Time to Write

The best children's books according to the Guardian authors panel

If you write children's books or are looking for a good book for a child (maybe early Christmas shopping?), here are the ones a panel of authors judging children's fiction for The Guardian (UK) selected as the best. Even if you're writing for adults, it could be useful to check these out to see how authors are getting the attention of younger readers.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2015/nov/19/david-almond-wins-guardian-childrens-fiction-prize 

"David Almond has won the Guardian children’s fiction prize with a retelling of the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice set in the north east of England, A Song for Ella Grey.

Guardian children's fiction prize book club: A Song for Ella Grey by David Almond

Told in lyrical, dream-like prose, Almond revisits a story that he said “has pestered me ever since I began to write” - the legend of music-maker Orpheus descending to the underworld to bring his love back to life. Set in contemporary Tyneside, Almond’s version features inseparable best friends and sixth-formers Claire and Ella. Through Claire’s narration we learn how Orpheus entrances Ella and the terrible tragedy that unfolds as a result.

The book beat novels by Kate Saunders, Frances Hardinge and Sally Nicholls to win the only children’s book award judged by authors - find out more about the brilliant books on the shortlist and the longlist!

Back to A Song for Ella Grey, and you don’t need to just take the judges’ word for it - here’s what three of our award-winning Young Critics think: 

Megan Foley:

Almond’s writing really is something to envy. It is truly magical; his descriptions alone transport you from your warm room to the blustery beaches of the North. The words seem to leap off the page and spark to life within you. As I read, I got so completely absorbed in the writing that I forgot where I was and what I was doing. I only thought of the story and what was going to happen.

Charlotte Walden:

The beautiful poetic language in this book is unmistakably written by David Almond. The power in the short, often repeated sentences sends a chill down your spine and wakens your imagination so that you are drawn in by every convincing word.

Sara El-Khamlichi:

I think that this book is not just a “book”, but a literary masterpiece.

------

the four shortlisted authors in the Guardian children’s fiction prize for 2015:

 Photograph: PR company handout

Five Children on the Western Front by Kate Saunders (Faber)
E Nesbitt’s classic Five Children and It gains an outstanding sequel, with the ingenious conceit of transposing the cosy Victorian setting for the eve of the First World War, yielding devastating results. Enthralling, witty and often unbearably moving, an elegy to not only a lost generation but the first golden age of children’s literature.

A Song for Ella Grey by David Almond (Hodder)
An intense, windswept re-working of Orpheus and Eurydice that reverberates with intensity and passion, as beautifully presented as it is written. The transformative potential of art and the imagination radiates from every page of this book, which is as short, intense and all consuming as the love story it describes.

The Lie Tree by Frances Hardinge (Macmillan) 
A compelling fantasy spun from one mesmerising idea: what if telling lies gave you the power to discover other people’s secrets? This gothic yarn of Victorian fossil hunters gone bad features an unforgettable young heroine, who fearlessly takes on monsters of the present and the past to build herself a better life.

An Island of our Own by Sally Nicholls (Scholastic)
This is a joyful Treasure Island-style mystery for the Instagram generation. A loveable young pair don’t face pirates as they seek their late auntie’s buried hoard, but more contemporary devices - from crowdsourcing clues to metal detectors - winningly deployed in this funny and tender exploration of what makes a family."

 Photograph: PR IMAGE

 

Link to the longlist: http://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/gallery/2015/jul/10/the-guardian-childrens-fiction-award-2015-longlist

 

Robot authors are waiting in the wings

A report on Cnet news says that an artificial intelligence program called Sheherazade is able to create interactive choose-your-own adventure fiction.

It's not quite ready to kick us out of our chairs yet. According to a paper published by the program's creators, "At this point, human-authored narrative still remains the most cost-effective means of generating an interactive narrative experience."

Sure, because cost-effectiveness is how to judge fiction.  Actually, given how little most writers earn, it's hard to imagine anything being more cost-effective.

Still, we can't be complacent. Here's how the paper sees the future:

"Open interactive narrative shows promise in reducing authorial burden in the near future."

Authorial burden? I didn't even realize that writing was a burden...

It goes on, "Sheherazade-IF and the lessons we learned in creating and evaluating it serve as a first step in creating human-quality interactive narrative with almost no human authoring required."

What will we writers do with all that free time once AI has freed us from the heavy lifting involved in making up stories? Perhaps join a conspiracy to destroy the robots?

Write it right: flare vs. flair (et tu, New York Times?)

What's happening to the New York Times? They promoted one of their food articles today with the sentence, "Turn your stuffing into muffins for a festive flare to the popular side dish."

Leaving aside the fact that muffins made out of stuffing are not muffins in my book, presumably the writer meant flair, not flare.

