Dreaming

So on our myfamily website some of my cousin-in-laws have been discussing dream interpretations. And since I had a dream around the time of the first post, I mentioned it, and as teh discussion went on, it occurred to me I might write something about it here.

This was my post: "I remember my dreams often too, but I'm not sure if I've reached 8. (My cousin-in-law remembered eight of her dreams from the night of her posting.) Last night I remember a melding of three--I was at a dinner, like a big dinner bufftet, and at first there was enough food, but then there wasn't, only a bunch of whipped cream fruit salad, and then there was a big high school reunion in Calgary--though I'm not sure why I was there, and they were playing a football game in commemoration, but it wasn't just one high school--they were competing against cross-town rivals, first the old guys who graduated in the 80s came out and then the guys who were excited because they were now old enough to vote, and that was downstairs, and then I remembered I'd left my flute out, so I ran upstairs through the crowds and through a bunch of instruments that other people had left out, and I found mine mixed with three other flutes and they were all taken apart and I had to figure out which pieces were mine. Weird."

Then another cousin-in-law mentioned dreams are often just expressions of the days anxieties. So what was I anxious about that my flute would come into my dream? I actually played it at Christmas, but that was the first in a very long time. And well, it's been a few months since Christmas. All I can figure is that it worked its way in because I had dusted the case recently. I usually keep it in a bin under my bed, but haven't put it away from a bookshelf where I laid it after the Christmas concert. It actually had quite a bit of dust on it. I guess that might explain another, unmentioned detail--why all the pieces of flute I was trying to put together were rather horrid looking. Interestingly, because of some of the pieces I was sorting through were really ugly, it was easily for me to discard some. I suppose it's a mark of my pride or something, but I've always been proud of the way my flute looks. I've seen people with lots of brown or orange spots on theirs, and I don't understand why that is. Mine has a little dent in it, but otherwise, it's still in pretty good shape, and nicely silver, even after about twenty years. Or maybe that's not such a good sign, hm.

As for football, I'm not sure about that either. I don't really like football. But my brother did play in high school, so it's not like I haven't been surrounded by it. I've also recently been in touch with one of my own high school friends and the subject of reunions has come up. And as for anxiety, maybe I'm feeling guilty as more time passes by and I haven't written her back. Hm.

But the other interesting thing about the football players was the variance in their ages. When I was in high school, I'm sure those young men who had just become eligible to vote would have been quite attractive to me. And yet, now, I see them as little boys. Even recently returned missionaries look like little boys to me. I don't think that's bad, rather quite healthy. I am 34, after all, a good 13 years older than the youngest of those RMs.

I do find that interesting though. I mean, yes, I know I've grown and mature (I hope) and everything, but I still feel like me, and yet I'm not attracted to the same type of people I was. I actually much prefer older men, closer to my age. So why did the older men come out first and the younger last? Maybe a reminder that I need to grow up some and prepare myself for the others--like brush up rather than brush off my dusty flute for example.

A New Platitude

Anyone have one? That was kind of a fun post to write. My desk now in this new assignment is a little more secluded so I'm not overhearing telephone calls--well except on Thursday last week, though I didn't hear anything that was being said, just lots and lots and lots of laughter and lots of laughter. She was a woman of Oriental descent. I think I've met a lot of people of Oriental descent who like to laugh, a lot. Is that the ancient Chinese secret?

LDS books

So, Saturday I went to the temple, and well, it's always been a little hard to avoid the bookstore up there, but particularly since I've been getting into this critical section because I feel like I really don't have much background in LDS fiction, and I'm going to have to address that subject.

Believe it or not, I have successfully avoided going to the bookstore when I go to the temple. Sometimes I purposely go late so I know it will be closed, or close enough to other commitments that I won't possibly have time. But this Saturday, my commitments were in the early part of the day, and if I waited too long, I might get mixed in with the Oakton Stake SA temple night, and I was also not sure I wanted to do that. Finally, I just threw a skirt on and went--well, I actually curled a few hairs and put on some make-up too, which I hadn't felt inclined to do for the bridal shower in the morning, but thought it might be best for the temple--whether or not I ran into the Oakton singles.

And I went to the bookstore first even, but I did not actually buy any books! There have been a few titles I've been considering, and they were there, but I confirmed I can get them cheaper through Amazon, used, even with shipping. But this Amazon thing, that would probably, hopefully also explain this thing I noticed, that the YA section at the This is the Place is rapidly diminishing! Well, to be honest, this bookstore has never been really good about separating the YA from the Adult, but that's not really such a big deal, but in any case, the merged group used to take up a full row at least, and it seemed to be fitting snugly on a quarter section, maybe half!

