What is JacketFlap

  • JacketFlap connects you to the work of more than 200,000 authors, illustrators, publishers and other creators of books for Children and Young Adults. The site is updated daily with information about every book, author, illustrator, and publisher in the children's / young adult book industry. Members include published authors and illustrators, librarians, agents, editors, publicists, booksellers, publishers and fans.
    Join now (it's free).

Sort Blog Posts

Sort Posts by:

  • in
    from   

Suggest a Blog

Enter a Blog's Feed URL below and click Submit:

Most Commented Posts

In the past 7 days

Recently Viewed

JacketFlap Sponsors

Spread the word about books.
Put this Widget on your blog!
  • Powered by JacketFlap.com

Are you a book Publisher?
Learn about Widgets now!

Advertise on JacketFlap

MyJacketFlap Blogs

  • Login or Register for free to create your own customized page of blog posts from your favorite blogs. You can also add blogs by clicking the "Add to MyJacketFlap" links next to the blog name in each post.

Blog Posts by Tag

In the past 7 days

Blog Posts by Date

Click days in this calendar to see posts by day or month
new posts in all blogs
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: industry comments, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 3 of 3
1. When is it right to kill off a character?


I think about this a lot. So now I'm going to talk too much. 

So, Unqualified Death Philosophy 101. 

Obi-Wan's death is a good example of "death via natural character arc."
Just after WWII a lot of "realist" writers began to really promote the Classical Greek idea of a "needless death," and that's a trend that's continued into a lot of writing today (George R.R. Martin is super-fond of this). But I really believe "needless death" is not actually realistic. All deaths have reasons and arcs behind them. We die because of a logical series of events, either through a natural progression of a disease we picked up, or through choices we and others make--not necessarily bad choices, either. Death is a natural progression in a story, and shouldn't be shoved in just for the sake of death's impact (eg, hopelessness, emotional pull, loss, all the stuff that comes with death). We never "randomly" die, and we don't die just for the sake of death. Even if I walk under a book shelf and a vase randomly falls on my head to kill me, in real life there was a progression before the vase, a story, a series of "butterfly wing flaps" that put the vase exactly where it was, a cause and effect: even if in my limited experience I don't KNOW the cause and effect, it's still there.

"Okay, duh, a death needs cause/effect plot and all that." But I'm actually not talking about plot. That's just the surface. I'm actually talking about character development. Maybe I'm full of it and this is bullpoop, but I'm a firm believer that a character dies in a story when he's thematically "ready." That doesn't mean that he necessarily feels ready, or even expects death, but either he's finished his emotional journey, or he's embarking on a new emotional journey in the memory of another character impacted by the death. I say it that way on purpose, instead of saying he's triggering someone else's emotional journey: a dead character is still a character, and remembering that helps us avoid turning our characters into plot points and killing them off just for the sake of moving other characters along (eg., Woman in a Refrigerator Trope). I'd almost ask: "is it in this character's best interest, not as a person but as a character, to die?"

That's a weird question, 'cause we think it's never in someone's best interest to die, but for a character arc it really can be. Putting a villain to rest is often in his best interest as a character arc, to finalize his emotional story and personal tragedy; a sacrificial death is often in a character's best interest to solve the struggles he's worked through and to highlight his triumph above his own self-interest; the tragic death of an innocent can be in a character's best interest to give him immortality in the other characters' minds, and to give him a strength he never had in life.

So, perhaps look at what's in the character's best interest emotionally, and don't just look at what the death will do to other characters. Forget your big story as a whole for a moment, perhaps. Each character, even minor characters, are protagonists in their side stories, even if the reader doesn't see it, so death should be a major point in THAT CHARACTER's story, not just because of what it does to the MC or the overall plot, but because it individually advances the minor character's theme. Does your character's emotional arc wrap up well with death? How will he, as a dead character, continue to work in the story (absence is a way to work in a story!), and is that future post-death existence a natural and logical answer to his pre-death existence?

That may make no sense whatsoever, but that's how I decide character deaths. Death is punctuation--it's the period after a fully-realized life sentence, or it's the dash that drives a character's impact into the next scene.

