My friends at the Canadian Review of Materials (CM) just posted a review of EVIL?! You can check it out here.
Wow, a 4-star review! I am very happy.
From the review:
“Carter's novel is satirical, downright funny and also thought-provoking. Whether read as a somewhat titillating and action-filled fantasy or as a deeper treatise on the origins and meaning of evil, it will have appeal and huge entertainment value for many young adult readers and specifically younger teenage boys.”
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Acknowledgments
Behold the very first Special Feature for my upcoming book, EVIL? Below you will see the text for the Dedication and Acknowledgments page that will appear at the front of the book. I present it here to invite discussion on who these people are that I have chosen to thank for helping to bring my new novel to bookstores. Feel free to leave a comment or question!
For Monica
You Know Why
First and foremost, I'd like to thank my own creative brilliance. Three cheers for me! I'm just super.
I would also like to thank my wife, Violet, for her support; Andrew Karre and Brian Farrey, for believing in this project; Sandy Sullivan, for her goddess-like editing; Robert Brown, for being an excellent agent; Lori MacDougall and Angela Jewell, for having me in to do signings every year; God/the universe/spaghetti monster/whatever, for filling my head with such weird ideas; and finally, I'd like to thank my right hand for... you know.
For Monica
You Know Why
First and foremost, I'd like to thank my own creative brilliance. Three cheers for me! I'm just super.
I would also like to thank my wife, Violet, for her support; Andrew Karre and Brian Farrey, for believing in this project; Sandy Sullivan, for her goddess-like editing; Robert Brown, for being an excellent agent; Lori MacDougall and Angela Jewell, for having me in to do signings every year; God/the universe/spaghetti monster/whatever, for filling my head with such weird ideas; and finally, I'd like to thank my right hand for... you know.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
EVIL? Editing
Last week I did the final round of editing on EVIL?, and it was a lot less painful than I'd feared. I hadn't heard from FLUX since I sent the rewritten version to them in August, and I wanted to know how the new ending had worked out.
Naturally, my fears were completely unfounded - they were very happy with the book, and the editor assigned to it thought the ending was terrific! She pointed out a few things that needed changing and/or fixing, areas where I'd goofed and said something that was proved untrue earlier (or later) in the story. I try to keep all the details in my head when I'm writing, or at least try to fix all that stuff before the publisher sees it, but I'm only human and I goof up like everyone else. That's why it's great to have a skilled editor there to catch those gaffes and make me look good.
My editor's name is Sandy Sullivan, and she is to be praised. My novel is in good hands thanks to her.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
POV & Me
As I said in my last post, I started writing EVIL? (formerly called The Right Hand Of Evil) in a third person limited omniscient point of view. It is my favourite, after all. However, I realized by the third chapter that first person was the way I had to go. Yes, I had to. My stories can be very demanding sometimes.
And, they're always right. When I finished the first draft of that book, I couldn't imagine having written it any other way.
My current project is called Kids Who Know. For this one, I knew that first person wouldn't work. I also knew third person limited omniscient wouldn't be enough - at least, not the way I'd been doing it. KWK has not one but two focus characters, something I have not done for the last six novel projects. I thought I might just do it for the prologue, then have the rest of the book focus on my main character. Fairly early in, however, I realized it wouldn't be that way. KWK needs a second focus character, my story told me, and as always it was right on the money.
The reason I've been avoiding more than one focus characters is partly because a writing teacher of mine once told me not to. Stick with my main character, she said, or you risk losing focus. And it's cheating. Or something like it. I didn't completely agree with her, but part of her lesson stuck. I am a lot more aware of focus and POV thanks to her, and when it came to the project she was helping me with (a middle-grade book called Trevor Niles: Goblin Kicker) she was right. Her guidance is also clearly evident in EPOCH.
With Kids Who Know, however, I threw that lesson out the window. My story wants two focus characters, and it'll get two focus characters.
Of course, what I'm telling you here is nothing new to most writers. Many of the novels I've read have multiple focus characters, and it works beautifully. My favourite example is Stephen King's IT, where he has a group of seven kids (and their adult counterparts) who each need their own focus scenes, along with a host of minor characters. It works, because that was the way that story needed to be told.
So it is with my stories. I'm aware of the rules of point of view, but I do what my story tells me. In the end, the story is always the boss.
And, they're always right. When I finished the first draft of that book, I couldn't imagine having written it any other way.
My current project is called Kids Who Know. For this one, I knew that first person wouldn't work. I also knew third person limited omniscient wouldn't be enough - at least, not the way I'd been doing it. KWK has not one but two focus characters, something I have not done for the last six novel projects. I thought I might just do it for the prologue, then have the rest of the book focus on my main character. Fairly early in, however, I realized it wouldn't be that way. KWK needs a second focus character, my story told me, and as always it was right on the money.
The reason I've been avoiding more than one focus characters is partly because a writing teacher of mine once told me not to. Stick with my main character, she said, or you risk losing focus. And it's cheating. Or something like it. I didn't completely agree with her, but part of her lesson stuck. I am a lot more aware of focus and POV thanks to her, and when it came to the project she was helping me with (a middle-grade book called Trevor Niles: Goblin Kicker) she was right. Her guidance is also clearly evident in EPOCH.