Of course, I'm probably as much to blame as anyone, but I liked to see it there! It gave me publishers names, and titles to consider. Seriously they need an LDS library around here! I would definitely borrow a good number of the titles, even if I can't bring myself to buy them.

But then today, as I've gotten to studying a little more about the history of LDS fiction, I was happy to remember that Wikipedia has a whole page on the subject, and I even learned quite a bit about some historical titles that I'd never heard of. Did you know, for example, that an LDS woman won the Newbery Award in 1957? Miracles on Maple Hill by Virginia Sorensen. So, now I'm thinking maybe those are what I should buy rather than the more contemporary ones that haven't yet established their significance. Right? Right? I really need to know if Miracles on Maple Hill is really an LDS fiction as Wikipedia implies, or if it's just by an LDS author, as the plot descriptions Amazon provides seem to indicate. So I need to buy it, right?

We really need an LDS library out here.

Crazy Bored!

Until now, the temping scene has been "okay" as in, at least I've been able to work on my thesis so even though I've never had enough work to do, it's been "okay." But now that I'm finished with my first draft of the creative part and don't feel like looking at it again until I've gotten some feedback (and even then, I'll admit I'm a little tired of it--though I still hope other people like it :) ), I'm going out of my mind with boredom! I really don't think I can handle four more months of this. I'm really surprised I've been doing this for a year. Well, not really just that, actually. I had a lot of dead time at my "real" job before that too. Are other people's jobs like this or am I the only one cursed with millions of jobs that are so non-demanding timewise?

I'm sure there are others or there wouldn't be so many day-time gamers, bloggers, general net surfers, etc. I've played too many games though. I'm done. Well, I wish I was.

I thought if I started another book that might help, so I did start the Polly portion of my quadriology (how do you call those)? the other night, so I could have something to go with at work, but I'm just not finding the right atmosphere here or something. There is definitely something to say for being surrounded by like-minded thinkers--like the inspirations I feel while I'm at Hollins that made way for Dave the Duck (the first in the quadriology).

So why was I able to write so much of the Cookies book away from Hollins, I wonder? Maybe not so much the presence of other fictophiles, though there are some of those (just not as close together and seen on such a daily basis), but the presence of other members of the Church, who kind of comprise the characterization of the book. That's all I can think of. Any other thoughts?

A history book for the fictophile

Shortly after I moved to DC, because of my move in many ways, I acquired a bit of debt. When it took a little longer to find any kind of work, even temp work which I'd heard would be easier, I really got to worrying about my financial status. One of those nights or days as I was thinking about it, I happened upon D&C 111 where the Lord promises Joseph Smith to help him get out of debt. But as with all promises, there were of course stipulations. He also tells him to get to know the men in the area as he's directed. As I believe the scriptures are supposed to do, I felt very strongly that the message of this section was directed to me at that time. And indeed, when I did get a job, I quickly got out of that initial debt, and felt very blessed.

A few years later, I had to have surgery. Since I was only a government contractor, technically I was the employer and the employee and therefore even though I had health insurance (which gratefully I did), I did end up paying a little more than I could afford and got into debt again. Then, just as I was nearing the end of those payments, I lost my job, which both slowed down the paying off of my final bill and because of my school attendance and therefore inability to be working, added some additional debt (aside even from the financial aid).

Truth is that the work situation has been pretty discouraging, and as I've thought back upon that section, I've wondered if I'm not doing my part.

Because I read straight through, for the most part (though not as daily as I perhaps should), I did happen up on it again recently, which got me to thinking. With this read, it seemed there could be many interpretations to how getting to know the people in the area would apply to me now. It seemed that even my temp work, which is somewhat the cause of the financial discouragement and somewhat the blessing. It was actually comforting to think that I was doing something right in this regard.

But I was also reminded of my first impressions, when I read this section a few years ago, when i first moved out here. For some reason, it seemed to me that I needed to get to know the founders of the area, and as follows for this area, the country. As I closed the book that night, I had an impression of needing to read "that book about George Washington."

