So for everything up to that moment, there was never any mention of April having particular religious beliefs. Not even when she had to face down a psychotic gun-man. The ‘adult virgin’ status was about wanting to wait for it to be ‘special’, then waiting too long and finding it awkward and a big deal. Then suddenly: angst! But not angst that would have made sense and fitted with the consequences of drunkenly sleeping with your best friend the night before the biggest exams of your life and it being your first time and oh-what-does-it-all-mean and where-do-we-go-from-here. Oh no. Jesus-angst. Sudden Jesus-angst.

What the hell?

Even Christian fans are going “Jesus wouldn’t hate her!”, incidentally. Which is sort of missing the point – that what we learn about April here isn’t just an articulation of misguided beliefs (although…), but something that flat-out doesn’t fit with everything we’ve learned about her before.

And on a storytelling level, honestly, it’s far less interesting. Super-Christian girl ‘saves herself’? Yawn. Woman with sexual desires but uncertain about what to do or how to get what she wants because society deems there’s an acceptable window for ‘first times’ and struggling with all that? And searching for meaningful connections in the oversexed hospital which realistically is going to be where she meets most potential love interests? That’s interesting.

Sometimes retcons can be fun, if they’re done knowingly. (The Simpsons episode ‘That 90s Show’ is one of my favourite episodes of TV ever.) But this one feels… a little ick. A little not-really-thought-out. A little let’s-amp-up-the-drama-by-surprising-everyone-without-considering-whether-the-surprise-makes-sense.

Plot twists and shock reveals are supposed to surprise and, well, shock. But when they come out of nowhere, it’s not clever plotting. It’s cheating, and it’s unsatisfying for readers, or viewers, or whoever.

Sigh. Back to my Cristina-worship and Arizona-adoration I go…

Megan Crane – I Love The Eighties
This is a slightly new departure for Megan Crane, who veers away from the strictly-real contemporary world to a science-fiction mystery one. 30something Jenna is obsessed with an 80s band and in particular the main singer, Tommy Seer, who died in 1987. An electrical storm sends her back to that year – mere months before his death. It’s up to her to figure out how to prevent his death – which is looking like it wasn’t an accident – while ensuring that no one finds out how she knows everything she does about the ‘future’. There aren’t quite as many wry observations on life as there are in Crane’s other books, but I really liked the take on Manhattan now-and-then, and political correctness, and 80s fashions. And the plot is delightfully twisty and dark, without ever getting too gritty. There is also, of course, a romance. And that too is rather fun.

Madeleine George – The Difference Between You and Me
I adored Madeleine George’s first YA novel, Looks, so was very excited about this book. Jesse is an angry activist rebel type, with big clunky boots and messy hair and a serious crush on Emily – student council vice-president, all pink and sweet and earnest and hypocritical. At school, they pretty much ignore each other; at the library every week they make out and it’s like nothing either of them have ever experienced. But things can’t stay secret or safe forever – and when the girls come into conflict over big business interfering with the school, something’s got to give. The narrative is mostly divided between Jesse and Emily, and I really loved seeing Emily’s self-justification and self-congratulation – she’s frustrating at times but very, very real. Gorgeous writing, relatable characters, and ‘issues’ without super-preachiness make this a YA book to keep an eye out for.

Hannah Moskowitz – Gone, Gone, Gone
David-Levithan-esque tale of two boys, Lio and Craig, falling for each other in Maryland in 2002, a year after 9-11 and against the backdrop of a sniper on the loose. Lots of interesting thoughts on loss and love, filtered through the two angry-angsty-teen-boy voices.

Megan McCafferty – Thumped
Sequel to Bumped, so more delightful zappy zany dystopian comedy. Melody and Harmony are both pregnant with twins – at least, that’s what the world thinks. In reality, there’s a tangled mess of secrets – one which might just have to unravel once someone goes into labour. The cast from the first book, including the swoonworthy Jondoe and lovely Zen, return, and there’s the same mix of snarky social commentary and genuine relationships (between sisters, friends, and partners) as in the first book. Feels more like a ‘part 2′ than a sequel, so well worth reading if you enjoyed the first book – but here’s hoping they get packaged as a single volume in the future.

