squeetus

Bio before beauty

Over the past year between projects, I've been working on a short story. I like working on short things between drafts of novels. After a year of work and a dozen revisions, I decided I would send it to a fantasy and science fiction magazine I admire that publishes short stories. I used to write a lot of short stories and spent four years writing cover letters and sending them to magazines--all rejected. I hadn't written a cover letter for a submission since before my first published book, so it felt astounding now to be able to mention my honors and publications. How things had changed! Here's my cover letter, names redacted.

Dear Mr. ---,

Please accept my submission, ----, a 3400-word science fiction story.

I’m a NYT best selling author of twelve novels published by Bloomsbury, including The Goose Girl, Princess Academy, and Book of a Thousand Days. My professional honors include an Eisner nomination, two Mythopoeic Award finalists, a Josette Frank Award, a Newbery Honor, two Cybils, and several state awards. I recently adapted my book Austenland for the screen, and the movie is a 2013 Sundance Film Festival selection.

Thanks for your consideration,

Shannon Hale

 

I got a response. The story was rejected.

I share this for other hopeful writers out there. I think it's nice to know that it's a pretty level playing field. There's no Publishing Club and once you're in it, everything comes your way. 99% of the time, it's about the story. My story wasn't good enough for this editor, and nothing in my bio would change his mind.

And that's how it should be.

This is just to say

I have taken
on a project
that has a
crazy deadline

and you were
probably expecting
timely
blog posts

Forgive me
I am a dervish
spinning and sweating
words elsewhere

Male character function: be a character; Girl character function: love interest

When I was about 18, I was in a community theater production of Robin Hood. As is so often the case with theater, there were more girls than guys who auditioned, but there were more guy than girl parts in the play. I was one of three girls cast as a silent, hooded "Merry Man." During rehearsals it quickly became ridiculous. Though we kept our hoods on all the time, three of us girls playing Merry Men were really bad at walking and moving like men. I remember talking with the lead male actors.

Me: Why do all of the Merry Men have to be men? I could still be a girl and be in the band.
Actor: But if there was a girl in the band, why wouldn't Robin fall in love with her and not Marian? We don't want to confuse the audience.

I was confused myself. Why would that even be an issue? The presence of a single woman in proximity to the lead other than the Love Interest would confuse the audience? In real life, do guys go around falling in love with every girl who happens to be nearby? Obviously, I thought, Marian happens to be Robin's type. He must like the polished, noble, girlie-girl, and a Merry Girl would be rough-and-tumble. What's confusing about that?

But it is. As I look at movies, especially action movies and animated movies, there are rarely any girls besides the Love Interest. Audiences are accustomed to this. The main character's Love Interest can have an elderly female friend, or even a comic-relief female friend her same age (so long as she's overweight, extremely quirky, lacking classical beauty features, etc.). But No Extra Girls Allowed. It's as if the only function of a female character is to be the Love Interest. So if there are, say, two female characters then the audience will be confused. But wait, there are two! Which is the Love Interest? We don't know who to expect will end up with the Lead and the unexpected is upsetting!

Just when I watch a film that's an exception--like Thor, which had several female characters (though male characters still represented the large majority)--I think, hey, we're over it! Then I see 4-5 action or animated movies in a row with an all male cast and one token female--the Love Interest.

I want to be conscious of this. I want all of us to be aware. Because I don't want to see the reverse happen either. In an effort to over-correct, are we doing that with the boys? In YA novels, do we have female characters with 1 male character (The Love Interest) or two if there's a triangle? I'm begging writers of movies and books, be respectful of the girls. Include them in the stories. Girls can be funny and interesting and daring and shy and adventurous and evil and anything a character should be.

"Why do you write strong female characters?"

The first time I was asked the question, "Why do you choose to write strong female characters?" I was surprised. My first book was based on the tale of "The Goose Girl," and I had purposely chosen not to greatly alter her from her fairy tale form of the sheltered, often weak, unsure and untested girl into a battle-ready fantasy heroine. I believed she gathered her own strength and came into her self through the story, and I found her interesting and realistic, but I never thought, "I want to make her STRONG."