I was in a kind of a half-way dream way of thinking I guess. I didn't know what "that book" was, and I imagine there are hundreds of books about George Washington. And yet it seemed there was one I needed to read. Well, a week or so later, maybe longer? I don't remember really, with that confusion still somewhere in the back of my head about trying to find some history books about George Washington, I went to dinner at some friends.' Lo and behold, while we were talking, they brought out a book about George Washington and offered to either me or my roommate (who was also there)--whoever wanted it. What? Amazing. I took a look at it and it seemed indeed, this was probably the book I was supposed to read. Because of a few other circumstances, which I won't ellaborate on here, my roommate will actually keep the book, but in the meantime, I'm reading it. How amazing is that?

The truth is that if I hadn't felt like I needed to read it, I probably wouldn't keep going. Not because it's really bad or anything--one of the main reasons I'll stop reading some fiction books-- but because it's a little tedious and it doesn't have the plot elements I like in fiction. It's more of a stalk of celery than a stick of candy. But otherwise, it's actually very educational and I appreciate that I have the opportunity to read it.

I'm going to step in with a kind of aside because it occurs to me that it might seem as if I'm thinking there's some magic in this book that I'm "supposed" to read, like voodoo or something, and I feel I need to clarify that I don't feel that way at all. I actually wonder if it's not a snare. :) Actually, I think it's just that I have a hard time making decisions when there are too many choices, like 100s of books about George Washington, so the Lord was helping me out a bit. Also, I do feel there's a need to study history. I haven't thought it strange or other-worldly to feel a need to learn something about the founders of the country because that's also one of the commandments in the Doctrine and Covenants. It's always good to keep on learning, even if it sometimes tastes like celery. Right?

I suppose that's why we're given commandments, isn't it? Because sometimes we've got to do things that we might not like too much, like eating our vegetables. Hm. Washington was a farmer, and he grew vegetables. Did he ever eat candy? Maybe I'll learn what sweet things he ate (or read--the words are actually kind of synomous with me) while I'm reading--a little sugar to help the medicine go down.

If You Haven't Got Your Health...

A co-worker was discussing this platitude last week on the phone with a friend of hers. She said (sic), "I knew it before, but it really hit home when I was sick in the hospital last month. Really, if you haven't got your health, you haven't got anything."

Of course my first recollection with the phrase is The Princess Bride when the old count says it to the Man in Black before sucking out 65 years of his life. The kind of thing that makes you laugh and by association, assume the phrase isn't any deeper than the movie.

I will step back for a second, though, to say that I have been sick, and I really hate it, and while I've never been longer than overnight in the hospital, I do feel severely incapacitated when I'm sick, so yeah, I get where the phrase comes from and have compassion for those out longer than I've ever been.

However, I also think it might be interesting to explore a little bit, take a second look at the phrase.

What does it mean to have something? In different languages, it means different things. For example, in English, we say I'm 34. But in French, I'd say I have 34 years. So you can have an age in French. You can have hunger in French, too; while in English, you're just hungry--it's what you are. In Spanish, more appropriately, they have two different kinds of being, so at least you don't have to be defined by your hunger. Phew! (actually I'm not as fluent in Spanish, so I don't know if you are hungry or have hunger. In any case, I wonder if that commercial for the 100 calorie bags works in other countries? You know the one--Hi, I'm starved. Hello, I'm regretting that huge bag of potato chips I just ate... etc.)

Well, my coworker was speaking in English, so we'll just stick with that I guess. What can you have in English? Well, I might have 35 cents in my pocket, right? I suppose I might still have that if I were sick in the hospital. Although, after my last few visits to la hopital, all my other pennies got munched by the insurance and medical bills. And when I've had to wait in the emergency room very long, I think my friend wanted some pennies for the vending machine. So much for that.

So there must be something else you can have. It's a pretty common word. How about a degree? You can have a degree. I have a degree. And in the hospital, I still have it. No, I didn't take my diploma with me. Silly. But I still had it. Even if someone sneaked into my room and stole the white envelope thing off my dresser, I could probably call the university and get another copy. That's something the doctors and insurance people can't take away. It's a done deal. Can't take it away.

On the other hand, if I actually died and had no health at all in that sense, would I still have a degree? Hm, I guess whoever inherited my stuff could have a copy of my degree, but they really couldn't say it was theirs. It kind of has my SSN attached to it and stuff. And since I think I'd have a hard time contacting the university from the other side to show proof if someone stole the white envelope from my dresser, I guess if I haven't got my health, I haven't got a degree. And well, as long as we're going that far, regardless of a friend and the vending machiens, I probably wouldn't even be able to claim that 35 cents in my pocket either. Maybe my coworker was right.

