Despite the fact that I have a writing tag on this blog, and the fact that a good 90% of my free time is spent writing something in some form or another, I get weirdly self-conscious posting about, you know, writing. But a couple of weeks ago, I attended the Big Sur Writing Workshop (which focuses on children’s and YA writing), and I wanted to get this out before the memories vanish, a) because it was a cool experience; and b) because not a heck of a lot of information showed up when I googled, so hey, wayward searchers, here you go. A month late, but what can you do? There’s a reason this isn’t called Becky Allen’s Timely Blog of Frequent Updates.

What happened was, way back in November or so, I saw a link to the writing workshop on kidlit.com, and had a moment of, “Hey, that looks cool, someday when I have a finished manuscript, a few days of PTO left for the year, and enough advance warning to set aside the money, I should think about going to that.” Then I did a doubletake, because 1) I was only about 25,000 words from the end of my major rewrite of my WIP; 2) I was pretty sure I’d have at least five days off rolling over to the 2012, plus all of that year’s PTO; 3) the application wasn’t due until February, which was plenty of time to save, plan, request dates off, and finish the darned rewrite. Which… whoa. I emailed a bunch of my friends asking if I would be totally crazy to apply, because it seemed like a pretty huge step. You know, the one between “I am writing this novel type thing for fun in my free time,” and “I’m actually polishing this in an attempt to get it published.” And my wonderful, supportive friends said, essentially, “Apply or we’ll beat you up,” and so I did.

During the brief orientation, Andrea Brown summed up the weekend like this: It’s bootcamp for people who are writing for kids and teens. Everyone is assigned to two critique groups, each led by an awesome member of the awesome faculty, and sorted roughly by genre (I was working on YA high fantasy, and the other pieces in my group ranged from YA and MG urban fantasy to mystery to scifi). The groups meet twice each, with time to work on revisions between them. (Okay, a lot of that “time to work on revisions” could also be called “time you would normally use for sleeping,” but hey. Bootcamp.) Aside from crit groups and working time, there are additional panel-type sessions, some over meals. These included agents discussing queries; editors doing a Q&A that covered, er, covers, as well as e-books and the future of publishing; a general Q&A with agents (which also delved into e-books and the future of publishing, come to think of it); and a fascinating panel on book-to-film/TV rights.

So, what did I get out of it? This is my list. Your results may vary, consult an expert, this is not an infomercial, etc.

1) I got over some of my “ack am I good enough what am I doing why do I think I’m good enough (etc etc)” anxiety. Because the thing is, while I’ve been writing for fun for just about as long as I can remember, I’ve never taken a single creative writing class, I’ve never been part of an official crit group, and I have yet to actually, y’know, submit anything. My ability to judge my own writing has always been all over the place; some days I am ridiculously, supremely overconfident, and other days I’m convinced I’ve been fooling everyone who supports me, and especially fooling myself, because why did I ever think I could do this? So after a weekend spent letting strangers read my stuff for basically the first time ever, I feel like I’ve got a bit more of a grip on things and a more realistic sense of where I am, writing-wise.

2) I got to meet awesome people. I am not exactly known for my excellent social skills when dealing with crowds of strangers, but it turns out talking to other writers is easy. When in doubt, say, “So, what are you writing?” Works like a charm, every time.

3) I got a solid reminder that this is an industry, and that people who write books are not some kind of magic fantasy species, and the people who work in publishing are, in fact, actual human beings. In fact, they seem to be generally nice, passionate, awesome ones. And while this entire point may make you go “duh,” because, um, duh, but I suspect that I’m secretly not alone in needing that reminder. Even though the internet has gone a long way towards demystifying the whole how-a-book-becomes-a-book process, it has also made it very easy to stop thinking of the people involved as people and instead think of them as mystical guardians of some sort, and to look at people who’ve been published as special chosen ones rather than as writers who worked hard. But interacting with actual humans goes a long way towards overcoming that, and makes the whole thing seem like an actual attainable goal rather than an impossible dream.

4) And finally, of course, there’s what it’s done for my novel. Which… whoa. Because here’s the thing: I have amazingly creative, analytical, brilliant friends who’ve been brainstorming and beta reading and cheering me on for years, and I honestly don’t think that I would have finished my rough draft, let alone my revised draft, without them. But by virtue of being my friends, and being involved with the process, they’re also somewhat invested in it. Having a group of people with fresh eyes, who don’t know me or where I’m coming from or what I think I’m writing about, look at my first two chapters was eye-opening.

