Sock-knocker: Originality--INCARNATE

I was a very lucky girl last week, for many reasons.

One of the reasons I can tell you about is that I was given a Kindle ARC of an amazing new book coming out in 2012: INCARNATE, by Jodi Meadows.

I was looking forward to it, because I know Jodi on Twitter and she's super-cool. Plus I love the cover. How could you not?

Isn't that gorgeous? PLUS I wanted to read it so hard after seeing this blurb:

NEWSOUL
Ana is new. For thousands of years in Range, a million souls have been reincarnated over and over, keeping their memories and experiences from previous lifetimes. When Ana was born, another soul vanished, and no one knows why.

NOSOUL
Even Ana’s own mother thinks she’s a nosoul, an omen of worse things to come, and has kept her away from society. To escape her seclusion and learn whether she’ll be reincarnated, Ana travels to the city of Heart, but its citizens are suspicious and afraid of what her presence means. When dragons and sylph attack the city, is Ana to blame?

HEART
Sam believes Ana’s new soul is good and worthwhile. When he stands up for her, their relationship blooms. But can he love someone who may live only once, and will Ana’s enemies—human and creature alike—let them be together? Ana needs to uncover the mistake that gave her someone else’s life, but will her quest threaten the peace of Heart and destroy the promise of reincarnation for all?

But I admit I was a bit nervous. Why? Because I like Jodi, and I expected so much, that I was afraid I'd be disappointed. It happens, sometimes.

FRIENDS. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. THIS BOOK BLEW MY SOCKS RIGHT OFF.

Why? I'm a tough reader. What did it?

Three things.

1. Originality. Good God, this book is ORIGINAL. It's not a twist on an old story I've read, or an interpretation of a myth, or different dystopian plots shuffled around. It is NEW. I have never read anything like it before. So new it had me getting excited, thinking of how this society would work, and how differently characters would react to each other in this world, and what all the implications were...I don't even know how long it's been since I was struck so by how *different* a book was. And in this case, different = amazeballs.

2. Characters. I loved Ana from the start. She's not perfect--in fact, she has some characteristics, especially at the beginning, that aren't really pretty. (low self-confidence, uncertainty, defensiveness) But you get why she's like that, and you see how she gets it herself, and how she counteracts those issues as the book moves along. Plus from the very beginning you see her strength shining through her upbringing. And Sam!! He's not perfect either, or sparkly or brooding, but he is just...aaahhh. I'll let you find out.

3. Writing. Jodi's writing is beautiful, but not in a self-conscious way. I felt from the very first page that I was in the hands of an expert. She never stumbled in pacing or characterization, never lost me to boredom (this happens easily with me). Brava, Jodi.

Definitely a sock-knocker. I think I'll still be looking for my socks when it comes out on January 31st!

Sock Knockers: VOICE

*Note: This is in a series of sock-knockers posts, trying to analyze why particular books stand out above the rest for me. Click on the label below for the others so far.

Ah, voice.

Voice is a tricky little squirmy thing for writers. It can be the reason given by agents and editors for why they don't clamp onto a book ("the voice didn't grab me"), or the reason--whether or not they realize it--why readers can't get immersed in a story. If done well, it's the reason some books excel. But voice isn't really something you can be taught. It has to come naturally and it has to come with practice.

WHAT, you ask. And then you start rolling your eyes at me for being obscure and mysterious. I get ya. I'll explain.

Okay. To me, voice is the representation, the...well, voice (sorry) of the main character(s). If third person, it can be the narrator speaking or a character. If it's first person you're down in the head of that character, and voice has GOT to be representative of their singular perspective.

A good, unique voice should consider the character's:

• vocabulary (rich or sparse? long words or short words? slang?)
• cadence (how do they phrase their sentences? Different characters should have different rhythms)
• experience (does your character know what an IPod is? Does he or she use one every day, or has seen but never owned one? how does that affect her description of it? what does she or does she not notice around her?)
• beliefs (attitudes should come out in descriptions as well as dialogue and thoughts)
• feelings (how does the character sound when she's angry? What auto-reactions does she go to? How often does she GET angry?)

At the least. I recently read a book where there were two POVs...one male, one female. And I could NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM. Every time I had to stop and look to see who was speaking. I should have been able to distinguish the two voices, easily, for any of the reasons above. This does not make a sock-knocker.

Above I said nailing voice has to both come naturally and take practice. I believe there is some talent inherent in the ability to immerse yourself in a character: to truly imagine yourself in that skin. Some people probably just can't do that. But it takes real practice--more than one novel practice--to figure out how to pour that imagined person onto the page well enough to portray a whole, real voice. It takes awareness of every word, every choice of dialogue or action, to see if it *fits*.

Though maybe not on the first draft. :)

So what are my sock-knockers for voice?

I thought back to come up with a "classic" example, and it fell easily into my head: Anne of Green Gables.

I know! It's third person! But Anne is so clear to me, even this many years later. I feel as though I Know Her. She is a real person with clear likes and dislikes and foibles and an attitude (who can forget how Anne felt about her red hair? Or her name? Or diamonds?), and every inch of the text reflects Anne as Anne.

Well done, L.M. Montgomery. Generations have loved Anne's voice.

For a modern book:

I tried not to use a friend's book as an example. REALLY I TRIED. But the problem is, see, I know a lot of writers, and they tend to write rather fantastic books which are perfect examples...

So my modern book is Joanna Bourne's The Spymaster's Lady, for which she happened to win a Rita this year.

