Is it Necessary to Sexualize Characters in YA Fiction?

Update: Click Here to read a post that also does a great job discussing this issue

Over the last couple days I've seen some comments on Tumblr and elsewhere around the writing world regarding character descriptions. One comment that sticks out in my mind says something along the lines of, "Why do we have to be told if characters are hot or ugly?"

I don't remember the specific details of this person's comment (I've tried finding them again, but with no success), but they went on to say stuff like, "Authors feel the need to say nerdy girls aren't as attractive as popular girls," and "the bad boys are always hot, but the good guys are always geeky and gross." At the end of their comment, they said, "I wish we weren't told how attractive characters are, but just describe what they look like and we'll decide from there."

Let's be honest. Not all authors are guilty of this...but there's something to be said about popular books, particularly books that appeal to teen girls -- and women in general. This could also explain why there are nearly twice as many girls who read than boys.

Think about the last book you read? Chances are, if the main character was a female, there's plenty of description about how hot a guy she meets is, or how sexy Brad-the-football-captain is. You know, descriptions about his arms, chest, legs, and even face. If they hold hands or touch at any point, the FMC probably talks about how firm, yet gentle his grip is.

I'm right, aren't I?

Now let's think about male narrators. (Male narrators? That's an outrage! We need strong female main characters!) Moving on...in my experience reading books like An Abundance of Katherines, 13 Reasons Why, It's Kind of a Funny Story, and a few others, we're told how cute this one girl is, how hot this other girl is, how big this girl's breasts are, how plump this girls lips are...the list goes on and on.

Point is: both genders are guilty of sexualization.

I bet you haven't seen WordArt since the 5th grade.

Let's think about the comments I mentioned above. Why is there a tendency for describe what makes a character attractive? Simple: it should make the character appeal to readers. But think about it: unless you're writing 50 Shades of Gray, is it really necessary to know how hot or ugly a character is? Does it have to be explicitly said, "He's soooo hot, and his muscular biceps are soooo dreamy." (As you can tell, I don't write erotica). Going further, is it necessary to say, "She has the perkiest boobs I've ever seen."

You can argue that these kinds of descriptions are necessary to characterize the main character, that these kinds of thoughts go through people's heads all the time. You'd be right. These thoughts do go through people's heads.

Stay with me.

When it comes to YA fiction, there's a fine line between what's okay, and what's not okay. But in order to determine those, we have to draw a distinct line between contemporary YA fiction and genre YA fiction. I'm defining genre YA fiction as fantasy, science-fiction, paranormal, magical realism, etc etc.

Contemporary YA Fiction

Ex. The Fault in Our Stars, 13 Reasons Why, If I Stay, Fangirl, It's Kind of a Funny Story, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Looking for Alaska, Eleanor & Park

I think it's easy to say contemporary YA has the longest leash when it comes to sexually explicit material and descriptions. These are stories about realistic teenagers living teenager lives, doing teenager things and thinking teenager thoughts. Thus, we're going to see a lot of description about how hot girls are, how muscular guys are, how sensitive guys are, how soft a girl's breasts are...

You get my point.

This genre of YA...this style of writing can get away with that. It's gritty. It's realistic. The readers can immediately relate to the characters because they act like normal teenagers. Perhaps you've even been to the town the character lives in, like the same books, adore the same celebrities. That's the point of contemporary YA: to show you're not alone, and to explore issues revolving around what being a teenager is like.

In my opinion, the sexualization presented in contemporary YA books is okay and normal. Don't go overboard, but if a teenager can think it, it will show up.

Genre YA Fiction

Ex. Divergent, The Hunger Games, Harry Potter, Eragon, City of Bones, The Maze Runner, Twilight, Matched, Delirium

This is where the line gets drawn. We have to define what is and isn't appropriate for books in these genres. It's a dangerous line that authors must cross carefully.

