For years, I’ve believed that I suffer from bad line karma. In some past life, I was extremely offensive when it came to queuing up and I’m paying for it now. No matter which line I choose at the checkout, I’m going to pick the line that has the most problems. New checker, 9,000-year-old woman paying by check, six-year-old paying with pennies. I’m sure you’ve been behind them all too. But not nearly as much as I have. Trust me.

Since I started doing author events, I’ve discovered that I was a writer in a past life as well. Because now I have bad author event karma.  I’ve only done three events so far but something has gone haywire at each. Not enough to truly ruin the event, but enough to let me know that I’m on the karma gods’ list.

Cases in point:

–at my Loft event with David Levithan (which actually went very well overall), my books never showed up for the bookseller to sell. (My magnificent husband saved the day by dashing home and getting the few we had on hand to sell.)

–at the Midwest Independent Booksellers Association Trade Show, I was told the wrong time to show up and was NOT told that I would be pre-signing 50 books. (I am, thankfully, very early to most things, so was able to sign the books AND have lunch, which I would have missed if I’d shown up at the time I was told. And not that pre-signing 50 books is a bad thing. It’s just the “pre” part, which wouldn’t have happened if I’d shown up at the time I was told.)

–at the Edgerton Book Festival this weekend, I was told to arrive at the opening address (delivered by the wonderful Alison Arngrim, who played Nellie Oleson on LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE) at 9:00am so I could be introduced with all the other authors present. The festival coordinator started the day by introducing all the authors…. except me. (To his credit, he realized his mistake after Arngrim’s talk and gave me a quick shout out.  I should also probably mention that this man, the coordinator, has been my best friend for 25 years.  That probably makes this story even sadder, right?)

That said, these brushes with karma aside, all three events had positive sides.  I got to read with the amazing David Levithan. I got to be table-hopping buddies with Andrea Cremer, who is funny and charming and a DOCTOR WHO fan (even though we discovered we don’t see eye to eye on everything WHO related…). And I got to meet some really wonderful people in Edgerton.  I also got to take this picture, which just might be my most favorite sign ever.

You KNOW you want to see the toxic one. Right?

It may sound like I’m complaining. I’m not. Like I said, all three events went well.  But I’m on my guard. And a bit skittish about future events. And in desperate need of some regressive past life hypnotherapy to figure out what I could possibly have done to earn both bad line AND bad book event karma.  Any thoughts?

I’ll start by stating something that I hope is obvious: No, you don’t need an MFA to be a writer. You don’t need an MFA to get published.

It’s been fashionable in recent years to bash MFA programs.  The criticisms are many:

MFA Programs churn out cookie-cutter writers who all write exactly the same.

There may be a modicum of truth to this. I don’t think any program encourages this.  It makes me think of the armed forces, where the first goal when you enlist is to break you down and strip you of your individuality in the belief that you will be more efficient if you’re just like everyone else.  In an MFA program, you just can’t let ‘em do that.

MFA Programs are only about literary writing and are useless if you want to write genre or commercial fiction.

It’s true that most MFA programs I know focus on literary fiction, mainly in what is assigned as reading.  And the snobbier programs make no effort to hide their disdain for genre/commercial fiction. If that’s your interest, I recommend doing your homework before signing up for one of those programs. But understand: the building blocks of writing are the same no matter what. If you get fed a diet of literary fiction, you can’t help but use that knowledge to write your vampire novel.

MFA Programs are full of pretentious, turtleneck-wearing snobs.

Actually, I think they stopped wearing turtlenecks about 30 years ago. But, yes, you’ll see these people too. While they were in the minority, my program certainly had them.  They all subscribed to the “mercy is for the weak” school of critiquing, where close friends were vaunted with praise while anyone not in the clique was vivisected. In many respects, it resembled high school.

MFA Programs bilk people out of money by imparting knowledge you can get by reading a few books.

See, here’s where I take exception. And I take a lot of exception.  For a while, the number of “I hate MFA” or “You don’t need an MFA” blog posts had dwindled but recently I’ve seen a few more crop up. (I won’t link to them because, well, if you’re that curious, do a Google search. I’ve no desire to send them traffic.) The crux of the argument is, “If you really want an MFA, go read these five books on craft, join a critique group, and **poof**, you’ll have your MFA.”

The problem I have with this approach is that it fails to take a very key part of the process into account: the fact that not all people learn the same way. Or at the same speed. Or respond to the same sort of stimuli.  This approach offers a cure all for a population of writers with very diverse backgrounds and capabilities for learning.

