Over-analyzing as a Writer | Olivia J

"Writing is an underestimated art. You are painting colorful images in people's minds by using words of black and white."

In literature class, what is most likely the first word in a set of questions on a worksheet?

Analyze. 

One of the largest elements of a literature class is to analyze the characters, the writing, the plot, the author's intent. This involves taking the actions and the words of the character or author to derive meaning or understanding from it. 

Translating this to being an author, this process works the same, but in the opposite way. The author must choose the precise words and actions to portray the right message, whether it be through a character or through word choice. 

As an avid reader and writer, I'm in this analyzing mindset constantly. 

Naturally, I carry this into my daily life - or, more accurately, reality. Because this is how I've been trained - by teachers or by my own practice of writing and reading - to see people, to see the world through this analytical lens of literature. 

However, people aren't characters. Life isn't a novel. And by applying this analytical lens to life, problems arise. 

Obviously. 

Because the goal of overanalyzing is to make sense of people, their words, their actions, and of things that happen in life. But sometimes people do irrational things. Sometimes life doesn't make sense. 

Sometimes no amount of mulling over people's words or considering their actions will make anything make sense. 

Sometimes it takes the grace of God to just do - to just be kind even when your heart wants to lash out because holy hell it just doesn't make any sense.  

And somehow, the over-analyzing, the assumptions just fade away with a little prayer and a lot of loving your neighbor. 

~

Preachy? Sure. True? Hell yeah. 

Just some revelations from your friendly neighborhood human,

~The WordShaker

Historical Fiction and Feminism | Olivia J

"No matter what you do, your job is to tell your story," Gary Vaynerchuk

I just can't hop off the literary analysis train, can I? 

Disclaimer: I am not an authority figure on the history of feminism. I also don't read or write all that much historical fiction, at least not at the frequency at which I write contemporary or survival fiction. Hence, this is not comprehensive or set in stone by any means. These are just my thoughts, here to get you thinking. 

Historical fiction is too feminist. 

Let me explain. 

I've been in a reading slump for the past two weeks, so I've been rereading some of my favorite books that are way overdue for a reread, and this includes the Vengeance Road duology by Erin Bowman. (Read my review for Vengeance Road and Retribution Rails at the respective hyperlinks.)

However, I'd like to re-explore the gripe I had with both of these books, concerning the feminist prose and undertones.  I also had this gripe with These Shallow Graves, among other historical fiction works that take place before the first wave of feminism. 

For Vengeance Road, the focus is less on feminism explicitly, but many of the thoughts and quips of Kate, the main character, reflect a modern egalitarian mindset. She comments regularly on the problematic state of women in the West, and how others perceive her. While there's nothing inherently wrong with this commentary, it feels too self-aware - and at times, unneeded - for the context of both the story and the character. 

For Retribution Rails, Charlotte, the book's main female character, is an outspoken feminist. This works slightly better in the context of the character, since Charlotte is an educated, wealthier girl, and her choice of career faces a lot of sexist backlash. However, it all still feels out of place. 

Why? 

Because feminism existed differently back then. It was viewed differently then, and feminism isn't even viewed the same as it was ten years ago. The author tries to put on this lens of twenty-first century morals onto a story that took place over one hundred years ago. This disconnect jolts the reader out of the story, and dates the writing significantly. 

The thing is, is that now we can look back on history and say that "yeah, that was wrong," and "yeah, that was oppressive," but these characters set in the past don't have the cultural context we have now. Many of them probably didn't have a problem with the way their society worked, but still made the best of what they had and who they were in the context of their culture. 

Another problem is that, back then, feminism was a beyond radical idea. Not many people - even women - supported it. Sure, people have believed in feminism since the beginning of time, but only recently has it become a mainstream thing.  But having all of these main female characters ALL be these radical feminists feels unrealistic, especially considering the time period. Surely, not all women felt the same way, as women don't feel the same way even today. Often, the women who don't challenge the social order or make these feminist comments are painted as weak, which is a whole other problematic can of worms . . . 