It was enough to make me look at my own novel in a whole different way. The “But why?”s and “I don’t quite get it”s were intimidating, but but also answered a whole lot of questions I never thought to ask. And it wasn’t just a matter of sorting out what’s on the page from what’s in my head: it was about figuring out why what’s on the page was there. Figuring out how to make people connect with it in new ways. Figuring out which pieces work and which don’t. And by thinking about those things in the first two chapters, I also ended up with a bunch of revelations about the novel as a whole. That, of course, is the good news.

The bad news is that by suddenly seeing my novel in a different way, by asking whys that hadn’t occurred to me before, by seeing ways that shift in focus and a different perspective could make the whole darned thing stronger, I now have to put in the work. Restructure, rewrite, revise. Will draft #3 be a ground-up rewrite (again)? A revision with a strong basis in what I’ve already got? A matter of shifting some scenes and simplifying some needless complications? I don’t know yet. It’s been a month and I’m still trying to work it all out. I just know there’s a lot left for me to do.

But that’s the thing: the bad news is actually good news. I’m writing this novel because I love writing, and I love this story — and I love what it’s evolving into. So while I may groan about all the work I have to do, it’s work I love doing. And that’s pretty awesome.

So back to the greater point: the writing conference. Was it worth it? Definitely. It was fun, it was invigorating, and it’s given me a heck of a lot to think about. It was an incredibly intense weekend, and I’m so glad I went.

Running laundry in my building is like doing a word problem for a middle school math class: there are six washing machines, but three of them hold only half as much as the other three. Of the larger three washing machines, only one actually works. There are three dryers. All of them work, but the first two cost more than the third to achieve the same level of dryness. However, the third sometimes eats laundry tokens rather than drying your clothing. Assuming optimal conditions in which none of the washers or dryers are already in use, how many tokens do you need in order to run two loads of laundry in the most efficient manner?

And then there’s the laundry token issue in and of itself. The washers and dryers don’t take quarters, only tokens — not that there is a sign explaining this anywhere, which was very confusing the first time I tried to run laundry and no machines would take my change. There also isn’t a token dispenser or anything helpful like that. To acquire tokens, you have to knock the super’s door and ask his wife for them.

This is complicated by three factors. First, the wife — who’s name I don’t know, which I should really rectify one of these days — isn’t always home, and no one else in their family speaks English, and I only speak English, so trading quarters for tokens requires a lot of elaborate hand gestures. Second, I have an almost pathological fear of bothering people, so needless to say, knocking on the door and asking someone to stop what she’s doing to give me tokens is really, really, really not my favorite thing. Third, about half the time, they’re entirely out of tokens anyway.

We’ve been living in this building for well over a year, so I’ve mostly learned to deal with all of this. But there are still weeks where I’d rather buy five new pairs of underwear than go to the trouble of getting laundry tokens and then trying to negotiate the actual washers and dryers.

–

I feel weird and self conscious writing about writing here. Can’t quite explain why. But here goes.

It’s coming up on National Novel Writing Month, wherein people strive to write a 50,000 word novel in 30 days. I know a lot of people who are signed up already and getting psyched, writing outlines, totally geared up to go. I, however, am not one of them.

Way back in January, I made passing reference to trying to get a manuscript into shape to start submitting to agents by the end of the year. This is not going to happen. But I have revised that goal a little: I’d like to have my current round of revisions done by the end of the year. I’m not at a point where Nano, as much fun as it is (and it is!) would help.

Or rather: I’ve done Nano successfully four times (2001, 2002, 2004, and 2007). I am totally secure in my ability to write a whole lot in a short time period. And I got a lot out of Nano, beyond four unreadably bad novellas. It really did help me get into the habit of coming home from class (and later work) and opening up my project, sitting down and getting to work, and getting a heck of a lot accomplished.

But I can do that now. I know I can. Writing messy first drafts is not my problem, and motivating myself to work on them regularly is also not my problem. I have plenty of rough drafts, finished but never revised, sitting around on my hard drive or printed out and gathering dust. I love writing rough drafts. I love discovering things, world building, working out story structure, and getting lost in it all with no pressure for it to be good. I can do that. I’ve done that.

What I’ve never done is made the leap from a jumbled bunch of good ideas to a polished version that I’m not embarrassed by the thought of other humans reading. I’m not good at revising. It intimidates the crap out of me. And when I’m not going “Aaaaugh, how do I do this???” I find myself going, “Aaaaaugh, why did I ever think I could write well, this is the worst prose that has ever happened, omg I give up.” And then I give up and write another rough draft of a different project.