I’ll tell you what an MFA program did for me. It gave me context.  It was part reading books on craft and part reading examples of writers doing interesting things and part experimentation. And it was interaction. See, that’s how schools work. We don’t just throw books at kids and say, “There’s your education.” Teachers guide and help provide context to what can be an overwhelming sea of information.

That’s what I wanted. From years of reading, I knew a lot about writing. It was almost instinctual. But when something didn’t work for me, I had a hard time articulating why. The MFA program gave me the vocabulary I needed. It helped me identify flaws in my own writing, (“It’s not working, Brian, because your main character isn’t doing anything!”) and be precise when providing constructive criticism for others.

You could give five books on craft to five different writers and they’ll each walk away with five different ideas of what was said.  One of them might absorb the information completely and come away a better writer. Someone else, who doesn’t learn well visually, might come away as stupefied as ever.  Not their fault… they just need some context.

And, no, having an MFA doesn’t guarantee you’ll be a good writer. Just like going to med school doesn’t guarantee you’ll be a good doctor. (As the old joke goes, what do you call the guy who finished last in his class at med school? Doctor.) But I’m willing to bet that if you go and put in the work, you’ll learn something that makes you a better writer.

To sum up:

–You don’t need an MFA to write or be published.

–MFA programs can help guide writers who learn at different speeds and with different styles gain a better grasp of craft.

–Stop slamming MFA programs, you dork.

–I’ve shared this link before but it’s definitely worth sharing again.

For those who don’t necessarily hang on my every tweeted word, I will be doing a reading from WITH OR WITHOUT YOU this Saturday (Sept. 17) at the Loft Literary Center in downtown Minneapolis at 8:00pm. I’ll be reading alongside noted author David Levithan (BOY MEETS BOY, THE LOVER’S DICTIONARY, EVERY YOU, EVERY ME). Preceding the reading will be a panel to discuss LGBT issues in YA literature at 7:00pm. (Note: I am not part of the panel, for which I am eternally grateful.)

You can find out more here.

Image stolen from the Loft's website. Although, technically, they stole my headshot, as I only gave out my book cover. So there's blame to share.

Because I’m sure you’re dying to know what happened when I crossed the threshold into Pottermore….

A wand chose me at Ollivanders…

And I got sorted…

Surprising. Not disappointing. But surprising.  Guess it pays to close one’s eyes and chant softly, “Not Slytherin…. Not Slytherin…”

I’m in good company with the likes of Professor Flitwick, Mr. Ollivander, and, of course, Luna Lovegood. (I’m just gonna pretend that the Sorting Hat was drunk the day it gave us Gilderoy Lockhart.)

Anybody wanna buy a nice set of Hufflepuff Quidditch robes?

Remember Googlewhack?  That was the game where you entered two, hopefully disparate search terms with the goal of returning one—and only one—hit on a Google search. It’s become harder to do (did you know there are 816,000 hits if you search for cantankerous vortices?) which might be why I don’t hear people speak of it as much.

I’ve created a new game but I don’t have a name for it yet. Maybe you can help me. The game goes like this:

1)      Identify a blogger who is obsessive about checking their stats: number of visitors, from whence their visitors came, and, most importantly, what search terms were used to arrive at their blog.

2)      Google the following without the quotation marks: “[person’s name] eats babies for breakfast.” (The more specific you can be about the person’s name, the better. If they’re an author, put ‘author’ before their name. If they’re a painter, put ‘painter.’  If you know the city where they live, add the city. The object is to get a hit that will take you to their blog.)

3)      Click on any result that leads to their blog.

4)      Sit back and watch that person freak out (on their blog, on Facebook, via Twitter) about the weird stuff people Google to find them.

5)      Repeat with other weird phrases [(person’s name) undulates with saturnine munchkins] for added amusement.

What’s a good name for a game like this?  I feel like ‘evil’ should be in the title….

Today’s true confession: I used to watch GENERAL HOSPITAL.

I got hooked as a kid in the late 70s/early 80s when the Cassadines attempted to freeze the world with the Ice Princess.  (Mom was watching it and it had a sci-fi angle. How

Elizabeth Taylor as evil matriarch, Helena Cassadine. Do NOT mess with her.

could I not watch?)  Over summer vacation, I continued to watch it off and on, even when the sci-fi like stories stopped, into the early 90s.  I’m stunned to learn that many of the characters that I watched back then are still on the show today (some even played by the original actors).  Haven’t tuned into GH for quite some time, although they’ve tried their best in recent years to lure me back (Robert Scorpio and Anna Devane came back?!?).