When it comes to genre fiction, readers aren't coming into the book expecting to read a girl's love life in Small Town, USA. We want an adventure. We want action. We want run-down cities and exotic planets. We want cool guns and serums and magic and death and zombies and monsters and vampires (well, we're getting bored of that).

The point is, we want to escape into a world we can only imagine that will eventually look good on the big screen.

Inevitably, there's a romance brewing in these books. And inevitably, we get to see one character's intimate thoughts about another character. The author, however, has to be careful. Remember, most of us didn't come here for the gushy-gushy makeout session. Most of us are strictly focused on the plot, and we're analyzing how everything that affects the plot.

So when the girl meets the hot guy, we don't want to be bombarded with physical descriptions about the attractiveness of said guy -- usually. It's okay to toss them in there. But remember: in genre fiction, plot is essential.

I recently read a book where the main character -- a girl -- met a literal beast of a man, and all she talked about from there-on-out was how golden his skin was and how wavy his hair was and how warm his chest was, and how big...well...use your imagination.

Uuuuuuugggggghhhhhhh.

Now, maybe it's just because I'm a guy and I don't care about how hot that dream-guy was. But when those physical descriptions started taking over, I started losing interest. Descriptions about how hot this dude was were on every. Other. Page. It took me out of the story, and I ended up glossing through the rest.

Let's return to the original comment at the top of this post: "I wish we weren't told how attractive characters are, but just describe what they look like and we'll decide from there."

I, for one, agree with this statement -- but really only for genre fiction. Contemporary can go do whatever it wants. But whether I'm reading a dystopian novel, a paranormal novel, or a speculative fiction novel, I don't care how hot that girl is or how muscular that guy is, and I think a lot of people feel the same way.

We want to read about the world and events and figure out how the characters will overcome the problems. So create that world, ignite those problems, and develop those characters. Don't give us cardboard cut-outs. Give us human beings (or whatever species your characters are).

Here's a tip: tell us what the characters look like. Hair color, height, if they wear glasses, if they stutter. But don't go to Build-a-Hunk™ and start explaining how hot and sexual this character is. We, as readers, don't want to see your late-night bedroom fantasies.

It's creepy.

Yes, even creepier than Bronies.

So should authors keep it simple? Should genre YA fiction be limited more toward unique traits and features, rather than a fictional Hot-or-Not? Let me know what you think in the comments. Personally, it's okay to toss in a pinch of spice, but don't make it too hot.

Follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Pinterest.

Subscribe to Get it Write Tonight!

Scroll to top of page in right sidebar.

Enjoy this post? Check out these others:

5 Ways to Intentionally Improve Your Story's Quality

5 Creative Ways to Enhance Your Story

The Most In-Depth Query Letter Advice on the Internet

How to Create a Vile Villain

5 Query Letter Mistakes You Should Avoid

6 Tips to Hook Readers in the First Chapter

Also be sure to check out my Get it Write Tonight ebooks, Characters and Edit! That! Book!

While you're at it, check out my New Adult Science-fiction novel, Embassy.

5 Query Letter Mistakes You Should Avoid

Be sure to read the follow-up post:

The Most In-Depth Query Letter Advice on the Internet

Writing your first query letter can be daunting. You have to pitch your book to an agent in 1-2 paragraphs (not including your hook line and bio) and you have to make it memorable.

In the near(ish) future, I'm going to write a post about the anatomy of a successful query letter with an in-depth analysis of my query (which has garnered a few partial and full requests, so yay!)

Without further ado...here we go.

Mistake #1: "MY BOOK IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE....!!!!!"

No, seriously. People have said that in their query letters. Not even joking. I used to fall victim to that, and now I've changed my methods because I learned that saying your book is different is you screaming I'M AN AMATEUR!!!

You need to know what your book is about. If somebody told you a chapter number, you should be able to tell them what happens in that chapter. As the author, it's your job to say, "this happened because this happened because this happened." Show that your story is connected to itself, or else it'll look like you write a bunch of events that don't seem connected.

But when it comes to the query, you have to explain one question: "What is the main character's conflict?" That's it. Nothing else. Hook the agent with the conflict.

