I’ve been meaning to write on this for a while.

I got an Amazon Kindle II for my birthday this year, and I immediately fell in love with the thing. It is so easy to buy and read books with a Kindle. I have spent a bunch of money on books I never would have bought it I didn’t have it.

Books–stories–will always be with us. We’ve always had stories and we always will. Whether they come on paper, or on film, or on the screen of an electronic reader doesn’t really matter.

Well, there is a different between reading a story, hearing a story, and watching a movie. I know. But I can’t see why reading a story on paper would be better than reading on the screen.

And I am a book lover from way back. I consider books to be home decorating items. My favorite series are set out, and I take such joy in seeing them on my shelf. I love the smell of books. I love the thick, creamy pages. I love the covers. I love everything about books.

And I love everything about my Kindle, too. I love that I don’t have to carry several books with me when I fly, because I’m not sure what kind of mood I’ll be in. I love that I can read it in the sun. I love that I can search the text. I love that I can bookmark passages.

And I really love that I am able to put my manuscript on it and read it like a real book. I love that I can put manuscripts I’m reading for friends on it.

I love everything about this device.

In my recent review  of Andrew Peterson’s North! or Be Eaten, which I loved, I said this:

It’s hard to relate to a character that is reactive and not proactive. To throw a character into a life and death situation and have him running, works for one chapter, maybe. But pretty quickly you have to give us a character that takes control of his life. Otherwise we lose interest. Maybe authors have pulled off books with characters who drift along, blown about by the winds of change, I don’t know. But, for me, this book didn’t pull it off. As soon as Janner took control of his destiny (for good or ill), he was a great hero. Up until then, he was not easy to root for.

:::::::SOME SPOILERS FOLLOW::::::

READ

AT

YOUR

OWN

RISK 

I’ve been thinking a lot about this, wondering what Mr. Peterson could have done differently to draw in this hard-to-please reader. (I know I’m hard to please. Wayne Thomas Batson once told me I’m a tough grader. heh heh He’s a school teacher–maybe he thought I should grade on a curve.) Yes, I was grading North! or Be Eaten with my usual toughness. Mr. Peterson gave us a kid who was thinking and moving and acting.  Janner’s life was in danger and all he had time for was choosing his next step. But we had an overall goal–get to the ice prairies. We also had minute-by-minute goals–get to the bridge, get the dog to take the wounded man across the chasm, etc.

So what else could Andrew have done to please me? Why do I say that Janner had not taken control of his own destiny?

The family was running instead of fighting.

I really fell in love with Janner when he was taken to the fork factory and he planned an escape and failed, planned another escape and failed, and finally planned an escape and succeeded.

This is what makes me fall for a character. To see him set a goal and make matter worse. Set another goal and make matters worse again. And only after doing this several times, does the character succeed. (I mean if the character is likable to begin with. I don’t fall in love with the villain who is setting goals.) I want to see a character acting even if, and especially when, his actions get him into more trouble.

I first became aware of this technique in a Shannon Hale book. I can’t remember which book now, they are all excellent, I think it was Goose Girl. Anyway, everything the character tried backfired and got her into more trouble. She’d start with a plan. A good plan. A smart plan. A reasonable plan. She was a smart girl. And by the end of the scene she’d be on the verge of death as a direct result of her great plan.

I loved the character, and I was reading breathlessly. Why? Because she was trying, because she was smart, because she was fighting for her life and I was fighting with her.

I guess it’s confusing for me to say that I love proactive characters as opposed to reactive  when all characters in books are reactive in a sense. An inciting incident comes upon them, they react by making a plan.

In Janner’s case the fangs were coming and his family reacted–what’s not to love? Janner’s family ran. So they’re not taking control of their lives, they’re fleeing for their lives. There’s a difference.

As soon as the family met up with the Stranders, they started making choices. They fought back. A character who is fighting back is so much more interesting than a character who is running away. So when they ran into the Stranders, the story got interesting for me. And when Janner was in the fork factory choosing how to escape, trying different methods, then I found myself loving him and rooting for him.

Sure, early on the family chose to go look for the bridge, and that was a wee bit interesting. But it wasn’t much of a choice.  There was no other viable option.

