This week, my essay in The Girl Who Was On Fire: Movie Edition (called “Hunger Game Theory”) is the focus of a read along at the Hunger Games fansite, Down with the Capital. There is a discussion going on about the essay and the topics it raises in the novels and in other books, films, and TV shows.I’ll be dropping by throughout the week to participate in the conversation.
A few of the questions being asked:
1. Can you think of any other examples of how dominant strategy is exercised in the Hunger Games Trilogy? What about game theory in general?
2. Peterfreund discusses the Nash Equilibrium and how it relates to game theory in this essay. She summarizes: “Nash equilibrium occurs when there is no value to changing your strategy when you know the strategy of the other player. It’s an “equilibrium” because there is no benefit to change.” What examples of this do you see played out the in the Hunger Games?
3. The Hunger Games and Ender’s Game are two books where the characters use the ideas of game theory to govern their actions. Can you think of any other books where game theory comes into play?
I’ve gotten a lot of emails this weekend (because somehow folks think I’m some sort of RWA spokesperson?) about the current kerfuffle over some RWA chapter I’ve never heard of prohibiting homosexual romances in their published novel contest (a contest I think I may have heard of once or twice, but honestly, I don’t keep track of regional published author contests and have never entered one myself).
I am not a member of this chapter. I am a member of the chapters WRW — my local DC chapter — and TARA, which is the Tampa chapter, and which I’m still a member of for nostalgic reasons. (I’m not even a member of YARWA, because 2 RWA chapters is already too many for me.) The only thing I know about this kerfuffle is what I have read on the internet and on the private RWA loops discussing the issue.
Because things on the internet are sometimes completely inaccurate, it has been erroneously reported that this is an RWA National stance. Which is not true. Here is a link to the rules of the RWA national published author contest,w which is called the RITA awards. I am currently judging this contest.
Other things that have been left out of a lot of reports:
RWA has many members who write LGBT romances. In fact, there’s even an LGBT special interest chapter of RWA. Here is a list of its members. Go buy some of their books.
This all blew up on the internet on Friday. This is Monday. Just because there has been no official statement from the all-volunteer board of RWA yet does not mean there will not be one.
My understanding is that RWA National doesn’t have a lot of control over the chapter contests, and if it did, that would be globally bad for the contests for a myriad of reasons relating to the way contests have freedom to make up their own rules (for instance, about what constitutes “published”) that RWA doesn’t necessarily agree with. I don’t know what will happen now, but as it stands, even if RWA National wanted to do something, they might not have jurisdiction.
The contest has been canceled.
This small regional contest that hardly anyone ever heard of before Friday had at least one winner last year (I was told two, but I can’t seem to find it) that was a gay romance. The book, called MORE by Sloan Parker, won the award for best first book. Go buy it.
This last point is probably the most relevant of all. Because here’s what I’ve noticed about a lot of these kerfuffles, is that there’s a lot of outcry, but not a lot of follow up. The people on the internet like to pounce and loudly complain about discrimination and threaten boycotts of every book written by every RWA member (no, seriously, that was one email I got this weekend), or boycotts of every book by every RWA member in the chapter in question (another suggestion, to which I say — the only reason I actually know the rules of the contests of the chapters I’m a member of is because I went and looked them up this weekend, given that I am not on the boards, nor on the contest committees, and wouldn’t be entering them myself, so why in the world would I know?), but they aren’t saying, “Hey, you know what? This contest awarded an LGBT romance last year, let’s go buy it and show our support for what they say is an excellent LGBT romance and how it was brought to our attention as such by the judges of this contest.”
Or, hey! Let’s make a list of the people who were GOING to enter their LGBT romances in this contest and read them.
There is an outcry, but there isn’t a lot of follow up.
Last year, there was an outcry over a YA anthology that was prohibiting same-sex stories. There were a LOT of posts about it on the internet. There were a lot of authors who got up in arms and dropped out of not only that anthology, but an anthology being edited by the same editor, an anthology that I was writing for.
In the end, what ended up happening was that the anthology lost half its line up and the editor was removed from the project. We got a new editor, and a new line-up (an AMAZING line up, if I say so myself), and the publisher pledged to donate the proceeds to a homeless shelter for LGBT youth. The new anthology includes several LGBT stories. I’ve read them, they’re great.