Mistake #2: TRYING TO SQUEEZE IN EVERY OUNCE OF DETAIL THAT YOU CAN

Do yourself a favor and don't rewrite your book in the query letter. Save that for the synopsis. Leave stuff out. Lots of stuff. You have around 250-350 words to make the agent/publisher flip to the next page.

Remember, the only question you have to answer is, "What is the main character's conflict?"

In two paragraphs, introduce the character, introduce the situation, and show the agent that there will be a journey. Only include the main character and the character who has the largest influence on him/her throughout the story.

See, instead of stuffing the query full of shallow plot points, now you can expand on one or two points, giving the agent a chance to connect with the story and characters.

(Stupid) Mistake #3: "MY BOOK IS JUST LIKE THIS BEST-SELLING NOVEL OVER HERE!!!!!"

*cough* no it's not *cough*

I understand you spent the time to write a book and that's about as far as you'll get for a long time. Come on. I've been writing for 10 years and I'm not professionally published yet. You wanna know why? Because I wrote three books and, at the time, thought they were the best books in the whole wide world.

Today, I shudder at the thought of them.

When you write a book, I bet ten-to-one you think you have the next Harry Potter in your hands. You are so hopelessly in love with your book that of course everyone will love it! How couldn't they?

Basically, be humble.

Unlike this cat.

Mistake #4: "MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY ALL SAID----"

And to the trash it goes.

For some reason, I can't stop laughing at this.

Mistake #5: "MY HOBBIES INCLUDE WRITING AND READING."

Really? I wouldn't have guessed!

Yes, I have seen this in query letters....and....sadly I included these in the first query letter I ever wrote. But that was 7 years ago.

Personalize your hobbies and pastimes. Be specific. Make yourself look interesting. What do you do that nobody else does? Heck, what's a quirky thing you do?

As Haymitch Abernathy would say, "Give them something to root for." Show why you are unique. What makes you qualified to write this book? Why should they want you as a client?

As I mentioned above, I'll have a post analyzing my own query letter sometime in the near future. Subscribe and share to keep updated with my posts!

Follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Pinterest.

Enjoy this post? Check out these others:

5 Creative Ways to Enhance Your Story

5 Ways to Engage Readers...with Style

10 Effective Writing Rules

How to Create a Vile Villain

(Most) Self-Published Authors are a Bunch of Whiners

6 Tips to Hook Readers in the First Chapter

(Most) Self-Published Authors are a Bunch of Whiners

I'm sticking by that. Take as much offense as you want. Go on and rant. Get angry. Curse me from behind the screen. But you know what?

IT'S TRUE.

I've been in the writing business since 2004 and let me tell you: self-publishing was a tiny itch on the beast that is the publishing world. Over the last decade, that itch became a scratch, and that scratch, a cut, and that cut?

A FULL-BLOWN AMPUTATION.

The year 2010 saw the start of a new era, an era where "self-published" grew from a whisper...TO A SHOUT. Before 2010, self-published books were like the underground of the literary world. Sure, Indie Authors have always been the "elite" of the DIY world. Indie bookstores, Indie festivals, Indie awards, etc etc.

But self-publishing has begun to swamp out the true meaning of Indie. Strictly in terms of writing, it's becoming increasingly difficult for someone with Indie aspirations to write a book, hire an editor (or edit themselves), and gain a reputation as an Indie author who can appear at awards ceremonies solely through the mere credit of his/her work.

And here's why.

Self-publishing, more and more, is being used as an excuse. People write a book, send it to an agent or publisher, and when they're rejected, they get angry and upload their book to an online POD. Tada! Book gets printed and sells a few copies...and the author starts laughing and bad-mouthing the traditional publishing world for not recognizing their genius talent.

Oh, so those ten 5-star reviews were all complete strangers who bought your book? You mean, you didn't give a copy to close friends and family and tell them to write reviews to make you look good? (And don't they dare give you anything less than 5-stars!!!)