So it’s time. I’ve got a very rough, but I think salvageable, manuscript draft. Writing it from the ground up took me about three months, if you take out the few months in the middle when my computer broke and I lost everything and then was too busy sulking about what I’d lost to get back to work. So I’m hoping three months will also be adequate to make this next leap. What I’m looking at now, I think, is about 2/3 rewriting to 1/3 revising existing text — with frequent pauses to polish the bits I’ve rewritten, which is not something I usually do when writing rough drafts.

So that’s my plan. I’m putting it out here because making it public makes it feel real to me, and I do better with an actual deadline. Wish me luck. (And to all you Nano-ites out there, have fun!)

I keep meaning to write actual entries here, but then can’t be bothered until they are no longer relevant. So instead, have a list of random bits and pieces that have been on my mind of late.

Random thing #1: I got antsy about this blog, which meant it was time to change the theme. The last one was whimsical but way too narrow, and also, I wanted something bright and cheerful. So: pink! Hooray! I also upgraded to the newest version of WordPress. (Man, the more I use WP, the more I love it. Like, in a grade school, if-you-love-it-so-much-why-don’t-you-marry-it? kind of way.)

Random thing #2: I dropped the “Nerd at Peace” tagline because I never liked it anyway. *shrug*

Random thing #3: Following up on my last post, way after it’s still a thing being discussed, Justine Larbalestier’s Liar did indeed get a new cover, this time with a person of color on it. It still doesn’t match the description in the book, but is a step. A small step, though. Avalon’s Willow explained the remaining issues very well.

Random thing #4: Once upon a time, when I was seven years old, apparently I was featured in a “word on the street” type thing in my hometown’s itty bitty newspaper. I don’t know which was better, my answer or my mom’s rockin’ sunglasses:

Random thing #5: It is a good season to be a Yankees fan. That’s all I’m sayin’ about that.

Random thing #6: I may change the format around here a bit, and link to stuff I’ve written on various other blogs and elsewhere. Mostly because I would then actually have things to post, as this is my least-frequently-updated blog. (Possibly, I have too many blogs…) Over at Tweenage, I have recently written about The Wizards of Waverly Place movie and joined Jess to review Bandslam and Aliens in the Attic, and if you’re bored and like pop music, might I recommend our Official Tweenage Wasteland Official Boy Band Watch? And at Active Voice, I significantly less recently reviewed Cindy Pon’s Silver Phoenix.

Random thing #6.5: Speaking of things I’ve written, some small pieces at work: Innovative Video Game Helps Teach HIV-Positive Teens About Safer Sex and Annie Lennox: Singing Out Against HIV, so there are those.

Random thing #7: If I do not feed my cat soon, she will likely claw my eyes out. So this is the end of the list.

I’ve got the apartment to myself this weekend. My plans for this lazy Sunday include watching baseball — I am SO GLAD baseball season is back, I can’t even express it — and working on The Novel.

I haven’t written much about what I’m writing, because there are about a million blogs by aspiring authors that are probably much more interesting and informative than mine would be. I only mention it now because I’m finally switching gears on this project: that is to say, after almost a year of writing in fits and starts (and one major computer death that took 15,000 words with it), I’ve finished the rough draft and am now starting the revision process. And since when I write I plow straight through without revising at all as I go (or even, for that matter, rereading to make sure I’m keeping things consistent), that’s quite a daunting process.

But enough about that. Since reading and writing is what’s on my mind, have some related links.

Amazon Follies

On Amazon.com two days ago, mysteriously, the sales rankings disappeared from two newly-released high profile gay romance books: “Transgressions” by Erastes and “False Colors” by Alex Beecroft. Everybody was perplexed. Was it a glitch of some sort? The very next day HUNDREDS of gay and lesbian books simultaneously lost their sales rankings, including my book “The Filly.” There was buzz, What’s going on? Does Amazon have some sort of campaign to suppress the visibility of gay books? Is it just a major glitch in the system?

Of course, it turns out, it is not a glitch. Amazon has decided to exclude “adult” material from appearing in searches and on its best seller list, and automatically considers all books featuring GLBT characters and themes adult. I rarely shop at Amazon anyway; I definitely won’t be at all until this is remedied.

See also: Amazon Rank.

Straight Talk on Race: Challenging the Stereotypes in Kids’ Books

I trudged back and forth between cultures, relying heavily on stories for insight into the secrets and nuances of North American life. But exactly what did those stories communicate about my place as a brown-skinned foreigner? And, in that mostly white suburb where I went to school, why can’t I remember any educators who were bold enough to raise the issue?

