The Horn Book » » Talks with Roger http://www.hbook.com Publications about books for children and young adults Wed, 27 Jul 2016 16:16:34 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.9 Richard Peck Talks with Roger (Video Edition) http://www.hbook.com/2016/07/talks-with-roger/richard-peck-talks-with-roger/ http://www.hbook.com/2016/07/talks-with-roger/richard-peck-talks-with-roger/#respond Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:55:13 +0000 http://www.hbook.com/?p=62688 Richard Peck talks with Roger -- video edition

Sponsored by
Penguin Random House

Talks with Roger is a sponsored supplement to our free monthly e-newsletter, Notes from the Horn Book. To receive Notes, sign up here.


RichardPeck_200x300The Best Man, Richard Peck’s newest novel, will be published by Dial Books for Young Readers in September. It was wonderful to have the chance to catch up with Richard — we are good friends who met in 1984 at an ALA reception introducing his Remembering the Good Times, an exemplar of what a YA problem novel could be in the right hands. Whether you know Richard Peck from his YA realism or his historical (and Newbery-winning) comedies for young readers, The Best Man will take you somewhere new,  even while there is in it a summing-up of the author’s persistent themes and styles developed over a career that has spanned forty-five years and thirty-nine novels.

This is The Horn Book’s inaugural video edition of Talks with Roger, and we couldn’t have asked for a better subject. We’ve included some text and video excerpts from our morning together at Peck’s Upper East Side apartment; the entire conversation can be found by clicking below.

 

Richard talks with Roger about fathers

RS: Tell me about your dad.

RP: My dad? He was home every night. And unlike the other dads, as a little kid I could go to work with him on the back of his Harley-Davidson.

RS: There’s a picture.

RP: No helmets, of course. I held onto his belt. And I knew not to let go.

RS: What was his job?

RP: He ran a Phillips 66 Gas & Oil — what we called then filling station; the phrase no longer exists — a service station, in the time when you washed the windshields and checked the air. And he ran it like a club, where old, old men hung out, old men who had nowhere else to go. I sat among them, and they told me stories. They told me what it was like to ride the great wheel at the World’s Fair of 1893 in Chicago. And it just burned into my heart. I thought, Nothing that interesting will ever happen to me. And nothing did. So later, when I was old, I wrote Fair Weather, about a farm family that gets to go to that fair and ride the Ferris wheel, see their first light bulb. But then all stories are about opening the door to the wider world.

 

Richard talks with Roger about technology

BestManRS: You and I had dinner with Rebecca Stead last year or the year before, while you were working on this. The two of you were talking about how to write about the contemporary life of young people with their immersion in social media and devices, when you and she both grew up—

RP: Without.

RS: —without any of that. How do you insert yourself in that generational thing?

RP: And [my characters] were in grade school, so we’re not talking about teen Twitter, we’re talking about kids going from first to sixth grade. It gave me six hard months of my life, because I let it become a problem. I would say to parents, “When does your kid have a phone for school?” “Oh, about fifth grade.” And I’d say to teachers, “When do they have phones?” “Oh, they all got ’em in third.” I wasn’t getting much help. And one day I was saved. I realized I could play it for laughs. So I created a teacher. It’s the most autobiographical character in this book. She’s the homeroom teacher, and she’s allergic to the computer. Every time she goes past it and the printer, it prints out hall passes for everybody.

RS: There’s a funny joke early on, when Archer, who’s the hero, meets this girl at a wedding — the book opens with a wedding and closes with a wedding. She saves him from something, and he says to her, “Don’t save me again. And later, when we’re allowed to have phones, don’t text me.”

RP: And she says, “Deal.” The thought of being saved by a girl is even worse than having to be a ring bearer in a wedding, for a six-year-old. But then the techno problems came along very soon thereafter. We have to deal with this. We have to make sure that technology and instant communication do not destroy the necessary tension of a novel. If everybody knows everything, it’s not a novel. It’s Twitter.

RS: I know. I’ll even be watching TV, a show like 24 or something, some spy show. And you realize that if these people were actually using their cell phones, the story would be over in a minute.

RP: Yes. And then there is the annoyance. I was traveling in Iceland this winter, of all places, with people, younger, and I would get a text in the morning when I was in bed. They’d say, “We’re in the dining room. Are you coming down soon?” And I thought, You’ll see me when you see me.

 

Richard talks to readers about bullying

 

Richard talks with Roger about marriage

 

Richard talks with Roger about indomitable old ladies
RS: We’ve got to have a trademark Richard Peck indomitable old lady, right?

RP: Of course. A tough old lady.

RS: Very.

RP: Yes. And this one is President for Life of the League of Women Voters, so yeah.

RS: Don’t mess with her, boys.

RP: And she is a woman who loses the love of her life in this book. And she remembers being young — she’s younger than I am. She remembers being young in the seventies and being married in a field of daisies, barefoot. So she, too, carries out the motif of marriage and the wedding scene, because she remembers when she was young in the seventies, and it’s sustaining her now that she’s lost her partner.

RS: And we see then, with that, marriage is something for everybody.

RP: Yes.

RS: It brings together two people, but it also brings together a family. And it can bring together a community at the same time.

RP: Yes, it can. Can make a community. And be an occasion for joy, not a car crash. [Watch the complete interview here.]

 

More on Richard Peck from The Horn Book

peck_feet

Sponsored by
Penguin Random House

]]>
http://www.hbook.com/2016/07/talks-with-roger/richard-peck-talks-with-roger/feed/ 0
Richard Peck Talks with Roger | additional videos http://www.hbook.com/2016/07/talks-with-roger/richard-peck-talks-with-roger-additional-videos/ http://www.hbook.com/2016/07/talks-with-roger/richard-peck-talks-with-roger-additional-videos/#comments Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:37:51 +0000 http://www.hbook.com/?p=62680 Richard Peck talks with Roger -- video edition

Sponsored by
Penguin Random House

Talks with Roger is a sponsored supplement to our free monthly e-newsletter, Notes from the Horn Book. To receive Notes, sign up here.


BestManThis is The Horn Book’s inaugural video edition of Talks with Roger, and we couldn’t have asked for a better subject than Richard Peck. We’ve included some text and video excerpts from Roger and Richard’s morning together at Peck’s Upper East Side apartment; the entire conversation can be found by clicking below.

Richard Peck Talks with Roger (full video)

 

Richard talks to readers about bullying

 

Richard talks with Roger about marriage


More on Richard Peck from The Horn Book

peck_feet

Sponsored byPenguin Random House

]]>
http://www.hbook.com/2016/07/talks-with-roger/richard-peck-talks-with-roger-additional-videos/feed/ 1
Firoozeh Dumas Talks with Roger http://www.hbook.com/2016/07/talks-with-roger/firoozeh-dumas-talks-with-roger/ http://www.hbook.com/2016/07/talks-with-roger/firoozeh-dumas-talks-with-roger/#respond Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:56:15 +0000 http://www.hbook.com/?p=62796 firoozeh dumas talks with roger

Sponsored by
houghtonmifflinharcourt_test2

Talks with Roger is a sponsored supplement to our free monthly e-newsletter, Notes from the Horn Book. To receive Notes, sign up here.


firoozeh dumasAuthor of the bestselling adult memoir Funny in Farsi and its companion Laughing Without an Accent, Firoozeh Dumas debuts in books for young people with It Ain’t So Awful, Falafel, a novel based on the author’s childhood experience as an Iranian immigrant in 1970s Southern California. The Captain & Tennille were all over the radio, Bonne Belle was on every girl’s lips, and a revolution was taking place thousands of miles away that would create a diplomatic crisis between our heroine’s homeland and her adopted country.

Roger Sutton: You know, I was in college in LA during the summer of “Love Will Keep Us Together,” and I thought you really captured the moment.

Firoozeh Dumas: Thank you. That means a lot to me. It’s funny, because most of the early reviewers are adults, and the ones who are between the ages of 40 and 55 are commenting that, for them, it was like a trip back in time.

RS: And thank you — I guess — for making me remember Tab, that nasty stuff. You’re right, it tastes like tin.

FD: I also put this in my first book, Funny in Farsi. I used to work in a theater. This was when Tab was very popular, and our Tab machine was always broken. People would come in and they would order a jumbo-size popcorn. They’d say, “I want butter on the bottom, in the middle, on the top,” and then they’d say, “I want a large Tab.” And I’d say, “Sorry, the Tab machine is broken.” People would be like, “What?!” And I’d think to myself, “You’re about to consume 2800 calories of butter. Go ahead and splurge on a Coke.”

RS: The events of the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis are memories for us but history for kids.

FD: Yes, my book is historical fiction for middle grade, where there’s definitely a huge gap in covering that era.

dumas_it ain't so awful falafelRS: How much of Zomorod’s story is your story?

FD: What she went through, the emotions, that was one hundred percent my story. Most of the facts are true. My father lost his job just as I said in the book. And my father is exactly the person that he is in the book. My mom was isolated and had a very difficult time. My friends in the book are my real friends — in fact, if you go to my website, you can see recent pictures of us along with our yearbook photos and other artifacts from the era.

RS: You’re still friends?

FD: Oh, yeah. We already have plans to get together when I go to Southern California this summer. I met them both in sixth grade at Lincoln Junior High. I met Carolyn in the way that is written in the book. Howie I met in a different way, and the story I tell in the book was actually about meeting somebody else. This is the glory of fiction. You can create composite characters.

RS: Your other two books are nonfiction — memoirs for adult readers.

