Sunday, July 15, 2012

The Last Princess or Beware of Fruit

I stole The Last Princess by Galaxy Craze from my fake boss at her birthday party last night. I read it in one sitting, so there is obviously a lot going right in the novel. But that's less interesting than talking about the niggling issues I have about it that sully the fact that it was obviously a unique approach to the post-apocalyptic trend and very well paced.

Catastrophic events led to every natural disaster you can think of battering the Earth. After the Seventeen Days, the British Royalty emerged from their bomb shelter beneath Buckingham Palace. All communication was down, so they sent a ship to contact someone, anyone, outside of England. That ship never returned. For all any of the English know, they are the last people in alive in the world. With the environment ravaged, and the sun dropping flaming bits of itself for further destruction, most of the country is starving. Badly enough that in some quarters cannibals roam what remains of forrests. There is civil unrest, and it's going to kill the king and queen -Eliza's parents.

I would say that my biggest issue starts with the fact that it is made very clear on page 13 that Eliza isn't supposed to be a helpless girl:

"After the Seventeen Days, without phones or computers or television, Mary [elder sister] and I amused ourselves play-fighting with the Royal Swords. The Master of Arms gave us lessons, teaching us to slash, stab, and parry. Mary and I would fence against each other, betting on the little luxuries that were still left over from before: a square of Cadbury chocolate, a piece of spearmint gum. Later, when the government food rations were gone, we would take spears and throwing knives to the woods around Balmoral, hunting the snakes and pigeons and few other creatures that remained. I was surprised to find that I had quite good aim, unlike Mary, who never could get the hang of throwing a knife."

Despite her obvious natural skills that were trained over the course of several years with, presumably, one of the best teachers one would find in England, Eliza, at practically every turn, gets saved by the boy. This is not to say that she doesn't fight, or even have modest success at hand-to-hand combat, but that 9 out of 10 times, when she's in dire straights, the love interest, Wesley, suddenly appears to get her out of the situation.

My second issue gets spoilery. So, massive civil unrest leads to a coup. Eliza barely escapes alive, her parents are dead, her brother and sister have been captured but are inexplicably being kept alive. For months. The leader of the insurection has made no secret of his intention to crown himself king. Why keep two heirs around to threaten your legitimacy? Futhermore, and more importantly, as we near the end, the populace, needing only an inspirational heroine they obviously find in Eliza, rise up against the over-the-top evil of the insurection. They conquer Newcastle by surprise and suffer little to no loss despite their inferior numbers, training, and weaponry. Getting to this fighting back stage happens all to quickly and cleanly, and unlike real war, no one close to Eliza is ever seriously wounded, let alone killed. Except her poor expendable parents whose deaths more or less start everything off.

Also, horses seem to travel preternaturally fast in this book. I can't say for certain as time passage was vague, but as Eliza flees London on her stolen warhorse she sees a sign saying "Scotland 380 miles" (p 189). Two short chapters, a nap, and a couple of dispatched cannibals later, she's made it to Balmoral Castle, which, according to Google Maps is 510 miles away from the Tower of London. I had to look it up, but a good day's travel on horseback is about 30 miles. No big.

Few teens are going to care about the speed a horse travels, or that battle goes too easily, nor that there is no depth or dimention given to the villians. Only some will care that the princess gets saved. A LOT. None of these things will keep me from recommending the book. Neither does it stop the obnoxious "BUTs" that ricochet around my brain.

Friday, June 08, 2012

Don't Accept Sexism or Today in Don't Piss Off Twitter:


I really, really didn't think much about yesterday's post about the blatant sexism in Scholastic's Survive Anything books. I opened my committee box from Scholastic, and there they were. I couldn't not look at them, and I couldn't help but notice how it played into gender stereotypes in a shockingly obvious and stupidly offensive way. So I dusted off this blog and wrote a fairly minimalist entry, trusting that in typing out the table of contents the books would speak for themselves. They did.

I didn't expect it to spread through Twitter like WILDFIRE. I figured a few of my friends would find it as obnoxious as I, but I didn't expect the great Ryan North (incidentally, my husband's IDOL, no joke) to pick it up (with a fat cut & paste no less) and run with it all over the place. I spent the day talking to 700 middle school students about books, reading, and the library, so what happened next is really all your story. You spread the issue thousands upon thousands of times on Twitter. You linked to it on Facebook, on Tumblr, and Reddit. It was picked up by BuzzFeed and Jezebel (Jezebel, in a failed example of journalism, didn't credit me, but whatevs).