I continued on the receiving end of that question after publishing Enna Burning, Princess Academy, River Secrets, Book of a Thousand Days. I love my girl characters. I think they're different from one another, have various strengths and weaknesses like anybody does. I do think they're strong in their own ways. But I never make the decision "I'm going to write strong females in my books," a sort of inorganic goal to turn a character away from her natural tendencies of weakness into a statement of girl power. Yet that's what that question seems to imply.

So usually the way I answer the question is to say, "I think I'm writing realistic female characters."

But of course no one asks "why do you write realistic female characters?" because that would be silly. Surely every author seeks to have realistic characters. Why I wince is "strong females" doesn't seem to be considered synonymous with "realistic females," and in my experience, they should be.

Yet the question continued after publishing Rapunzel's Revenge, Calamity Jack, Forest Born, Palace of Stone. "Why do you write strong female characters?"

And here's the thing: no one has ever asked me, "Why do you write strong male characters?"

Because I do. I have loads of male characters. Two of those books I mentioned the main character is male, and all of them have several major male characters. Razo, Finn, Geric, Jack, Talone, Tegus, Khasar, Ungolad, His Radiance, Brute, Blunderboar, Peder, Pa, Timon, Sileph... And yet never once that question.

And that's the part that disturbs me. The heart of the question implies that if a male character is "strong" that's to be expected, because boys and men are strong. Normal. Default. Go about your business. But if a female character leads a story, does stuff, has a voice and a purpose and changes her life or others' lives or starts or stops a war or makes a stand or has power then it's newsworthy, because that's not expected, not true to life. Not normal. Not our default assumption about girls. So stop and take note.

I know I shouldn't still be surprised by that question, but I am, every time. When I began writing novels, I assumed I wouldn't have to prove my right as a woman writer or have to dig out a place for female characters. I thought people who had come before me had already done that, writers like Tamora Pierce, Robin McKinley, Anne McCaffrey, Ursula LeGuin. I felt like I didn't have the burden of screaming back at the world, "a girl can carry an action story, look, look!" While writing I'd decided that sexism didn't even exist in my fantasy worlds and I never had to wrestle with it. In my worlds, girls do stuff and nobody thinks two things about it.

But it turns out that my books aren't published in my fantasy worlds. They're published in this world. And people still do think two things about it, or three or four. And I'm surprised. But...but...didn't we already get over this years ago? Don't we already agree that girls are interesting and diverse, as are boys?
Are "strong female characters" really so rare that we note them, call them out as extraordinary?

I don't want anyone to worry that I think badly of you or judge you if you've used that phrase. I absolutely know that every interviewer or reader who has asked me that means absolutely the best by it. And I know that the phrase "strong female characters" means different things for different people. For example:
1. female characters who are interesting and realistic
This is broad, includes so-called villains. This is the definition I prefer and believe.
2. girls who are just as strong as boys!
This implies that "male" is the definition of strong. And inserting "female" into the male role of action and decision making and power is what makes her strong.

Too often in stories, it's okay if there's only one female character, just as long as she's "strong." There's a falseness to this, a board room mentality. Diversity of characters is more important than strength. Because realistic characters should always be the goal. Not a stilted desire to make them appropriately strong. Not the subtle fear that, in the real world, girls really aren't as interesting or note-worthy or powerful as boys and therefore if a female character is there should be a great hurrah for breaking stereotypes and teaching girls everywhere that they can be "as good as the boys!"

Characters. Just characters. With strengths and flaws--which really just means: with personalities. Male and female. Old and young. Interesting. And worth reading about.

Should writers just shut the crap up?

