How to use this Page

Joni Sensel

As much as I enjoyed reading both The Hunger Games and Catching Fire this year, I have to admit that my favorite was an older one — M.T. Anderson’s Whales on Stilts. I laughed out loud in public reading this book, and I think it’s brilliant.

K. A. Holt

My oldest son is in the second grade this year and really learning to love books. He and I read together nightly, and right now we’re about halfway through with Suzanne Collins’ Gregor the Overlander (the first of the Underland Chronicles series). This book has been out for sometime, but my son is just now old enough to really enjoy it. It has to be my favorite book of the year so far, because it’s been so surprising in parts, making us both giggle uncontrollably as we read together. It’s not a new book, and we haven’t even finished it yet, but we’re really loving it.

P. J. Hoover

I started reading The Forest of Hands and Teeth by Carrie Ryan and couldn’t put it down. I loved the explanation for the zombie disease, how grim the world was, and how the author was not afraid to raise the stakes. I can’t wait for the sequel, The Dead-Tossed Waves, in 2010.

Parker Peevyhouse

I really enjoyed the main character of Rebecca Stead’s When You Reach Me. I loved the scene in which she contemplates the entire history of the world in order to decide if her problems really matter in the grand scheme of things. And of course, the ending was interesting and a great discussion starter.

Jo Whittemore

This year, I returned to an old favorite…Stardust by Neil Gaiman. I love this book because it’s lighter in tone than his usual work, and I find it comforting. The characters are memorable, even the small ones, and the story is so very sweet. It’s a love story, an adventure, a fantasy, and a comedy with a twee bit of steampunk mixed in.

I was looking over my bookshelves today, trying to find something to read. It’s kind of like trying to find the right outfit for your brain.

No, not that, I can’t be sad today.

No, not that, I don’t want to pay that much attention.

Maybe that one, it’s funny and makes my butt look smaller.

What?

I stood there for a while, trying to talk myself out of reading anything speculative. It’s been a long time since I’ve read anything “traditional” and it’s been a REALLY long time since I’ve read anything written for adults. But as I looked over the books, nothing jumped out at me. I think the reason why is because I read to escape. There are too many things going on in my life right now and it’s nice to be able to sit down and travel to a new world. I don’t want to read about moms juggling a bunch of kids. I don’t want to read about health care reform. I don’t want to read about families in crisis, even if the characters are well-rounded and the language is well done. I even tried to watch thirtysomething and I just couldn’t do it. It was too real – not an escape, not fun to watch.

But then, I started to think about the speculative books I’ve read recently. Catching Fire, Going Bovine, The Maze Runner. These are not necessarily uplifting books! They deal with family issues, crises, conspiracies, the end of the world, even health care (sort of). So what makes it bearable to read when it’s speculative, but not bearable when it’s “traditional”? And where can a girl find some new, funny, science fiction? Is that an oxymoron?

What do you guys think? How is it that the imaginary worlds (or the fantastical happenings) of speculative fiction make real life issues so much more… entertaining? Why is it not a drag to read about life and death angst when it comes from a maze, but is almost unbearable for me to read about in a contemporary setting?

I know I’m not alone here, so I’m calling you out! Let’s talk about why speculative fiction pushes our buttons without, you know, pushing our buttons.

Kari is grouchy that there’s nothing to wear in her brain closet.

For this Roundtable Discussion we ask, Which villains of speculative fiction are your favorites and why?

Below are some of our answers. We’d love to hear yours, too.

Joni Sensel

I’m not sure I have a good answer for this. I’m not someone who “loves to hate” a bad guy, and I really dislike books with one-dimensional villains who seem to be bad for the sake of power or riches alone. I like complex and sympathetic antagonists, like Dustfinger in Inkheart, who of course turns out not to be so bad. One of my own books has a villain I was surprised to realize I mostly agree with, even if the characters don’t. And I tend to like books with death, time, or other natural forces as an antagonist.