But! Oh I just thought of something. You can take your intelligence with you. Is that something you can have? Well, we do say "I'm smart." But you could say "I have an IQ." or "I have knowledge," so that works. And if it takes some people having a degree to get that intelligence, well, then I guess that's not such a bad thing. (When you're going to get knowledge, the degree is more of just this measure for the university so they know when to kick you out. So really, the intelligence is something that if the university burned down and lost your records, you could still have.)

Of course, when you're really sick and your stuck in bed and can't even read a book or open your eyes or think clearly, it might not seem to be doing you much good. And then there's those people who get alzheimers and dimentia, and though they've got it in there somewhere, it's really not doing them any good. So I guess it goes both ways--you've got it and you ain't.

But I'm pretty sure there's got to be something not so iffy. What else can you have? A family! Yes, we do say, "I have a family." I've got one too! And when I've been sick, I've still had a family. In fact, one of the times I was really sick and ended up having to go to the hospital, I actually spent more time on the phone with my family than usual. So you might say you've got more family when you haven't got your health. And since my family has been sealed in the temple, we'll still be together after none of us has any health, and in fact, we'll even be able to meet family members we were never able to meet when we had our health, so yeah, there again, more family. Now there's a little irony.

I think I need to add that sometimes good friends are like family, so while some people might not have very good "family" in the traditional sense, most people have at least one good friend. And in fact, I also believe that we'll be reunited with those people in the celestial kingdom, because as it says in one of the latter D&C sections, the same sociality that exists among us here will exist among us there.

So if people don't have good family or friends--or even if they do and they do nothing about trying to keep them, then I really do feel bad for them. Because seriously, it would seem that if the statement is true that "if you haven't got your health, you haven't got anything," then your family/friends must not be anything, and if your family/friends isn't anything, then even when you've got your health, what do you really have? 35 cents in your pocket?

A Good Picture Book?

I actually wrote this in November, when I was working at AIA, and posted on a different blog, but I'm going to try blogspot again.

November 15, 2007

I'll give credit to the idea to a coworker who asked me today how I determined what makes a good book, this after we talked about my interest in children's books. I initially began to answer about longer works, since I suppose it's easier to determine for those. I'm not quite sure why, perhaps because I actually find more longer books that I don't like, which tends to the formulating of opinions. But true, too, there are qualifications to good picture books (the type of book most think of when they hear "children's literature"). So what are they?

After the clarification of her wishes, my initial thought went back to my days teaching daycare when the children would respond so well to the fun characters that many of them would "be" for awhile after we'd read good books. If you look at lists of bestsellers on the picture book genre, you'll see the character-driven ones do sneak to the top fairly readily. And what are the kinds of books that publishers like to serialize? Well, the character-based, of course. Think Arthur, Olivia, Eloise, Madeline, Curious George, Clifford...and a recent favorite--Fancy Nancy. (I have a fancy sister named Nancy, so I'm particularly drawn to this one :) Do you need any more? These books include the characters' names in the titles, too, which is some indication of the marketer's ideas as well.

My co-worker, however, pointed out another character that I didn't have on my list--perhaps because she's more of a television star than a book, but it did make me think a little--What's so special about Dora the Explorer? She's not as sassy as Olivia or Madeline. She's not at all fancy like Nancy, and though she may be curious, she's really not as cute as a monkey. What draws her audience, then?

Now I'll admit again this is more speculation. I'm not even tremendously familiar with Dora. But, as I looked at the list I've collected over the past few years of picture books I like (as shown on this site), it occurred to me that there are a handful of adventure books that have average joe characters and though the character might even get serialized, it's really the adventure that gets the attention. Of course, the Magic School Bus has Miss Frizzle, who's really quite the character, but none of the kids are much to sneeze at. The kids are more average joes, the kind of kids that well, your average joe kids could relate with--and thus more easily put themselves into the adventure. Harold, too, though his name gets in the title, isn't a terribly dynamic character. But he does tend to have a bit of fun with that purple crayon. It's the adventure--in his pajamas even--that draws the crowd (pardon the pun).