Going back to my point, it doesn't feel realistic for all of these young female characters in historical fiction to be radical underground feminists. Sure, the late-1800s was when feminism was gaining leverage, but by saturating every single historical fiction story with an overtly feminist character paints an unrealistic picture of how most women believed and behaved. 

Granted, I understand why both the authors wrote these themes and specific lines in, and the publishers kept them in. They kept them in because we live in a feminist era, and the target audience for these books are young people, who are more feminist than ever. By weaving in some nice feminist propaganda into modern historical fiction stories, it allows for easy digestion of the actual state of women in said era. It misrepresents the good - and bad -  of these time periods. 

Which, now that I think about it, is kind of worse than just leaving the issue alone. 

I'm not saying that feminist females in historical fiction are bad, or should be erased. What I am saying is that the over-saturation of feminism in historical fiction is actually very unrealistic. Not every historical fiction story with a female main character has to tackle feminist content. 

What is your take on feminism in historical fiction? Do you believe it has been too modernized in the context of historical fiction? What is the place of examining social issues in historical fiction? Can a female character in historical fiction still be a strong character without being an overt feminist? 

(The answer to that last question is a resounding 'yes', by the way.)

As edgy and controversial as always, 

~The WordShaker

Gendered Prose: A Study of "A List of Cages"

"Writing is easy. All you have to do is cross out the wrong words," - Mark Twain

Man, I'm just whipping out these analysis posts like there's no tomorrow . . .

Anyway, my current read is A List of Cages by Robin Roe, and I'm about halfway through it. 

However, what I have read got me thinking. A List of Cages features two male protagonists - a senior and a freshman in high school - written by an adult female. And as I was reading, something just didn't feel . . . right. 

If you're not an avid reader, then you might not know what I mean when I say a character "doesn't sound like a guy" or "doesn't sound like a girl" - like, of course they don't, they're just black and white letters on a page; or, men and women don't 'sound' a certain way when written. 

However, in true Olivia fashion, I'm about to lay out some literary truth on you . . . 

Gendered prose is a thing. 

First, of course, we need to define what I mean by 'gendered prose'. (This more specifically applies to male writers writing female characters or female writers writing male characters.) 

Gendered prose is when the character in question has thoughts, actions, feelings, and syntax that aligns with their gender. In short, when read within the context of the story, the character 'sounds female' or 'sounds male'. Which, when stated like that, sounds stereotypical. 

However, as a general rule of thumb, men and women are different. Not only are they biologically different, their brains are wired differently, men and women react to certain situations differently, the list goes on. 

Now, don't misconstrue any of this and assume that I mean every male character should respond to X stimuli the same way, or that female characters have to be dreamy flower-children, etc. What this means is that, at the most elementary level of the character, their gender has to factor into their identity, and subsequently their thoughts and actions. This involves understanding men and women - and their differences - on a biological and sociological level. 

Why is this important? Why can't we just write people, and then figure out their gender later? 

As I've just stated, whether you like it or not, gender/sex is a cornerstone in a person's biology and identity. Therefore, it will influence them as a whole person. However, it's important for a character to 'sound' like a certain gender for this one reason:

Having a male character read as male is important for the reader being able to visualize and connect with the character, both physically and mentally, for the character to accurately gel together in the reader's mind. If this aspect of the prose fails, then there will be a disconnect between what the prose states and what the prose unintentionally implies. 

Now, the real question is what makes the prose and a character sound 'male' or 'female'? 

That's a good question, and I'm not entirely sure I have a concrete answer. This is the dilemma I found myself in with A List of Cages. Something didn't feel right and I knew what it was, but I couldn't understand why. 

However, after a discussion post on Instagram (@olivia.j.the.wordshaker) and doing some further digging, I've realized that it comes down to a couple of things. If not, at least use this as a brainstorming place in improving your ability to write the opposite gender. 

1. Emotions

This is a big one. As a general rule, women are more outwardly emotional than men. Women also respond to stress and conflict differently than men do. Include descriptions of distinctly different physical and emotional reactions to stimuli. 