The best-case scenario is that my teachers were consciously giving me freedom to experience the pleasure of reading without adult interference. But would it have diminished my enjoyment if an educator had raised questions about race in The Chronicles of Narnia or The Secret Garden, for example? Looking back, I don’t think so. Especially if that educator had appreciated these stories as much as I did.

Interesting and informative stuff about how to discuss race in school reading assignments, ranging from common stereotypes and tropes to cover art and beauty standards. (Via Justine.)

Gender in the Publishing World

I have to say that I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of boys who read Alex and really enjoy it. We are told often that boys will not read a book with a female protagonist, and I actually had a boy the other day look at me in shock when I mentioned Alex was a girl. This boy had already read the book, in which I say often that Alex is a girl, and yet I suppose because it isn’t about the fact that she is a girl, that she isn’t particularly “girly”, whatever that is, he actually forgot he was reading about the opposite gender and saw her more as an “everyman” (everywoman?) kind of character. Something, I must be honest, that was indeed one of my goals with the book, so I am immensely pleased. But at the same time, does this mean that if I write a “girly” protagonist I will lose the boys who so enjoyed my other books simply on that fact alone?

Adrienne Kress (whose first book, Alex and the Ironic Gentleman, got five cupcakes over at Active Voice) writes not just about her book, but also about the question of women writing in general, women working in publishing, and — of somewhat personal interest to me — about being a funny female writer. Good stuff, good discussion.

Fantasy in Asia

Fantasy in Asia is as natural as mermaids swimming and fairies flying. That is to say, the mythology of Asia lends itself organically to the world of fantasy. Long before Tolkien invented a hobbit, a monkey king jumped its way through the pages of one of the four classic novels of China, Journey to the West, while Scheherazade wove her thousand and one tales to her Persian king in the Arabian Nights. Classic Asian tales have spawned a vast array of stories, books and movies that weave in fantastic elements that are quintessentially eastern. To hear of Aladdin and his magic lamp, is to be swept away into a world of djinns and sorcerers that somehow has been garbled up and translated to a western audience as a frenetic blue genie voiced by Robin Williams in a Disney movie, or immortalized by Barbara Eden in the classic TV hit I Dream of Jeanie. Meanwhile the Monkey King is a superstar in China who has never successfully made the transition outside of Asia.

In my last post, I linked to a couple of essays on non-Western-centric fantasy, and this is another great one. Ellen Oh looks at some of the Asian myths that haven’t ever caught on outside Asia, and the invisibility of fantasy novels that do use them — unless they’re suitably westernized, of course.

I’m late. So sue me.

So Dumbledore has been outed by JK Rowling. This is big news; not for GLBTQ anything, not for literature, but just in general. It’s so big that when I saw the Gentleman Caller last Friday — the man who wore a shirt that proclaimed “Proud Muggle” when he was working at a Borders HP7 release and didn’t know what his shirt meant meant — the first words out of his mouth were, “So, did you hear about Dumbledore?”

Which, I think, says more about the impact these books have had on our culture. But that’s not really what I want to write about, or at least, not directly.

I think there are several stages of Dumbledore Is Gay:

1) Joy. There’s a character everyone loves (or is supposed to — Harry, our POV character, does, and we’re meant to agree with him), and it turns out he’s gay! Score one for queer characters in the media!

2) Confusion. Why wasn’t it made explicit in the books?

3) Irritation. If any writer, any series, has the clout to get away with having a beloved character who is openly gay, it’s JK and HP! How is casually stating it after the fact doing anything special? If you want to have a gay character, make it clear in the books!

4) Contemplative. You mean the only confirmed gay character in the books died? And spent his whole life alone and unhappy? Gosh. Huh.

5) Acceptance. Okay, maybe the whole thing isn’t as awesome as it seemed in stage one, but it’s still more awesome than a lot of things.

6) Bonus stage! More irritation, that as a blogger and a fantasy reader, I don’t have more original things to say.

That said, while I don’t presume to know why JK did things the way she did, I’ve thought a lot about and it is better than I first…um, second-through-fourth thought. I do kind of like that having a gay character isn’t a huge deal, and doesn’t have to be his defining character trait. (Though, in this case, textual acknowledgement would have been nice — in a heteronormative culture, if it isn’t explicit, he’ll probably be read as straight. But still.) And springing it on unsuspecting readers after the fact…well, why not?

