speeches from typed word-for -word pages. I still HAVE the pages, new each book and different-ish for each group, certainly. But once I forgot my file of speech (yikes!) and had to do it without--and it was more than fine.  How do you handle reading versus extemporaneous?

LAURA: I have to confess to never having had worries about doing book event talks. I've got an extensive background in teaching and speaking from my former profession (which I won't mention because Catriona will make fun of me) -

CATRIONA: Never! That's not teasing; that's awe - so talking about something I'm intimately familiar with--myself, my writing process, and my books--doesn't faze me. That said, over the years, I've honed a few stories which tend to get repeated, and I've culled out the recollections or anecdotes that don't get the laugh or don't seem to interest people. So, that's a long-winded way to say that my speaking at book events has always been extemporaneous. If I'm giving a keynote speech or some such, that's a different story.

HANK: Oh, absolutely, a keynote is a big deal--and each event gets a new one. 

CATRIONA: I think I have got more confident, now I stop to consider it. I used to get a very fluffy mouth and the only reason I didn't read from a piece of paper was that everyone would see the paper trembling. I don't get that drymouth now. I still get a blotchy neck. (See pic with Santa hat!)  I usually jot notes down in the flyleaf of my book - especially the names of volunteers or bookshop staff to be thanked. My notes wouldn't make much sense to anyone else. "Beach", "Bread oven" "round the back" . . . but they kickstart me.

HANK:  What do you talk about? I give my background, how I came to be an author, how it connects with my career as a reporter. Then what kinds of books I writer, and why, and then a bit more specifics about the book. Then I have a sort of "mid-life addition to my career" element--where I talk about the challenges and joys of doing something completely new. And huh. All three of us have done that: had a career that informs our writing for various reasons, and also started writing fiction...ah, after our twenties. What do you think about that?

CATRIONA: it varies. Yesterday at Elk Grove, I talked about my indebtedness to Dorothy L Sayers and the book collections that led to QUIET NEIGHBORS being written. If I'm talking about Dandy Gilver, I've got some great researching tales ("Bread Oven"). If it's the modern novels, I talk a lot about where the ideas come from, especially since one of them came from a bakery in Carmel. Often the Q&A is the best bit.  And here's a tip: I usually hint at something "that I'm not going to go into, but ask me in the Q&A if you want to know more". Someone always wants to know more and the hush is broken. 

HANK: Oh, yes, planting a question is always good! I do, that, too. Because, there's sometimes that moment of---everyone not wanting to be the first to ask.  

  LAURA: I usually start by talking about why I became a writer and how I made the transition from my former career to writing. I talk about "the call" from my agent, and how long it took to get from starting my novel to landing an agent and then a contract. It's a mini little "you can reinvent yourself in your middle years" talk. I usually talk about my process (because I ALWAYS get asked about it), and about what the current book means to me, why I wrote it, maybe what sparked it or something interesting about the research for it. I'm almost always asked why I don't write books that are closely tied to my former profession, so I sometimes bring that up as well. No later than the 20 minute point, I open it up for questions.

HANK: Do you read from your book? I rarely do--in fact, I don't unless I am specifically asked. And although I've seen that be a big hit with other authors, I have also seen it be a complete disaster. 

LAURA: I only read if asked. I've got a theater background and enjoy reading (and I've been told I do it well), but I've always found it boring to be read to, so I don't do it usually. I also think some people have their own concept of the characters' voices and don't want the author's voice imposed over that.

CATRIONA: I do read, usually. And try hard to give it some drama (see pic with major drama being given!) But I edit and mangle the bit I'm reading to make it work. If someone's trying to follow along they usually give up quite quickly. Sometimes, if it's after lunch, or it's late and/or hot I ask if the audience wants a reading and gauge the response. And I suspect there's an accent component in play. Ending a reading at a cliffhanger moment is a low trick - that I use every single time!

HANK: But of course! And finally, there's the question I always get asked. Where did your name come from?  What question do you always get asked?

 

CATRIONA: Will Dandy Gilver ever come to America? And the answer is no. Miss Marple belongs in St Mary Mead, Inspector Morse belongs in Oxford and Dandy belongs in some wind-lashed, rain-soaked corner of Scotland, trundling around in her Morris Cowley.

LAURA: I always get asked why I don't write spy thrillers, given my background. I have to explain that 1) I'm actually handicapped by the fact that I had a security clearance because I can't use anything I know, and I'd have to submit all my manuscripts to an office for a security review and 2) I don't generally like spy fiction. It's not enough about character for me, and some of the absurdities that are passed off as "real procedure" make me cringe. Physics, people, physics! Too many authors and movies do things with spy satellites that aren't even possible by the laws of physics. Okay, I'm off my soapbox now.

HANK: So what about you Femmes and readers? What are your secrets for a successful event?

A decluttering update

by Donna Andrews of the Femmes Fatales.