And the internet? Is silent. I haven’t seen ONE blog review of this anthology. I haven’t seen ONE comment about the fact that there’s this great new anthology out there with all these LGBT-friendly YA stories in it. About how hey, look at the GOOD we did, by getting all kerfuffly on the internet. It gets better, guys! We complained about discrimination, and there was a response, and now there’s a book out there that would not have existed before, and it’s helping gay homeless youth, and it’s helping gay youth in general, because it’s representing them, and there’s really not enough of that out there.
But hey. Maybe that’s not as fun as being outraged.
You can ask Sailor Boy, I love me some righteous indignation. But I think, if we really want to make things better out there, the best way to do it is to make the fact that there great gay romances out there more visible. I haven’t read More, but I know it beat out debut books in every other genre in that RWA chapter contest in 2011, so that’s a pretty strong recommendation. And I personally think theBrave New Love anthology is fantastic, though I am biased, given that I am in it (though not financially biased, because it could sell a million copies, and I wouldn’t see a penny, being that it was a flat fee).
But don’t take my word for it. Read it yourself. Go out and buy it, knowing that your dollars will be donated to help homeless youth, or enter to win it in the giveaway contest on this very post.
That’s right. Giveaway. Leave a comment in this post, and enter to win your very own copy of Brave New Love. Contest goes until Friday. Since i have two copies to give away, THERE WILL BE TWO WINNERS.
ETA: Hello to everyone here from tumblr. Thank you for coming. I hope you enjoy the post.
ETA2: I have blogged about my story in the anthology (which is not, just to be clear, an LGBT story) and my inspiration for it.
Last month, author Christine Johnson witnessed something horrible happening to a local dog. (Seriously, do not click that link back there unless you have a strong stomach). Moved by the poor animal’s plight, as well as the plight of so many other homeless and abused pets, she enlisted the help of a bunch of other animal-friendly authors to do a fundraiser.
I’m so excited to be a part of this fundraiser for the Humane Society of Indianapolis (where Christine is located). As many of you know, the plight of homeless and abused pets is one that’s very near and dear to my heart. Before Q came along and risked us out of the activity (she’s a bit of a tail-and-whisker puller, which Rio puts up with, but is definitely too much for a scared homeless foster), Sailor Boy, Rio, and I used to foster homeless dogs as part of a rescue organization and I still do what I can (like home visits for potential adoptive parents) to help great pets find forever homes.
This is what I’m doing to help now.
First, we’re auctioning off a signed set of Rampant and Ascendant (hardcovers). Rampant the hardcover is out of print, guys. Which means you might get one of the VERY LAST COPIES in existence. The lot also includes a limited edition ARC of Jeri Smith-Ready’s SHINE.
You can’t imagine how happy this makes me, given that Jeri is the one who got me into dog fostering to begin with.
ALSO:
Carrie Ryan (another big animal lover) and I will be matching the aggregate of all donations/bids up to $1,000 and donating that amount to our local animal rescue groups.
This is an amazing chance to get your hands on some signed, limited edition books and do wonders for animals in need.
While I will not deny that there are a lot of novels out there that have borrowed the love triangle formula (in the mathematical sense) that worked so well in Twilight, it’s not a singular occurrence. Also incredibly popular after the worldwide, game-changing, publisher-floating, industry-saving and genre-creating success of Twilight? Books about EVERYTHING that Twilight was about. Books about vampires, books about beautiful immortal people, books about unusual families of paranormal humanoid creatures living amongst us, books about girls with paranormal boyfriends, and books in which high school girls fall into extraordinarily quick and everlasting love. All of these are available in ready supply right now, all of them owe at least some part of their current popularity to Twilight.
This is a good thing. People finding new things they like in books and then reading more books about those things? Wonderful.
And one of those things, yes, is “a girl in love with two boys” love triangles.
I have only published one book with that kind of love triangle in it: My first novel, Secret Society Girl, which came out in 2006, right when Meyer was lighting the world on fire with New Moon. Like Bella, my character Amy has to make a choice between two boys she likes who both like her.