Now that you have all those glamorous reviews, EVERYONE who reads your quoted tweets and Facebook posts to mass-advertising writing groups will instantly buy your book, and you'll be a best-seller by this time next week, right? RIGHT???

Let's take a step back. The whole point of this post lies in the title: (Most) Self-Published Authors are a Bunch of Whiners.

You, reading this. Chances are you're a self-published author. In fact, I can almost guarantee it (unless this post goes viral and gets reblogged by "Writer's Digest," which is extremely unlikely). Answer a few questions:

1. How many rounds of editing did you do?
2. Did you submit to an agent or publisher?
3. Why did you choose to self-publish?
4. How many books have you sold?
5. Are you making a living off of writing?

I put these questions in a specific order. After you write the book, you have to edit the book. And edit the book. And edit the book. And edit the book. AND EDIT THE BOOK.

Humans today are impatient creatures. Editing, for many, is boring, and those on whom editing takes its worst tolls inevitably convince themselves their writing is as good as it can get. They let the fact that they even wrote a book become their hamartia. This leads to a lack of discipline. And what is discipline good for?

Editing books, waiting for agent responses, and moving on from rejection to try again.

If you can't edit your book more than twice by yourself, there's a problem. Don't skim through and think readers will ignore technical and structural problems. They won't. Every time there's a typo, or a missing word, or a string of identically-structured sentences, readers get tossed out of the story. They WILL judge your writing based on little things you thought they'd forgive you for.

Then you submitted to an agent and got rejected. Maybe you tried again. And again. When the tenth rejection letter comes in, many people get frustrated beyond measure. "My book is genius!" many will tell themselves. "There is NOTHING wrong with my book! The agent is stupid!" others will say.

The excuses go on, and on, and on. This is where people instantly start turning to self-publishing -- and this is why self-published authors are a bunch of whiners.

Maybe this doesn't apply to you, but a vast majority of self-published books are ATROCIOUS. I've read my fair share of excerpts and full-length books from the freebies and discounts on Amazon, and let me tell you, it amazes me that anyone would let the public read such crap.

Basic grammar mistakes, dozens per chapter. Commas in all the wrong places, misspelled words, weird italicization and fonts, horrible paragraph and sentence formatting. Parentheses inserted every five words to introduce an internal thought. Chapters upon chapters upon chapters of backstory before the plot even begins. Terrible pacing, or an incomprehensible plot.

Yet what do many of these books have? 5-star reviews saying "the best new author in town!" or "promising to be the next Stephen King!" or "best book I have ever read!"

People. Please.

Then we take another look -- and what's this? A 1-star review? "Don't listen to the 5-star reviews," he warns. "They are clearly family members and friends who don't want to hurt the author's feelings. This book needs to be looked at by a professional editor, STAT."

The review has a comment...from the author himself. "How dare you accuse me of paying off my family and friends!" he argues. "Just because you're a nobody and my books are selling doesn't mean you have to spit on my success!"

Yes, that was actually based on a real response I saw from the author to a reviewer.

I've looked up some of these authors. I've read their blog posts. And you know what I've found? They all share similar stories, how they couldn't find agents (after writing two drafts and sending out six queries), so they decided to self-publish and voila! Instant author.

Now they'll go around tooting their horn, shoving their book down the throat of anyone they catch at the library or bus station. "It was a hard process," they'll say. "Every agent told me there just wasn't a market, but look! Here's the real thing, and it's got lots of 5-star reviews! You should buy it!"

These "Instant Authors" will sell 50 books in a year, and inside, they'll be boiling with rage. But when asked about sales, they'll pluck out a vague response, saying "sales are steady now," or "I'm taking some time off from writing to catch up on work."

Many will check their sales ranking every day, or read new reviews. Any reviews less than 5-stars (yes, 4-stars isn't high enough for most people) will wound them. If the person doesn't rant about good the book was, the author hates that person.

They'll never admit it, though. "What went wrong?!" they'll ask themselves as they read another bad review condemning the terrible writing.