Sometimes my blog posts make people disappointed, sad, and angry. Every time this happens, I'm never expecting the fierce response. I think if I always knew how people would take what I say, I would self-censor, and I wonder about that. Because I do think the conversations started are valuable to me, and others tell me valuable to them too. But the fear of offending and hurting might discourage me or others from engaging in touchy subjects. I'm not afraid of disagreeing with people, but I hate hurting people in the process.

Longtime squeetusers may recall some of the fiercest instances on squeetus--for example, when I defended Breaking Dawn in 2008. That was one of the rare instances that we actually had to delete comments and by the dozens. I can take a few hits, but I draw the line at profanity, threats, and bullying other commenters, especially young commenters. In a way I'm glad people are so passionate about books and ideas, but I don't get the hate. Sometimes anger can be productive, but hate just sucks.

(squeetusers, have you noticed how kind commenters are on this blog in general? It makes me happy. When commenters are harsher and less respectful in their disagreement, I've found that they're not regulars but people who have clicked over from someone else reporting about the post. I really want this blog to be a safe place where people can share ideas without fear of being flamed, so thank you.)

I guess when I write a blog entry, I think about it as a rough draft. It's exploration time. It's not a final, polished article. It's me in conversation, saying things I'm thinking about. The danger is that thinking aloud can offend. Which is why, I think, most politicians have practiced answers. I don't want to hurt anyone, and yet I don't want to be bland and opinion-less, scared of risk. Writers are idea people. I think we should wrestle with questions. We should allow ourselves that luxury. We're not politicians, trying to please as many people as we can. We should engage in risky ideas, question things, wrestle with ideas we don't know all the answers to. But should that be confined to a novel, where I have time to edit and polish before anyone sees it, or is a blog still useful? Even if I risk hurting people, is it still positive to have this public thinking-aloud-place? (I ask, as I think aloud in this place.)

When I've written a post that is fairly opinion-y and people disagree with me, or if I tweet something of that ilk, I almost always get replies that say something like, "You've lost this reader for good," or "I used to love your books but I'll never buy another one now." Obviously I don't want to run off readers. I think in most of these cases, something I've said has personally hurt that person, and they are trying to hurt me back in some way. That's a natural response, I think, and I can empathize. And they do succeed. But in general, I wonder, do we/should we only read and like books by people who share all or most of our same opinions?

Personal opinion of the author does affect me sometimes. I read a couple of books by an author (who I will never publicly name, but get a milkshake in me sometime and my jaw loosens), then I met him, and he was so sexist and unkind that I've never recommended his books to anyone since and doubt I'd pick him up again. For several minutes into our conversation I thought he was trying to be funny by being a parody of the chauvinist male writer, because nobody is truly that awful. I was wrong. His personality didn't change the words on the page, but I can't see past it.

But there's another author who is quite mouthy publicly and has said things I vehemently disagree with. But since reading his disagreeable opinions I've continued to read his books and would recommend them. So in some cases the personal affects me and sometimes it doesn't. Maybe it's a scale system? With the first author, his books weren't engaging enough to me to overshadow his unfortunate personality (his editor said to me, "Sorry, I can edit him on paper but not in person!"). But with the second, I liked and clicked enough with his books that I didn't have to think about him as a person as I read. I was able to merge with the story and forget the author.

What are your thoughts? Do you wish authors remained anonymous and you only knew them through the words on the page? (if you're reading an author's blog, then probably not?) Does an author's public persona enhance/diminish your reading? Those of us who are older grew up with books alone, and now social media allows us to feel we know the people behind the books. How has this changed your reading experiences?

And you can register now for my Oct 1 webcast. I'll be doing a live school assembly followed by questions I'll be taking from both the live audience and the virtual audience. Sign up your class to participate for free. I'm really looking forward to this.

And now for something completely different...

After publishing Rapunzel's Revenge and Calamity Jack, one of the most common questions posed to me and my husband/cowriter Dean is: "What is it like to collaborate?" We made this 90 second film hoping to shed more light on that question.