However, I have written two books with this supposedly rare “two girls one guy” love triangle: Rites of Spring (Break), in which Amy competes for the affections of a guy, and the upcoming For Darkness Shows the Stars, which is based on Persuasion, and therefore includes the Anne Elliot — Captain Wentworth — Louisa Musgrove triangle so beloved (or beloved-to-behated) by its fans.
So, having published one of these and seen years worth of reader reactions (and read enough reactions to the Persuasion one to know it’s the same), I can tell you right now why the Twilight kind is more popular:
most of the readers of these types of novels are girls
These readers are moved by the “tough decision” facing a heroine with two fabulous guys after her.
Which leads to “team” formation, by individual readers, in fan circles, and by publicity departments.
Whereas the heroine competing for the affections of a guy against another girl gets one reaction: beat the “other woman.”
(Note: this is very typical Louisa Musgrove treatment in Jane Austen fandom.)
If the other woman is a normal woman with faults like the heroine, she is labeled an irredeemable b****. If the other woman is a saint, she is allowed to be pitied, but we still root for the heroine to get the man. Why? Because to do otherwise would mean the reader is rooting against the heroine. And, almost without exception, that ain’t good.
In Rites of Spring (Break), Amy does not win her love triangle. And despite the fact that I very clearly demonstrate that the guy at the center of it is NOT the one for her, and soon after I embroil her in a fabulously delicious romance with a new guy, you would not believe the number of emails I get demonizing both other parties and wishing that Amy had won. Even though, if she HAD won, she would not have going on to her wonderful romance that they also say they love so much.
The way I look at it is like this: even if you know your ex or the guy who would never ask you out in high school was TOTALLY wrong for you now, you still want to look drop-dead gorgeous at your high school reunion, right? Just because you’re better off without them doesn’t mean they shouldn’t still pine for you. It’s not the most enlightened of all feelings, but it’s a fantasy.
(Hello, exes. Yes, this is what I Iook like every single day. No, I do not currently have bags under my eyes because Q was up half the night or applesauce in my hair because, well, see previous.)
And it’s that fantasy — of having multiple people madly in love with us, that is so compelling to so many readers.
But here’s the problem: because it’s so compelling, and because publisher publicity departments (understanding this visceral response readers have to this storyline) have pumped it up, its prevalence in the book on the shelves and, perhaps more importantly, in the marketing material for books on the shelves, has trained readers to expect a love triangle in their novels When people complain “why does there have to be a love triangle in every YA novel” they are often complaining about things that a few years ago would not have been considered a love triangle at all.
How do I know this?
Because there was no love triangle in Twilight.
Bella loved Edward, and Edward loved Bella. There might have been a few other people who were interested in dating Bella, just like there was some lingering resentment on the part of Rosalie that she hadn’t good enough for Edward while Bella was, but neither of those things weighed particularly heavily on either of these characters’ minds (and Rosalie has been long since happily matched up).
But if that book were published today, with the microscope readers have been trained to place on any whiff of something that might be a love triangle, they might see this:
And maybe that’s a compelling story, told from the point of view of Mike or Jacob. Poor guys, they secretly love Bella, but she only has eyes for the vampire. Indeed, as the series progressed, Meyer chose to dwell on this facet of Jacob’s story. But that’s as the series progressed.
I read reviews of books all the time where they talk about love triangles that range from a stretch to completely non-existent. I have received emails about the “love triangle” in Ascendant. At first, I spent a lot of time scratching my head. Then I realized they were referring to the fact that Astrid is pursued by one boy while dating another.
To me, that was no more a love triangle than the fact that every boy in Forks instantly goes ga-ga over the “new girl” Bella is somehow indicative of a love tetrahedron.You kinda need love to have a love triangle. Or at least the idea of choosing one over another. The love triangles in my friend Carrie Ryan’s books (The Forest of Hands and Teeth, etc.)? LOVE. TRIANGLES. Mary is in love with Travis but betrothed to his brother. Gabry feels enormously guilty over her growing attachment to Elias after her old boyfriend got infected with the zombie plague… for her. Angst galore! What will she choose? Who will she end up with?