2. Interactions 

The way men interact with other men, the way women interact with other women, and the way men and women act together are three vastly different wheelhouses. 

3. Style/Syntax

This pertains to the actual words used to describe something, and the framing and structure of the sentences. Men tend to get right to the point, while women tend to be a bit more metaphorical and flowery. 

~

This is by no means a comprehensive list, and I suppose the takeaway from all of this is do your own research! Find out the differences, and work our your own way to write the opposite gender in the way that best fits the character and you as a writer. 

Again, take these tips with a grain of salt and avoid being stereotypical. Create your character and sprinkle these on like the sprinkles on top of a cupcake!

~The WordShaker

You'll Be Like Faye by J.C. Buchanan | Book Review

"Good writing is clear thinking made visible," -Bill Wheeler

As you all know, I love myself a good self-published novel, supporting indie authors, all that jazz. But what I love even more is critiquing story and execution.

And that's exactly what we're going to be doing today. 

follow me on Instagram @olivia.j.the.wordshaker

You'll Be Like Faye is a middle grade novel by J. C. Buchanan. Buy and read the synopsis to You'll Be Like Faye here!

Disclaimer: I was sent this novel in exchange for an honest review. 

Spoilers, duh. 

The Bad

1. Carousel Dialogue 

This was You'll Be Like Faye's largest flaw. First, let's define the purpose of dialogue in a story. Dialogue is the spoken words that characters actually say out loud, and the purpose of this dialogue is like anything else in a story: it furthers the plot along and reveals aspects of characters. 

However, the dialogue in You'll Be Like Faye rarely adheres to this accepted definition. Much of the dialogue in YBLF doesn't serve much purpose, if at all. The menial dialogue causes scenes that should have been over a half a page ago to drag on. Story beats and defining character traits get repeated over and over through unnecessary dialogue.

Instead of spending her reader's precious time by deepening the relationships or characterization, much of the dialogue is spent on reiterating already established character traits and story elements. Buchanan attempts to make this dialogue plucky and witty, however, no new information is being presented, so the reader just ends up disregarding the conversation.

Another element to this systematic problem is that many conversations that would happen in real life - like, what we need at the grocery store, joking between friends - which aren't bad conversations on their own, but in fiction, these things are omitted because they don't actually add anything to the progression of the story or character development. 

2. Some nitpicky things.

These next few are less systematic problems, and more nitpicky things that would have improved my overall enjoyment. 

Brittney was extraordinarily underdeveloped, and I wanted to see much more from her. I suppose she wasn't supposed to be, but the plot kicks itself into motion because of her arrival, and the synopsis indicated that Brittney was an integral part of the story. However, there is very little time spend with her, and that created a disconnect, and almost a focus vacuum in the story. I saw so much potential to develop Brittney and her relationship with Faye/Heather, but there just wasn't much there. If Buchanan had developed this relationship, there would have been a stronger emotional center to the story, and the reader would have been able to root for Brittney as well as Faye. 

My other nitpick is how the story handled the plot. Surely, Faye's parents would serve jail time for child abduction, as well as have their own biological children taken away by social services. I would have liked to see more of the consequences of the reveal at the end, as this would have grounded the story in reality. Twelve year old Faye has just had her entire world turned on it's head, which will most definitely cause psychological problems for not only Faye/Heather, but her whole family. I'm just not sure I liked the light take on such dark and destroying subject matter such as child abduction, despite this book being middle grade. 


The Good

1. Story Conventions

The prose, if a bit lackluster at times, is clean and effective. If there were any errors, they didn't stick out to me and didn't detract from my enjoyment of the story. The characters, aside from Brittney, were fun and adequately developed. The suburban setting, as well as the development of the mystery - albeit a bit predictable - were effective and kept me engaged. 

Overall, You'll Be Like Faye isn't a book I would normally read, and that probably affected my enjoyment of it. However, I can't deny that, despite it's flaws, You'll Be Like Faye is a solid middle grade novel that doesn't shy away from some darker subject matter. 

Objective Rating: 7/10
Enjoyment Level: 6.5/10

~The WordShaker