FD: Yes, they’re for adults. Although my first book, Funny in Farsi, is on the California recommended reading list for middle school. It’s used in junior highs and high schools all across the U.S. I wrote that book for adults, and twelve-year-olds love it. So this book, Falafel, I wrote for middle grade, and adults are telling me, “Hey, this is great for adults.” They’re sort of chastising me for calling it middle grade.

I personally hate categorizing a book for an age group. I struggled. It took me a long time to figure out what it means to write a book for middle grade, and honestly, the only two things in this book I specifically geared toward a younger audience were the title and the amount of history that I put in. Otherwise, I have the same voice in all my writing.

RS: How did those events affect you at the time? Terrible things were going on in your country, and yet you were thousands of miles away.

FD: It was really bizarre, because we never thought that our country would have a revolution. We absolutely never saw this coming.

RS: It came very quickly.

FD: People don’t realize — and I say this in the book — that when Iranians marched against the shah, their goal was not to have a religious government take over. Everybody marched against the shah. There were communists and feminists and student groups. It’s very much like what’s going on in the U.S. now, with people following Trump. It’s not that they want Trump. They want a radical change, is really what people are saying. With the shah, people were just so sick of the corruption they said just get rid of him.

RS: Not knowing what would happen after.

FD: Yes, not knowing. Many Iranians now are saying the shah wasn’t that bad, comparatively. Even if you just look at it from a human rights point of view, the current government is so much worse.

RS: What was it like for you, watching it from afar?

FD: In real life I was about thirteen when all that was happening, so I was a little older than the character in the book. I was mainly watching my father’s reaction. He was really scared. He was shocked. I was very much attuned to my parents as a kid. I felt responsible for them. I spoke English, and I’ve always been parental toward them. I could tell how scared my father was, and how worried he was.

RS: The father in the book is at least able to express himself, whereas the mother is a really tragic figure, hiding from everything, not being able to communicate with people.

FD: Right. When people go to a new country, whether as refugees or immigrants, kids usually assimilate easily, but it’s much harder for the grownups. Especially, oftentimes, for the mothers, because they are usually confined to the house. They’re not going to school, and they’re not necessarily holding down a job. It’s tough. It’s not easy to assimilate to a new culture when you’re an adult.

RS: And that’s tough on the kid, who becomes the go-between.

FD: Absolutely.

RS: Did you find yourself being resentful of your mother?

FD: Yes. Because I thought that she wasn’t trying. As a kid, that really bothered me. I wanted her to try.

RS: I think when you’re a kid you can’t see that trying can mean something different to an adult than it does to you.

FD: Exactly. My definition of trying was something else.

RS: Well, she was very lucky to have you. Were you as outgoing as a child as you appear to be now?

FD: I had to be. It was necessary. The thing is, once you practice being outgoing, it becomes easy. My father is very shy. He has a hard time socially. In the book, when the father knows he’s going to meet new people and practices what he’s going to say in advance — that was taken from reality. My dad would practice, practice, practice, and of course he’d open his mouth and he would completely blow it.

RS: Do you ever mix up what happened in your book and what happened in your life?

FD: No.

RS: Good. I think it would be hard to write a story based on one’s own childhood. Because you work so intensely on a book, and then you wonder: Wait, did this happen, or was it just in my book?

FD: Don’t forget, I’ve already written two memoirs. So I’ve already written the facts. And I’ve written tons of articles, the New York Times, National Public Radio. All that work is nonfiction.

RS: Does writing tend to fix things in your memory, or does it change them?

FD: For me, it clarifies things. It gives meaning, and it makes me see the connections.

RS: I find I think about something differently once I write it down.

FD: Writing is such a powerful tool. I believe everyone should be writing.

Sponsored by
houghtonmifflinharcourt_test2

]]>
http://www.hbook.com/2016/07/talks-with-roger/firoozeh-dumas-talks-with-roger/feed/ 0
Richard Peck Talks with Roger teaser http://www.hbook.com/2016/07/talks-with-roger/richard-peck-talks-with-roger-teaser/ http://www.hbook.com/2016/07/talks-with-roger/richard-peck-talks-with-roger-teaser/#comments Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:33:12 +0000 http://www.hbook.com/?p=62790

]]>
http://www.hbook.com/2016/07/talks-with-roger/richard-peck-talks-with-roger-teaser/feed/ 1
Joshua Khan Talks with Roger http://www.hbook.com/2016/06/talks-with-roger/joshua-khan-talks-with-roger/ http://www.hbook.com/2016/06/talks-with-roger/joshua-khan-talks-with-roger/#respond Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:26:26 +0000 http://www.hbook.com/?p=61686 joshua khan twr

Sponsored byDisney-Hyperion

Talks with Roger is a sponsored supplement to our free monthly e-newsletter, Notes from the Horn Book. To receive Notes, sign up here.


joshua khanWhen I emailed Joshua Khan to set up this interview, he wrote back that he had read the Frances Hardinge Talks with Roger and that he, too, had been a Dungeons & Dragons player, so I guess it now counts as a trend. The author of several previous novels under his real name Sarwat Chadda, with Shadow Magic, “Joshua Khan” introduces a fantasy world that, like many, is divided into the forces of light and dark, but here we are asked to take the perspective of the latter. While the land of Gehenna is hardly Mordor, and its ruler, Lily, is no Sauron, the shift in expectations will give fantasy readers something new to consider.

Roger Sutton: So tell me about you and D&D.

Joshua Khan: I’ve been playing it since I was about eleven or twelve. The typical geeky mates, all gathering together from two till seven every single Sunday, but then we fell out with the Dungeon Master. We needed a replacement, so I volunteered and started writing my own scenarios. Around 2004, a friend of my sister’s, who was working with Simon & Schuster, said, “Oh, you like writing? Did you ever think about writing a book?” And I thought, “No, I just write these Dungeons & Dragons scenarios and all of that.” And she said, “Just give it a go.” So I gave it a go, figured I’d give it a couple thousand words and see how I felt. I worked during that ten-to-midnight slot after my kids had gone to bed, so actually a super-peaceful time. This was before WiFi; it was all dial-up. And I really got into it. No matter how bad the day had been, it was just bliss. I was transferring all my Dungeons & Dragons and role-playing writing skills into actually crafting a novel.

RS: Had you been a fantasy reader before you played?

JK: Yeah. When I was in my early teens I absolutely loved Michael Moorcock and the big chunky ones like Lord of the Rings. And then a bit later on I got into the Dune series.

But to be honest, in the mid-2000s, I was mostly reading action-oriented historical fiction. Bernard Cornwell writes the Sharpe novels, set in the Napoleonic era; I read loads of those. That was good training for learning how to write action. You realize that the night before the battle is all anticipation. Prior to the battle, everyone’s thinking about how it will go. But the battle itself ends up being quite confusing.

RS: Everybody’s just running around.

JK: Yeah, it’s all sound and fury. There’s smoke everywhere, there’s cannons. You’re reading, thinking, “Well, none of this makes sense, frankly.” It’s all very exciting, but who knows what’s going on? The plot itself is in abeyance. It’s at the conclusion of the battle — they’ve won or they’ve lost — that the story picks up.

RS: I always skipped the battle scenes in Lord of the Rings.

JK: Do you skip the poetry?

RS: Oh, yes.

JK: I skip the poetry. In Lord of the Rings, the battle scenes sometimes happen off-page. The famous attack of the Ents on Isengard is reported afterward: “Oh, by the way, while you were doing this…” Same with the Battle of Five Armies. Bilbo gets knocked out. He only wakes up after it’s all over. Part of me suspects Tolkien just said, “Well, what’s he going to do? He’s only going to be fighting. I’ll just knock him out and fast forward to when he wakes up.”

RS: So much nerding out this early in the morning!

JK: Roger, I told you, half an hour to talk is not nearly enough.

khan_shadow magicRS: Most people come to writing through reading, obviously. One thing I always wonder about fantasy novelists is, when you’ve read in this rich tradition, probably since childhood, how do you as a writer both join that tradition and at the same time distinguish yourself?

JK: The role-playing stuff that I wrote was my version of fanfiction, before the internet. I can only speak personally, but most of my childhood reading and entertainment was Western-based fantasy and mythology. But then in my early twenties, there was a TV adaptation of the Indian Mahabharata. That kind of blew my mind. The Mahabharata was not readily available in the bookshops unless you went specifically hunting for it, so it wasn’t something you just accidentally came across. I come from a South Asian heritage, and at a certain point I had the realization that in all my Dungeons & Dragons and role-playing games, I’d always played a white character. It’s all north European, knights and wizards and castles. So watching the Mahabharata was a real watershed moment because it got me consciously hunting out all of this other stuff. Also, I was brought up a Muslim. In historical fiction, we’re often cast as the bad guys, yeah? I remember watching the movie 300 thinking, “I’d much rather party with the Persians. They look like an insane fun time.” Part of me has always felt a little bit like, “I’m not sure I’m part of this gang, I think I’m part of the other gang.” I was watching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and realizing, “Oh bloody hell, the Thuggee are really badass.”

RS: We were having a discussion on the Horn Book podcast a couple weeks ago about race and reviewing, which is a huge topic in the States.

JK: I know, I’ve been following We Need Diverse Books very closely.

RS: I was in the midst of reading Shadow Magic when we did the podcast. I was probably around page 75, and I thought, “I don’t know what color these people are. Did I just miss it?”