If you’ve read Ascendant, you know that’s not Astrid’s problem. And not in the sense of “she has bigger problems” (which she does), because girls on the run from zombies ALSO have bigger problems, but more in the sense that those questions are not on the plate for her.
“To me, that’s the essence of a love triangle — each man is a viable choice for the heroine but each speaks to a different part of who she is. The heroine isn’t choosing between two men, she’s choosing who SHE wants to be and that will dictate who the right match is.”
I first read about this conceptualization of a story’s love triangle in a screenwriting class in 2005, and it really stuck with me. When I looked at the love triangle in my first book through this lens, I realized not only why neither prong would work but who, in fact, it was that was right for my heroine.
(When Meyers claims in interviews that the books are anti-human, this is what it means. If you can swing your vampirism the way the Cullens do — going off and eating venison in the woods — there is absolutely no downside to vampirism. Bella’s choice reflects the fact that, very reasonably, she’d rather be an eternally healthy, beautiful, young, powerful, awesome vampire then get old, get sick, get hurt, and die in a frail human form.)
But of course, all choices a character makes is reflective on who she is. The choices that Astrid makes in Ascendant regarding her love life have very little to do with the boys involved, and everything to do with her depression, isolation, and eventual nihilism. And though you can argue that Giovanni is a reflection of one facet of Astrid’s character, choosing him would not magically make that Astrid manifest, and Astrid knows it.
One of my favorite scenes in Buffy the Vampire Slayer comes from season five. Buffy and her friends have just overcome a spell that was meant to split Buffy into her component parts: normal girl and vampire slayer. Her boyfriend Riley tells her that he loves all of her — both parts. That to him, she is indivisible.The tragedy comes when later in that same episode, he posits that it is this elemental wholeness of Buffy that makes her unable to love him. (And where he goes from there is truly tragic.)
(I know a lot of people dislike Riley because of the things he did AFTER this revelation, and I used to be right there with you, but upon repeated rewatching, I’ve come to the conclusion that Riley’s mistakes — and he makes plenty — are not so much him having a problem with a strong woman — since he ends up marrying another — as him deciding, maybe or maybe not falsely — that he’s not good enough for Buffy without magical powers. To be discussed in detail later. People often liken Astrid and Giovanni to Buffy and Riley, though I think a more apt corollary would probably be Buffy and Xander, which never happened on the show.)
Buffy may have chosen Riley, but choosing to have a relationship with this nice, normal guy (instead of her occasionally sociopathic vampire ex-boyfriend) doesn’t make Buffy a normal girl. Over and over in the series, Buffy is forced to make a choice between her love life and her job, often explicitly. Save Angel, or save the world, etc.? Again and again, they ask Buffy who she is, and her answer is “slayer.”
Sometimes, the triangle doesn’t even involve another guy. Sometimes it’s about the heroine choosing not to be with someone, full stop.
A fun review of Ascendant. I’ve said it before, but there’s really nothing like a review where the reader nails and loves what you were trying to do with the book. The killing of an endangered species like unicorns is not just a gray area — it’s a downright charcoal black one, and it was important to me in Ascendant that it’s not just Phil whining about it and everyone patting her on the head (as so often is the case with people ignoring totally rational points made by conservationists), but also that the main character, Astrid, really starts to question the role she’s been handed and is expected to fill. I think teens are doing that all the time — the adults in her life are telling her this is what she’s supposed to do, but she looks at the evidence before her and goes, wait, this doesn’t add up.
I know with the killer unicorns series I’m working against the tide of most modern fantasy fiction. The magic in these books is an unfair magic, and in some cases, it’s even an evil magic — a magic that it would be totally rational and acceptable — even preferable — to reject. That is not the case in most fantasy fiction — in most cases, it’s “non-magical people don’t matter” or “non magical people aren’t as good.” Why would you be a Muggle if you could be a wizard, goes the trend. The Harry Potter example is especially illustrative here. Though much is made of how it’s okay to be “Muggle-born,” actual Muggles are shown as being clueless, ineffective, or easily discarded (one of the saddest parts of Book Seven is how Hermione “erases” herself from her parents lives). The takeaway is clear. Muggles < wizards.