The Oxford dictionaries site says:

Flair means 'a natural ability or talent', as in:

She had a flair for languages.

Or 'a smartness of style or manner',

whereas flare means 'burn suddenly' or 'become wider', as in:

The flare of the match lit up his face.

There was a slight flare at the ends of his trouser

The dictionary gives dash, panache, verve, oomph and pizazz (sometimes spelled pizzazz) as synonyms for flair, although I have trouble imagining stuffing muffins as having any of those characteristics. 

 Within the article they quote a food blogger: "“Last year at Thanksgiving I made this recipe completely vegan and gluten-free and my family (who is normally very wary of anything made without meat or dairy) completely ate it up.”

Later in the article they quote the blogger again and use her quote in a call-out as well: "...this recipe is so fun that it takes center stage."

I've given up expecting proper grammar from the likes of USA Today and most online outlets, but I expect the New York Times copy editors to be fuddy-duddies like me where language is concerned.

Related articles

An epidemic of word conflation!

Write it right: Mindless?

Do you know the difference: awhile vs. a while (vs. protracted)

So what's the deal with sitting down?

Well, they've ruined food for us, and drinking, and being in the sun, so I guess it was only a matter of time before scientists would get around to finding out that sitting is bad for us as well. This a topic of special interest to writers, since we spend most of our working time on our posteriors.

SITTERS, BEWARE!

We're talking about serious stuff here: "Studies and reviews have shown that higher levels of sitting are linked with cancer, diabetes, heart disease and even an early death, independently of whether a person takes regular exercise," says ScienceDaily. On the psychological level, sitting down is associated with an increased risk of anxiety. 

What's a writer to do? Here's a round-up of the most recent research and some suggestions for minimizing the dangers.

STAND UP!

How can you reduce the amount of time you spend sitting down? Some people use sit-stand desks. Although the desks designed for this are expensive, there are inexpensive stands you can put on your normal desk. 

You can also stand during your breaks. Linking it to something you like to do or do regularly, like making phone calls or checking your email or social media, makes it easier to remember. You could also set a repeating alarm on your phone or computer to remind you to stand at various points in your work day. 

THE TEN MINUTE SOLUTION

A study at the University of Missouri-Columbia reports that when you sit for six straight hours it impairs your vascular function. The good news: walking for ten minutes after all that sitting restores your vascular health.  

If you work in an office, there's a reasonable chance that at the end of the day you'll walk ten minutes to the bus stop or train station, but if you drive and it takes you only a couple of minutes to get to your car (or if, like me, you work at home), walk around for ten minutes at the end of the day.

THE TWO OR THREE MINUTE SOLUTION

A study at the University of Utah suggests that "spending two minutes of walking each hour is associated with a 33% lower chance of dying" --presumably they mean dying prematurely...

The study's authors suggest walking for two minutes an hour as well as getting the recommended 2.5 hours of moderate exercise per week.

For writers, pacing while trying to figure out the next scene or chapter sounds like a good strategy.

Another study, this one by the National Institutes for Health, says taking a three-minute break to walk in the middle of sedentary activity can improve children's blood sugar levels and reduce their risk of getting diabetes--so drag your kids away from the X-Box or Playstation and make them walk around with you.

THE FIDGETING SOLUTION

A study at the University of Leeds suggests that fidgeting may be enough to stop long bouts of sitting from shortening your life. 

If you don't fidget, should you start? I suspect either you're a fidgeter or you're not and the downside of being one (like making people around you nervous or annoying them) probably outweighs the benefits, so I'd go for one of the other solutions above.

PASS IT ON

If you know somebody who spends a lot of time sitting, why not pass this along to them? 

Roundup: An ugly word; Nicely written; Online security tip

AN UGLY WORD

Here's a word I hope doesn't catch on, as used in Entrepreneur magazine:

"When new hires are onboarded at iCracked..."

When they're fired, are they made to walk the plank?

NICELY WRITTEN 

Written by Joan Acocela in The New Yorker in a review of Lord of the Dance: Dangerous Games

"There is a certain kind of theatrical spectacle at loose today--think Cirque du Soleil or the Olympics opening ceremony--that unites such things as videos of white stallions, great belches of flame, and what look to be projections of H-bomb tests with squads of women who appear to hail from cosmetics ads. To judge from the song lyrics, all the people involved have a 'dream,' and it eventually comes true, for optimism is as central as hyperbole to this genre."

ONLINE SECURITY TIP

A lot of sites use "What was the name of your first pet?" as a security question. The problem is that we tend to be pretty unimaginative in naming our first pets, so it's not hard for hackers to get a match if they run a list of typical pet names. I've forgotten where I've read this tip, but the suggestion was to make your answer the name of your favorite author instead. The odds are small that hackers will have Mark Twain or Kurt Vonnegut or Margaret Atwood on their list of pet names.