Linda Joy Singleton

Like Joni my first thought was Dustfinger in Inkheart because he’s a charming, loveable villain. I’ve been trying to think of other memorable villains.
* There’s Voldemort, of course, who is evil incarnate, although his childhood adds an interesting look at his choices for evil, theorizing that evil is a choice not a genetic personality flaw.
* In Phillip Pullman’s GOLDEN COMPASS, the villains are multi-dimensional with good and bad traits: the heroine’s own parents. I never really decided which one I disliked or liked.
* A unique villain appears in Sarah Beth Durst’s INTO THE WILD — a small piece of green leaves called The Wild, which escapes into Massachusetts and and devours buildings and land, turning everything (and everyone!) into fairytales. This gives a whole new meaning to the slogan “Go Green.”
* Looking at my own books, I think one of my favorite villains is Galena the wicked mermaid in SEA SWITCH (midgrade by Llewellyn). Galena magically turns Cassie into a mermaid to escape underwater crimes and to gain her heart’s desire — human feet so she can go shoe shopping. Can’t resist an evil fashionita (g).

K. A. Holt

Let’s see…

As far as villains go, Mrs. Coulter from Philip Pullman’s The Golden Compass creeped me out nearly as much as Cathy in East of Eden. Her insidious plotting, the Hansel and Gretel-style wooing of Lyra, and that superfreak monkey daemon all combined into a pretty frightening character. At least for me. I haven’t read all of the books in the His Dark Materials series yet, and I know that Mrs. Coulter could be considered a conflicted villain (or maybe a flawed hero? I haven’t read that far to know), but in The Golden Compass she really and truly gave me the willies.

Now, if we’re talking *favorite* villains, that’s much more difficult. The idea of a pulsing, quivering brain on a dais (IT in A Wrinkle in Time), is pretty darn gross and cool. And I have to say, I loved the attacking umbrellas in China Meiville’s Un Lun Dun (even though they were more props than villains unto themselves).

Monkeys, brains, umbrellas. I guess I’m a fan of non-traditional bad guys!

We’ll have more answers tomorrow…

I had a great time this past weekend attending the Austin Teen Book Festival here in Austin, Texas. There were some amazing authors in attendance and it was quite impressive to be in the presence of so many famousy famous YA writers (Justine Larbalestier, Heather Brewer, Daniel Waters, Cynthia Leitich Smith, Libba Bray and more more more)!

I was only able to stay for one panel (bummer!), but it was a good one: Zombie vs. Vampires. The panelists were Carrie Jones, Daniel Waters, Heather Brewer and Cynthia Leitich Smith.

While I was listening to merits of glamoring vs. full-on brain eating, I wondered what you guys would have to say about all of this. So I’m opening the field a little here and asking, what do you think?

In a fight between zombies, vampires, were-things and scary pixies, who do you think would come out victorious? Who would make you pee your pants a little with fright?

How about a little pro/con chart for each of the creatures:

Zombies
Pros: super strong; create more minions as they attack; can fight in the daytime
Cons: do not sparkle in the sun, or ever; kind of slow; not smart

Vampires
Pros: don’t need a mob to be effective; smart; have that glamor thing going for them
Cons: Sunlight; being way too emo

Were-things
Pros: fast; violent; crazy
Cons: only a were-thing at certain times of the month; fleas

Scary Pixies
Pros: some of them can fly; soul-sucking; attractive
Cons: distracted by shiny things; confused with faeries

It’s a fantasy creature smackdown! Let us know which undead/fanged/furry/pretty critter would prevail… and who you would run from the fastest.

KA Holt is an unabashed fan of zombies, though she admits they can be kind of slow on a variety of levels.

REMINDER: POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD

Time for our second round of questions!

Symbolism is prevalent throughout most good stories.
An obvious example in this story is the mockingjay, a symbol of hope and courage by the people in the districts. Did anything else strike you as symbolic in this novel?