The same is true in another mega-hit of the genre, Twilight. Author Stephenie Meyer is on record saying that she’s “anti-human” in the series, as it’s obvious from the way she’s constructed her world that vampires and werewolves outclass the human race on every possible level. Bella realizes it — she wants to be a vampire from day one. Who wouldn’t? There’s no downside. You live forever, young and ridiculously beautiful, and with a little willpower (i.e., the way the Cullens act) you don’t have to eat anything but venison and polar bear. The only possible downside is the predilection the Cullens have for eternally repeating high school. THAT doesn’t sound fun. The rest of vampire life is peachy, though. (In fact, one friend of mine is fond of pointing out that it’s the Cullens, and not Victoria, who have a moral imperative to spread vampirism around.)
So readers understandably come to a fantasy series going magic = good. Having magic is better than not having magic. I get emails every week from readers who wonder “what Phil will do now.” And I always think about Astrid, who would probably rather be in Phil’s position (she wouldn’t like to have had Phil’s experiences, but she would like to be freed from her hunter duties). Phil’s world is wide open, and she chooses to be part of the killer unicorn thing. She doesn’t on any level have to be, which, indeed, is the choice you see Marikka make in Ascendant.
However, most readers of fantasy are coming to fantasy because, you know, they LIKE magic. Thus it is very rare for a fantasy series to focus on how the acquisition of magical powers is something to be avoided — two prominent examples are Justine Larbalestier’s Magic or Madness series and Laini Taylor’s Daughter of Smoke and Bone (though even in that one, the character judiciously uses it). It’s an interesting paradigm, to be sure.
Wrote angsty emails to my editor and Carrie Ryan about the name of my main character.
Consulted approximately seven thousand naming sites on the internet for insight into what I should do next.
Made the questionable decision to take my eleven month old to the Bethesda Library to hear Ellen Hopkins talk.
Listened to Ellen Hopkins talk for 15 minutes.
Removed Q and self from Ellen Hopkins’s talk since Q decided to not be quiet.
Played with Q and a set of rather sexist “career dolls” in the children’s room of the Bethesda Library (seriously? Why was it male doctor, female nurse, male police man and female cashier?) while I waited for the end of the Ellen Hopkins talk.
Got Tricks and Perfect signed by Ellen Hopkins, who was very sweet to Q.
Drove home from Bethesda with a snoozing Q in the backseat, and, as often happens during quiet night-time drives, had a brainstorm about my naming issue.
Came home and started Googling names again.
Randomly saw an ex-boyfriend playing a bit part on a TV show.
Almost spit my pizza across the room when I saw it.
Reveled in the cooler temperatures.
Doodled five variations on the new character names onto a sheet of paper.
Realized I looked like a middle schooler doodling the name of her crush on her Trapper Keeper.
Realized it looked even more like that because one of the names actually was the name of a guy I dated in high school — NOT the guy I’d just seen on TV. (And guys, I’ve had like three ex-boyfriends in my life.)
Considered whether I could actually name a love interest in a teen book the same name as a guy I’d dated when I was the character’s age.
I am still undecided. I am ruminating over a pot of tea. What say you?
(Yes, this is what making a book looks like. Why do you ask?)
Perhaps you have heard about the current internet hub-bub surrounding the Monstromology series by Rick Yancey. If not, go here for an interview with him to see what the current state of the series (and the drama) is.
In short: Rick thought he was writing more books in the series, his publisher said no, he mentioned it online, and there was a huge write-in campaign (like they do for TV shows) and now there is some chatter about the publisher being upset. (which is probably just chatter, Rick. Keep up the good writing.)
I have gotten in several conversations recently with writers who are in Rick’s boat — their series have been canceled, or are in a state of limbo, or whatever. People often want to cast the publishers as the bad guy. People have written me to ask why I’m “protecting” Harper in the matter of killer unicorns… I think it’s easy to see from Rick’s example how quickly half-understood bits of information can go haywire and get people all riled up.