Sarah Ockler – Bittersweet
Gorgeous, gorgeous, gorgeous story about winter and cupcakes and cute hockey boys and friendship and family and competitive skating. This is the sort of story you sink into, the kind that reminds you why contemporary YA is just so darn good. Loved it.

And then there are the things that you sort of wish were trends, or could be, but are highly unlikely to ever be. The things that do turn up in YA fiction, but aren’t a Big Thing, that probably never will be. Here are mine:

• YA set in the glam rock era, a la Velvet Goldmine
• boarding school stories (they’re more a staple than a trend)
• books set in Paris that are actually about French teens (rather than American or British teens visiting) but written in/translated into English
• contemporary YA focusing on artsy/performing students (possibly a mini-trend at the moment?)
• summer camp books
• LGBT fairytale retellings
• books about academic pressure
• teens in business (either setting up their own or working for one)
• dystopian comedy

What are yours?

Some writers don’t. They don’t because they insist that if an idea’s good enough, they’ll remember it.

This makes perfect sense for big-concept ideas, but not everything arrives into your brain as a big-concept idea. Sometimes what you write down isn’t the whole idea, even if it feels like it at the time. A book involves lots and lots and lots of ideas, not just one single concept.

(This is also why, incidentally, many books/films sound very similar when boiled down to their one-line synopsis. And why people worry much more about their one-line premise before ever having finished a manuscript. Once you’ve written one, you see how much more there is to a book – even if it can be tricky to reflect that in an initial pitch.)

Write down your ideas. No matter how vague they seem. Not all of them are the brilliant flash of genius concept-encapsulated-in-one-line type, but the less-brilliant can be added to something else to flesh it out a bit, and suddenly, there you go, you’re a step closer to writing that book.

Write down your ideas. And if you feel sheepish pulling out a big obvious I-Am-A-Writer notebook and scribbling away, take out your phone and write it in a text message to yourself.

(This also nicely doubles up as a useful activity for those moments where you’re awkwardly waiting for someone, don’t have a book to read, and need to pretend to be fixated on your phone. Win-win situation!)

One recent one was drinking games with Hennessy, which I presume means the cognac, rather than, you know, me. But then I started thinking about drinking games I would suggest to this person. Many of them were TV-related.

For example, while watching Desperate Housewives, drink every time Mary Alice says, “Yes….”

When watching Boston Legal, drink every time Denny Crane breaks the fourth wall. And start chugging whenever he and Alan Shore dance, dress up as flamingos, or get married.

Drink whenever Jack Donaghy on 30 Rock alludes to any other Alec Baldwin characters.

When watching anything featuring Betty White, drink whenever she gets the best lines.

For Brothers and Sisters and Cougar Town, drink when they drink.

Then I realised that these were very bad ideas which would leave people comatose and/or dead. Especially the last one.

Alas, searcher-person, I can’t help you on this one. Have a link to that episode of Black Books where they write the children’s book instead. Do not drink when they drink. Ever.

–> This is a new blog about YA fiction in the UK.

–> This is a great post from author Candy Gourlay about taking wrong turns along the writing path.

–> This is a useful post about writing in the mornings.

–> This is a thought-provoking post from YA author Kody Keplinger about disablity and diversity in YA fiction.

–> This is the first proper post at Cheetah Books, a group blog focusing on gifted & talented characters as represented in fiction – looking at Jane Eyre as a GT character.

–> And this is just delightful.

–> Finally, this is one of those love it/hate it Glee covers (have to admit I’m a fan)…

Sheena Wilkinson’s Grounded, sequel to the award-winning Taking Flight, is out this week. (Have read first few chapters – super stuff.)

Laura Jane Cassidy’s Eighteen Kisses, second in her Jacki King series, is out in May. (Have also read the start of this – can’t wait to read the rest.)

Graphic designer Ian Somers has his first book, Million Dollar Gift, out in May. (Try this one with the boys first.) And there’s another O’Brien Press debut from Erika McGann, The Demon Notebook, in September.

June sees Pauline McLynn, actress and writer for grown-ups, turn to teenage fiction with Jenny Q, Stitched Up.