JK: K’leef is certainly Arabic, and dark-skinned at that. I always saw Thorn as Anglo-Saxon (the Robin Hood thing) and Lily’s your archetypal goth, dark-haired and pale-skinned. But she is also my version of Malala Yousafzai. Prior to writing the Shadow Magic books, I wrote Devil’s Kiss and the Ash Mistry books [as Sarwat Chadda], in which my heroines are very kickass sword-wielding types. Here I wanted to do a heroine who was more political. Looking at Malala and also looking at Elizabeth the First, thinking, “These are women who have incredible power and can shape the future. They don’t have to pick up a gun, they’ve never carried a sword, and it all boils down to education.” So Lily’s quest is to become a magician — in her world, power comes through magic. In our world, power comes through education. I thought this was a fascinating parallel. If I’d said, “I’m going to write a book about a Muslim girl who just wants to learn how to read and write,” it automatically gets cast as an issues book, something that I’m really wary of. I don’t want this to be “about the Muslim experience.” It’s about a human experience, yeah?

RS: If you had a white main character, people would think, oh, she could be any girl. But if you write a South Asian character or a Muslim character, it’s: “Isn’t this interesting about the South Asian or the Muslim people?”

JK: Exactly. That’s the great thing about fantasy, isn’t it? You can tell whatever story you want, but the agenda’s made a little bit more discreet. It’s a rip-roaring adventure about a girl who lives in this fantastic castle, but really it boils down to a girl wanting to have her own say in the world, and that’s through magic or through education. This is me putting on my poncy writer’s hat here: I can read The Iliad, I can read somebody’s thoughts from three thousand years ago, and there’s something intrinsically magical about that. Words do change the world. In Shadow Magic they do so quite literally.

RS: How do you see your book fitting into the fantasy tradition? What distinguishes Shadow Magic?

JK: It’s looking at the story from the view of the “bad guys.” That’s how I wanted to structure it, to capture my background. No authors can separate their upbringing, their influences, from what they write. In the last few years with Islamophobia, etc., the feeling that Muslim people are “the Other”… I thought Shadow Magic would be a nice way of writing about the Other from their day-to-day point of view. The Lumineans, the lords of light, I quite pointedly named after angels. All of Lily’s family — Lily’s father, Iblis, is Arabic for “the devil.” So that’s kind of on the nose, but I like it.

RS: Well, they’re not the Other anymore when the story is from their point of view, right?

JK: Exactly. That was the point. That’s why I wanted to write it that way. You’ve got all the paladins, all the knights in shining armor — they’re not the good guys in this story. The good guys are the people who’ve had their country invaded. They’re being told, “This is how your world is now going to go. You’re going to knock down these walls; you’re going to put in windows. We’re going to illuminate your world. We think it’s dark and ignorant.” Those are the sorts of things that have always been bubbling away. But by writing fantasy you can disguise the references better.

I want to show a powerful girl in another light. I’m a big fan of history. The Mughal Empire is dotted by these powerful females operating from the harem, and then you’ve got the Rani of Jhansi, the Indian heroine who was more the sort of warrior archetype. And Elizabeth the First. We’ve named an age after her. She never had to pick up a sword. She never had to wear armor. She was never even destined to be queen. It was her brother first, and then it was her sister, which was something that directly fed into how she’s not prepared for her role, because it was never meant to be hers. Girls in those days were still just seen as pawns in the marriage game. All she knows is she wants to do right by her people.

RS: When you say “girls in those days,” is your book set in the past?

JK: Yes and no. All good stories will have a modern relevance. If I talk about The Iliad, which is one of my favorite books of all time, that still has a modern relevance. Every time there’s some war being fought somewhere in the world, The Iliad comes up in my mind. There’s this whole thing between Achilles and Hector — who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy? My sympathy’s terribly toward Hector. Every time I read The Iliad I have the fantasy that this time I’m going to read the version where Hector wins.

RS: I noticed that sometimes the conversation in your book is very slangy in a modern way and other times it’s more formal.

JK: I was trying to easily distinguish between Lily and Thorn, so if you randomly opened up the book you could immediately identify the focus of that particular chapter. I didn’t indicate, “This is a Thorn chapter. This is a Lily chapter.” It should come out in the mode of speech. One thing my editor and I worked hard on, especially with regard to Thorn, is how slangy we could go — “ain’t,” “gonna,” abbreviations and things — without sounding too forced. The early drafts were much more slangy. It needed to be toned down. And Lily has grown up in a very formal, very ancient society, while Thorn’s history goes back only as far as his grandpa, but that’s as far back as he can possibly go because his society didn’t have written language. She can go back thousands of years. Part of her education, part of her passion, is her sense of belonging to the Shadow family, her pride in her heritage.

RS: And her zombies. Publishing legend Jean Feiwel said years ago, during the vampire craze, that zombies were going to be the next big thing. And I thought, “No, that’s not going to work. There’s nothing romantic about zombies.” But sure enough, zombies took over the world. Why do you think that is? What’s the appeal?

JK: Modern life has this constant drudgery coming at you, like those sales emails, and you just delete, delete, delete, delete. It never ends.

RS: Zombies are the spam of literature!

JK: Right. They’re easily spotted, and they’re relatively easily dealt with. It’s like, I don’t even remember buying that pair of boots from wherever, but somehow they’ve got my email address, and now every week they’re flogging me something. So that’s the zombie invasion of our lives. They’re the bots on Twitter. They’re mindless, but they’re there, and they’re constantly coming at you. This is something I continue to explore in Book Two.

RS: So there is a Book Two? I couldn’t tell.

JK: It’s set three months afterwards. The first chapter is Lily. She’s interviewing a peasant woman whose father has come back from the dead, and he wants his old room back. For Lily, all this undead stuff is day-to-day. She’s not scared about it.

RS: You know, it was nice that I couldn’t tell if there was a sequel coming, because it felt like at the end of this book we had an arc. We had a beginning, a middle, and an end, and there was obviously the possibility of a sequel, but the story in and of itself was satisfying.

JK: That’s what’s so great about the series I tend to read. Each book is self-contained. I’ve gone through the Sharpe novels, and there are more than twenty of those, but you can read them in any order. I am guilty, in one of my earlier books, of ending on a cliffhanger. But you’re going to end up pissing off the readers. They’ve got a year to wait before anything gets resolved. I find it irritating as a reader, so I don’t put it in as a writer unless there’s a gigantic reason for it.

RS: Particularly with a new series, if you’re left on the edge of a cliff, and you still haven’t made up your mind how invested you are in the series, that’s not going to help.

JK: No, exactly. Shadow Magic is ultimately a murder mystery. Somebody’s killed Lily’s puppy, then the whole thing spirals out of control when you realize there’s much more than just the puppy involved. You know how in Agatha Christie where there’s the murder at the estate and all the characters are basically trapped there, and it’s down to our hero to solve the crime? That’s the thing I wanted to do, which is the opposite of most fantasies — this isn’t a quest. This isn’t about them traveling the far ends of the fantasy world and visiting the dwarves and visiting the elves and going to this and that kingdom. Basically it all takes place in one building, so it was a case of going away from fantasy conventions. This is something my agent said — we don’t want another bloody quest book. Also, when you think about the early Harry Potters, what is Hogwarts but the country estate that everyone is stuck in? You know that a crime has been committed, and one of the culprits is living there with you.

Sponsored byDisney-Hyperion

]]>
http://www.hbook.com/2016/06/talks-with-roger/joshua-khan-talks-with-roger/feed/ 0
Frances Hardinge Talks with Roger http://www.hbook.com/2016/04/talks-with-roger/frances-hardinge-talks-with-roger/ http://www.hbook.com/2016/04/talks-with-roger/frances-hardinge-talks-with-roger/#respond Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:53:30 +0000 http://www.hbook.com/?p=59600 frances hardinge talks with roger

Sponsored byAmulet Books, an imprint of Abrahms

Talks with Roger is a sponsored supplement to our free monthly e-newsletter, Notes from the Horn Book. To receive Notes, sign up here.


frances hardingeIn The Lie Tree, Frances Hardinge eschews the full-blown fantasy of her previous books for something more ambivalent. Does the tree of the title indeed feed on lies, rewarding its caretaker with truth, or has the author instead written a (superbly atmospheric) Victorian detective story? Hardinge and I talked just after she won a very big prize for The Lie Tree, the Costa Book of the Year, an award that hadn’t gone to a book for children since The Amber Spyglass won in 2001. So we chatted about that, about writing fiction, and about Dungeons & Dragons. I believe she was telling the truth.

Roger Sutton: I heard you had a school visit today. How did that go?

Frances Hardinge: Pretty well, actually. Very lively class, in a good way.

RS: How old were they?

FH: They were about twelve. Year Seven, basically. I was talking about my books, and a little about the writing process. There was a reading and questions and answers, that sort of thing.

RS: Do you find that helpful, as a writer?

FH: To me or to them?

RS: You.

FH: Yes, I think I do, really. It’s nice to see reactions. It’s nice to meet readers. It’s lovely when I meet younger writers and see them as mini-me, younger versions of myself. Writing’s a very weird profession. You are basically operating in a void, so actually getting some sense of the readership, a little touch of reality — yes, I think that is useful.

RS: I honestly don’t understand how writers — people whose main job is writing — do that. I would get nothing done if I didn’t have to leave the house.

FH: There’s always a danger of that. There are some writers who seem to be phenomenally organized and write the same number of words at exactly the same hours every day. I aim for approximately nine-to-five, but I’m not one of these ferociously, robotically organized people. What helps me is writers’ groups, because they provide mini-deadlines, where I am repeatedly faced with the potential shame of not having written anything. My productivity peaks just before a writers’ group session.