Say you have a Hypothetical Reader. Hypo maybe isn’t totally comfortable with gays, or is maybe an on-the-fence, what-you-do-in-the-bedroom-is-none-of-my-business-(please-keep-it-that-way) type of person. They do exist, in spades. Anyway, Hypo reads the books and likes Dumbledore, as he is pretty much the coolest mentor since Obi-Wan. Hypo then feels a little uncomfortable…but deals with it. Because it doesn’t change anything. Albus is still Albus. And so…maybe Hypo still likes the character, because he liked the character first and didn’t avoid reading it to avoid dealing with the hype over the gay character.

Maybe it’s not that different than mentioning it textually in the seventh book would have been; I suspect most people who read the first six would have wanted to finish the series, regardless. But she avoided it being What The Book Was About, while still being public about it. So…I’m justifying here, but who knows what her reasoning was? It wasn’t necessarily bad, is my point.

On a more selfish level, I’m quite pleased, regardless of when and how it was done. I write YA fantasy and scifi; I’m at an awkward phase of doing rewrites and trying to get manuscripts in shape so I can start seeking an agent. Eeeeeeek. But one thing that I’ve been going back and forth on is my inclusion of queer characters — I don’t think I’ve written anything without at least one in years. And I’m never sure if having them there openly is going to hurt my chances of publication. I’d like to think that hey, Dumbledore was gay and people are mostly okay with that, so maybe I can include my queer characters without having to turn them into subtext, and still get their stories out. Anything that nudges gay characters towards being just characters is a good thing, as far as I’m concerned.

First off, I’m sorry things have been kind of scarce around here…most of my blogging time has gone to gathering the links for this, The Tenth Carnival of Feminist Science Fiction & Fantasy.

There were a couple of subjects I ran into a few times each; either bloggers responding to one another, or coincidentally covering the same topic from a different perspective. I’ve grouped those together at the top; then we get into posts separated by media.

Enjoy!

TOPIC: CASSANDRA CAIN
Things start with Kalinara at Pretty, Fizzy Paradise, whose post,“Of Course She Is…” My Problem With Cassandra Cain, is a criticism of the current Batgirl. Kalinara looks at Cass not as an exciting, unique character, but instead as a collection of traits that the writers thought would be really neat:

Her past is tremendously angsty. Okay, I can dig that. She was trained as an uber-assassin by a villain. Makes sense. He was abusive and scary and raised her without the capacity for speech. It’s a bit over the top for my taste, but it’s original at least. And ties into a particularly neat ability to read people’s body language like a book.

And naturally, she’s not really a killer! After all that, she only killed someone once! When she was too young to know what she was doing! And she ran away immediately afterwards! At the age of 8. And she lived alone, incapable of speech until she hooked up with the Batclan at age 16/17 or so. …now we’re getting to things that I start to find hard to swallow. It’s such a cliche. Someone raised to be a killer, but somehow managing to be so pure that she only did it once. When she couldn’t possibly be blamed? And then immediately left? Because she was so good at heart, she couldn’t take it? Oh, brother.

Johanna at Comics Worth Reading agrees in Batgirl’s Creepy. However, in More About Cassandra, jlg1 disagrees:

Even though it’s a modification of the suit, the stitches, as a design point, suits her character as a silent, no-nonsense fighter. She doesn’t make wise-cracks, or intimidate through words. She gets right down to business and fights. It’s actually sort of refreshing that she doesn’t engage in that cliched, belabored hero-villain rhetoric. And another thing the suit adds is the intimidation and mysteriousness factor. “Criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot” and all. The fact that “creepy” comes up is some sign that it works, to some degree.

More about Cassandra:
Does Batgirl Have A More Flattering Angle?
This entry was supposed to be about Cassandra Cain
Oh yeah…Art…
Shades of Batgirl
Batgirl Bruhaha

TOPIC: MARY SUE

At The True Confessions of an Hourly Bookseller, Mickle tells us why she considers Mary Sue a sexist term:

So, yeah, any female equivalent of Rocky is going to have aspects of Mary Sue-ness – because Rocky has aspects of Mary Sue-ness.

But we only call River a Mary Sue, not James Bond. And seriously, which is more deserving of the title of Mary Sue – James Bond or River?

At The Uncanny Soyo there’s a response: girls, women, spaceships.

In Mistress Mary, Quite Contrary to Popular Belief…, I give my own take on why Mary Sues happen, and why I enjoy them.

In other fun Mary Sue links, a fifth grade teacher uses Mary Sue as a teach aid, and who knows how many of us need Mary Sue Anonymous?

(Then, in Speaking of Terms That Need to Disappear, Mickle also tackles the idea of fanservice.)

TOPIC: CHILDREN OF MEN
The movie, a dystopian film, premiered last month, and reactions to it were across the board.