Ruth Frances Long has her debut YA title, The Treachery of Beautiful Things, out in August. (Currently reading – review will be coming shortly.)

Sarah Rees Brennan has two books out – one with Justine Larbalestier, Team Human (out July), and the beginning of a new trilogy, Unspoken, out in September. (Review of the latter coming shortly.)

Denise Deegan’s And Actually…, the third book in her Butterfly Novels series, will be out in September. We hear from Rachel this time around.

And for younger teens, lots of further books in series. Bob Burke continues his Third Pig Detective Agency series with The Curds and Whey Mystery in June, while Judi Curtin’s third Eva book, Leave It to Eva is out in August. And September sees both Sarah Webb’s fifth Amy Green book, Dancing Daze (ballet!), and Anna Carey’s second Rebecca book, Rebecca Rules (school musical!), out in the shops.

(Do let me know if there’s any I’m missing!)

My thoughts:
Finally! It’s not that I haven’t been hearing about how great the books are for years, it’s just that a) I have ten bajillion things on the to-read list at any given time; b) things with sequels are often intimidating, particularly when there are tan bajillion things on the to-read list, and c) I’m not all that mad about action sequences. Or survival stories. It takes a lot to suck me in, and to persuade me to care about the characters. With The Hunger Games it wasn’t just Katniss’s bravery or burgeoning rebellion that did it for me, but also characters like Effie Trinket and Haymitch who made me buy into the world and believe in it, with their very different responses to their involvement in the lethal Games. Characters are tricky in dystopian fiction – they need to be authentically of the world they come from, rather than mouthpieces for the reader’s or author’s culture. But they also need to recognise – or grow to recognise – some of the problems within that world. It’s something that’s done really well here, not just with Katniss but with several of the characters. And I loved the media spin on the ‘survival’ side of things – it wasn’t just a case of surviving the Games but about creating a certain image or story for the cameras. (That, I think, makes it quite relatable – most of us haven’t been involved in a battle-to-the-death recently, but many of us create/monitor our online personas, for example.) Anyway. Loved the characters, the high stakes, and the fast pace. And Peeta, as I may have mentioned. I don’t necessarily see myself rereading these – part of the joy is seeing what happens next – but they definitely made me more excited for the movies.

And then I went to see the first Hunger Games movie (spoilers below)…

Movie-ish thoughts:
SQUEE. I really really liked the movie, and got shivers when Katniss volunteers (which is in the trailer, yes, but what a moment). Watching it so close to the books meant that there were very few surprises (in terms of big plot stuff), but also that certain things were anticipated. (Lots of biting of nails and holding of breath.) I thought the film format worked really well for capturing both the propaganda and the wackiness of the Capitol – seeing that clip they play at the Reaping, for example. I also loved-loved-loved any time we got to see the clips of the Games on the TV screens (though would have liked to see more of it), and also seeing behind the scenes with what the Gamemakers were doing. I adored Effie (she gets so many of the best lines) and Haymitch (loved that we got actual notes from him with the parachute, and seeing him working it with the sponsors was just brilliant) and Cinna (so lovely) and Caesar (hilarious). Loved that last scene with Seneca Crane. Adored seeing both Katniss and Peeta showing off for the cameras, and the unease Katniss has in contrast with Peeta’s smoothness. Would have liked a little more done with the berries scene, maybe a cut to the Gamemakers. Generally I felt it worked really well on film, although like so many adaptations, am not sure how it works for people who haven’t read the books (although I think most of the essential backstory and worldbuilding stuff makes it in there).
(Now, important question: did Peeta look a little short to you? Josh Hutcherson and Jennifer Lawrence are apparently the same height, 5′ 7”, though I suspect she gets put in boots that add half an inch or so. Is this some misguided attempt to make us seriously doubt that Peeta is better than Gale? Hmmph.)
(And another final thought: I don’t think the film lacked any goriness or viciousness, although I know some people have suggested such things. It’s pretty darn violent. What did seem very toned down was the disability side of things – Katniss’s hearing, Peeta’s leg. Much more striking than seven seconds of blood ‘n’ guts, surely?)
(Okay, I’m done.)
(PEETA.)
(Now I’m done.)