Joni Sensel:
Loads, including:
Snares — the setting of them, the idea of not seeing a trap until you’re already caught, the idea that setting one may be harder than you thought and might bite the setter, not just the prey
Fire and its parallels with love, passion, compassion, and other strong emotions — as simultaneously a warming, nurturing, rousing and painful/destructive force
Drugs and narcotics, including sleep and the related associations to turning away, ignoring, numbing, forgetting, and going passive… as well as our human need for these things at times
The world’s division into the other twelve districts and a central capital — we have deep-seated cultural and religious associations with this number as a “natural” and “perfect” division (because of the number of hours in a day). This is connected with the importance of time in the story, the games, and our lives, and also with District 13 and all the associations we have with that number, including the fact that it does not appear on a clock and is therefore “beyond time”

Jo Whittemore:
I think the characters themselves were very symbolic, even the minor ones.
Darius, one of the Peacekeepers for District 12, who represented Kat’s old, comfortable way of life. When he was turned into an Avox for interfering with the government, it was a symbol of the drastic hobbling of the district itself. The same can be said for Gale, really.
Cinna, Kat’s personal tailor and close friend, who represented the unspoken discontent and dissent among the Capitol citizens and later turned Kat into the mockingjay that meant so much to the people.
Finnick, one of Kat’s unlikely allies in the Quell, who represented strength and fortitude when Kat couldn’t find it in herself or Peeta.
Johanna, a competitor in the Quell, who until the very end represented the uncertainty of the Games with her good/bad actions and callous nature.
And of course, the dark and evil that is President Snow who represented, well…all things dark and evil.

Second Question
What did you enjoy about the novel that hasn’t yet been mentioned?

K.A. Holt:

REMINDER: POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD

It seems fitting to start off with something that plays such a huge part in both books. So, here’s the first question posed to our authors:

When writing series and sequels, it’s important to maintain continuity but avoid repetition. What are your thoughts about Kat and Peeta’s re-entrance to the arena (and their experience there) compared to the previous adventure?

K.A. Holt:
I was initially very disappointed that Kat and Peeta were going back to the arena. I remember thinking that I wanted a *sequel* to the Hunger Games, not a rehashing of it. However, as the Games proceeded, I was caught up in the story and the potential for rebellion and I enjoyed it very much. That said, I do wonder if Collins could have achieved the same messages if she would have tried something different. Maybe Prim and Gale could have been chosen for the Games, in order to punish Kat (and we wouldn’t need the contrivance of the Quarter Quell). Maybe there could have been a switcheroo with mentors, where a Careers district mentor was forced to “mentor” District 12, and Kat and Peeta were forced to “mentor” different districts. This would let us see the Games, behind-the-scenes. And it would give lots of opportunity for duel-purposed strategies and questionable silver parachutes. Too complicated? Probably. I just wanted something a bit different – something to show bolder attempts from Kat and the Capitol to thwart each other.

Joni Sensel:
Personally, I thought the whole Quarter Quell thing was pretty contrived, not just repetitious, and if I were to believe it, an even more egregious example of how President Snow and/or the administration in the book’s world was too stupid to have held onto power even this long (although at least the resulting events demonstrated the failure of their philosophy of control). But I put that reaction aside and certainly enjoyed the story regardless, and I thought Collins did a good job of making the events and emotions that followed different from what happened in the first book. The differences in the game setup the second time around, and the differing relationships with the other players, made the game itself seem very different, so that was also great.

Linda Joy Singleton:
When I first read the part about going back into the arena, I was shocked. I never saw this coming and didn’t want to go through that blood-bath again. It did feel contrived, like just repeating what worked the first time. But it was handled well and the arena was very interesting with the clock design. There were plenty of surprises and the people I cared about most survived. I liked the resourcefulness of Kat and the relationship with Peeta. The ending was partly what I suspected in how Kat connected with others, but a surprise, too. It left me wanting more…definitely a cliff hanger.

P.J. Hoover:
I have to admit I was shocked that Suzanne Collins chose to send Katniss and Peeta back into the arena. My thoughts at the time were, “really?” That said, I trusted the author and, of course, read on. And I have to say Ms. Collins did a great job of glancing over the parts that would have seemed redundant (much of the preparations) and of making the playing field much different. The games felt like more of a bonding experience, and the question was never who was going to die but more how the author would choose to end the novel. And I have to say, I was completely pleased with the ending.