RS: How much will you share with a writers’ group?

FH: In terms of the planning, I often don’t share that much unless I want to run a synopsis by people. Quite often I like to be able to play out the chapters one by one, and gauge the reactions at different points, for characters or for plot — what people are getting, what they think is going on at every stage. Particularly when you’re writing mysteries, a lot of writing is an exercise in manipulation.

hardinge_lie treeRS: One thing I really love about The Lie Tree is that in the opening chapters, I thought: I have absolutely no idea where this book is going. But the writing was confident enough that I felt like you were taking me in a direction; I just didn’t know what it was yet.

FH: Thank you very much.

RS: I would think: Oh, it’s this kind of book. No, it’s that kind of book. It’s this other kind of book. But I kept going.

FH: I try and do that, pull multiple tablecloths out from underneath the crockery if possible.

RS: Now, I haven’t read all of your books, but this seems like the least fantastical of your fantasy. Would I be correct in saying that?

FH: Yes, I think you’d be entirely correct. In fact, in this book the fantastical elements are probably at their most ambiguous. In a way it’s almost less important what the tree is than what people think it is and what they’re willing to do about it.

RS: And you even have one of your characters say something like, “Maybe there’s nothing magical about this tree. We just don’t understand yet.” I loved that.

FH: We are looking at scientific frames of mind about a thing. That’s one of the reasons it seemed quite important to keep the Lie Tree ambiguous.

RS: Yes, it could be either some scientific thing we don’t understand yet, or it could just be a tree upon which the characters are projecting their imaginations. I thought that was really cool.

FH: Thank you.

RS: When you are dealing with fantastical elements, how do you keep control of them? If you say, “I’m writing a fantasy,” then really you could have a magic wand pop in at any point and solve any particular plot problem, right? So how do you make your rules?

FH: One has to know what the metaphysical rules are when writing, so that one isn’t tempted to cheat. Aside from anything else, though, the readers have to have some idea what the rules are. They need to know what’s at stake, how it can be resolved, how it can’t be resolved, etc. Take M. R. James’s short story “Casting the Runes.” Basic setup: you have a vindictive magician who passed on a set of runes to an individual. That individual is now being stalked by a demon. You don’t need to know about the demon. You don’t need to know how the runes work. What you need to know are the rules. But once you have them set up, the reader would be justifiably annoyed if, for example, the demon turned out to be quite a nice chap and thought better of the whole thing.

RS: Did you ever play Dungeons & Dragons?

FH: Yup.

RS: I tried that once many, many years ago — and I was so annoyed because it seemed to me that with the Dungeon Master, there was a capriciousness at work. I thought, well, I can’t really plan here, because anything could happen, just because this person decides the elves are going to do something, and there goes my plan to get the gold. I found it very frustrating.

FH: It takes a games master with a good sense of story. I have to admit, I still role-play. Not just tabletop games, like Dungeons & Dragons. I also play in live-action games, which involve full costume, sometimes running around in woods, hitting each other with convincing weaponry. For a writer, there’s nothing like actually being part of a story with a lot of other people to break you of any habits of thinking of your main character as the only true acting agent, with everyone else existing as foils.

RS: Are you kidding? That’s how I regard life. You are all projections of me.

FH: In my case, what were you thinking?!

RS: Oh, just wanted to mix things up a little bit.

FH: I get asked if all my characters are reflections of me. It’s possible, because part of my personality is a homicidal beast.

RS: It’s one thing to talk about rules for fantasy, but what about historical fiction, which is where I would more firmly place The Lie Tree. How do you convey another era without getting anachronistic? How do you find the way to connect today’s young reader to that material?

FH: There were points where I had to compromise. For both The Lie Tree and Cuckoo Song, I had to compromise a little bit on dialogue. Cuckoo Song is set in the 1920s, and I was very excited about the idea of using 1920s slang. So I went and looked at 1920s slang and it’s all like “What rot” and “I should say so” and “You little beast” and things. It’s very difficult to sustain a mood of brooding horror if everybody’s talking like Bertie Wooster. I had to instead default to something different, and that is timeless language. Which of course isn’t exactly timeless, but it feels timeless. It’s language of a sort that doesn’t either alienate a modern reader or sound too jarringly of today. I ended up doing something similar for The Lie Tree. It is a bit Victorian — I’ve got some Victorian terms in there — but it’s less formal; the way of speaking is less careful than it would have been. Again, just so the language doesn’t seem completely alienating, so it doesn’t lose any of the emotional content. But research — research is fun. If nothing else, you come across all these wonderful, implausible things that you just couldn’t make up. I mean, there was no way postmortem photography wasn’t going into The Lie Tree.

RS: Let’s talk about your Costa book award. Congratulations.

FH: Thank you very much.

RS: First you won their award for best book for young people, and then you took the whole shebang, which is the first time a children’s author has done that since Philip Pullman.

FH: Yes. I’m still a little prone to giggling about this, I’m afraid. I really wasn’t expecting that. It was clearly a thing that was not going to happen.

RS: What do you think is the difference between a book for adults and a book for young people?

FH: Less than people think. As I’ve said before, I have a lot of respect for my younger readers, and I tend to assume that they can actually cope with quite a lot. So I don’t dumb-down much. I do address dark themes. I do address some serious things. I hope the books are still entertaining, but I am happy with them. These are written for twelve-year-old me. Twelve-year-old me was quite a strange little girl. But I think The Lie Tree is a book that older versions of me could have read as well. Some books that are written for children have that magical quality of being different books when you come back to them at different ages. So when you read books like The Midnight Folk — that’s a fairly different read when you’re young than when you come to it as an adult, and start to see different elements to it. Even Peter Pan‘s very different. You come back to it and find yourself having sympathy for Hook and Mrs. Darling.

RS: Right. I felt that way about The Catcher in the Rye, which I read as a twelve-year-old, maybe, and loved it, and I identified with Holden. When I read it later as an adult, I still loved the book, but I was completely removed from Holden. There was no sense of identification, and instead I thought, oh God, this poor kid.

FH: Yeah, I read it late. I read it as an adult. I could kind of feel how I would have reacted, but that’s not quite the same as actually encountering it when you’re younger. Though twelve-year-old me is still very much alive and kicking.

RS: What was the twelve-year-old you reading?

FH: Mostly what she could get her hands on, and she could get her hands on quite a lot, because my parents had a lot of books in the house, and they were basically fine with my scrambling around with what I liked. She read a fair bit of fantasy. She’d already read quite a lot of Alan Garner and Susan Cooper. She read Leon Garfield, which was her introduction to — I’m going to stop talking in the third person now, this is weird — it was my introduction to historical fantasy. Gripping stuff, smugglers and that sort of thing. It didn’t pull many punches in terms of peril, grimness, death, and all the rest of it. Clearly I loved it.

And I was into murder mysteries. My gateway to mystery stories, detective stories, was Conan Doyle. I chomped my way through the Sherlock Holmes stories. My parents had this really tall bookshelf that was at the top of the stairs, on the landing. It had this huge ladder right up next to it, with a sheer drop down to the ground floor on one side. I remember being perched on the very top of this ladder reading “The Hound of the Baskervilles.” There was a dark frisson there of metaphysical danger, an enormous spectral hound.

RS: It’s funny, Conan Doyle is one of those writers that if one reads him at all, one tends to read him first as a young person. Does that make him a children’s writer? I don’t know.

FH: I think he’s, again, someone you come back to. That is a very good question. I think there always has to be some question as to what kind of writer the author thought he or she was. That still counts for something, doesn’t it? What the author thinks he or she is writing?

RS: We’ve been talking about it a lot here because of Harper Lee’s recent death. To Kill a Mockingbird was in no way conceived as a book for children, but that’s when everybody reads it. That’s what the destiny of that book seems to have been.

FH: Yes. I guess it wasn’t intended as that. I have rather adopted the Atticus Finch approach to younger people, which is basically if they ask you a question, answer it. Or if you feel you can’t answer it, show your cards and explain why you can’t answer. Don’t make any fuss about it. Just be as clear as you can, which I think is a pretty good policy.

Sponsored byAmulet Books, an imprint of Abrahms

]]>
http://www.hbook.com/2016/04/talks-with-roger/frances-hardinge-talks-with-roger/feed/ 0
Deb Caletti Talks with Roger http://www.hbook.com/2016/03/talks-with-roger/deb-caletti-talks-with-roger/ http://www.hbook.com/2016/03/talks-with-roger/deb-caletti-talks-with-roger/#respond Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:51:24 +0000 http://www.hbook.com/?p=58978 deb caletti twr

Sponsored bySimon & Schuster

Talks with Roger is a sponsored supplement to our free monthly e-newsletter, Notes from the Horn Book. To receive Notes, sign up here.


deb calettiIn Deb Caletti’s new YA novel Essential Maps for the Lost, Madison and Billy hardly meet cute: Mads is swimming in Seattle’s Lake Union when she bumps into the body of a woman who apparently had thrown herself from the bridge above. That woman is Billy’s mother, but Caletti intriguingly takes her time before allowing the two teens to find each other — and fall in love. (A love, by the way, in no small part fueled by Mads and Billy’s mutual book-of-life, From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler.)

Roger Sutton: As I started the story, getting to know Mads and Billy in their disparate chapters, of course I wondered: will they get together? When will they get together? What’s going to happen? How does a writer calibrate that kind of suspense — how long can you keep your characters apart before pissing off your readers?