First, a fairly in depth review by Maia at Alas, A Blog. At Feministe, piny mostly agrees, adding:

The thesis of the movie — and I understand that we aren’t meant to take it so literally — is that this is what happens when people lose hope. Why have they lost hope? Well, there are no children; there have been no births for nearly two decades. If there were children, everyone would be less inclined to horrific behavior towards other human beings, because we would have some hope for the future that would give us reason to love each other. In other words, if only women weren’t all infertile (of course, sterility is always the woman’s fault, even in the future), society wouldn’t look like this.
(Adoration)

At Plucky Punk’s Happy Land…Grr…Spit…, Vanessa disagrees that the movie has a sexist message: Best. Movie. Ever.

TOPIC: SUPERGIRL

Karen at Like Scratches in the Sand shows us DC’s attempt at wooing female readers to the Supergirl title: Supergirl: Now Safe for Female Consumption?

At One Diverse Comic Book Nation, Loren also reacts to the DC announcement: DC Looking For A Few Good Women…To Read Supergirl.

At her blog, Ami Angelwings has another take-down of the message:

Maybe this is cynical, but the way he’s singling out women as the people who dislike Supergirl, it’s almost like he’s telling the male readers, “hey if you’re unhappy with what we do, blame those GIRLS”. >:|
(Promises, Promises)

Jared also gives us his thoughts on Supergirl:

By focusing on the “girl” at the expense of the “super,” Berganza and Co. have denied female readers their power fantasy. So why then would a female superhero want to read a book that goes so directly against why they like superheroes in the first place?
(That’s Not Really Super, Supergirl.)

TOPIC: WOMEN IN SPIDER-MAN:
Jesse writes about Mary Jane as Peter Parker’s wife, not as Spider-Man’s trophy, in Joe Quesada versus Mary Jane.

At Me Myself and I, Liliaeth has an interesting rant about the “designated love interest” and why it makes for uninteresting characters. She looks specifically at Gwen Stacy in Spider-Man: Rant: The Designated Girlfriend.

Also dealing with Spider-Man, The Four Color Media Monitor has an interesting piece on MJ: What is so wrong with Mary Jane?

GAMES

In I’m Just A (Gamer) Girl, and That’s All That You’ll Let Me Be, the Heroine Next Door debunks the myth of the Gamer Girlfriend, and takes on the idea of the Hot Gamer Chick.

In the Girl Gamers LJ Community, filthy_bonnet recalls dealing with guys whose minds are boggled by “being beat by a girl”, and asks the eternal question: Is this a common experience for girl gamers or do I just keep versing jerks?

Steve-O, at Taller Than Thou, writes Dead Rising: my own stupid little annoyance, an analysis of the guns and weapons used by a female character, and how they show her to be a fantasy rather than a character in her own right.

100littledolls postulates: Link (of Zelda) is less a character in his own right, and more an instrument for female characters: Link, A Tool?

At New Game Plus, Lake Desire posts about Objectivity and Gamer Kinship. Her more recent posts also deal with being a female gamer, and are worth looking at.

COMICS
At Remix’s Corner, Remix talks about Catwoman in On Catwoman. The question: is Catwoman an empowered woman? Or is she just a male writer’s fantasy?

In Alex In Wonder Land, there’s an in-depth analysis of Perez’s Wonder Woman reboot, covering topics from the removal of Steve Trevor as a love interest to Diana’s costume, and a lot more: Revisiting the Perez Era: Making Wonder Woman political.

In ID-ing Identity Crisis, Kalinara explains why she doesn’t think Identity Crisis was a story about rape, making a powerful point: It’s the fact that Identity Crisis was NOT about the rape that made the inclusion so damned offensive.

Also dealing the rape in Identity Crisis, there is a very powerful post by Loren at One Diverse Comic Book Nation, in which he acknowledges he is a rape survivor, and gives his thoughts on the storyline in that light: A Personal Story: Identity Crisis and Rape.

Over at 4th Letter!, Hermanos has given us a list of the top three Black women in comics: She Got That Good Hair: Top 5 3 Black Women!

At In One Ear, there is a hilarious post: Advice for Artists and Writers: Getting the Elusive Female Audience. (There’s also a follow-up: Writing Minorities: How to Approach Gay Characters.)

TV, MOVIES, BOOKS, WRITING

At Riba Rambles: Musings of a Mental Magpie, Riba Lis implores Smallville’s creative team to include some female heroes: In Justice. She’s also got another post of note, Don’t be such a skank – an Arisia gripe, about parties that are invite-only (unless you’re hot).