What went wrong is that they didn't have discipline. They weren't patient enough. They were too prideful and didn't want to taint their reputation by asking for the help of a professional editor, or even a critique group. They believed a lie they themselves created.

I read so many posts today saying "traditional publishing is corrupt and ruining the industry!" But you know what? I think anyone who says that is just whining that zero of the five agents they queried picked up their half-edited manuscript and turned them into an overnight bestseller.

"Traditional publishers take all the money from the authors!" And yet those authors are still making more than you. Besides, there are employees to pay, ink to purchase, and shipping to account for. In the end, everyone makes just about the same, because the success of the company depends on the success of the authors.

"Traditional publishers don't market! It's not fair!" And....self-publishing is different? Hmm. Who's doing the marketing? That's right: YOU. And hey, at least with a traditional publisher, you might get an advance that lets you pay for that marketing, rather than being all out of pocket.

Here's the point: self-publishing, in today's society, is being used as an excuse for why you aren't famous and making millions off the book you wrote last month. Many people -- and I mean the authors -- want to see their name on the book and give it to everyone they meet on the street. Fail-proof plan. They just expect readers to fall in love with their books, not cringe and write bad reviews.

The quality of self-published books, as I said waaaaay above, is ATROCIOUS. This trend is ruining the credibility of people who actually take their time to develop their characters and plot, tighten up the story, and weed out all those little mistakes. There are a few self-published gems, but they're so difficult to find when so many others are pathetic attempts at fame and fortune without caring for the basic principles of writing.

Sure, the traditional market has its fair share of crappy books. But you can be sure that most of them are scrutinized under a microscope to fix as many errors in content, structure, and technical, before ever seeing the light of day. Some editors read the same book 500 times before it reaches stores. That's more than most authors, the people who wrote the book.

So let this be a message to anyone who blames the traditional market: stop blaming the big publishers for your problems. Stop cursing agents for rejecting you. Stop believing you wrote the best book ever. Stop, and edit your book one more time. Send out one more query. That's all it might take to get a yes.

Because if you have to tell a story, even a bad one, at least make sure it looks good. But if you don't care enough to revise your book until it's polished to a professional level, then get off your high horse and let someone with more discipline take the reins.

CLICK HERE TO READ PART 2

Enjoy this post? Check out these others:

5 Query Letter Mistakes You Should Avoid

Why I Don't Plot My Novels

5 Awkward Things Writers Do (That We Can't Help)

6 Tips to Hook Readers in the First Chapter

10 Creative Writing Tips

Punctuation-Induced Whiplash

Why "Allegiant" is the Worst Ending to a Trilogy, Ever.

Okay, so I bought Veronica Roth's Allegiant the day it came out waaaaaay back in October, and spent about one week reading it (yes, I take my time). Well, here it is after the Divergent movie release, and I still HATE Allegiant, to the point of rage and fury.

I've wanted to write a post about for a long time. From being beaten over the head with the "Be Brave" message, to the plot holes galore, this book was just plain old awful. I'm going to say this now: there will be spoilers, and I will express my hatred a lot.

#1. THE ENTIRE BOOK WAS TERRIBLE -- NOT JUST THE ENDING

You know what irks me? When the people who liked Allegiant think that the people who hated it only hated it for the ending. THIS IS 100% FALSE IN MOST CASES. I, for one, don't care that Tris died. She won't be missed. I shed no tears. But that's not the point I'm making. I'll save the ending for later.

What I'm saying is that the entire book was just awful. From page 1 to page 526, I was in a constant state of disbelief and anger. I wasn't disappointed -- I WAS ANGRY. There were so many plot holes, you could have played Whack-a-Mole. Every other page had a contrived scene. Here are some examples:

Escaping the fence: only one person chased them, and did absolutely nothing...except....

Killing Tori: completely unnecessary. The only reason she died was so that we would be "shocked" when her we found out her brother was still alive....three pages later.