Deb Caletti: I am terrible at craft questions, because I’m such an intuitive writer. I’m not an MFA-er or someone who’s studied. I’m a reader. Books taught me. So it’s more of an instinctual thing. Maybe I do piss readers off. I probably do, because I like the other stuff more than the plot stuff.

RS: So you wouldn’t consider yourself a plot-driven writer?

DC: Oh my gosh, no. Not at all.

RS: Well, the plot certainly sucked me right in!

DC: You think that? I feel good. I have to work at that part, because I love the stuff that’s in the mind and the heart, in the passenger seat of the car, that kind of thing. What’s in a person’s coat pockets. I work at controlling my own impulse to spend too much time on those details in order to keep the story tight.

RS: I can’t stand books where the characters just sit around and talk to each other. I argued with my husband after we saw Spotlight, which he thought was brilliant and I thought: this is just people talking to each other.

DC: That’s exactly what I said. It was the relaying of information through dialogue, which — no, I don’t do that.

RS: So how do you do that? How do you relay information in your stories?

DC: You get to know people over time. You dole out information through the things characters say, what people think of them, their funny habits — the same way we get to know people in real life. We hear things, we witness things.

RS: Going into this novel, what did you know you wanted to do, right when you started?

DC: I always start with a need. For me, writing is always very private. I’m in the writing-as-therapy camp. It’s something I want to think about for a year, to work out. This story came to me right around the time we had a suicide in our YA community. We were hearing a lot about people’s struggles with mental illness and depression and breakdowns. All of that is hugely important. We need to hear that and know that. But I was feeling an absence of hope. I was feeling that we needed to hear about the beauty in the struggle. I started there.

Then I wanted to explore something more personal about what it is to be a child — even an adult child — who carries responsibility for a childlike parent. Kids can really be up against it, having a mentally ill parent or being in a position where they need to be the one who holds things together. I wanted to explore that idea. And I knew I wanted to talk about book-love some more. I’ve done that in the past, in The Last Forever and in Honey, Baby, Sweetheart, with the librarian characters. I believe in books so much, they’re so important to me, that I wanted to revisit that book-love. I wasn’t quite done with talking about it.

RS: Do you have any book the way that Mads and Billy have Mixed-Up Files?

DC: I’m a reader. I have many of them. So many. How do we choose? But I have my own copy of Mixed-Up Files. It says “Debbie Caletti, 1971,” in my funny fat writing, all beat up. It opens to that map in the middle, because I loved that. I loved looking at that map and imagining myself somewhere else. Sometimes I needed to imagine myself somewhere else, like these characters do. I was that kid who hid in my room and hid in books to escape. I’m still that kid. I get all worked up about it, because it’s an amazing thing when you have a book like Mixed-Up Files to keep you going: Billy’s mother jumps off a bridge, and yet he cracks up when Claudia and Jamie are hiding in a bathroom stall. And Madison, with her troubled family, wants to sleep in the museum bed.

RS: I wanted to do that too, when I read that book.

DC: It’s why I wanted to go to the Met. When I went there for the first time, seeing that bed gave me goose bumps.

RS: I’m surprised we don’t see more kids reading in kids’ books. Because who’s reading kids’ books but kids, right? Kid-readers.

DC: Who else is going to understand book-love? How can I not write about book-love, when that’s me as a reader, and my readers are readers.

caletti_essential maps for the lostRS: Did you see that David Denby article in the New Yorker recently? It was another one of those complaints that teens don’t read the way they used to.

DC: That’s just so silly.

RS: But one thing that is different now — when I think back to YA in the ’70s and ’80s, the real audience for those books was junior-high kids, mainly girls. The characters tended to be a little bit older than those readers.

DC: Someone was always pregnant or shooting something up.

RS: Right. Very exciting. But now we have YA books about characters like Mads and Billy, who are out of high school. I guess this is a two-part question: who do you see as your reader, and what do you know demographically about your readers?

DC: Again, I’m the private writer, so I don’t like to think too much about that, or I worry it’s going to be my former in-laws or something. But who I know is my reader: my readers are all ages. Since my books can be a little bit slower, more character-driven, it’s often hardcore reader-girls. Usually they’re a bit older, teen- through college-age, but a lot of adult women as well, which is partly why I have also been writing adult novels recently. The crossover started to make a lot of sense.

RS: What’s the difference for you between writing a young adult novel and an adult novel? Particularly since, as you said, you’re not really thinking about audience as you write.

DC: There’s more room to roam. I can go a little bit slower. I hope that my books for younger readers are rich thematically as well, but in an adult book I can explore some ideas in more layers, take more time with them. Creatively, it’s a great thing for me. It’s like going to a foreign country. You come back with a wider worldview.

RS: I’m guessing that your audience, whether they’re teenagers or adults, would be going back and forth from one to the other anyway. That makes sense, right? We didn’t discriminate as young readers.

DC: No, we didn’t. Are you kidding? I read whatever I could get my hands on.

RS: My first job in libraries was in 1979. Judy Blume had just published Wifey. Do you remember that?

DC: Oh, yeah, of course.

RS: Which had that scene right on the first page, the motorcycle guy masturbating? Girls who had loved Are You There, God? etc., etc. were lining up for Wifey.

DC: You better believe it.

RS: It was Judy Blume.

DC: I know. Judy Blume, what would we do without her? One of the greatest experiences of my life was when Honey, Baby, Sweetheart was a National Book Award finalist, and that year she won the lifetime achievement award. It was so right. She had been there and there she was again, describing her own road to that place which was so up my own road.

RS: Why do you think we now have such a large number of adults reading books published, at least nominally, as young adult titles? In some estimates it’s mostly adults who are buying young adult books.

DC: What a really good question.

RS: So, give me a good answer.

DC: I think the quality of YA has changed so significantly. Like when I was a teen reading I Know What You Did Last Summer — the teens crossing the road in the headlights of the car. It looked a lot different than YA looks today, where anything goes. I read for the National Book Awards as a judge in 2013. What we have now is rich and varied and thematically interesting. It’s all the things we love in any great book. Maybe it’s that YA has come up to a point where readers are recognizing that there’s so much to appreciate. (Not all New Yorker writers, maybe, but a lot of other readers.) YA has met the reader, rather than the reader having met YA.

RS: Interesting. I think it’s also that adults have been through early intense love. We remain fascinated with it, even in our doddering old age. To go back and be able to experience those feelings again in a book like yours, which is intensely charged by the emotional landscapes it draws of the two protagonists. There is that focus on character and emotion, but at the same time, as I credited you with earlier, you do have a plot pulling these people through. They’re not just sitting around a dinner table talking.

DC: And the feelings and the struggles — people always ask, “How do you get in the mind of the teen reader?” I think all human beings have these common threads. We struggle with the same things. We desire love and attachment. We have to sort out how much we want to be attached and be independent, how we manage need and being needed and being hurt. These are things that begin when we’re — how old? Then in those teen years we start to really feel them.

RS: There’s a real consciousness of them once we become teenagers.

DC: Our eyes open.

RS: And I think to be able to go back to those moments, the first time you really fell in love with somebody —

DC: — and felt that vulnerable, really —

RS: It’s appealing.

DC: And it’s something we continue to feel, I think.

RS: Do you bridle at having your books called romance novels?

DC: I do. I’d like to say I don’t, but I do. It actually surprises me more than raises my hackles. To me they’re so much more. The romantic element is what the story sort of sits on, but all the stuff below the surface is really about family. It’s about the baggage we bring, both the good and the hard stuff in that baggage. It’s more about the other relationships. It’s about mothers and fathers and sisters and dogs, all of the pieces. It’s really more about — yes, love, in its widest usage.

RS: Right. Well, I think that what the relationship does in this book, between the boy and the girl, is to throw all those other relationships into relief. Once you open yourself up to another person the way that they do, you see things, you understand things, about all the other relationships that are already in your life.

DC: Exactly. Because that’s how it is in real life. That’s how it is in a teen’s life and in an adult’s life, when it comes to love. Suddenly all those other relationships, you feel their import too. You feel how one thing leans on the other.

RS: Why do you think this kind of story works for you? That this is where you found a home?

DC: I was in a difficult marriage, writing to sort of save myself, writing book after book after book. I wrote five novels. The fifth was The Queen of Everything, about a young woman whose father is involved in a crime of passion, and she’s kind of watching what’s going on. It was bought by Simon & Schuster, who I’m still with, and bought as a young adult book, which was a surprise to me. I thought, “Oh my gosh, this is going to get edited down to five pages.”

RS: It’s going to turn into Go Ask Alice!

DC: This was thirteen, fifteen years ago — it was right at what we were beginning to call the golden age of young adult literature. And it came out basically whole — really nothing was changed in that book. So there began this wonderful relationship. My second book was a National Book Award finalist, so I got really anchored into YA. But I love it. It’s challenging, because we can do so much now, because there is so much room to explore all of these relationships. I remember, when I was first starting, I kept hearing, “In YA they don’t really write about the parents,” and I thought, “I don’t even know how to write YA. I have no clue. I’m just writing what I want to write. Wow, I guess I must be doing it wrong.” Those relationships are as crucial as any boy-girl stuff in the books.

RS: Oh, yeah.

DC: So it’s been interesting, trying to ignore what’s going on and do my own thing.

RS: Well, I’m very glad you found the right place.

DC: I am too. It’s been fabulous. We all probably say this, but it means a lot to most YA writers to be in that place with that reader at that age. I think about Judy Blume standing there, giving that speech. Those books stay with you. They last. There’s some magic power there. You can remember those for years and years afterwards.