In her entry, Oh, Look, A CAN OF WORMS! Let’s watch Mary open it again! at Tangled up in blue, monkeycrackmary writes about being a feminist, and wanted to have female characters she can identify with when she watches TV:

It’s not fair for a black kid to watch tv and only see white people when they’d also like to see black people. It’s not fair for a gay teen to watch tv and see only straight people when they’d also like to see gay people. And it’s not fair for me to watch tv and only see male people when I’d also like to see female people.

There’s a response by wemblee in her LJ, the definite fraggle, where she notes:

But when debates about misogyny in fandom, or in source texts, roll around, as much as I enjoy those debates for the most part, I often leave feeling like I’m a bad feminist since I always identified with those male characters reflexively.
(yeah, I’m gonna regret this…)

Over at The Hathor Legacy, Ravena explains why she likes the romance between Kasidy and Sisko on Star Trek: Deep Space 9: Kasidy’s Convictions.

Ladydreamer posted an excellent rant at the WB in feminist_fandom: Argh.

In Carmarthan’s LJ, An Old Song, she has an interesting post about finding female characters she enjoys in different mediums:

I can see how a woman who is fixated on TV–with its narrower range of choices–and a few particular genres (narrowing the range further) could have trouble finding the specific type of female characters she loves, especially given that most TV still has the male characters outnumbering the women by at least 3 to 1. I don’t think it’s necessarily sexist–the odds are generally better for people with narrow tastes to find male characters they like on TV because there are a lot more choices.
( On narrow genre tastes, female characters, and the wider variety of books)

At Megatrouble, there’s a great post: Four Reasons Why Heroes Bothers Me:

Whoa, hold up. You both think Niki is a strong female character because she’s a mom who strips on the internet? Is that all we’re looking at here? Is this why this woman is empowering? Because to me, it’s more than just “Niki can strip.”

Check out the comments, too; there’s some great discussion.

Another Heroes post: at ’til there was rock, you only had god, Desdenova reinterprets Heroes as social commentary: More Heroes, Now With Bonus Feminist Theory.

At Amateurverbs, Becky has a post on the problems with fantasy she’s encountered while writing fantasy: I Write Stories. It’s the first in a series, so check back for more.

Another awesome Heroine Next Door post deals with the breakdown of masculinity and femininity: Re-defining heroic feats.

At Oh My Fair North Star, Harper gives us a quick lowdown on some ass-kicking female characters: …and she’s gotta be fresh from the fight!

Over at Divided We Stand United We Fall, there’s a humorous look at Nancy Pelosi’s new position: Nancy Pelosi tempted by the One Ring.

UrsulaV of Bark Like A Fish, Damnit! hits us with a post about fanfiction, childhood, and the biggest, scariest moster of all, sex: Further Thoughts on Fan Fiction…

And finally, at Suzy Says there’s a detailed and spoiler-y response to the movie Pan’s Labyrinth, from a feminist perspective: Pan’s Labyrinth.

Is that not enough feminist sf&f for you? Well, no worries! The call isn’t up yet, but the next Carnival will be at Women’s Work — But Can She Spin?

Okay, I will admit it right now: I love Mary Sues. I always have; I love both the stereotype original character inserted into fanfiction and the super-extraordinary fantasy cliché characters. I just can’t help it; I find them compelling and always have. I’m also guilty of having written…well, we’ll just say a few. (Not nearly as many as I’ve contemplated, however.) But for this, I’m concentrating on the original meaning of the phrase, a perfect authorial-insert character into fanfiction.

So yes: I love them.

The major drawback to the characters include that they’re often very, very poorly written, and they rarely mesh with the actual ‘canon’ characters they’re interacting with. These are very fair criticisms, and I tend to avoid them by, well, avoiding reading badly written stories. Because the characters can work, when people get a better handle on writing and characterizations; some will probably always be crappy, but they don’t have to be. The poor writing, I think, is often the sign of a young or inexperienced writer (two traits which can, but don’t always, go hand in hand). I’m concentrating mostly on the idea of young writers — particularly girls — here, when I say that I love Mary Sues, as a very concept.

Basically, it goes like this. There are two major archetypes of Mary Sues. The first, the one I’m more familiar with (as it appeals more to me) is some kind of Tough Girl; this is a character who can beat up anyone, tell anyone off, and is smart and intimidating. Depending on what the writer thinks is super cool, she may be a punk, goth, tomboy, or…well, almost anything else. The important thing is that when she walks into the story, she owns it: the other characters’ actions all revolve around her, either loving or hating her*.