Characters, though, don't accurately cover the gamut of good picture books. The next thing I think of is the book's use of language. Of course, there is some truth that this appeal is more to the other half of the dual audience--the adults--it is, nonetheless, quite significant (particularly since I'm an adult! :)

Now, there are two parts to the language aspect, but it becomes more obvious that this is a factor thanks to those books that are more purely poetic in nature, as opposed to character and plot driven. Picture books have the unique ability to comprise a wide variety of genres and be classified as a single genre. That is, while publishers may joke that if you want to go into a company that doesn't sell anything--going into specialized poetry. But, picture books can still sell poetry. And even better--adults aren't lost in the confusion of images with this kind of poetry either--they can still enjoy the beauty of the language without worrying about having "to get it."

Along with this is the aspect of language that enables learning. Alphabet and counting books are the most obvious of these, but there is en emerging tendency for elementary school teachers to seek books that teach grammar principles, and some can do this quite cleverly. I think of Rick Walton, for example, and other postmodernists whose language play makes the learning of nuance rather fun.

This leads to another area of good picture books--the clever twists on old tales--well, even the old tales themselves--fairy tales, animal tales, folk tales, Jack tales, etc. etc. Of course, some of these fall into good character books (think Jack, damsel in distress, knight in shining armor, think Three Pigs). However, I'm not always sure what about these characters is so intriguing (aside from Jack), you have to admit, they have perpetuity. Maybe it's jus the idea that we like things that are familiar, or maybe it's the common rags to riches idea that flows through many of these. But maybe we all just really like pigs.

In spite of the claim in this modern more-feminist era that the traditional princesses are lacking in strong character, I do think it's possible that people like the princesses because they are sweet and good-natured. These attributes have a tendency toward sentimental feelings that people love to love! Love stories in all fashions, are truly as old as literature itself.

And this, now, leads to the final general category of good kids' books--the lovey dovey stuff. However, it's not just romance love that makes good picture books. Actually, the less silly romance, the better (in my humble opinion). That is, love between parents and children is more what I'm thinking. Whether really gushy like "Mama, Do you Love Me?" "Guess How Much I Love You," and the big winner "Love You Forever"--or fun, like "Horton Hatches an Egg," "Just for You," and "Are you my Mother?"--teaching children about parental love is one of the best qualities a picture book can have, anchoring a real kind of love in their mind before they try understanding romance.

Even if a child's relationship with their parents isn't perfect, there's something enduring about the love of most parents that children need to know. And of course, this does overlap with character-based books, but I'll get to that in a minute--that is to say, that I don't necessarily think that a book has to be proactively about parental love to instill this idea. And in fact, sometimes it's better if it's more subtle.

Okay, so so far, I've only been discussing general areas of children's books, and of course not all books that attempt at these qualities do it well. And you might be thinking, what else is there? Well, let's just use these as a base, and keep going!

So now I'm going to go backwards a little bit. What actually makes a good picture book character? Do they have to be animals? Let's see--Dora and Fancy Nancy aren't animals, so no. If they are animals, do they have to be people-like animals? (talking, etc.) Emily Elizabeth would say no. (She's the owner of Clifford). Even people don't have to talk much, as we discovered with Harold (though maybe they should know how to weild a purple crayon!). Okay, not everyone can be Harold. But thinking of his crayon, I'm reminded of this other question my co-worker asked, do they need to have a prop? Well, it does seem to help. Dora wouldn't get too far without her backpack.

Let's look at this for a minute. Along the lines of props falls the category of side-kicks, or secondary characters. And in fact, the best kind of props, the ones that are significant to creating a good character, will actually be characters themselves. Mary Poppin's magic bag is definitely a character, for example.

And Mary Poppins would not be Mary Poppins without her magic bag. It helps to build her character. As in books for older readers, secondary characters can be very significant builders of "character." That is, a protagonist is greatly defined by how she reacts to other people (or animals)--either positively or negatively. Nancy's fanciness would take on different meaning if her family were fancy, too, for example. But since they are plain, we get some character development.

Families, in general, are some of the biggest character builders in real life, and so it makes sense that would and should be in books as well. Without DW, Arthur would be quite different; and Olivia's whole world seems to be with her home and family. It seems, in fact, that quite a few series are family-based, to name only a few: the Berenstein Bears, Max and Ruby, Mercer Mayer's Little Critter (a favorite of mine as a child), and even, yes, the Stupids.

From this list, we can also see that a good character doesn't have to be a single character, but can be a group character. There are few if any stories about only one of the Berenstein bears, for example.