My question upon finishing was: ‘really, people rooted for Gale in this little love triangle? Seriously? Peeta! Peeta all the way! He BAKES!’

And I found myself wondering whether I had rooted for him the whole way through because that had been the author’s intention, or because of my own reading/interpretation of the text.

I can think of very few love triangles where I’ve genuinely understood the girl’s (tends to be the girl, especially in YA fiction – which is a whole other issue) conflict. Often when it happens in TV settings there’s a clear favoured outcome – e.g. with Duncan/Veronica/Logan on Veronica Mars, Logan wins all the way with the fans – or there’s a back-and-forth between what the writers are doing and what the audience is responding to.

With books the love triangle may be partly invented by the fans rather than explicitly there in the text. I’m thinking of the Harry/Hermione fans in the early/middling days of Harry Potter fandom. I completely fail to see what Hermione sees in Ron, and would have liked to have seen Harry/Hermione happen, but never had any sense that the books would ever go there, or wanted the readers to believe that they might go there.

With things I’ve read recently, the possible ‘love triangle’ has been more about ‘romantic false leads’ and ‘dragging out the tension’ than anything else. Yet I’m never quite sure to what extent this is about becoming attached to a particular romantic lead as a reader (Leon in Caragh O’Brien’s Birthmarked trilogy, for example) and not wanting to give up on that, rather than the whether or not the author is convincingly setting up a new/existing character as an alternative romantic interest.

I wasn’t torn about ‘Gale vs Peeta’ in The Hunger Games, though I know some people were and know that it’s there within the books as a dilemma. What I’m contemplating is whether this is about how this is set up, or about how I read the books as an individual reader, bringing existing preferences (e.g. baking over hunting!) to the equation.

And I also want to mention the one trilogy (albeit it still unfinished) where I genuinely was/am torn about the way the love triangle would go – Logan/Aura/Zachary in Jeri Smith-Ready’s Shade trilogy. Without getting too spoilery about how the books go, I found myself liking Zachary an awful lot while at the same time completely getting how Aura was conflicted and hoping that there might be some way of making the Logan thing work. But I also wonder to what extent that’s about the paranormal elements of that world and how they factor in to keeping people apart/together.

Just something I’m pondering. For anything (films, books, TV) featuring love triangles, did you know from the beginning who you were rooting for – or did you find yourself torn? And did the author/creator end up providing you with a satisfactory resolution? Do you root for characters or outcomes even when you sense the author/creator isn’t going to go there, or do you hunt for indicators about how it’ll turn out in the end?

I’m always reluctant to say to people “oh, you just have to make the time” too bossily, because the fact is I do not have a husband or children or invalids to care for or physical illness, and these are things that take time and energy away from individual creative pursuits and there’s no way of getting around that or willing it away with the power of positive thinking. You do have to make the time, to steal it back for yourself, if you want to write, because there will always be other people making demands of you, but honestly, truly, the only person who can assess just how feasible that is in your current situation – if it is genuinely something you can do without devastating other parts of your life – is you.

But I do think that if you are in a situation where you absolutely cannot make the time, if you genuinely-truly-when-you-really-think-about-it-and-are-honest-with-yourself don’t have the choice to steal bits of time for your own creativity, twenty minutes here and there, that it is not good for you. That it’s damaging, not ‘normal’, not ‘just how things are for everyone’, and that – whether you were to end up using time for yourself to write or to do anything else – it’s a situation where it is really worth asking for help, if you can, where and when you can.

I want to say as a general rule, no one reading this is in that situation, but then again, I don’t know. I don’t know your situation, the particular circumstances, the stresses and pressures and demands of your life. I don’t know just how bad it is. My point is, I guess, that it’s pretty damn bad if you really-genuinely-truly can’t find any time to write ever. ‘Cause most of us? We can. We really-genuinely-truly can. It is not something that requires drastic lifestyle choices, quitting jobs and abandoning our lives. It’s seeing little pockets of time and using them in a focused way. That’s all it is. Writing doesn’t have to take over your life to fit into it.