And they chose the right thing.

What if there were two bridges? What if they had gone looking for the bridge, because Janner insisted, and then discovered there was no bridge.  Now what? Now you’re in a pickle, Janner, and it’s all because you wouldn’t listen. This adds complexity–it demands deeper characters and it adds conflict. This is what sucks me in. This is what makes me love a character–he’s trying hard, he’s doing what looks smart, but he’s making matters worse.

What do you think? When you write, do you give conscious thought to these things or do you just let your characters make the first choices that come into their heads? Do you let your characters run or do you make them turn and fight?

Shannon Hale started a discussion about book reviews and the trend of rating books with little stars.

One of the things she talked about was a film critic she liked:

The reviewer didn’t rate the movies! He just talked about them for a page or two, discussing the choices the director, actors, and screenwriters made, analyzing the pieces, opining on what worked and what didn’t, and comparing that movie to others and to current happenings in the world.

These are the kinds of reviews I like best, too.  The kind I like to read and the kind I like to write.

Not that I’m an able reviewer–I’m not. But I love reading and I love talking about what I’ve read. I love to try to figure out why I love or hate a book.

Michael Stearns also likes to talk about what he’s read. He’s decided to give up making negative assessments in public. Because when you are “in the biz” you can’t afford to offend others.

I’ve been struggling with this for months now. 

I think Michael’s right to not give negative reviews. I think he’s wise. Who will want to sign with him if editors hate him because he’s dissed their books?

I’m tempted to follow suit. Because what editor will want to offer me a contract if I’ve dissed one of his books? What agent will want to work with me if I’ve spoken ill about his clients’ work?

And it’s not as if the world can’t live without my reviews.

I kind of hate to quit reviewing, though, because word of mouth sells books. When we talk about books, what moved us, what made us mad, we make other people want to read them. Besides, I am passionate about talking about books I love and books I hate. I love to read and I should be allowed to talk about the books I read.

I used to think if I didn’t speak meanly, people wouldn’t get offended. If I was balanced and fair and respectful, it would be OK. But the truth is that whenever you give a negative comment about a book, very often the author sees that comment and nothing else. It sticks in his craw.

What do you think? Do you review books you don’t like?

Well, I’m only two days late posting my review of North! or Be Eaten, the wonderful second book in Andrew Peterson‘s Wingfeather Saga.

Sorry. Remind me to not do blog tours on weekends in the future.

I finally did get my review up.  In short, I loved this book. I really love Andrew’s imagination, his sense of humor, his sense of wonder, his understanding of human nature, and his love of truth. Buy these Wingfeather books for the children you know. They will love you for it and they will grow as they read.

For the full review, click here.

Today is the second day of blog tour for North or Be Eaten, the second book in Andrew Peterson’s Wingfeather Saga.

I’m still reading the book. Enjoying it. I’ll give my review tomorrow.

For now…Andrew Peterson is one talented fellow. Becky over at A Christian Worldview of Fiction thinks he’s writing classics. She thinks the books are timeless and scratching universal itches. I’m not sure if I agree with her since I’ve not finished the book, yet. Since I know Becky is a big fan of theme, I’m guessing that there is going to be some important theme emerge from this book. I’ll weigh in on that tomorrow.

For now, I’ll just rave about his illustrations and imagination. One of the reasons these books are working for their target audience is that Peterson was a boy and he puts in all the boy stuff. There is all kinds of action–sword fights, arrows flying, desperate flight.

There is gross stuff–stinky slimy gunk and disgusting menu items.

And there are evil, vicious, dangerous creatures with dripping yellow fangs, and milky eyes. There are big creatures with big fists and little heads, and small creatures with sharp teeth and quills. 

Plenty of terror, disgusting goop, and action to keep the boys happy.

But the book, so far, is working for the old women, as well as for boys. The guy had me crying, already, and I’m not even a hundred pages in. I won’t give a spoiler but…it’s a great book that can make you laugh and cry.

OK I have to get back to reading it. I’ll leave you with my favorite line so far:

Trolls? A shiver of fear coursed through Janner. He had never seen a troll, though Pembrick’s Creaturepedia depicted several troll races, all of which were formidable and ghastly to behold.