Okay, Imma shut up now. As always, ignore me if that's useless information for you, and thanks for letting me share!

0 Comments on When is it right to kill off a character? as of 5/30/2014 6:27:00 PM
Add a Comment
2. Short and Sweet: Why YA is a Realistic Category and Teens who will Save the World

I've heard a few people say that inherently, YA is kind of an unrealistic book category--I mean, if a teenager had to save the world, we'd all be SCREWED. And covered in those stupid Ke$ha posters.

Hold up, are you kidding me? Teenagers have saved the world over and over again throughout history. Back in the day teenagers used to be the captains of ships, the fodder for armies, even the rulers of nations. It only takes a quick look through European, Chinese, or American history to find examples: Alexander the Great, Joan of Arc, King Tut, they were all influential teenagers. Most pirate captains started out as teens, and the historical mother of Jesus was most likely only 14 when she did her thing and challenged all known religion with her belief she'd been impregnated by YHWH.

Historically, "teenager" is a 50s phenomenon that was invented to describe a new transitional phase in a rapidly gentrifying and comfort-based society. It's not a real thing, it's a construct.

Teenagers can still save the world, if they stop believing that they have to wait until they "grow up" to fulfill their dreams. These teenagers are doing it right now: http://archive.causes.msn.com/kids_save_the_world/?section=gallerylong

Never ask a kid what he wants to be when he grows up. Ask him what he wants to be, and show him how he can take steps towards that NOW.

0 Comments on Short and Sweet: Why YA is a Realistic Category and Teens who will Save the World as of 3/25/2014 12:07:00 PM
Add a Comment
3. Johnny Storm gives us a black Human Torch--but I'm afraid he's only going to reinforce racial stereotypes

David Willis recently posted this comic, and it was funny. Folks have taken Marvel superhero Johnny Storm (Human Torch) and apparently they're going to make him black. Some people are apparently complaining, because they hate black people.

I'd be more worried about Johnny Storm doing a disservice to the black comics community at large. He's loud, obnoxious, reckless, and a sleeping-around-cheater--basically every stereotype white people throw at black men to justify racism. While Sue is a voice of reason, it's super-easy to stereotype the "mystical black woman" and she might fit that stereotype, depending on the writing. Better idea: why can't they make Reed Richards black? Oh, is it because the smart scientist isn't allowed to be black? They had to choose the noisy obnoxious loud guy to be black instead? Geez, that's great.

These comic artists cannot get race right. It goes to show that when you pallete-swap an already-established character you're almost always going to fall into some kind of stereotyping--the authors are too old and too white to make a "black version" of an established character without egregious anti-black racism involved in some way or another. It's better to make all-new characters with fresh storylines. Static Shock, for example, was created based on a black Spiderman, but he became his own character with his own powers, and it was always interesting because he's his own guy. The black Spiderman in Ultimate comics isn't a black Peter Parker--he's his whole new own character and he rocks. See, there should have been more unique black characters to begin with. We don't need the same characters booted over and over. Put them to rest, let the stories end, and get all-new characters so that creativity can flourish and race stereotypes aren't permeated. Creating a "black batman" or a "black superman" is just a way for old white men to point out to black people, "look, we never made any black characters for you--so you can re-use on of our old ones. We're too lazy to actually make good, unique characters for you, we'll just reboot some we've already used to death."

I want new superheroes that actually speak to all races and subcultures, not re-sale, re-used, re-washed pallette-swapped stereotype opportunities. What about some decent Asian superheroes, or mixed race superheroes? If you just keep painting Superman or some other guy all different colors, these different characters don't actually get to interact. Where's the fun in that? The black audience is worth more than reboots and used characters. The black audience is worth fresh characters that span a whole gamut--not just one or two that fit certain stereotypes--with new powers, new costumes, and all kinds of new awesome.

4 Comments on Johnny Storm gives us a black Human Torch--but I'm afraid he's only going to reinforce racial stereotypes, last added: 6/6/2013
Display Comments Add a Comment