I took a break from the basement and the decluttering project in general this weekend to escort one of my nephews at an out-of-town baseball tournament. And between moments of frenzied activity--like that involved with getting a fully clad and equipped player from the hotel to the field half an hour away by 7:15 to warm up for an 8 a.m. game--I had time to think.  Some of my thinking, I admit, amounted to gloating that my basement was three hours away, giving me an unimpeachable excuse for not working on it. But I also had time to muse on the resemblances between decluttering and writing.

And I realized that especially in my basement, decluttering isn't so much like writing as it is like revising and editing.

I'm a big fan of revision. I don't write good books. I write crappy books, either too long or too short, containing pages of back story and telling instead of showing and all the other sins that beset working writers. And then I revise and polish them into some degree of goodness.

If I look at it in that light, the basement isn't a hell-hole, a human-made disaster, or a reason to audition for an appearance on Hoarding: Buried Alive. It's just a rough draft in worse shape than usual, and thus badly in need of a stern editorial pen.

There's a phrase many of us use in editing: killing the puppies.  William Faulkner said it more elegantly: “In writing, you must kill your darlings.” But I think "killing puppies" more accurately captures how painful and horrible it can feel. You're reading your draft, and you come across a scene that has made you glow with pride every time you read it.  It's beautifully written. You just know it will move your readers to laughter or tears or (best of all) both in quick succession.  You remember the day you wrote it--how you nodded to yourself when you finished, or maybe leaped into the air with a fist pump. Or maybe you remember how long you labored over it, how much exacting research it took, how much soul-searching and painful self-revelation.

But now you're reading it in context, and you realize that no matter how beautifully written it is, how moving, how hard you worked to write it, how much time and energy you spent researching it . . . it's a darling. A puppy.  It does nothing whatsoever to advance the plot; in fact, it brings the plot to a screaming halt for way too many pages.

You try to rationalize. It helps with the character development. It helps with the pacing. It's important local color. It's one of the best things you've ever written.

It's a puppy.  Put it out of its misery.

Fortunately, disposing of the corpse of a murdered literary darling is relatively easy.  You clip it out of the main body of your manuscript. You paste it into a document of its own. You reread it, savoring its literary excellence.  Then you save it. You haven't really killed it, you see--you've just put it into hibernation. One of these days, you are sure, you will find a use for that bit of brilliant prose, and until then, it will be there waiting for you.

Unfortunately, I haven't found such an easy and compact way of dealing with the darlings in my basement. After all, if these things played an active (even if only decorative) role in my life, they wouldn't have ended up in the basement, would they? And I can't very well paste them into a document and store them in the cloud until I either need them or forget about their very existence. They're here, underfoot, taking up physical space and mental energy, and I have to deal with them.

Thank goodness for the upcoming sale, for recycling, and yes, the trash can. Still, it's an emotionally and physically grueling process. And one I've always thought I was very bad at, packrat that I am.

But maybe redefining it will help.  I'm not cleaning, decluttering, purging, whatever.  I'm just editing my stuff. I may be a packrat, but I'm pretty damned good at editing.

See you later. Got some editing to do.

 

 

Welcome to the World of eSports

By Joanna Campbell Slan 

Question: At any given time, three percent of all the Internet traffic in the world is comprised of what?

Answer: People playing League of Legends (LoL).

Reluctantly, my husband and I were dragged into the world of professional eSports when our son got involved with Team Dignitas, a professional League of Legends Team. Like a lot of kids, Michael loved video games. Luckily, he was able to turn his passion into his profession, because today he’s the Vice President and General Manager of Team Dignitas, the eSports division of the Philadelphia 76ers.

Right now, you’re probably scratching your head and thinking, “What in the world is eSports?”

You know it as video games. But this isn’t your Pacman or Tetris of old. The Huffington Post calls eSports the fastest growing industry today.

Sure, there’s a debate over whether it qualifies as sports or not, but the US government agreed it does when they granted us the first ever Visa for an eSports player. Soledad O’Brien thinks it’s a sport, too.

And traditional sports teams, such as the Philadelphia 76ers, are buying up eSports teams, because they see eSports as having a bright future.

How big is it?

In 2015, 36 Million people watched 2015 League of Legends (LoL) World Championships as compared to 33 Million people who watched the 2015 BCS (Bowl Championship Series).

• The eSports market ($92 Billion market size) has surpassed both the recorded music and movie industry in gross sales.
• Over 100 Million people play LoL each month.
• Sure, Jimmy Kimmel joked about it—but he certainly took a lot of flak for it.

Here’s how it works with LoL, which is just one of the many eSports out there:

• Each team has five players, who play “champions” or characters with specialized abilities.
• The players have positions: Top Lane, Jungler, Mid Lane, AD Carry (Attack Damage), and Support.
• The players are known as Summoners and are called by their Summoner Names. Our team players are Ssumday, Shrimp, Keane, Altec, and Big. (Big formerly went by "Baby Eater," but the powers that govern eSports were not too pleased with that name. Hence, he's now "Big.")
• The game is won when a team brings down the Nexus of the opposing team.

What’s life like for a pro gamer?