Also, I mention the Stupids not just because it's kind of an irony, but also because they do illustrate another point I'd like to make--that the relationships in families don't have to be opposite (as we saw in Fancy Nancy), or antagonistic, where the conflict is within the family relationships. The Stupids are generally unified in their stupidity and it's the rest of the world they're contending with. But their characterization is still heightened in their multiplicity (as opposed to how the books would work if there were only one Stupid).

And this leads nicely to the actual question, again--so we've noticed that it can definitely help character to have sidekicks, or mulitiplicity. But does this "make" a good character? Aside from the family so-named, I'm sure you can think of some stupid characters with sidekicks, or characters with stupid sidekicks. So, obviously not. But aside from the obvious "stupid" things, there are some more things to look at. And, I'm going to get a little moral on you. As I mentioned on my Welcome page, conflict kind of goes without saying. Of course, in the picture book arena, there are some exceptions to this--some of the more poetic books don't have much conflict. But character-based books will have to have a conflict. And to build a good character, like the secondary characters, the conflict has to be one that enhances the qualities that make the character likeable, memorable, and engaging. And my moral addition--this means it should actually build good "character." In other words, I don't think a book is good if the conflict resolution involves getting even with people, or if it involves a punishment, regardless of the protagnoist's involvement, that incites the audience to delight (laugh at) in the antagonist's doom. This does not encourage brotherly love or charity, which is actually the definition of "good" according to my friend Moroni (see Moroni Chapter 7 in the Book of Mormon).

On the other hand, I don't necessarily enjoy a book that moralizes about how children should behave. This is actually one of the things that many in the field would agree on, or claim to, and yet there is a lot of implicit moralizing these same people won't recognize as such--including the funny punishments of the antagonists, which really do say: don't be like this, or doom awaits you.

But along these lines, I will say that implicit moralizing is impossible to avoid when conflict exists. The resolution will forcibly provide a statement about acceptable behavior, decisions, judgment, etc. So, if you're trying to decide if a book is "good," this is actually one of the very important place to look--the resolution of the conflict.

Of course, this might look like I'm asking you to read the end of the book first, and I'll admit to that, to a certain degree--though with picture books, the length hardly deters you from reading the whole thing before making that determination. But also, I don't actually think you need to read the whole thing to come to an understanding of what the author's opinions, the ideas she/he is promoting. Not only is there foreshadowing, which good books include (even and especially books for the young), but also, there are attributes the author is asking you to relate with in the character--the traits the author seems to think you'll find likeable.

For example, is the character's winning attribute his/her sassiness to their parents? Or is this a conflict? Do the characters find monetary wealth or popularity positive attributes or desirable? Or are these conflicts, where the character(s) learns about real values? Generally, I'll say picture books don't struggle with the right balance as much as books for older chidren, including adult-children, but you will find wrong-thinking even in this genre, particularly sassiness. Because the primary audience of picture books consists of children who like to pretend to be other things and people, the relationship should be driven home here, that if you don't want a child to be like a character, the book is probably not very good.

Now, although the subject of character could, of course, be explored endlessly, I'm going to let my current remarks on that subject rest for now and turn to another kind of picture book. As mentioned, the poetic books don't necessarily have conflict, so there must be something else that can make these good or not-so.

Opinions here will actually vary quite a bit, I'm sure. Though I do think there are a few things most people will agree on. First, the wording should be smooth. If the adult has a hard time rolling it off the tongue, the child listener certainly won't enjoy it much either.

Yes, it sounds like common sense, but you'd really be surprised--well unless you've actually been reading much, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. This is actually one of the biggest problems with picture books. Too many writers try to find clever rhymes, but they just ain't got rhythm!

This does actually apply more than just to the more tightly poetic books. Even plot or character-driven stories need to have a nice flowing use of language, or the reader will get frustrated.

I'm not saying that I'd like to see a bunch of short, "easy reader" sentences like "See Spot Run." No. Those may have their place, but it's in easy readers, not picture books.

Along these lines, you might be wondering if I support the idea that words in pbs need to be words that children can understand. Absolutely not. Have you heard people comments about another's large vocabulary? Quite often they say, "Oh, s/he reads a lot." As follows, how do you think children's vocabulary grows best? Of course, good books will expand a child's vocabulary.

There are some deeper implications than just using "big" words here, but the problem I'm thinking about actually finds its place more often in books for older readers. Well, I'll say it anyway. This is the use of the least imaginative language of all--profanity, including and especially the taking of the name in Lord in vain. I more strongly ABSOLUTELY do not support this. It's more of a deterent than just to their growing vocabulary.

