Karen Sandler

Tag: neal shusterman

  • RTW – Best January Read…and a Dilemma

    I can dispense with YA Highway‘s Road Trip Wednesday prompt, What was the best book you read in January? pretty quickly: a tie between John Green’s The Fault in Our Stars and Neal Shusterman’s Bruiser. I read them in close succession, which is probably why I can’t seem to pick one over the other. Bruiser surprised me because I’d forgotten the book description and thought for the first quarter or so of the book that it was just a wonderful contemporary YA (then we got to the really cool stuff). My misapprehension was partly the consequence of having just read the very real-life The Fault in Our Stars and also because I’d spaced the fact that Neal Shusterman doesn’t really do non-spec-fic books (if he has, someone please point that out).

    With John Green’s incredible book, the timing of my reading it could have been better. I’d just lost my dad (on January 9th). So reading about doomed teenagers just tore the grief right out of me in a flood of copious tears. I can point up no “fault” in Fault. It was hilariously funny and heartbreaking in turns.

    On to the dilemma. Book reviews. I’m a published author, and someone who works hard getting my book, Tankborn, and my name out there. Like many of you, I’m also a member of Goodreads. When I remember, I put up the book I’m currently reading, although more often than not, I either don’t put it up until I’m partway through a new book or I never add it to my list at all.

    But when I have put a book up, then finished it, Goodreads of course wants my rating and a review. If I loved the book, no problem. I give it four or five stars, sometimes write a few lines of a review, then go on my merry way.

    But what happens if I really didn’t like a book? It could be that it was just not my cup of tea. It might have started out great for me (love those Kindle samples), but then I realized it wasn’t what I thought it would be.

    In other cases I end up reading a book that really sucks. To my author eye, it’s lacking in basic craft, the voice is blah, the plot turns are silly, the ending is kinda stupid.

    If a book just wasn’t to my taste, if it was otherwise good but went in a direction I just didn’t like, I try to be fair. I’ll rate it maybe a 3-star, then state in my review that it’s a personal thing, no real judgement of the book. But if the book is in my view really dreadful, I don’t say a thing. I don’t rate the book, I don’t review it at all. Why? Because I know as an author how awful a scathing review can be. Why should I contribute to another author’s angst? Why risk having readers come across that review and thinking, Man, this Karen Sandler is a real witch?

    So I hold my tongue. It’s not like the world is waiting with bated breath for my opinion. There are plenty more people out there willing to review the books I don’t like. Let them speak their mind.

    So, am I being prudent? Or cowardly? Should published authors review other authors’ books on sites like Goodreads?

    Or should we just keep our mouths shut?

  • What’s Science Got to Do With It?

    Last Thursday, #MGlitchat’s topic of the week was science fiction in middle grade books. I write YA rather than MG, but I was kind of jonesing for a writerly discussion (and science fiction is a subject dear to my heart), so I joined in. It proved to be a lively topic.

    In the course of the hour or so I was participating, a few of us got into a side discussion of what constituted science fiction. Since I’m of, ahem, a certain age, and have been reading SF for a few decades (no, I won’t tell you how many), I ascribe to the classical definition of the genre. That is, it’s science fiction if, were you to remove the science element, there would be no story.

    One of the other folks on the chat wondered if that definition is no longer valid. I think it’s a fine question to ask, but I just can’t think of another definition that would serve the same purpose. It is, after all, science fiction, so there has to be science. I guess the only question would be, can you call it SF if there’s no actual science? Or if the only “science” aspect are space ships, or laser guns, or people use unfamiliar slang?

    Are there books that one might want to call science fiction, but have no science integral to the story? For instance, is Suzanne Collins The Hunger Games science fiction? It certainly has a science fiction feel to it. But what’s the science?

    How about the Games themselves? There’s a great deal of science not only in the creation of the horrific arenas, but also in the tracking of the participants every moment. There’s a certain scientific aspect to the projection of the future as well (although that element of the series could also be labeled “speculative fiction,” which is a more generic term).

    What about my own book, Tankborn? Is it truly science fiction? I believe it is. Yes, I could have created a straight fiction novel based on the Indian caste system but it would have been an entirely different book. Instead I used caste in a futuristic novel in which a bastardization of that system re-constitutes itself in a society that has left earth and colonized another planet. There is science in the creation of the genetically engineered GENs, science in the circuitry wired in their bodies that is used to control them, science in the devices that are used to interface with the GENs’ annexed brains. Some of the “science” in the book, e.g., my lev-cars and illusory holographic projections might not be strictly necessary to the story, but they do flesh out the setting. However if the science of the GENs were pulled out of Tankborn, many crucial aspects of the story would fall apart.

    So are dystopian books, in and of themselves, automatically science fiction? I can’t speak for every dystopian out there since I haven’t read them all (yet :-)). But in addition to the Hunger Games trilogy, there are other dystopians that would certainly qualify in my mind as SF. Neal Shusterman’s Unwind is an excellent example, as is Mary E. Pearson’s The Adoration of Jenna Fox. In both books, certain scientific advances (in addition to social changes) led to the dystopian world depicted in the story. In fact, without the science and social aspects in tandem, there would not be a story.

    I’d love to hear others’ opinions of what science fiction means to them. I’d like to hear what books you think are science fiction and why you think they are. For instance, I believe Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale is a fantastic SF book, but some might call it literary. So what are you reading in science fiction? And what’s science got to do with it?