Sponsored bySimon & Schuster

]]>
http://www.hbook.com/2016/03/talks-with-roger/deb-caletti-talks-with-roger/feed/ 0
Kathi Appelt & Alison McGhee Talk with Roger http://www.hbook.com/2016/03/talks-with-roger/kathi-appelt-alison-mcghee-talk-with-roger/ http://www.hbook.com/2016/03/talks-with-roger/kathi-appelt-alison-mcghee-talk-with-roger/#respond Tue, 08 Mar 2016 17:43:27 +0000 http://www.hbook.com/?p=57793 appelt and mcghee twr

Sponsored bySimon & Schuster

Talks with Roger is a sponsored supplement to our free monthly e-newsletter, Notes from the Horn Book. To receive Notes, sign up here.


Kathi Appelt

Kathi Appelt

Vermont College of Fine Arts colleagues Kathi Appelt (The True Blue Scouts of Sugar Man Swamp) and Alison McGhee (Firefly Hollow) here join forces for a novel about two sisters finding both tragedy and solace in the wilderness surrounding their Vermont home. While Maybe a Fox is rich with themes each author has explored on her own, it is, as we discuss below, its own animal.

Roger Sutton: Zena Sutherland once told me that when she asked illustrators Leo and Diane Dillon who did what in their pictures, they looked at each other in confusion and said they really didn’t know. But can you tell me who did what with Maybe a Fox?

Alison McGhee: We transformed our process as we went along. It happened very naturally. We began by each taking a viewpoint. I was a fox and she was a human girl, and we traded chapters back and forth. When we had a giant, unwieldy, chaotic first draft, we revised it the same way, then again at least once or twice more that way.

RS: You mean you each revised your own section?

AM: Yes. And then as the process went along, we began working simultaneously in Google Docs. We gave each other permission to revise the entire thing separately, one after the other, and that was the way it ended up. I don’t know how you feel, Kathi, but I feel as though we wrote the book together and that the voice is neither mine nor Kathi’s. It has its own voice that’s truly a collaboration between the two of us.

Kathi Appelt: That’s the way I feel, too. Both of us realized that for the book to work, it had to be its own story. It couldn’t be two side-by-side stories, it had to be one. When we took turns with it, as if it were our own manuscript — that was when the story really began to breathe.

AM: The original voices were much more singular, much more the way you and I write separately. But when we began going through the whole thing separately and revising, we each rubbed away the hallmarks of our individual voices. Because we were free to do that, we both, at the same time, turned it into the voice that it has now, which is its own.

Alison McGhee

Alison McGhee

RS: It really is. It’s a consistent voice throughout, even though you’ve got three points of view.

KA: Yes, and that was the challenge. One of the most difficult things for each of us was to go at it with abandon and, like Alison said, to wear away those edges of our own distinct voices. Alison’s writing voice is so beautiful, and I can’t tell you how hard it was for me to chop off some of her descriptions. I know she probably felt that way going after my sections too. But it was what the story needed. When we first started writing, we enchanted each other. Those early chapters — I’d get something that Alison wrote and think, oh my gosh, it’s gorgeous. And then having to go in and edit Alison — it was like, well, who am I to edit Alison McGhee?

AM: I am remembering how I’d physically start squirming in my seat when I was chopping off what I thought of as Kathi Appeltisms. That cool Southern stuff she throws in, adorable phrasing for little animals and children. Our emails at that point were full of apologies.

KA: But the story wasn’t supposed to be, “Let’s see how lovely we can make this.”

AM: Right.

RS: What prompted the collaboration in the first place?

KA: Alison, do you want to tell this story?

AM: It was a long time ago — probably twelve years ago at this point. It was late one night in this freezing and nasty dorm at Vermont College of Fine Arts where we were both new faculty members. I had lost my luggage — and I’m really tall and kind of like a pencil — and this woman at the end of the hall, who was very short with a beautiful smile and blond hair, offered to lend me a pair of pajamas and a blanket. I loved her instantly. The next day we met at breakfast in the cafeteria, which I always refer to as the trough. We got our trays and made a beeline for this little table that seated two, between two giant pillars at the back of the room, and there we sat. We sat there for every meal for years, even though we were strongly encouraged, as faculty members, to break up and go sit with students. We did not. We were sitting at the table, about a week into meeting each other, and Kathi said, “You know what? We should write a book together.” And I thought, “Cool,” but then really dropped the ball, until four, five years ago when we started writing this book.

KA: That’s the way I remember it too. That’s pretty accurate, although I’m not sure I’m the one who said we should write the book. It might have been Alison.

AM: No, it was you, Kathi. I totally remember you saying it.

appelt_maybe a foxRS: All right, ladies. But how does one start a novel together? You have to start someplace, right?

AM: For many years I have posted a poem of the week on my blog. One week — this must have been about five years ago — I posted this poem by Patricia Fargnoli, which became the epigraph of our book. It has a line about a fox who comes streaking down the hill, a flame against the snow. Kathi and I both loved that poem so much we thought, “We should write that book. And the only things we will say about it right now are that it’ll be about two sisters who are separated somehow, and it will have a fox in it.” Those were our ground rules. That’s how we began. Oh, and we also had a rule that we would each do something that we had never done before. I had never written in the voice of a supposed animal. Anybody who writes in the voice of an animal is actually writing in the voice of a person, but whatever. I’d never written in the voice of a fox, and Kathi had never written in first person before. So that’s how we started.

KA: And as it turned out, I changed the first person to the third person.

AM: Four revisions in or so, it was back to third person.

RS: The book starts in a fairly shocking way, to me. It’s really going back to the roots of children’s literature, where someone is told, “Don’t go in the woods, or something terrible will happen.” And then she goes in the woods and something terrible does happen. She dies. Did you pause about this? Was there discussion about how to handle it? Pretty tough.

AM: I don’t remember any discussion about it. It just happened.

KA: We didn’t discuss it. I think it was understood from the start that one of the sisters would die. I don’t think there was ever any hesitation.

AM: Both of us write about death a lot, incredible loss, so neither of us has that anti–Grimm Brothers mentality.

KA: Right. And part of what allows this story to contain that death is that we worked really hard to have the landscape itself be a kind of mystical part of the story. So that the sister does die in that place, but the place itself is somewhat enchanted. Maybe enchanted is not the right word, but it’s like a living force all by itself.

AM: It is a sacred place. There has been tremendous loss and tremendous redemption within that space already, for both humans and animals. So it’s natural, in a way.

RS: Do you all know the opera The Cunning Little Vixen? It’s by Janáček, from the 1920s. Sendak did a production of it in the early eighties with the New York City Opera. It’s about this fox who’s a girl, too. It’s really beautiful. I think you would like it.

AM: I’ll have to listen to it.

KA: Me too.

RS: One thing that is interesting about the death of the sister, Sylvie, early on is that we don’t really know her. Our sympathy right from the start is with Jules. We see Sylvie through Jules’s eyes. So it’s bearable to kind of do away with her. Do you know what I mean?

AM: Yes, that’s a good point. Because the story is about dealing with a loss that has already happened. Multiple losses, really: the mother, the sister, and the neighbor’s best friend. So I think that is helpful, especially for a younger audience.

RS: Do you think of it as a fantasy?

AM: I don’t.

KA: No.

RS: What would you call it?

AM: I’d say there are magical realistic qualities, but I would shy away from describing it as magical realism. It feels like realistic, mimetic fiction to me. Even though there’s a fox and otherworldly elements, it feels very grounded in the slate and mountains of Vermont.

KA: It’s wildly comforting to me to think that we reappear in each other’s lives in unexpected ways, that death isn’t necessarily the end of the picture. And that’s coming from a person who is not necessarily religious. But there’s something, I think, in the human psyche that wants to hold on to the belief that death is not the end. That really appealed to me about the story.

AM: I can say the same thing. I’m not religious either, except that you and I are both Unitarian Universalists.

KA: Roger, aren’t you also UU?

RS: I always say to people I’ll sing in the UU choir, but I’m still a Roman Catholic.

AM: When I do what I think of as my meditations, I line up in my mind the people I love who have passed on and I talk to them. I talk to my grandmother every day. I have no idea if there’s anything beyond this world.

RS: None of us knows, of course, what goes on in the heads of animals in nature, or what goes on after we die, but I’ve had moments in the woods where I’ve felt like it was talking to me or I was talking to it.

KA: I think all of us have had those moments when we sense a presence that is bigger than our physical surroundings. I do really believe that those wild places, the woods, the desert, wherever, they seem to provide a genesis for that kind of experience. It’s hard to be in a natural place and not be awestruck by it. It makes you feel like anything is possible, and why not?

AM: I grew up way out in the country, and walking for miles and miles, hiking up mountains or up canyons, it just brings that sense of openness into my heart. If you think of Buddhist monks, who believe that all beings are connected to one another like smoke, in and around us all the time, then it becomes more understandable that these things would happen, what happens to Jules and to the fox. It becomes a very comforting and peaceful sort of sensation.

RS: What would you say that writing this book together did for your own writing individually?

AM: As a writer, I know what I’m good at and what I’m not good at. There are ways to deal with what you’re not good at, and one way is to camouflage it with a whole lot of what you’re good at. Kathi excels at thinking through story. She will think through plot points in a way that my brain is just not wired to do. So that was a very interesting experience, working with someone who is really excellent at plot.