• They command salaries up to $500,000 a year. (One retired pro player, Imaqtpie makes $4 Million a year streaming.)
• They live in a team house. Ours is a $4 Million mansion in Brentwood, California, complete with swimming pool and sauna.
• Our players have a professional chef who’s on call 24/7 and a house manager.
• Two coaches work with them.
• It’s very stressful. Their mechanical ability has to be top-notch. Most players average six keystrokes a second while playing.
• On game day, they play in the Riot studio in Los Angeles, California. The games are streamed on Twitch.

Like a lot of specialized activities, LoL has a language all its own. Fortunately, there are professional casters (broadcasters) who all the games.

Currently, Team Dignitas is 5/1, which puts us as Number One in the team standings. Believe me, it's a LOT more fun to be winning than to lose! You can see highlights from one of our more recent games here.

Do you know anyone who plays online video games?

All Hail Broke Loose

By Elaine Viets

 "A severe storm brought gigantic hail to parts of Oklahoma and Texas," the news story began. "Golf-ball sized hail fell . . ."

That's a hail stone an inch and three-quarters in diameter, according to the National Weather Service.

How was hail measured before golf balls were invented?

The National Weather Service official list for hail sizes ranges from pea-sized -– that's quarter-inch hail -– to softball-sized, an ice chunk four and a half inches in diameter.

Just don't confuse quarter-inch hail with quarter-sized hail, which is one-inch hail.

My personal favorite on the list is teacup-sized hail – three-inch hail. That's extremely accurate description. A hail storm can sound a lot like crashing crockery.

Grapefruit-sized hail is four inches around, but it's hard to image getting hit by a fat, squishy grapefruit would hurt much.

The National Weather Service has another hail size chart. It starts with money -– three-quarter-inch hail is the size of a penny -– and goes up to the Kennedy half-dollar. That's one and a quarter inch hail.

After JFK, hail sizes are golf balls, pool balls (as in pool table, not swimming pool), baseballs, and softballs – all of which have to hurt.

The National Weather Service says, "Imagine a baseball dropped from an airplane flying at 30,000 feet ... imagine that baseball reaching speeds of 120 MPH as it falls to the ground ... and imagine you're under it!"

Game over, folks. "Hail causes $1 billion dollars in damage to crops and property each year."

I can imagine that, but when you get in to the big leagues of hail, a whopping four and three-quarter inches, the best the weather service can come up with is a CD.

A compact disk? That doesn't weigh anything.

Fortunately, the weather service had the uh, stones, to describe the largest recorded hailstone, which landed in South Dakota. That whopper "had a diameter of eight inches and weighed just under 2 lbs. This was after the resident that found the hailstone put it in the freezer but had a 6 hour power outage and some melting likely occurred."

"It was nearly the size of a volleyball!" the weather service said.

******************************************************************************

Win Pumped For Murder, my 10th Dead-End Job mystery, in hardcover. Click Contests at www.elaineviets.com

Those Daring Girl Detectives

I've written here before about how discovering Nancy Drew inspired my love of mysteries. Nancy led me to a host of other juvenile detectives, and I read as many of them as I could find. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, when I first began reading them, many of these series had already been dropped because their sales were lagging. Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys, and the Bobbsey Twins were still going strong, however. It seemed that the days of the juvenile detective were numbered. Juvenile mysteries continued to be published, but there were rarely any new series in the vein of the classics. Most of them, from what I remember, were stand-alones.

Children's publishing these days is vibrant. The bookstore shelves are full of fiction for children and adolescents of various reading levels. What I don't see that often, however, are mysteries with young detectives, other than Nate the Great, for example. Series sleuths in the mold of Nancy, Frank, and Joe are somewhat passé, it seems. Recently I went on a ramble through the shelves at a chain bookstore looking for mysteries -- no paranormal mysteries, just plain mystery/detective stories -- and I didn't find many series books. That of course doesn't mean they're not out there, but this chain didn't have many in stock. I saw some classics, like Harriet the Spy by Louise Fitzhugh and The Egypt Game by Zilpha Keatley Snyder. I saw a number of paranormal mystery series, too.

Happily for my quest, I did discover one relatively new series by a young English writer named Robin Stevens. Her series is set in 1930s England -- nostalgia calling for the original Nancy Drew books! -- and features two thirteen-year-old girls, Daisy Wells and Hazel Wong. The setting in the first book is a girls' school named Deepdean. Hazel, who has been sent from Hong Kong by her madly Anglophile father to be educated in England, narrates the stories. Her best friend, Daisy Wells, is the quintessential aristocratic golden girl who does her best not to let her intelligence shine through and make her unpopular. In the first book, Murder is Bad Manners (aka A Most Unladylike Murder in the UK), Hazel finds the body of one of their teachers. She runs off to report it, and by the time she is back with others, the body has disappeared. Only Daisy believes Hazel actually found a body.

I thoroughly enjoyed the book. Not only is it a good detective story, with clues in the classic manner, it also has an interesting setting. Through Hazel's eyes we get to see both the bad and the good of the English public school system (what we in the US would call private schools). If you are an adult who enjoys reading books like this, try the series, and if you have young readers who are looking for mysteries without ghosts, zombies, vampires, werewolves, and other scary creatures, this might be just the ticket. The tradition of Nancy Drew lives on.