I can’t speak for Rick or the Monstrumologist series. I hope that he does find a new publisher and a way to conclude the books, because he clearly feels there is more to that story in that form. In my case, I don’t feel “cut off at the knees” in the same manner. I have never been told by my publisher that I can’t do what I want to do with the series. The truth is, we don’t know the answer to this yet. There are various options being floated and considered, but I’m not going to talk about them on my blog yet. (Last week, my editor and I discussed one possibility that has me totally giddy with excitement.) In the meantime, killer unicorns are very much alive. In fact, I’m writing a short story about them right now. The paperback of ZvU comes out next month. The paperback of Ascendant is out next spring. There’s a new unicorn short story coming out in an anthology this winter. It’s wall to wall killer unicorns around here.
And what makes that hilarious to me is that despite all that, my own personal focus as a writer is on another world completely, an austere future world where a young girl tries desperately to eke a living out of an unforgiving earth while the boy she loves has his eyes set upon the stars…
So I finally think I know what I’m going to write next. I mean, as soon as I finish this short story (DIE, SHORT STORY, DIE!), and I’m SO excited. There will be romance! There will be hijinks! There will be adventure. There may even be… frocks.
I do so love a story with some good frocks. I know that may surprise some of you, as there were approximately zero frocks in all of the Secret Society Girl stories, and only one good frock in Rampant and Ascendant. But I positively adore frocks.
There is a frock in For Darkness Shows the Stars, which is funny, because of all my heroines, that one has the least opportunity to frock it up. And yet, she does, since that’s how much I love me some frocks, people.
What are your favorite frockalicious stories, and what are your favorite frocks in those stories?
A recent frockalicious story that I loved was Unlocked by Courtney Milan. I shall forgive her for naming the villain in her story Diana, because Courtney gives very good frock. There’s even a frock on the cover, and because this book was self-published, I know Courtney DID choose that frock.
And if you read the book, you’ll learn why.
My very favorite frock in a book is, of course, the Imperialis Moth frock that Philip Ammon designs for Edith Carr in A Girl of the Limberlost. Philip has spent hte summer studying moths with Elnora Comstock, and has decided that they are the “embodiement of June” and so he convinces his fiancee to use them as an inspiration for their June engagement party.
Here is a description of that marvelous frock:
For she stood tall, lithe, of grace inborn, her dark waving hair piled high and crossed by gold bands studded with amethyst and at one side an enameled lavender orchid rimmed with diamonds, which flashed and sparkled. The soft yellow robe of lightest-weight velvet fitted her form perfectly, while from each shoulder fell a great velvet wing lined with lavender, and flecked with embroidery of that color in imitation of the moth. Around her throat was a wonderful necklace and on her arms were bracelets of gold set with amethyst and rimmed with diamonds. Philip had said that her gloves, fan, and slippers must be lavender, because the feet of the moth were that color. These accessories had been made to order and embroidered with gold… in her heart she thought of herself as “Imperialis Regalis,” as the Yellow Empress.
Elnora has some interesting frocks in this book, too, but no frock has ever impressed upon me the way Edith’s has — and in the scene quoted above, it’s about to have a VERY big impression on all the characters involved.
(And of course my favorite frock COVERS are on the Luxe novels, by Anna Godbersen. The frocks inside are good too, but those covers make me weep with frocky joy.)
So tell me of the frocks you love, and the stories those frocks come with.
For years, I re-read The Anne of Green Gables series (up thru Anne’s House of Dreams), A Girl of the Limberlost, and the Chronicles of Narnia (except for the Last Battle) every year. Every. Year. I have also read A Little Princess multiple times, as well too many books about Greek myths, romance novels, horror novels and other children’s books too many times to count.
Recently, I haven’t been much for rereading, because I’ve become aware of how many books there are out there to read (Out there? No, try my bookshelf!) But I have read Laini Taylor’s Lips Touch 3 Times multiple times, just to savor the beautiful language. Also, Karen Katz’s Where’s Baby’s Belly Button? Over and over and over. Q starts laughing the second I pick it up. It’s definitely her favorite book (though I keep trying to get her into Sandra Boynton, like any good Yalie).
This week, my essay in The Girl Who Was On Fire: Movie Edition (called “Hunger Game Theory”) is the focus of a read along at the Hunger Games fansite, Down with the Capital. There is a discussion going on about the essay and the topics it raises in the novels and in other books, films, and TV shows.I’ll be dropping by throughout the week to participate in the conversation.
This is what I’m doing to help now.
A recent frockalicious story that I loved was 