KA: Thank you. I appreciate that. Embedded in what Alison said is that I like to be in control of the story. I like knowing where it’s going and what’s supposed to happen at any given time. Working with Alison, I had to let go of some control. And as a result, we made some discoveries and took the story to places where, had it just been me, I doubt I would have gone. That was liberating. It’s like we have each other’s backs. I always felt like Alison gave me total permission to just jump off of the deep end. That was freeing. Often she had to say, “Okay, Kathi, come back! Come back, little Sheba!”

AM: You reminded me of something else I learned by working on this book with Kathi. I saw just how lonely our chosen work is. You’re sitting by yourself, dreaming things up, and writing them down. It is a very lonely way of life.

RS: I don’t know how you do it. I really don’t.

AM: I love it. It’s the only thing I ever wanted to do. It’s just that I didn’t realize the extent of how absolutely alone it is until I was working with Kathi, and it was just like she said. I could turn it over to her. I didn’t have to think for a few days. We were shouldering the burden together. It was wonderful. Such a relief. I was only fifty percent of the equation. Despite the fact that we both want to control the story or the voice or the language or whatever, I think we were very respectful of each other, and our friendship — it was already incredibly strong, but it’s only gotten stronger, having written this book. I feel really blessed about that.

KA: It could have gone wrong so easily. It could have become a disaster.

RS: Or you might have found yourselves being so nice to each other that the book would be horrible.

KA: We did go through that phase early on, where we were too respectful of each other’s writing. We didn’t want to step on it. We didn’t want to intrude. We had to work through that, until we got to the point where we were comfortable owning the entire story. Regardless of whether we added something or took something out or tweaked something that the other had written, it didn’t matter, because it was our story. It was one story.


More on Kathi Appelt & Alison McGhee from The Horn Book

Sponsored bySimon & Schuster

]]>
http://www.hbook.com/2016/03/talks-with-roger/kathi-appelt-alison-mcghee-talk-with-roger/feed/ 0
Marieke Nijkamp Talks with Roger http://www.hbook.com/2015/12/talks-with-roger/marieke-nijkamp-talks-with-roger/ http://www.hbook.com/2015/12/talks-with-roger/marieke-nijkamp-talks-with-roger/#respond Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:03:25 +0000 http://www.hbook.com/?p=56314 marieke nijkamp TWR

Sponsored by
SourceBooks

Talks with Roger is a sponsored supplement to our free monthly e-newsletter, Notes from the Horn Book. To receive Notes, sign up here.


Marieke Nijkamp’s first novel, This Is Where It Ends, is unfortunately timely, telling, through multiple points of view, of a young shooter who holds an entire school hostage for one harrowing hour. Blood is spilled, secrets are revealed, truths are told. Marieke (pronounce it like the Jacques Brel song of the same name) spoke to me from her home in the Netherlands.

Roger Sutton: You are Dutch. How did it happen that this book is written in English and being published here?

Marieke Nijkamp: It actually came to pass quite by accident. I’d been writing in Dutch for quite a few years before I made the switch to English. A few non-Dutch-speaking friends of mine would have me translate things I was working on into English so they could get a sense of what I was doing every time I sat curled up in a corner somewhere with a notebook or my laptop. I’d been writing young adult stories without realizing it, because it wasn’t quite a market here, at that point, the way it was in the U.S. Mostly on account of traveling, I’d been used to speaking English, so using it as a way to tell my stories felt very natural. That was basically how that experiment started.

RS: Do you feel like a different person writing in English? Do you think you write different things?

MN: I actually do. I think it has to do with the way we use language in general. The rhythm of language, the melody, and also the cultural components really do influence the way we tell stories; the way I tell stories, certainly. I tried to translate an English story of mine into Dutch at one point, and halfway through the second sentence it changed into something completely different. That’s something to say about translating — it’s an art and craft that I do not possess.

RS: What was it like for you, then, coming from the outside, but writing in English, about what is a very American problem, at least these days?

MN: At first it felt incredibly intimidating, and I felt completely unequipped to talk about it. But I started working on the book because I was feeling just confused and baffled by how often these situations happen and how horrendous they are. I wanted to explore that and find a way to better understand. As a writer I do that by telling stories, and by trying to get as close to a situation as I can, even fictionally.

RS: Which part of the story occurred to you first?

MN: It started out as a conversation with a friend about gun safety and school violence. It left me with so many questions, and it began this story in the back of my mind, these characters who wanted me to tell their story. That’s something I hadn’t really quite experienced before. I’m usually the type of person who very carefully plots stories and knows exactly where to go from one moment to the next. But these characters occurred to me, and refused to let me finish another story I was working on, because I was so enthralled by what they had to say.

RS: I think it’s a very dangerous story, and I mean that in a good way. The storytelling is dangerous. And you let us know pretty early on in this book that it’s not going to be safe. That no one, essentially, in the book is safe from the shooter. We don’t know until the very end of the story who’s going to make it out alive.

MN: That was a very conscious choice for me, and also something that quite terrified me, writing it. I wanted to get as close as I could to the experience of being in that kind of situation, while still staying on the side of fiction, of course.

nijkamp_this is where it endsRS: One hopes.

MN: I feel like it’s important to have these types of discussions in fiction, too, even the ones that are dangerous in a sense. We only talk about tragedies after they occur. After something absolutely terrible happens we try to find ways to put it into words. We rarely ever talk about it beforehand. We rarely create safe spaces where we can discuss things that are so quintessential to teens’ lives these days. Books can play a very important role in that.

RS: Do you think a book like yours can help prevent these things from happening?

MN: You’re giving me the hard questions.

RS: I’m not asking you to say, yes, my book will save lives. But books in general. How do they help?

MN: Books in general, especially books that reference teens’ experiences and make them feel seen or heard, can create a sense that you’re not alone even when it may seem like it. In that regard, books play a very important role in many teens’ lives, in making them feel like they matter. Sometimes, especially for teens in difficult situations, it can seem like the entire world is against them. Just having that sense that there’s someone else out there who has gone through what you’ve gone through, or who can just empathize, is so incredibly important.

RS: How do you balance the need for telling a good story with getting your message across?

MN: The story always comes first. I don’t write with a certain kind of message that I have to tell. I certainly don’t want my books to be didactic, telling teens how to live their lives. But I do think it boils down to empathy. If you tell a good story it means getting close to teenagers’ lives, getting close to the things that motivate them, things that matter to them. If you do that, and if you approach that respectfully, you can get to a place where you have a common understanding of each other. That helps in getting the conversation going. Being a conversation-starter is one of the most important, or even just the best, things a book can do. There’s nothing like picking up a book and going over to someone else and talking about the things you experienced or the things you felt, and how that changes you, or how that makes you feel. That is more important than any message, in the end.

RS: It’s interesting. The last interview I did for this series was with British publisher David Fickling, and he said that when he reads a book he really loves, he doesn’t want to tell anybody anything about it. The only thing he wants to do is say, read this.

MN: That is so interesting. I tend to be that person who picks up a book and carries it under their arm and walks around pushing it into people’s faces.

RS: How did you decide to make the entire action of the book fall within a single hour? It’s pretty intense.

MN: To be honest, I asked myself that question many times while writing. I mostly wanted to convey that when a tragedy strikes, disaster strikes, it almost does feel like time slows down or stops entirely. Even a minute can feel like an hour or a day or longer. I wanted to use that as a way of exploring just how much has changed in such a short period of time. I gave myself those boundaries and stuck as close as possible to the situation itself, which obviously meant a little poetic license, because looking at average shootings, they don’t last for 54 minutes. So I did make some allowances there. But I hoped to get the point across that everything that you thought you knew, even five minutes ago, can change utterly and completely, and what does that do to you as a person?

RS: I think it’s a really effective literary device in this case too. When I started the book, I wasn’t really paying attention to the timestamps beginning each chapter. But as soon as I realized how minute-by-minute the story was, it pulled me in even further.

MN: That’s good to hear.

RS: You’re on the board of We Need Diverse Books here in the States.

MN: True.

RS: We Need Diverse Books is all about increasing representation in books and in publishing and among writers, etc. Do you feel like an outsider, coming to this American story?

MN: I don’t necessarily. I had been talking and writing about representation well before We Need Diverse Books happened. I grew up disabled, and there were many, many days and weeks and months I spent in hospitals, lying in bed, being able to do nothing but read books and watch television, and in my case that usually meant just reading books. With a very few exceptions — and those usually ended up being books like The Secret Garden, where even the disabled character is healed by the end, so it didn’t really feel like a book for me anyway — I just never saw myself inside the pages of a book. That’s something that caused me to start writing.

So that feeling, that necessity that stories should belong to all of us, motivated me from very early on. And it culminated in being a board member of We Need Diverse Books. I have to be conscious about the fact — and I do try to be — that I live in a different society, with different rules and different experiences of various kinds of marginalization. But that underlying need of readers to have both mirrors and windows is something I feel is universal, and is something I can speak to in that particular context.

RS: Sometimes I worry that our definition of what a mirror is has become too narrow. When I think of my own reading as a kid, I didn’t just need little nerdy gay white boys to read about, even though that’s what I was. I found my mirrors in lots of different kinds of characters. They could be animal characters, they could be female characters, they could be adults, they could be historical figures. Sometimes I feel like we’re getting too literal about what we mean by a mirror.

MN: I think we can find mirrors in many kinds of books. I don’t think that finding a mirror in a book or in a character that is supposedly unlike yourself means that everyone will always find themselves reflected in that way. Just looking at the books I read and my experience, there were certainly books that I identified with a lot, but there were also things I struggled with as a disabled kid that I would have loved to have seen in books and never saw. Just the ways life can differ if you have a disability.