Nita: purely used to make Tris jealous/distrustful of Four.

Tris's and Four's Arguments: Four blatantly says to Tris that even though she has been right about everything else, she isn't right about David and Nita and Matthew launching an in-the-compound attack. Next chapter, the attack happens, Uriah goes into a coma (and later dies), and Tris says, "I told you so." In reality, Four would NEVER have distrusted her.

Evelyn and Marcus: I wanted to smash my head into a desk when Evelyn -- the most evil woman in the series, suddenly became the good guy in ONE SENTENCE. Then there's Marcus -- who wants all the power and control to himself -- cowers like a dog when Four and Evelyn tell him to give up. Johanna joins in....and....that's that.

"You've got to be F#^%& kidding me!!!"

#2. THE PACING WAS HORRIBLE

I had no clue how long after the events of Insurgent it had been. Allegiant starts very vaguely, trying to pretend like we had all read Insurgent the night before. Some people did!....but most of us didn't. I would've preferred some exposition so I could gather my bearings, but there wasn't any set up before all of sudden they're running for the fence and Tori dies and George is really alive and there's a gene-manipulating government a couple miles down the road where Natalie Prior came from and something about a journal and then and then and then....

WHAT IS GOING ON.

Some parts of Allegiant flew by, and others dragged on for dozens of pages. The largest pacing issue I found was near the end, when the final "attack" (pssh, yeah, "attack." So anti-climatic) was going to happen. They specifically said it would be in 48 hours.

A day went by.

Then another.

Then...another?

And then finally, the attack. Add that up. I got two-and-a-half days when I counted (yes, I went back and counted in the book). Clearly the 48 hours in this book must be completely different than the 48 hours I'm used to, because two-and-a-half days is 60 hours. So David forgot to launch the attack on time. How convenient, because our self-righteous hero squad wasn't ready in 48 hours.

David Tennant explains the pacing of Allegiant.

#3. THE TITLE OF THE BOOK

Okay. Titles should be important. Allegiant was not.

Apparently -- and we're only told this in passing -- there is a group banding together for the Evelyn vs. Marcus showdown called the Allegiant. You think, "Woah, an army! Things are about to go down!"

Yeah, they go down. DOWNHILL.

You hear nothing else about the Allegiant except that they're a group preparing for a battle. They aren't important to the story what.so.ever. They do nothing! NOTHING! Oh, yeah, except for that one -- count it: ONE woman who killed Tori for no discernible purpose.

On a serious note, I want to throw out some more appropriate titles:

• Convergent -- things were about to hit the fan. Ideals...armies...good genes vs. bad genes (ugh...) Still, this would've worked.
• Resurgent -- the exposure of the good genes could have led a new era for the experiments, so after a battle (which never happened except for that pathetic excuse in the compound), a new generation could have risen up and worked toward genetic purity.
• Disclosure -- it would have fit nicely with the whole experiment cities theme. You know, an experiment's information gets disclosed to the public. Essentially, that happened.
• Infringement -- Roth could have taken this book a whole different direction and had some sort of conflict with the Fringe colonies. That would have been cool. Instead, we got one chapter of talking about how bad the Fringe is.

I couldn't find a better picture, so I chose this.

#4.  THE SPLIT P.O.V. OF TRIS AND FOUR

In Divergent and Insurgent, Four is this tough guy that we respect, fear, and admire. In Allegiant, he turns into Tris, and worse.

Four's voice was feminine in this entire book. This guy cried. This guy described Evelyn's face for an entire two paragraphs. It was horrible. You couldn't tell Tris and Four apart AT ALL. I had to keep flipping back and forth to the chapter pages so I knew who I was following! It helped when they were in the same scene, because then you knew you were following the opposite of "xxx says."

Roth needs to learn how to write in a different voice. Take some time and write a few pages, then go and change them up with a different flow, some new diction, and a variety of different action tags. It works wonders. In fact, this was my second-biggest problem with the book. The plot holes/horrible writing were my biggest.