With Kids Who Know, however, I threw that lesson out the window. My story wants two focus characters, and it'll get two focus characters.
Of course, what I'm telling you here is nothing new to most writers. Many of the novels I've read have multiple focus characters, and it works beautifully. My favourite example is Stephen King's IT, where he has a group of seven kids (and their adult counterparts) who each need their own focus scenes, along with a host of minor characters. It works, because that was the way that story needed to be told.
So it is with my stories. I'm aware of the rules of point of view, but I do what my story tells me. In the end, the story is always the boss.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Points of View
Deciding on a point of view (or POV) is one of the first decisions I must make when I prepare to write a new story. It's usually an easy decision; the story will suggest how, and through whose eyes, it needs to be told. Each POV has its advantages, but they also come with certain limitations.
First Person POV stories are told as if they are memories of the main character. They use the "I" pronoun (I had an adventure yesterday. "It was wild," I said), and give you a detailed look inside the main character's mind. It's like you telling a friend about something that happened to you.
Third Person POV stories are like the stories you tell about someone else. They use "he" and "she" pronouns, and offer a great deal more freedom. What do I mean by freedom? That depends on the type of third person POV you use. I'm a big fan of Third Person Limited Omniscient, where you stick with one character throughout the story and describe what happens around them. I wrote Epoch that way. It allows you to describe things as an outside observer, instead of a character in the thick of the story.
With Limited, however, you are still restricted to your main character. You can't go describing what's happening to another character, not until the main character is there to observe it. That way, the reader discovers things only when your hero does.
Actually, that's not entirely accurate. You can have multiple POV characters in a Limited Omni story, but each character has his or her own section. A section(not a technical term) can be as long as a chapter or as short as a paragraph. Within that section, the POV character is the focus, and you can't switch to another character's POV without ending the section(with, say, a chapter break or a space between paragraphs) and beginning a new one. That way, the reader understands they are now going to hear from someone else.
Some writers find this too restrictive, which is why there is also Third Person Omniscient. With Omniscient, you are like God - all-seeing and all-knowing. You can jump into and out of any character's head, and be anywhere in your story's world at any time. It presents the ultimate in freedom for a writer.
So why don't all writers write in Third Person Omniscient? Because it can be too much of a good thing. (Ooh! Did you notice how I started that last sentence with "because"? My English teachers would be so mad at me!) Too much freedom can dampen the story's focus, especially if you don't know exactly what you're doing. Not always, of course, but I don't fully trust myself with that much power. I write better when I have a few limitations.
Some POVs suit certain stories better than others. For example, I started writing EVIL? in Third Person, but realized it would work a lot better if it was in First Person POV. I had to rewrite Chapters 1 and 2, but the book was all the better for it.
So there are my thoughts on POV. I'll probably have more to say later. Times when I went wrong, for instance. You'll love that.
First Person POV stories are told as if they are memories of the main character. They use the "I" pronoun (I had an adventure yesterday. "It was wild," I said), and give you a detailed look inside the main character's mind. It's like you telling a friend about something that happened to you.
Third Person POV stories are like the stories you tell about someone else. They use "he" and "she" pronouns, and offer a great deal more freedom. What do I mean by freedom? That depends on the type of third person POV you use. I'm a big fan of Third Person Limited Omniscient, where you stick with one character throughout the story and describe what happens around them. I wrote Epoch that way. It allows you to describe things as an outside observer, instead of a character in the thick of the story.
With Limited, however, you are still restricted to your main character. You can't go describing what's happening to another character, not until the main character is there to observe it. That way, the reader discovers things only when your hero does.
Actually, that's not entirely accurate. You can have multiple POV characters in a Limited Omni story, but each character has his or her own section. A section(not a technical term) can be as long as a chapter or as short as a paragraph. Within that section, the POV character is the focus, and you can't switch to another character's POV without ending the section(with, say, a chapter break or a space between paragraphs) and beginning a new one. That way, the reader understands they are now going to hear from someone else.
Some writers find this too restrictive, which is why there is also Third Person Omniscient. With Omniscient, you are like God - all-seeing and all-knowing. You can jump into and out of any character's head, and be anywhere in your story's world at any time. It presents the ultimate in freedom for a writer.
So why don't all writers write in Third Person Omniscient? Because it can be too much of a good thing. (Ooh! Did you notice how I started that last sentence with "because"? My English teachers would be so mad at me!) Too much freedom can dampen the story's focus, especially if you don't know exactly what you're doing. Not always, of course, but I don't fully trust myself with that much power. I write better when I have a few limitations.
Some POVs suit certain stories better than others. For example, I started writing EVIL? in Third Person, but realized it would work a lot better if it was in First Person POV. I had to rewrite Chapters 1 and 2, but the book was all the better for it.
So there are my thoughts on POV. I'll probably have more to say later. Times when I went wrong, for instance. You'll love that.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
EVIL?
