Elsewhere on the Web

The incomparable Tamora Pierce talks about why she writes books for young women:

Why do I write so many strong female characters? When I was a kid, 7-8 books out of all books written for kids through teens had boy heroes. Those that had girl heroes showed them at “feminine” pursuits, or if they were a little feisty, a male hero had to bail them out by book’s end. Only the historical novels had strong girls; most of them “settled down” by the end. I was reading “boy books”: TREASURE ISLAND, TOM SAWYER, THE THREE MUSKETEERS, Robin Hood, King Arthur, and Edgar Rice Burroughs. When I encountered fantasy, I had the same problem: virtually no girl heroes. The ones I found, adult women all, settled down, hated other women, or died. I didn’t understand why there were no girls (or those that existed were severely compromised) in the adventure books, so I began to write what I wanted to read: adventure books with girl heroes. As a published YA writer I came along at a time when that was what booksellers, parents, and librarians were looking for, and along with some other writers, I found my place in publishing.

Pierce’s work is what laid the groundwork for books like mine. If her Alanna books weren’t still sitting on the shelf in every bookstore almost three decades later, no publisher would take a chance on Astrid, or Katsa, or other female heroes of teen fantasy. I write the books I do because I could never find enough of them growing up. I read and re-read Greek myths and fantasies like The Horse and His Boy because Aravis Tarkheena was a warrior woman, and they were few and far between. (It was much later in life, sadly, when I discovered Tamora Pierce and other writers like her.) We have been enjoying (for the last four or five years) a wonderful influx of these kind of books. The current discussion of whether or not boy readers are getting the shaft is… not entirely accurate. I didn’t see “but what about the girls?” whines when it was all Harry Potter all the time. Girl readers were expected to love Harry, or make do with Hermione (who is awesome, it’s true), but people seem to accept that girls will read “boy books” and not vice versa. (I think sometimes you can sneak ’em in, especially if the writer is a boy, like Scott Westerfeld’s Tally Youngblood in the UGLIES series). I have very few boy readers. My dad, however, adores my books, but he’s in large part responsible for my love of warrior women, so there’s that.

The whole essay is worth a careful read, because Pierce also discusses the way you can get a boy interested in reading a so-called “girl book” (hint: talk about the decapitations, not the girl finding love), and since she’s been in the biz for a while, she knows this conversation pops up every few years. For myself, I think it’s obvious from all my published books, action fantasy and chick lit, that I’m interested in exploring the way young women interact with society, so women’s issues do find a way to worm themselves into my books. I am doing it purposefully, but it is purposefully for ME — it’s what I find myself drawn to writing. (I am finding that is less explicitly the case in the book I’m writing, though that’s a bit of a one-off.)

Speaking of what a writer wants to (or should) write, yesterday I read this fantastic essay by my friend Marianne Mancusi, about how maybe you shouldn’t write what you love if you find you aren’t great at it.

I hear, over and over again, authors and editors and agents urging writers to “Write what they love.” But I’d argue this is not necessarily the best advice for everyone. While some of you may love to read the genres you’re equally talented at writing in, some of you may find your writing strengths lie elsewhere.

And if so, my advice is to not fight it.

For me, I’m best at comedy. I can easily whip up quirky characters and odd situations and pop culture references galore.  And when I’m writing comedy my hands fly on the keyboard and sometimes, I admittedly even make myself laugh out loud, wondering where on Earth my brain conjured up that particular joke.

But for many years, I fought against my natural light style. I tried to write bigger, deeper, more epic novels with dark themes and alternative dimensions. I wanted to be that author with the kick-ass cover of a woman in leather, wielding a sword in a dark, twisted world. Because that’s the kind of book I’d pick up in the bookstore, over the one with a silly cartoon cover and a quirky title. But I’m just not that author. I’m the cartoon cover kind.

A couple of things: you could have bowled me over with a feather when I first read this essay, since I would never have categorized Marianne that way at all. She’s one of the most versatile writers I know. Everything she does, indeed, has that signature snark and pop-culture touches, but she can do light contemporary romance (such as her excellent GAMER GIRL) as well as post-apocalyptica (my other favorite book of hers, RAZOR GIRL). That they both have the word “girl” in the title is pure coincidence, because they are very different books.

Also, who doesn’t love zombies with a touch of fun? I do! (Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland, and I’m salivating for the upcoming Jesse Petersen series.)

So aside from thinking that Marianne is wrong in her estimation of her own talents, I think she has a very good point, here:

Now that’s not to say you can’t include certain beloved themes in your book. You just have to give the story your own voice and twist. For example, I knew I wouldn’t be great at writing a straight medieval. So instead I decided to bring a teen King Arthur to the 21st century in my upcoming novel “The Camelot Code.” He Googles himself and learns his true destiny and decides to join the football team rather than go home and pull the sword from the stone. So, in this way, I was able to incorporate something I love–medieval fantasy novels–with something I’m better at writing–light, humorous young adult fiction. And in doing so I was able to create my own sort of genre mash-up. (After all, where else are you going to find Morgan La Fay accidentally agreeing to a Brazilian wax…)

Sometimes we have to figure out how to write what we love, or, as my other pal Julie Leto might put it, how to incorporate the book our voice into the books of our heart. RAZOR GIRL, for instance, works for me because it utilizes Marianne’s familiarity with genre conventions (the titular Razor Girl is actually a genetically-enhanced warrior created by her father, who was obsessed with William Gibson and cyperpunk stories — Gibson wrote about the “original” razorgirl Molly MIllions), and light teen voice allowed her to tell a post-apocalyptic story using her strengths as a writer. She poignantly juxtaposes scenes of a zombie-infested wasteland with scenes from the before time, when the main characters Molly and Chase were very different people.

I am often asked in interviews why I am still so active in RWA, given that I don’t write romance novels. For years, I tried to write romance novels (I have four of them sitting under  my bed), and though my rejection letters would praise my voice/prose/characters, the romance wasn’t quite clicking for them. But then I wrote Secret Society Girl, which, while not a romance novel, ended up being a hit with its readers because of the romance within its pages. Lesson learned: it’s not that I can’t tell a love story, it’s that I’m better when it’s a subplot, and when the book exists out of the genre conventions of the romance novel.

But, like Marianne, I still love romance novels, especially historical romances! But I regularly write with a published historical romance novelist, and the work I see her doing to make sure every word in her book is historically accurate — yikes! Makes me glad I write books set in the 21st century.

I recently came out with my first historical short story, and I had to do a ton of research — about clothing, about inheritance law, about marriage law — to be able to work my way around what was actually a pretty straightforward plot. I specifically chose to set the story in a country where they don’t speak English so that any non-standard word usage could be chalked up to “translation” rather than “but the OED says they weren’t using that word then!” (Quoth my historical writing friend: “Cheater.”)

My love of historicals, romance, and post-apocalyptica combine in my current work in progress, the much-teased post-apocalyptic retelling of Persuasion. But it took years before I figured out exactly how to tell such an unusual story in a voice that worked for me and for what I do. Sometimes it takes getting creative, as Marianne did with her upcoming Camelot Code, another book that was a bit in the making.

I truly believe you can write what you love if you make it your own — and that, as Tamora Pierce says, you should write what you love, because it always is your own.