Jo's book is a textbook example of How to Win at Voice. If you haven't read it, please, please do. You will thank me. The book is set in Annique's head so skillfully that she is able to even pull tricks on you, and it makes sense and you don't care and you only see what Annique sees. It is breathtaking.

There are other books that excel at voice, but I've mentioned several of them in other sock-knocker posts already, so that isn't really fair, is it?

*cough cough, Courtney Summers, cough cough*

Anyway. The book I'm writing now is particularly slippery in terms of voice and perspective, so I've been thinking about this a lot. Man, I hope I'm able to nail it. I'd like to blow YOUR socks off too, someday. *hope*

Sock-Knockers: Worldbuilding

This is the second in the famous* series of sock-knockers posts. Because these books knocked my socks off, people. I am barefoot in my office.

Actually, I AM barefoot in my office. Hmmm.

Anyway, today I'm looking at the Very Difficult to Master art of worldbuilding--without a slug of backstory.

Worldbuilding is tough as it is. I've heard some historical writers say how easy fantasy must be: "You don't have to research! You get to make everything up!"

Well, yes. But you also have to make sure every little piece of that made-up world is consistent, and reasonable, and would actually work together. The people in this world need to interact with each other and with their world naturally, but in ways that are different from real-world interactions: because environment, knowledge, and experience radically affect behavior. And hardest of all, you as the author need to *show* the differences to the reader, explain how this world works and why it is the way it is, through a character who is so immersed in the world they don't notice the differences. Why should they? It's how they've always lived.

Enter the standard trope of writers everywhere, the "outsider" character. Time-traveler, immigrant, came in through a portal--like the reader, the outsider is new to the world and its people and can spot differences. Ask questions. Make gaffes and have the rules explained to them.

The outsider is useful. But kind of overused, maybe? Kind of *easy*? How much harder is it to write a story through the eyes of a character who is used to this world, to dribble the rules and worldview in slowly and naturally? It is harder. But it's stronger.

The other primary method of building a world for the reader is to dump backstory on them. Writers are getting pretty good now at waiting past the first couple of chapters, but there's a point where the paragraphs of backstory come, weaseled in there somehow. "This is why the world is the way it is..." Sometimes it's necessary. But again, it's kind of weak. There's got to be another way.

There is.

"When I wake up, the other side of the bed is cold. My fingers stretch out, seeking Prim's warmth but finding only the rough canvas cover of the mattress. She must have had bad dreams and climbed in with our mother. Of course, she did. This is the day of the reaping."
(under fair use)

That's the opening paragraph to THE HUNGER GAMES by Suzanne Collins. Oh, you've heard of it? Yes. It's extremely popular, and it should be.

This book has no cheats. It is completely immersive from Word 1, in a world very different from ours, from the point of view of a character born and bred in that world. There are no outsiders. There is, at least as far as I remember, no backstory. If there is it's maybe a sentence here or there. No swaths of explanations, just Katniss picking up and trying to deal with horrible, real circumstances. It's amazingly well done.

I think that lack of backstory absolutely works to the benefit of the pacing, too. The reader is busy trying to figure out what's going on, and by the time they do they're hooked, irreversibly.

Other readers? Am I right here?

Another book that handles worldbuilding Really Well is UGLIES, by Scott Westerfeld. We are thrown into Tally's world immediately, without any delay of explanation--and it works. I hung out in Tally's world for four books, and I didn't really want to leave.

But the most recent book that knocked my socks off with worldbuilding? Sorry, peeps, but most of you can't read it yet.

It's called NEAR WITCH, and it's by my good friend Victoria Schwab. If you liked HUNGER GAMES and UGLIES, and you love to be immersed in a world so real you can breathe it? Watch for Victoria.

What books have knocked your socks off with worldbuilding?

*famous in no one's mind, but it's a good, interest-building adjective, y?

Sock Knockers: TRUTH

After a long blank spell (writing my thesis), I've been reading a lot lately. Mostly YA: catching up on some classics I'd missed, and diving into new ones.

I don't know if it's the books I'm choosing or the general kick-assness of the YA market right now, but I've enjoyed almost all of the ones I've tried. These are good books: entertaining, fun, engrossing. But you know how you read a book and you think it's really good, and then you read another book and you are just blown AWAY?

I'm going to start a new series of blog posts on those books, taking a look at why they are above and beyond for me. It's called WHY THIS BOOK KNOCKED MY SOCKS OFF. "Sock-knockers", for short. (Because WTBKMSO is not a good tag.)

So today, I'm going to look at two books that blew me away for the same reason.

LOOKING FOR ALASKA by John Green,
and CRACKED UP TO BE by Courtney Summers.














Now both of these books are great reads for plot, for beautiful language, for interesting situations. But that's not what put either of them over the top for me.

Both of them are A++ in TRUTH. By that I mean emotional truth, the kind of resonance that makes you read and cringe because you've done or thought that very thing even when it's not a particularly flattering thought or deed. That makes you smile because you have done or thought that very thing, joking around with your friends. It is a realistic portrayal of a life, good and bad.

Neither of these authors was afraid to face darkness in their characters, in the realities they show. And because they face the darkness unflinchingly (and the light moments too), we recognize it. It's no longer superficial entertainment--it is CONNECTION.

I don't think you have to be a "serious" book to attain emotional truth, though maybe it stands out more clearly there. You can attain emotional resonance in any kind of book in the small things your characters do, in their dialogue, in their deepest thoughts. Just don't be afraid to GO THERE. Don't step back and be safe. Take a step--or two, or three--further than you thought you could.

I aim for that. I think we all should.