#5. THE ENDING, OBVIOUSLY.

Why do YA trilogies (or series, for that matter) have generally-bad endings? I'm not talking about Tris's death. I don't care that Tris died. She didn't need to die, and her death was completely illogical characterization-wise, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

We have a string of 1-paragraph to 1-page chapters. It was like seeing snippets and then jumping forward and seeing snippets and jumping forward. This didn't work. Two and a half years flew by in literally five paragraphs.

Here's the thing: I think this ending could have worked. The reason it didn't is because of the rest of the book. The events just should not have added up to this. You could tell that Roth blatantly wanted this to be the ending, but didn't know how to connect the dots. There were so many illogical decisions and contrived issues: popping the truck tires...really? And George and Amir are gay for each other?

I also want to say that I think Peter deserved a noble redemption. Screw Caleb, he had his chance. Peter, on the other hand, should have wanted redemption, not a cop-out. His character was building toward something good, but then he suddenly had a change of heart? No.

Overall, Allegiant was an awful book, and these are my biggest reasons. There are more (like the unnecessary F-bombs. Really?) It was so disconnected to the stories of Divergent and Insurgent that it doesn't even deserve to share the same characters. A poor ending to a relatively decent series.

Have you seen the Divergent movie? I thought it was excellent and I would definitely go again. I will not be seeing Allegiant, however.

What are your thoughts about Allegiant?

Share below in the comments!

Enjoy this post? Check out these others:

10 Effective Writing Rules

Why I Don't Plot My Novels

5 Awkward Things Writers Do (That We Can't Help)

6 Tips to Hook Readers in the First Chapter

10 Creative Writing Tips

5 Awkward Things Writers Do (That We Can't Help)

#1. WE STARE ABSENTMINDEDLY AT PEOPLE IN CROWDED PLACES

We don't mean to be rude. We probably don't even realize we're staring at you. I can't count the number of times I've sat at a table and just let my eyes glaze over as I get lost in thought, trying to create the perfect sentence in my head.

Don't take it personally

#2. WE MUMBLE TO OURSELVES

This is often paired with staring into space or at the computer screen. You'll see our lips moving, and if you're close enough, you'll hear some awkward murmuring. When I do this, I'm usually trying to sound out a word or playing word association with myself to think of synonyms.

#3. WE GET EXCITED WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS IN REAL LIFE THAT HAPPENS IN OUR BOOK

We also get this look of amazement. When things happen in real life that happen in our books, it blows our minds. Take me, for example. One time I was sitting in a coffee shop, drinking my coffee and eating a croissant. I looked out the window and watched a little bird hop around pecking things off the ground before flying away.

Perfectly normal...except that I describe this exact same situation in Embassy, when Arman and Captain Blitner are eating breakfast in a cafe on Belvun. Coffee, croissants, and watching a little bird out the window. It blew my mind.

#4. WE HAVE ANXIETY ATTACKS WHEN PEOPLE ASK US TO EXPLAIN OUR BOOK

We stutter. We look away. We repeat the same thing four times, and feel the need to explain it because we're afraid you don't understand what we mean. Then we get nervous because we think we're making our book sound like a yawn-fest, so we wrap it up way too fast, usually with, "And...yeah. I--it's hard to explain."

How we feel.

#5. WE DON'T WANT TO BE DISTRACTED...BUT WE DON'T WANT TO BE RUDE

We try to hide. It's the truth. When we're in the zone, we hate it when you distract us. Then we'll sit there and have a forced conversation with you for the next hour, all the while feeling worse and worse because we aren't getting any work done. There comes a point when we start looking for excuses to get back to writing....but we don't want to be rude. It's a Catch 22.

"Crap..."

Do you have anything to add to this list? Leave a comment!

Enjoy this post? Check out these others:

10 Effective Writing Rules

5 Query Letter Mistakes You Should Avoid

Why I Don't Plot My Novels

6 Steps to Effective Writing

6 Tips to Hook Readers in the First Chapter