The second major archetype are the more traditionally feminine characters; they’re more likely to be the perky cheerleader types. They’re charming and beautiful, and it almost goes without saying that all canon characters instantly fall in love with them. They’re also often martyrs or saviors; their sheer goodness protects the other characters, or they tragically sacrifice themselves to save everyone.

Of course, the Mary Sue phenomenon isn’t limited to these two archetypes, and individual Mary Sues don’t always fit neatly into one or the other. Other things they are nearly guaranteed to have in common: Mary Sue is close to always related to or dating a canon character. And Mary Sues are also always, in some way (or many ways) valued by the canon characters. In fact, that value is often automatic; one of the frequent complaints against Mary Sues are the they don’t earn their place in a Scooby gang, they just show up and are there. Once again, bad writing.

But here’s why I love it: this is a society which is still struggling greatly to overcome sexism. It’s one where girls are given a social message almost from birth, which tells them who to be and how to act. It’s also a culture where most of the heroes are male; even as female roles and characters are becoming more common (though I’ve written about that before), it remains true that it’s harder to find female characters that girls want to, and easily can, identify with. But with Mary Sue, you’ve got girls saying, “This is me, as I know I could be.”

That’s powerful.

It peels back layers. For me, it was this: I always wanted to dye my hair blue. But in high school, I never worked up the bravery. I was a nice, bookwormish, quiet girl; that wasn’t the sort of thing I was supposed to do. My boyfriend definitely didn’t want me to, so I never did. When I got to college, that feeling hadn’t really gone away, though I knew the liberal arts atmosphere would have been more accepting of it. After all, it was a big choice to make; it would have affected how I looked (which is, according to culture, of utmost importance for a girl). And my wardrobe didn’t fit with blue hair! My wardrobe was for a mild mannered writer girl, not someone brave enough to dye her hair bright blue and declare, in effect, “Look at me!” So I still never did. And now I’m allegedly an adult, with an office job, which requires me to look somewhat professional. Needless to say, blue hair wouldn’t really work. So I never did it, and now I don’t think I ever will. But my Mary Sues (and oh, do I have tons of them in my head) inevitably have bright blue hair, and it never looks silly on them, and everyone thinks it’s cool.

But that’s me, and that’s a pretty mild case.

It seems to me that in saying, “This is me, as I know I could be,” the girls who write these characters are sending another message. They’re saying, “I’m worthy of being the main character, I’m a person with agency, I’m someone lovable and respected. And if you don’t love and respect me, you’re wrong.” So in a culture that sends the message that it’s better for girls to be quiet and pretty and leave being the main character up to a boy, it’s pretty awesome that there are hundreds of thousands of stories where girls stand up and say, “No, it’s all about me.” They cast themselves in the spotlight, usurping the role of the main character, imaging the former male lead as their love interest. Whether the character is doing away with a villain, snapping off a sarcastic quip in a high school lunch room, or dying nobly to save everyone else, the writer is still creating a world that revolves around her; a world where she is, without question, worthy.

Of course it’s wish fulfillment, and it rarely leads to a well told story. But I don’t mind that so much: I’m just glad that somewhere, in their heads, on paper, or on the internet, girls are making connections to stories that often otherwise exclude them, and rewriting the narrative to include themselves. That’s just all kinds of awesome. And besides, if they’re still inexperienced writers, experimenting and learning, then who knows? These Mary Sue characters might someday transform, as the writer gains skills. They might just go from wish fulfillment characters in someone else’s world to dynamic characters in the writer’s own world. Everyone starts somewhere, starting by saying, “I want an awesome girl who reminds me of me to be the main character,” is as good a place as any — and better than most.

I don’t pretend that this is the only reason people write Mary Sues, that only girls write them, or that girls are intentionally writing Mary Sues as backlash to a culture that disenfranchises them. If women in fiction were suddenly to have equal footing with men, I don’t think that Mary Sues would die out. After all, sometimes we just really want to hang out with the cool kids we like to see stories about, even when the story is perfectly well told and there is no need to ‘fix’ it. The idea of being able to interact with the fictional characters we love is powerful. But as culture stands right now, I do think it’s awesome to see people who are underrepresented making space for themselves.

Incidentally, this is a really interesting look at Mary Sues as a tool for teaching.

*I suspect the breakdown goes something like this: if the author likes the character, the character loves Mary Sue; if the author dislikes the character, the character is instant enemies with Mary Sue. Unless, of course, they’re enemies who end up BFF/romantically involved in the end…