Second question:
Given that this series deals with survival, there will obviously be bloodshed and casualties. How did your view of the violence in this novel compare to the previous one?

Parker Peevyhouse:
I was originally reluctant to pick up the first book in the series because I don’t do well with lots of violence. However, I think in both Catching Fire and The Hunger Games, Collins does well to avoid graphic descriptions and include just enough information for us to understand the horror of violence without being overwhelmed by it. That said, I’m apprehensive about the film treatment Hunger Games is undergoing–seeing someone get killed is much more disturbing than reading a vague description of it.

Jo Whittemore:
That’s funny, because physical violence doesn’t terrify me nearly as much as mental torture.
In fact, I loved the image Collins painted with the phrase:
“her throat slit open in a bright red smile.”
As far as mental torture, this book was so much creepier to me than the first. From the very beginning (where Kat realizes that if she makes one wrong step with the Capitol, all their lives are forfeit) to getting ready for the Quarter Quell (when she runs into her friend who’s now an Avox, and there’s nothing she can do for him) to the spinning clock in the arena (where will the terror come from next?) to specifically the jabberjays (hearing your family members cry out in torture and knowing it’s not them but wondering if it might be because it sounds SO real). If Collins ever went to work for the government, she could get any hardened criminal to spill his deepest, darkest secrets with her torture techniques!

Third and final question today (since this post is looong).
Thoughts on the Gale/Kat/Peeta love triangle?

P.J. Hoover:
A couple thoughts here. Gale seems the more desirable choice, as he portrays “the bad boy”. Peeta is just too nice. I’m not sure how many teen girls will pick the nice guy over the “bad boy.” That said, Gale is not given much screen time. I found myself wanting him on screen much more (and I’m sure this is because I want Katniss to choose him because he is the “bad boy”). I really hope in book three we get to see more of Gale. It’s set up for this to be the case.

Parker Peevyhouse:
I have to say it–I was so bored by the love triangle this time around. In fact, I didn’t really like the story until the games started. I wouldn’t have minded skipping all the set-up–all of Katniss’s anxiety about her two loves and her indecision about whether to run away with either/both of them. But I still feel invested in Katniss’s future with either Peeta or Gale, and I think the only way she can really choose between them is for one of them to die. Probably Peeta will sacrifice his life for Katniss, and Katniss and Gale will be the reluctant new leaders of the Districts.

Sound off, readers! Even if you disagree, we’d love to hear from you!

When I was a kid, I wanted to read books that made me feel like they were written specifically for me. I still do. So when I read a book, I revel in the details. Not just plot details, or character details, but hidden meanings and little extras. Easter eggs, footnotes, Dickensian naming conventions, real science masked in fictional science… those types of things.

When I was young and I found out that the BFG’s main character Sophie was named after Roald Dahl’s granddaughter, I reveled in it. It was like a secret connection I had with Roald Dahl himself. Like he trusted me with a secret. It was a wink from the author, a tidbit into his life before you could just google his name and learn more than you ever wanted to know.

Now that I am writing speculative fiction for kids, I feel a compulsion to add these tidbits to my books. I want to sneak in things about my life and interests: my kids’ birthdays, characters sharing names with less-than-famous scientists, even a manipulated quote from a favorite movie.

But now that we DO live in the age of Google, how much of this is too much? If it’s done deftly, only a careful (or obsessive) reader should notice, right? But does even a little of this kind of play marginalize a story? Or can it enhance the story? Can a writer use the internet to her advantage and hope that her readers will be curious (or influenced) enough to google a character name – or to recognize a detail from the book at a later date – and think “Wow, so that’s where that came from.”

I am attracted to creating a pastiche of facts and trivia and nudges and secrets in my books. But does anyone even notice? Is this a good way for your audience to “accidentally” learn (rather than suffer though didactic prose)? What do you think?

KA Holt is a hopeless nerd and still feels a little tingly when she realizes Diagon Alley is, perhaps,
a diagonal alley.