So, does that answer your question? #helpful

We made this movie a couple of years ago for our talk at the SCIBA dinner (So-Cal indie booksellers). We also demonstrated our collaborative process through a Spanish telenovela and interpretive movement, as is our wont. I think it was enlightening--especially for those in attendance who had taken advantage of the open bar. Our dear friend An Dinh shot and edited it. He and his awesome wife Tamiyah make a random appearance. Shout out to Bugsy the Guinea Pig, the true star of this profound work of artistic genius.

Also, please join me weekdays in July for the Squeetus Summer Book Club. A chapter a day in Princess Academy in preparation for the August release of Palace of Stone.

Self-publishing, part 2; or why my blog needs an editor

Thank you, thank you for your comments on the last post! So many of you said things I should have, things I didn't know, things I hadn't thought of, and things that were just plain awesome. Writers from all kinds of backgrounds, readers, publishing pros--your insights were enlightening. And I've been thoroughly scolded as well.

Now I'll write the comment that you were too civil to write:

"Well, well, well, Miss Hoity-Toity with your fancy New York publisher and smarmy New York agent, deeming to toss crumbs of wisdom to the masses and deigning to smile upon the self-published plebes at your feet, wearing your crown of rejection letters and proclaiming that your way is the only right way."

That's probably how I sounded to many of you. Sorry. I appreciate those who disagreed with me respectfully. I find it encouraging if we can still like and respect people even if we don't agree with everything they think. Let me acknowledge that every single thing I wrote could be wrong, and if anything I said is right, things change so quickly it might be wrong tomorrow. These are my opinions from my personal experience. From some of your comments, I wasn't communicating as clearly as I'd thought (why I need an editor! All the time!) At the risk of alienating even more of you, I'm going to clarify a few things.

First, I made a mistake. When I wrote "amateur" I was thinking of a category, not a definition of quality. I certainly didn't mean it as an insult, though I can understand why some took it that way. I have friends who self-publish and I do not think of them as amateurs. But that word has heavy connotations and it was the wrong one. Mark Twain's lightning bug.

Yes, self-published books can be successful. Yes, they can be top quality. I hope I was clear about that in my last post. But everything involved in self-publishing is harder. To edit and polish a manuscript without an editor is harder. Formatting, printing, distributing, marketing a book without a team of professionals on your side is harder. The successful self-published writers have worked really, really hard, much harder than someone like me, who gets to just write and let my publisher do the other stuff. Self-published authors are also working against a stigma. To excel in that marketplace, self-published books have to fight even harder for notice, to prove to readers that they're not careless uploads like some but an excellent, carefully crafted novel. I think you have to not only be a decent writer to succeed in that market, you have to be an entrepreneur.

If ere you did love me, my friends, believe I did not write that post with bad intent. I do not think less of the writers who have chosen self-publishing as the right route for them. I would be a grade-A schmuck if I did, and I'd understand if you thought I was. Or am. (But my husband asserts that I'm not a schmuck…so, there's that.)

So why did I write the post?

1. Because I want to honor the work editors and publishers do. For many readers, they are invisible in the process, and I felt negligent that I haven't spoken up more about this. I think this is the point where I and some of the commenters most disagree. I feel the work that professional publishers do is very important, and I think their participation in the publication process raises the quality of literature in general. Again, I don't think that ONLY traditionally published books are good, nor do I think that ALL traditionally published books are good.
2. Because I wanted to share my experience with authors who are looking into publishing choices.
3. Because I wanted to start the discussion with my blog readers about the dramatic changes happening in publishing.

I hear people say traditional publishing is dead, but I don't think that's true. There are many routes. And of course the most important part is writing, crafting, developing our skill and becoming the very best writer we can. I believe in the caveat: be wary of anyone who charges you money to publish your book.

I find it interesting how vehemently some disagreed with me and how just as vehemently some agreed. (and also how differently people interpreted what I said--why I need an editor!) No experience is universally true. Which is one reason why I love novels so much.