And Scholastic? They heard you. In a terse post, they announced that no further copies will be made available." Whatever that means. No additional printings would be my guess.

Which puts me in sort of a strange mind. On one hand, VICTORY! We have stood up for our children and refused gender boxes! On the other, there wasn't really anything wrong with most (definitely not all - some of the girl language was downright patronizing) of the content, just that it assigned specific gender roles in a nonsensical out-dated, way. Objections would not have been had if Boys Only! and Girls Only! hadn't appeared on the cover. Make them gender neutral, and it's possible I would have talked these up to the couple thousand students I see this time of year. So, now that these books are no more, my little librarian mind is confused: Did I just instigate some sort of progressive-minded censorship? Regardless, let's hope that Scholastic will keep this in mind the next time they think creating gendered books is spiffy keen.

For some lols, check out the apology North wanted to get from Scholastic.

John Green is Mostly Wrong


At BEA Children's Book and Author Breakfast:

"There's a lot of talk about enhanced e-books," Green said. "What we do best does not need or benefit from what we call enhancement. We are good at giving people rich and immersive experiences. I believe story trumps everything." After a round of applause, he continued, "To be fair, it's like being in a room full of elephants, talking to elephants about how great elephants are." -via Shelf Awareness

And that's what happens when you speak in a vacuum. You say things that have a pesky tendency to be impossible absolutes. Story does trump everything. It trumps mediocre writing, and it's why Stephanie Meyer and Rick Riordan are wealthy. But words are not the only way to tell a story.

I have to confess here that I have a somewhat vested interest in this topic. Not financial or anything, but I'm going to be speaking at YALSA's 2012 YA Literature Symposium about transmedia,* an element of which lately, is often manifesting as "enhanced e-books." I've been thinking about them for a long time. Green might exist in a world full of really good, eager readers, who don't desire anything more than the world they create in their mind. However, to say that story can not benefit from additional media shortchanges the potential of an art form. You might not care for watercolor, but it doesn't make it intrinsically of less value artistically than oil paint. Nor does it make that painting as a whole of less value, or the story that it tells less rich. It's just a different media. Stories don't need a printing press.

John Green may not feel that his novels will benefit from any "enhancements." I feel that Okay for Now by Gary D. Schmidt and the Leviathan series by Westerfeld benefited from illustrations. I feel that the audio version of The Invention of Hugo Cabret benefited from sound effects. I feel that Chopsticks by Jessica Anthony and Rodrigo Corral benefited from the embedded youtube clips in the e-book version, rather than just the link text in the print format. I believe that John Green should spend some time with Patrick Carmen.

Imagine reading an ebook where the author triggers specifically chosen or created music based on the page you're on. Imagine if Don Calame's Call the Shots (out in Sept) included video clips of the horror movie the characters are making. What if Erebos let you join in on one of the MMORP quests? If Ready Player One showed clips of the movie references, or played the songs, or let you play one of the video games? Is it needed? Nah. But I won't claim that it wouldn't benefit.

Nor would I claim that the integration of such enhancements doesn't appeal to those who look at a page full of text and walk away. Based on his books, I doubt that Green has much contact with truly reluctant readers, so maybe he doesn't see how transmedia (telling a story across formats) might appeal to those readers. It can break up text. It can help bridge comprehension barriers. It can provide an online forum full of resources for additional engagement (something Green knows a bit about).

Green's "what we do best" refers to writing, and writing alone. Enhanced ebooks won't succeed if the story isn't good enough. But neither will theater. Or art. Or music. Or video games. Or anything else that creates a "rich and immersive experience." Saying, believing, otherwise just tells me you aren't as creative as you maybe think you are.

But then, writing the same characters in four unrelated books maybe already told me that.**

What many authors do best certainly is writing, and that's why illustrators are hired. That's why collaboration exists - to create outside of a vacuum. Enhanced e-books and transmedia simply mean that collaboration can now include more people committed to that story. What authors are really good at is having a vision; making up a world where possibilities are endless. Why, John Green, limit yourself merely to words?

---
*When a Book is More Than Paper: Transmedia Trends in YA Literature
**Ok, that was mean. Pot shots are cheap. But, outside of the personal aspersion, a completely valid critique of his work. I suspect that JG can handle it.