The next topics then would be the subject of all the tales and the lovey-dovey stories, but believe it or not, I only have little bit to say about these. Well, actually because these overlap so much with the idea of character and language, I've already said quite a bit. But I do have a little more to say:

These must, above all, be clever. New. Fresh. Exciting.

Okay, so I might say some of those stories that have the same old string of happy phrases describing how much I love you are "good"--I would really like it better if there were something about them that was actually new and fresh. But as long as the language flows on these, I'm more inclined to have some leniency on the freshness.

And now, I finally think I've said enough! So now you've got a basic idea of the qualities I look for in good books. I know everyone has different ideas, and I'm sure you have yours, but I hope I at least have planted some ideas to strengthen your own convictions about what makes good literature and consider things you hadn't before. As in any situation, it's easy to say you agree with the "experts"--but psst--you don't have to!

The History of the YA Romance Novel

So, I've written this "romance" novel for my creative thesis. It's not done, done. I still have to edit and get feedback for how to improve it from friends/family/thesis advisor, but basically the story is done. I've given it to someone to look at already.

Anyway, the other half of the thesis, however, requires that I write like 15 pages or something like that, explaining how my novel fits into the history of children's literature. So, I've got to talk a little about the history of children's romances--(psst. teenagers are still children). The problem, however, is that I can't find a book that discusses the history of teen romances.

I did find a book whose title indicates it's a history of romance novels; however, the title is a lie. It is a book that attempts to justify the critical study and respect of romance novels by demonstrating that not all romances are smutty. It does this by looking at a few historical romances, such as Pamela and Pride and Prejudice, whose mention actually make the need for a booklength explication seem superfluous, but what can you do?

In the first few chapters, which is as far as I've been able to choke down, she's mentioned a few contemporary romance authors, but even as far as I've gotten, it seems she's slighting the history of the genre by only discussing two historical pieces and mentioning a bunch of contemporary ones. I suppose I might do that, but I've only got 15 pages. She had 200 some.

But aside from that, she's got some other problems. First, she repeats several times and with only slight variations in her nuance, her definition of the romance novel, which she seems to have invented herself because she is unable to support with any kind of authority beyond herself, refuting other authorities just because they don't match up with the definition she gave the genre. Hm. Sounds fishy.

Now because her rhetoric lacks any of the classical qualities, I would probably still be bugged by her definition, because it slights history by obliquely ignoring a large portion of the genre--the young adult romance. Her definition insists on the fact that the ending is a happy one in which the couple either become betrothed or married; and in the teen romance, I must say the audience is going to be much happier if the couple don't end up betrothed or married--unless they're like nineteen, and even that's questionable.

(My character is actually nineteen, and it is a happy ending in which the heroine is understood to be "hooked up" with the hero, but they're not betrothed or married.)

Now, if that weren't bad enough, she also slights another portion of the history with her definition because she insists that it be the story of a heroine. Though she hasn't come out and said it, this implies "as opposed to the story of a hero." She's mentioned a few historical type of stories in which the hero is the main character and she has classified these simply as comedies, the broader scope under which romances fall. But, her mention of these hero-based stories doesn't mention specifically that they are only comedies because they are the stories of heroes, she qualifies this type of story with a few other details, such as the passing of thrones and stuff. Anyway, I'm just not sure I can buy the fact that a romance is only a romance if it's the story of a woman. A man can definitely have a romance story as well. Jack Weyland has written a few that are from the male perspective. Interestingly, he has named these novels after the heroines; nonetheless, they are first person from the point of view of the men, so they are his stories, and yet they can be nothing but romances. They are not just comedies. Some of them aren't even that funny! (Okay so I know that comedy doesn't necessarily imply funny, but by golly it should. 99% of the time, it does.)

So, what's a person to do? During a great part of my writing the young adult romance, I was actually including the man's half of the story from his first person point of view. I eventually cut that part out, but it wasn't because I thought doing such would exclude my book from the romance genre. (Not that I was purposely trying to include myself in the controversial genre in the first place, but anyway).

So how can a person like me write this critical portion of her thesis when the genre is an oxymoron, or nonexistent? Maybe I can redefine the genre or maybe create a new word and make a bunch of stuff up, just like her, eh? Although I might get in trouble for writing two fictions. Hm.