The self-publishing paradox; or, why I love my editor

In 2007 on this blog, I answered the question, "Why don't you self-publish?" When I wrote that, e-publishing was barely a twinkle in its daddy's eyes. Now self-publishing is much easier and less expensive, and has become far more widespread. Recently on twitter, I retweeted an indie bookseller, Josh Christie, who wrote: "A self-published book is 'independently published' in the same way a home movie is an 'independent film.'" Someone responded to me saying, "Easy to say from the perch of 1 who has an agent and publisher." I said I would try to explain my view on self-publishing in a blog post, so here I go. These are my opinions. Please share yours in the comments in a respectful manner.

First I want to clarify how I view this topic.

Self-publishing = amateur [EDIT: Retracted! See next post!]
Traditional publishing = professional

Amateur does NOT mean "inherently bad." It means "not professional." You can enjoy a neighborhood basketball tournament and witness some great players, but it's different from an NBA game. You can enjoy videos posted to Youtube--there are some real gems among the hundreds of millions of homemade videos posted--but it's different than watching Netflix or Hulu. You can jam to a great band at the local bar, but you wouldn't pay the same for admission that you would to see a Grammy winner in concert.

The difference between amateur and professional is obvious in these areas, but with books, I've noticed a general unawareness (for example, the local elementary school flying in a self-published author to do an assembly). If the products of self and traditional publishing are viewed interchangeably, then editors and publishers, who are the backbone of professional publishing, are not getting their due respect. When we don't value something, it could go away, and I don't want that to happen. Editors and publishers raise the standards and help make literature better.

"How?" you ask. "Tell us, beautiful Shannon, how do editors and publishers make literature better?" Thanks for noticing. I work out. And here's how:

1. When you buy a professionally published book at a bookstore, you know it's been vetted by industry professionals. A publisher has said, "I think this is so good, I'm willing to bet a significant amount of our company's money and of my personal and valuable time that readers will love it too." With a self-published book, it's the author vetting him/herself, putting her/his own money on the line. There's understandably going to be more consumer confidence in the professionally vetted book.

2. Publishers hire the best people in the world at their jobs. A team of professionals puts in significant hours and hard work on every single book they publish. I read that an average of twenty people are vigorously engaged working on any book from a professional publisher. Many drafts, copy edits, care for the best cover, how best to promote, etc. Some self-published books represent years of hard work by the author. However, many (I would guess most) are first drafts. I worked a slush pile once. I read a lot of hideously bad stories that the writers believed were good enough to be published. Bless their hearts, they were wrong. Sometimes we're not our best judge, especially when first starting out.

3. Editors go through the slush pile so we don't have to. The slush pile is the stack of unrequested manuscripts that hopeful authors send to a publisher. Most (over 90%) are rejected. A small percentage catch an editor's eye, and after further work on the author's part, with advice and support from the editor, the book turns out great and ends up published. Self-published books are in many cases simply the slush pile for sale. No one has gone through them, selected the best, helped the author make them better, and marketed them to their best audience. If e-publishing had existed when I was starting out, I would have been tempted to self-publish. The rejections were hard, and I just wanted to share my work. But now I would be mortified by what I thought at the time was good enough. [EDIT: I should have also included AGENTS in this process! Agents wade through more slush nowadays than editors. They're a vital part of the chain.]

Some of you will be offended by this post. Some of you will be surprised because I think in general my opinions steer away from an elitist view of what is quality in literature, and this post might seem elitist. I'm sorry for that, and I really hope you will read what I'm actually saying, not what I seem to be saying. There is a difference between self-published books and professionally published books. If the market doesn't value the professional hard work that publishers do, they'll go away.

I absolutely DO NOT believe that all professionally published books are better than all self-published books. How could I know that? How could anyone? I haven't read them all. But I DO believe that the work editors and publishers do is way underrated and paramount to creating a canon of quality literature. I didn't realize how much good stuff an editor does (without changing a word of my text) till I had a professional editor on my side. A critique group is not the same. Helpful, but not the same. Because it's hard to know how important publishers are to an author unless you've seen it from the inside, I feel like I'd be neglectful as an author not to speak up about it.