It's time I talked about my up and coming book, Evil? Cover art is up, and it looks like this:
Not bad, eh? I'm very happy with it.
So what is Evil? all about? Well, brace yourselves... it's a tiny bit naughty. It's similar to Epoch in that it is a fantasy/comedy, but the subject matter is a little more grown up. Generally, it deals with issues of teen sexuality, and a very religious town's reaction to those issues.
Specifically, it deals with masturbation.
Yes, a book for teenagers that deals with the private act of self-pleasure. I'm not sure how I got away with it, either. Some people get very uncomfortable with this subject matter. Some call it the Sin of Onan, or even self-abuse. I call it a perfectly natural part of life, and I think it's high time somebody wrote about it. So I did.
I'd like to point out here that Evil? is not a tasteless or gross novel. I treat the subject matter seriously; the comedy of Evil? comes from people's response to it.
The story (as much as I can reveal here) goes like this: Stewart, a teen living in the predominantly Christian town of Ice Lake, becomes a social outcast when he is caught masturbating in the shower. Ejected from his home and shunned by the community, Stuart suspects the reaction to his 'sin' is far from healthy and normal. Could some supernatural force be influencing people's minds? Or is his act really that... Evil?
Like I said, it's a bit more mature than my other books. But not much more. There's still plenty of action, adventure and jokes to make fans of Epoch very happy.
Any questions? Feel free to leave a comment. The book will likely be released sometime in 2009; I'll update when I know more.
Not bad, eh? I'm very happy with it.
So what is Evil? all about? Well, brace yourselves... it's a tiny bit naughty. It's similar to Epoch in that it is a fantasy/comedy, but the subject matter is a little more grown up. Generally, it deals with issues of teen sexuality, and a very religious town's reaction to those issues.
Specifically, it deals with masturbation.
Yes, a book for teenagers that deals with the private act of self-pleasure. I'm not sure how I got away with it, either. Some people get very uncomfortable with this subject matter. Some call it the Sin of Onan, or even self-abuse. I call it a perfectly natural part of life, and I think it's high time somebody wrote about it. So I did.
I'd like to point out here that Evil? is not a tasteless or gross novel. I treat the subject matter seriously; the comedy of Evil? comes from people's response to it.
The story (as much as I can reveal here) goes like this: Stewart, a teen living in the predominantly Christian town of Ice Lake, becomes a social outcast when he is caught masturbating in the shower. Ejected from his home and shunned by the community, Stuart suspects the reaction to his 'sin' is far from healthy and normal. Could some supernatural force be influencing people's minds? Or is his act really that... Evil?
Like I said, it's a bit more mature than my other books. But not much more. There's still plenty of action, adventure and jokes to make fans of Epoch very happy.
Any questions? Feel free to leave a comment. The book will likely be released sometime in 2009; I'll update when I know more.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Finished?
I've just completed the first draft of a new novel, tentatively titled Apoca-Lynn. I feel good about the story, and relieved to have it all written out. But is it finished? No, not even close.
As I typed the words The End, I was well aware that there are several issues with the book that need to be addressed. Some characters need more of a backstory. Others need more of a physical description(I'm really bad at those). There are also story points that need to be worked out in order for the novel to make sense.
Once I've dealt with those things, am I finished then? Still no. After that, I have to get the book read by other people. My wife, Violet, likes to have a read, and she's good at picking up on details I've missed. My agent sometimes has feedback to offer as well. When I've incorporated their notes, the book is finally ready to sell.
But it still isn't finished. If a publisher buys the book, they'll have changes of their own to suggest. I've had to do substantial rewrites on both Epoch and Evil? to get them ready for the market. Their requested changes can seem harsh at first; my author ego protests, "wasn't it good enough the way it was?" I've been very lucky to have worked with some terrific editors, however, and the changes they've asked for have made both novels better.
Plus, once I get into them, rewrites can actually be a lot of fun. I get to take my characters out for another spin, and see what they'll do under different circumstances.
When the book is printed, bound and in stores, then it can be considered finished. Good thing, too. I've got lots of other stories that need attending to!
As I typed the words The End, I was well aware that there are several issues with the book that need to be addressed. Some characters need more of a backstory. Others need more of a physical description(I'm really bad at those). There are also story points that need to be worked out in order for the novel to make sense.
Once I've dealt with those things, am I finished then? Still no. After that, I have to get the book read by other people. My wife, Violet, likes to have a read, and she's good at picking up on details I've missed. My agent sometimes has feedback to offer as well. When I've incorporated their notes, the book is finally ready to sell.
But it still isn't finished. If a publisher buys the book, they'll have changes of their own to suggest. I've had to do substantial rewrites on both Epoch and Evil? to get them ready for the market. Their requested changes can seem harsh at first; my author ego protests, "wasn't it good enough the way it was?" I've been very lucky to have worked with some terrific editors, however, and the changes they've asked for have made both novels better.
Plus, once I get into them, rewrites can actually be a lot of fun. I get to take my characters out for another spin, and see what they'll do under different circumstances.
When the book is printed, bound and in stores, then it can be considered finished. Good thing, too. I've got lots of other stories that need attending to!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)