But soap operas are dying.  The last few years have seen these daytime staples, some that started as radio programs back in the ‘30s, get picked off one by one.  ABC recently announced that two of its juggernauts, ALL MY CHILDREN and ONE LIFE TO LIFE, are being cancelled, leaving GENERAL HOSPITAL as the sole soap (for how long, no one knows).  NBC long ago vanquished most of their line-up (DAYS OF OUR LIVES remains) while CBS clings to THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS and THE BOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL (again, no one knows how long they’ll last).

What does this have to do with anything, Brian?

I think it’s very telling.  It’s the clearest evidence there is that storytelling tastes evolve.  This is absolutely true of individuals.  If it wasn’t , we’d all still be reading picture books exclusively (not that there’s anything wrong with adults reading picture books).  As we mature, our tastes change. We require different sophistication in storytelling.

What’s interesting about the demise of the soaps, in my mind, is how it demonstrates this can happen across a culture as well. In fact, I think if you were to look at TV writing by decade, it would be very easy to see how the way stories are told has changed. Compare a sixties sitcom (I DREAM OF JEANNIE, let’s say) with something more contemporary (RAISING HOPE). We see a lot less slapstick today (although sometimes, in the case of the BBC show MIRANDA, it still works).  I think the last time we had a sitcom dealing with some sort of magical premise was in the eighties (I could be wrong; it may have spilled over into the early 90s). Nowadays, magic seems reserved for drama. Strangely, our sitcoms have become more grounded in reality.

I had a bit of a rude awakening recently when I had a chance to stream some episodes of SCARECROW AND MRS. KING, a show from the 80s that I LOVED.  Let’s just say it didn’t stand the test of time. I often think of 80s TV as high on concept with very archetypal characters. Plot holes in the writing and implausible situations were irrelevant as long as the PREMISE was intriguing.  A show like SAMK wouldn’t fly today on the sheer implausibility of the government hiring a scatterbrained housewife to regularly work with one of their top agents on matters of national security.  No one would buy that today.

The soap opera successor?

Does this mean our tastes have become more sophisticated? Not really. Look at GLEE. In fact, I might have expected a resurgence in the popularity of soaps, given the success of GLEE, which shares many of the same storytelling elements as the soaps (extreme melodrama, fly-by-night relationships…maybe soaps can be saved by some in-your-face musical numbers).

While the demise of soaps is sad in that it marks the end of an era, it’s not really surprising. Art is far from a constant.  Just as the tastes of viewers (or readers) have changed, writing styles have evolved over the years as well.  It’s not always immediately obvious. Every ten years or so, some writer, feeling vilified, attempts to prove that editors today don’t know what they’re doing. They take something like JANE EYRE, submit it as their own work, then gloat as it gets rejection after rejection and claim that editors are stupid. But, really, the editors are responding to the current market.  JANE EYRE, if it didn’t already exist as a classic, wouldn’t sell in today’s market. The tastes of readers have changed. And so has the way we write.

The clock is ticking...

We can argue ad nauseam as to whether or not this is a good thing. You might say that things like TV and movies have fed society a diet of easy, making it harder to appreciate the lush prose that once was a hallmark of good writing.  Maybe.  In the end, I don’t think there’s any way to fight it.  I think it can be a tricky balance for a writer, trying to write what they want but also keeping up with the times.  Does that mean you have to rewrite everything you’re doing and mimic the style of whatever’s at the top of the New York Times Bestseller list? Absolutely not. If anything, it’s more important than ever to be a unique voice, shouting against the din.  But it’s also important to have a strong understanding of where writing has been and where it’s at.  It’s often hard to predict where it’s going. I think that’s because it’s up to those unique voices to set the course. To be something unlike anybody’s seen and to be prepared to go with the flow. Daytime soaps kept their heads above ground as best as they could. In the end, the formulas that once made them successful are what brought them down.  The key to having a successful career as a writer? The ability to adapt.

After an absence of (mumble, mumble) months, THE BLOG IS BACK!  What’s the reason for this mysterious absence? Why the sudden reappearance? Why should anyone care?

To answer these and other probing questions, I have gained unprecedented access to myself for a no holds barred, down-and-dirty interview that asks the questions no one else dares. For the first time ever, I ask myself the questions that must be asked and demand answers.