For those who are self-publishing because they've been rejected by professionals, I would ask, Why in such a hurry to be published? Someday you may wish you waited to put your very best work out there. And if this book is your very best work and it's smokin' awesome, then patience, it will find a home.

For those who prefer the control of self-publishing, I say, more power to you. It's not the route for me, but I can see it would appeal to some.

For those who are self-publishing to get a following and attract the notice of a traditional publisher, why not? It's worked for others. But know it's extremely rare. I think you're better off using money to attend writing conferences where you can meet legit agents than paying a company to format and distribute your self-published ebook.

For those who are self-publishing children, I would add a word of caution. I know of an incident where helpful parents self-published their young daughter's novel. It was great for such a young girl! But it was not a quality book by general standards. People paid money for the book. People didn't read it as a pet project of a sweet young girl--they read it as a novel, and the feedback was scathing. Stuff that goes online is open to widespread criticsm. Is your child really ready for that?

I suffered the years of rejections. I was told again and again that I was not good enough, my stories were not good enough, my book was not good enough. Most published writers I know suffered through a similar process. For good or ill, it's survival of the fittest, and many writers give up too soon. The yearning to share creative works is natural and fierce. Here's my unrequested advice: Writers, you just keep going. You keep trying. You keep improving. You fight for that right to be vetted, edited, and published professionally. You fight for it. Sometimes it takes years to find the right house, the right editor, the right manuscript, but you do it and your book will be better for it.

EDIT: Please read Rick Walton's comment below! He sums it up perfectly, and with decades of publishing experience of many sorts he knows of what he speaks, besides just being a darn fine human being. Rick always says things better than I can.

Back when I used to dye my hair

Feeling too swamped to blog. Can I cheat a bit? Found this old interview I did at the National Book Festival a few years and hairstyles ago. I remember we walked several blocks in the rain to get to the interview.

 

The young relate to the old, the old to the young

Thanks for all your interesting comments last post. I think there are two main kinds of MCs who are hard for a reader to relate to:
1. An MC so different from us or annoying to us we just can't go along with the story.
2. An MC who is deceptively similar to us, so we relate to him/her until the character does something we would never do, which makes us dismiss the character all together.

I was thinking about #2 (number two…tee hee) because Dean is reading my current draft. He identified the most with one particular character, and then that character did something alien to Dean, and it made Dean frustrated. Dean thought, "I would never do that, so the character would never do that either." But I KNOW this character, and that choice was totally in keeping with him. That's one of the frustrations with being a writer. I can be true to the story and the characters and yet still fail some readers. There's just no way to anticipate every way someone will read a story and interpret a character. And if I tried, the story would be an overwrought disaster.

Commenter Delia made an excellent point: "hmmm...this is exactly opposite what I have done. I'm still a teenager, but looking back, I've always gravitated towards books with older main characters. Based on discussions with friends, I don't think that's uncommon.
Maybe it's because when young we look ahead at what's to come, that we see ourselves in the future relating to these characters? Maybe younger main characters often sound more childish? But, of course, each book is different.
"I recently read a book (one you recommended on your yearly round up, in fact), with an MC two years younger than me. I used to think about the same things as the MC, but now those worries sound silly and I'm glad to put those things behind me."

Thank you, Delia, I should have thought to make that point. I think your observation is common with teenagers. Few seventeen-year-olds read Seventeen magazine, for example. It's biggest with 12-15 year olds. In those years of growth, we don't want to look back so much as forward. A teenager often prefers to read her own age and a few years older--to early 20s, college years. But any older than that is often a turn off. Delia, does that sound right to you? While the opposite is often true of adults. We'll read our own age and younger but sometimes resist to read older.