LEAST COMPELLING CONTEST PRIZE OF THE MONTH

"Win a fact-finding forest trip to a European paper mill" ...(but if this does excite you, go to www.twosides.info/competition).

Want to be more creative? Let there be dark!

A German study conducted a couple of years ago found that people came up with more creative ideas in a dark environment than in one flooded with light. The researchers theorized that the darkness reduces inhibitions and provides a feeling of freedom.

Maybe this is connected to the fact that so many writers are most productive at night--although the reduction in the number of distractions during that time probably also has a lot to do with it.

It might be worth experimenting with different light levels when you're doing creative work to see whether this works for you.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics...online

Deception is nothing new, of course, but the internet gives it new outlets. Here are a few I've spotted lately...

OPRAH IN THE SLAMMER!?

Click bait: Links that say something like, "Ten celebrities who have criminal records!" and show a picture of (for instance) Oprah Winfrey. Really? Oprah has a criminal record? Well, no (at least as far as I know). When you click, you'll see ten celebrities who have criminal records, but the person pictured won't be one of them. 

BE POPULAR, PAINT YOUR HEAD BLUE!

In the crazy statistics department: "According to one study, 85% of shoppers say color is the primary reason they buy a product." I'm sure there are some contexts in which that's true (maybe socks?) but as a generic statement it's ridiculous. By the way, apparently blue is the most popular color.

FAREWELL, BIG AND PUMPED SYLVESTER?

And in the totally false category, I spotted a link that said, "Good-bye Sylvester Stallone." He died? Nope, the article says the producers of the "Expendables" series have asked him not to appear in future installments because obviously he is using too many illegal steroids. That's not true, either (at least the part about him being asked to exit the series--he started it and he is one of the producers). The site is shilling some kind of supplement that supposedly legally increases your natural human growth hormone.

I've just spotted another link that says "Judi Dench is gone," with the subhead "We bid farewell to Dame Judi." I refuse to open it but am happy to report that Dame Judi is still with us.

It's not just "buyer beware" but "reader beware"...and also advertiser beware and reviewer beware...

HEY, THAT ROBOT IS DRIVING A CHRYSLER!

Advertisers who think they are buying eyeballs often actually are getting robots. A Bloomberg  Business report gave the example of a Chrysler ad on a site for a food and travel lifestyle magazine. Only two percent of their ads were seen by humans. Bloomberg writes: "Fake traffic has become a commodity. There's malware for generating it and brokers who sell it."

POST A BAD REVIEW? YOU'LL PAY!

Meanwhile, some companies are trying to force customers not to post negative reviews about their products. Techdirt.com reports that The US Federal Trade Commission is suing Roca Labs, makers of weight-loss products, for violating federal law by warning buyers that by purchasing their products they agreed not to write negative reviews --and to pay hefty fines if they do so.

Yep, Roca Labs said if you posted a negative review--even one that's honest and non-defamatory--you'd have to pay $100,000 in damages! Hmm, what were they so worried about?

Roca Labs apparently did go ahead and sue some people who complained, but dropped the lawsuits.

The FTC also alleges that Roca Labs didn't reveal that it paid users to post positive reviews. 

What do they make, anyway? A "non-surgical gastric bypass"--red gunk (industrial food thickeners mainly, apparently) that "dramatically limits your stomach capacity" (because it's full of red gunk). They also have "Anti-Cravings" that, according to their site, "empowers you to easily overcome cravings for snacks" and a reinforcement red pill which the site says is "magic." Well, that last part sounds pretty honest. When somebody tries to sell you magic, you kind of know what to expect.

The FTC stated, "Unfortunately for consumers, Defendants are simply selling common, dietary fibers with exaggerated claims at a grossly inflated cost. Their weight-loss claims lack any scientific basis, and are often flat-out false."

Interestingly, when I checked the website it said "Roca Labs' site is undergoing improvements for the next few days and new customers cannot be accepted." I wonder whether deleting the requirement not to post negative reviews is part of the improvement.

PS: By reading this post, you agree not to leave any negative comments, or else you have to buy me one of those big new iPads.

Is it OK to criticize during a brainstorming session?

One of the cardinal rules of group brainstorming sessions is, "not criticism!" The idea is that you note every idea and then analyze them in a separate session.

However, a study at the University of California, Berkeley, found that groups in which criticism was allowed came up with more creative ideas than a similar no-criticism one.

My guess is that this can work if the criticism is brief, constructive, and when the session is led by someone who makes sure the group gets back on track quickly.

If you were to conduct such a session, it might be useful to ask the criticism to take the form of how the idea could be made better rather than why it couldn't work.