Just having that sense of recognition would have been very important to me. I think that even when we do see ourselves in different kinds of stories, that doesn’t negate the fact that there are many other stories we rarely tell, if ever. There is a need for those as well. The fact that we seem to have a narrow definition of mirror at times doesn’t mean that those are the only stories we have to tell, but it means that those are the stories we aren’t telling enough, and maybe we should try to be more inclusive.

RS: I understand that. Let’s make sure that those mirrors are there.

MN: Yeah, absolutely.

Sponsored by
SourceBooks

]]>
http://www.hbook.com/2015/12/talks-with-roger/marieke-nijkamp-talks-with-roger/feed/ 0
David Fickling Talks with Roger http://www.hbook.com/2015/12/talks-with-roger/david-fickling-talks-with-roger/ http://www.hbook.com/2015/12/talks-with-roger/david-fickling-talks-with-roger/#comments Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:58:15 +0000 http://www.hbook.com/?p=55762 david fickling TWR

Sponsored byScholastic

Talks with Roger is a sponsored supplement to our free monthly e-newsletter, Notes from the Horn Book. To receive Notes, sign up here.


david ficklingDavid Fickling, editor, has been with us for quite some time, since 1978 when he began his career with Oxford University Press and subsequently the UK arms of Doubleday and Scholastic, bringing us, among others, Philip Pullman and Jacqueline Wilson. David Fickling Books, entity, opened in 2001 as an imprint of Random House. And this year, the imprint has joined forces with Scholastic once again. In a phone call whose logistics proved as complicated as publishing itself, David and I talked about wading through submissions, bringing books across the water, and the virtues of small-pond publishing. Enough with the aqueous metaphors!

Roger Sutton: Let’s discuss transatlantic publishing. Have I ever talked to you about the Jacqueline Wilson problem?

David Fickling: No, but do. Jackie just got the J. M. Barrie Award.

RS: I think she’s great, and I have always loved her books. It seems that there have been repeated efforts to make her happen in the U.S. in the same way that she happens quite well in the UK. Why isn’t it working?

DF: Do you know, or do you want me to try and answer that?

RS: I have a theory, but I want to know what yours is.

DF: Well, I don’t know for sure, but I suspect it’s because of how the books are presented to the reader. Like you, I like her work very much. Her voice has a very warm tone that I think would appeal to American readers as much as British readers. But there are intervening steps between book and reader, and even if everyone goes in with great intention, that great intention can be a difficulty, in a sense. It means people can’t discover it for themselves. It’s oversold. So much of reading is discovering for yourself, forming your own opinion.

RS: Though there’s also something enjoyable about reading a bestseller because you want to be in on the buzz. What is everybody talking about with this Fifty Shades of Grey, or whatever the book might be? But I think you’re right — mostly readers want to feel like they were the first person to discover something.

DF: Yes. It’s almost like you’re talking directly with the author — how lovely that is. But then again, actually meeting an author you really adore can sometimes cause difficulty for young people.

RS: Oh, I don’t like it either.

DF: Yes, me neither.

RS: Authors can be so different from their books.

DF: It’s so disappointing, isn’t it? Publishers can be incredibly disappointing, too.

RS: I think of people who are so witty on the page, and not so in conversation. Or the opposite. They write these terribly serious books, but they’re a laugh-and-a-half when you talk to them.

DF: It’s curious. I’m sure there are good explanations for it. Sometimes if I read a really good book, I don’t want to tell anybody about it at all, even as a publisher. I want them to discover it. I just leave it lying around.

RS: Well, that can’t be good for business, David, can it?

DF: No! It’s terrible.

RS: I can’t speak to a British audience, but to an American audience, there’s a difference in the ways domestic fiction and fantasy fiction translate from one country to the other. I mean, Philip Pullman, another one of your authors, had no problem translating.

DF: No. When somebody says to me, “That’s very British,” I tend to take that to mean it’s not very good, and they’re just being nice to me. Only the things that really strike can move easily overseas. There may be something in Jackie’s work that doesn’t travel. What is that? Sometimes you don’t know what the little cultural misstep is. Or it might be so big that you can’t see it.

RS: Now that Scholastic has set you up in your own shop again, how much do you have to think beyond the UK market?

DF: We’re tiny, Roger. I describe us as the Magnificent Seven-and-a-Half. Actually there are a lot of part-timers, so we’re probably only the Magnificent Five-and-a-Half. But I am astonished how global we are. The difference is that the authors are inside with us, really. The situation is different in large publishing, where I think the authors are more like Hollywood stars in a studio system. That’s not a criticism of them. It’s just the way it is if you’re huge.

RS: I guess I don’t completely agree. If you’re huge, you do have those books that are filling the maw, but you can have the kinds of books that you’re describing, too.

DF: You can have both. Some of the most brilliant editors in the world are working at large companies. My view is, though, that the trend is towards a studio system, in which debuts aren’t understood in the same way, or books that don’t immediately strike or those that might not be considered commercial for some reason aren’t given enough time.

RS: I just read this morning that Kwame Alexander — who won the 2015 Newbery Medal — was just signed up for four more books with Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. One is a prequel to the Newbery winner and three are a trilogy. So there’s an attempt to develop franchises around authors. How do you let them be free to do what they want to do?

DF: I don’t much like multi-book contracts. I’m not sure they work for either party, author or publisher, and definitely not for the reader! There is a problem of completion and thus quality. Give me a contract-by-contract, book-by-book dance card any time. Editors can go to the ball! Trust is a wonderful thing for the editing process.

RS: How do you stave off middle-age ennui? Asking for a friend.

DF: Got to get a dog.

RS: I’ll receive something for review and think, “I saw this book twenty-five years ago.” But that kid reader, the one for whom the book was published twenty-five years ago, has grown up. There’s a whole new audience now. How do you keep yourself alive to possibility?

DF: I think it’s through selfishness. I’m still responding as a reader. It’s impossible to publish something you’re not excited by, I think. Even though you’re tired and ancient, your bones ache, and nothing’s ever as good as it was — the reading mind is still weightless.

RS: At its best, yes.

DF: And you work with a team. I work with some really wonderful people. It’s not just me. But I love being around the making of these stories. You mentioned Philip Pullman — can you imagine what it’s like to receive his next book? What you were talking about earlier, being one of the first readers. There’s a little bit of me that feels, “I’ve read that, and I’m not going to let anybody else read it.”

RS: I wrote an editorial about reading The Amber Spyglass. I had an early copy of it, bound manuscript pages, and I was on the beach on Cape Cod reading it, and it was just a transcendent experience. I did think, “Most people in the world haven’t seen this book yet.” And that felt great.

DF: That’s exactly how I feel — I can’t quite believe my luck. Philip would describe himself as a storyteller first, I think. He’s probably the greatest writer of descriptive prose we’ve got. And often writers change and improve. We’ve published a retelling of Robin Hood called Shadow of the Wolf. There’s a passage in that book which is one of the most extraordinary passages I’ve ever read. I hope there’s something in all the books we publish that is extraordinary, that hasn’t been seen before. That happens almost on every page with Philip.

RS: What I’ve always liked about his books is that they do take me someplace else. But I don’t feel like I’m being pushed into it, the way I do with a lot of fantasy. It’s like authors think, if I pile on enough adjectives, the reader will be convinced of this magical world. But he never does that. There’s so much breathing room.

DF: I think he described his work as “stark reality.” It’s an invitation in its way. You have that sense of “Oh, yes, I’m in good hands, and I want to stay here. I want the book to last longer.”

RS: And that connects to what we were saying earlier, about feeling like you’re the only one reading a book. So many books I get into the office now are crawling with quotes from bloggers and booksellers and letters from the editor, pleading with me.

DF: I don’t even want to send the books out to get quotes. Blurbs shorten the world of the book if they give too much away.

RS: Right. People want to find their own way into a book.

DF: That’s exactly right. The worst thing in the world is a synopsis. A book should command your attention, shouldn’t it? And surprise you. I always think the greatest thing somebody can say about a book is, “I didn’t think I’d like it. I don’t like that sort of book normally.” Or, “I’ve never read that sort of book, but I was amazed by it.”

You inhabit the world of consciousness about the reception of books. I can ask you all the questions you asked me, really, because you see way more books than I do. I see a lot of non-books. I live in an unpublished land.

RS: We have some screening before it gets to us.

DF: Do you despair of the level of screening?

RS: Sure, sometimes. The tricky thing for me is when I read a book and I’m not liking it, but I’m not quite sure if it’s because there’s something wrong with the book, or if I’m just not the right reader for it. And like you, thank God, I’ve got eight other people here in the office, so I don’t have my own last word, as it were.

DF: What you’ve got is the same experience I have. The books that spend the most time in the office are not the easy rejections. They’re the ones that swim around, where there might be something there, or there might not be. You’re not quite sure whether you’re being overindulgent or not indulgent enough. We’re so limited. That’s why it’s nice being a small outfit that’s not trying to control everything. We can’t control everything. Talk about global: I’m not sure I even understood the large publishing companies I was a part of, let alone the global market. What we ought to do is try to bring our best to the table, and then hear what the readers think of it. We’re the first readers. That’s very exciting. When you know you’ve got a live one, everybody knows. Very quickly. It’s everybody’s. That’s an exciting moment as well, when you’re done and the book goes out with a lovely crowd around it, and you settle back to everyday — stuff coming in, stuff going out.

RS: That’s life.

DF: Yeah. It’s breathing, really.

Sponsored byScholastic

]]>
http://www.hbook.com/2015/12/talks-with-roger/david-fickling-talks-with-roger/feed/ 2