A correction: I said about Becky Jack from The Actor and the Housewife, "I know there were readers who didn't like the book or wouldn't pick it up because they couldn't relate to a mother MC." I meant that her mother status and time of life was one reason why some readers didn't relate to her, not the only reason. Her religion, personality, life choices, etc., also may have turned off some readers. She is by far the most controversial character I've ever created. Poor, sweet Becky! I think she'd be so shocked to hear how many people just don't like her! I'm so grateful for the readers who did fall for her, and grateful for readers who didn't click with her but were still willing to follow her story and take from it whatever they needed.

Epic fantasy hero wanted (leave your mama home)

Re: last post, Stephanie Perkins made an interesting comment:

"I've thought a lot about this phenomena, too. Yeah, mothers (and parents, in general) are far more likely to be a part of realistic fiction — the Ramona books, Meg Cabot's Allie Finkle series, anything Judy Blume, Junie B. Jones, etc. As you wisely pointed out, a mother would step in if anything TOO dangerous was happening to the protagonist, which is why moms are less likely to be found in fantasy, where the stakes usually HAVE to be higher. In realistic middle grade fiction, the struggle is often school or peer-related, which parents often do want their children to work out for themselves.

"This idea applies to young adult literature, too. Parents are more likely to be found in contemporary YA, because they're a part of real teenage life, and they're generally absent in fantasy, paranormal, and dystopian worlds (though sometimes they're a driving force to action, like in Katniss' case).

"I'm intrigued that you tried to write a fantasy in which parents were involved, but it that wouldn't work. Fascinating! But it makes sense. :-)"

What do you think--realistic fiction allows for parents but fantasy excludes by nature? I see truth in this observation. My current work-in-progress is contemporary setting with fantastic elements. The main character's parents are both a large part of the story, but she also has to leave them, go away and do things. Some of you commented that this is true in life as well. We leave home in order to grow into ourselves.

Where are all the moms?

Here's a discussion I've been meaning to write for a while, requested by commenters. A few years ago, I read a Horn Book article about the lack of mothers in fairy tales and books, and it mentioned, among others, Princess Academy. The article's writer (I'm embarrassed I can't remember who) challenged herself to change that and write a book where the protagonist's mother was a present, strong character. She talked about her work and how she had to scrap it. In a story, it's just impossible for a child/teen to have any adventures, to grow on his/her own with a mother present. The mother would take care of everything, the mother would carry the burden of worry. You want your protagonist to be as close to and involved in the action as possible, and for a young protagonist, a mother (a capable, present mother) will interfere.

I tried the same thing once. I was determined to have a mother and father who were present, who had the adventures alongside my hero. Again, it didn't work. Boring. The real growing up a person does is gradual and often subtle. In a story, you speed things up, let a few large events stand in for a hundreds of small events. If a mother especially is there, the young character doesn't have a chance to grow, to make choices, to be a hero.

So why not make the mother herself the character? Traditionally a children's book has a child as the main character. I can think of only one exception: the extremely wonderful Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH, and it's subsequent movie, The Secret of NIMH (notice the title change--no need to highlight a Mrs is the main character, after all). Any other mother main characters I'm missing?

While this is a general rule, great authors can break it. I can think of many wonderful mother supporting characters who manage to stay out of the protagonist's way.

Charlotte, that lovely spider. What a clever device! She's a mother character, and yet she's so small and vulnerable with such a short life span. She can't take care of everything, but just enough.

Mrs. Weasley is great, one of the most memorable mothers in literature and film. If she'd been onsite, she would have prevented some adventures. Rowling got around that with the boarding school scenario.

I think of Elastigirl from the Incredibles, but the children are not the main characters, and she does have to leave them alone at one point--the point at which they really come into their own powers.

Looking over my own books, about half the mothers are dead. Jack, Rapunzel, Rin, and Razo have excellent mothers who aren't perfect but definitely have strengths. They all must leave them behind to have their adventures or save their mothers themselves.

What do you think about the missing moms? Any examples of present mothers who didn't get in the way? What about fathers?