Disapproving interviewer

Me: So, Brian…. Whatever happened to that “I swear to blog at least once a week. Probably on Mondays” thing. You know, the one you mentioned in the new manifesto of your blog.

Me: Ugh, I know, right?  I suck. That’s all I can really say. I suck on toast.  But, if it means anything, I’ve been busy.

Me: We’re ALL busy, Brian.

Me: I know, I know. Remember? I suck.  But here’s the sitch.  The short version is that I found myself on deadline for two books simultaneously.  I needed to turn in the second book of my middle grade series and, at the same time, I got my editorial notes on the first book.  This was actually kind of cool, because it gave me a chance to look at both books back to back and address some continuity issues.  But it made for a TON of work in a relatively short amount of time.

Me: Cry me a river.

Me: Hey, I’m trying here. So most of my life for the past couple months was devoted to finishing the second book and re-writing the first.  It was great to have my editor’s notes on book one while working on book two.  It allowed me to tailor it a bit more, knowing which elements she wanted me to bring out and which could be softer.

Me: How’d it go?

Me:  Pretty well, I think. Wrote a lot of new material for the new book, based on my editor’s awesome notes.  I’m feeling much more confident about it now.  I’ve even got a shiny new (non-official) synopsis up on my Middle Grade page that gives a clearer idea of what the book is about.  It’s currently set to publish in Fall 2012.  And I’ve heard some exciting things about the cover. Can’t wait until I have stuff to share in that regard.

Me: Okay, fine, you were writing. But lots of people are busy writing.  Andrew Smith is working hard on his books and manages to blog every day.  What’s your excuse?

Me: Well, Andrew Smith is a god.  How can I compete with that?  Also, that thing about me sucking? Yeah, that.

Humble, repentant interviewee

Me: Maybe you need a class in time management.

Me: Maybe yo momma does.

Me: What?

Me: Nothing.  I do feel bad. But busy is busy. I even had to neglect my monthly post to Smack Dab in the Middle (the guilt of which still gnaws at me). I think I’m back on track now.  I mean, I’m not convinced that troves of people read this blog anyway. The only comments I get are spam. Lots and lots and LOTS of spam. But, hey, I’d like to have a web presence. And Twitter (@BrianFarrey) is just soooo much more geared to my attention span.

Me: So, you’ll be blogging weekly again?

Me: That’s the plan. You’ll forgive me if I get off track?

Me:  No.

Me: Oh.

Me: Mercy is for the weak, man.

Me: I’ll keep that in mind.  I’ve got a few posts planned for the near future so, fingers crossed, this will once again be a hub for the inane and unusual.

Me: I’ll alert the media.

Sorry, no new post today.

I know! I know! Eat some ice cream to stave off the crippling disappointment.  I’m on lockdown until Book 2 in my middle grade series is acceptable for human consumption. No tweets. No blogs. No nothing.  Will return soon with the promised award presentations. Stay frosty!

First of all, THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH for helping me spread the word about WITH OR WITHOUT YOU.  I’m very pleased with the response and I’m incredibly glad the winners were chosen randomly as, if was totally up to merit, I wouldn’t be able to decide because you are all quite clearly awesome.

The Random Number Generator (whom I’ve named Bubba) has spoken.  The following winners will be contacted via Direct Message.  (Or you can write me on the Contact page to claim your prize.)  All prizes also include a signed copy of WITH OR WITHOUT YOU. Congratulations to everyone!

FOR WRITERS

The winner of 1^st prize—a full manuscript critique of up to 60,000 words—is:

Justin Olson @Olsonwrites

The winner of 2^nd prize—a critique of the first 50 pages of your manuscript—is:

Mandie Baxter @MandieBaxter

The winner of 3^rd prize—a critique of the first 10 pages of your manuscript and your query letter—is:

Vivian Lee Mahoney @VLeeMahoney

FOR READERS

The winner of 1^st prize—the collection of signed YA hardcovers—is:

Laura Stewart  @lalalalaurajane

The winner of 2^nd prize—the collection of signed YA paperbacks—is:

Adam @RoofBeamReader

The winner of 3^rd prize—a $25 gift card to the book retailer of your choice—is:

Cheyenne Schenck @TheCheyShow

Now, before you all unfollow me en masse, let me just say:  I’ve got another book coming out next year. And who knows if a very similar contest will emerge to celebrate the release of that book as well.  Might be worth keeping me on your follow list (even if it means an endless torrent of DOCTOR WHO fanboy slobber) for the next giveaway…