Lessons From a Crappy Movie

So I just watched the 2008 movie Jumper. I honestly only watched it to see Hayden Christensen's acting skills in a movie other than a Star Wars one. And with that, I was suitably impressed. Dude can act, y'all. But the movie itself (and I knew this from the start) is kind of crappy.

Don't get me wrong, the premise is great and has tons of potential, a man who has teleporting powers and is hunted by an organization that wants to kill all teleporters. But the movie had several mistakes along the way that turned what could have been a great movie into a lackluster one.

The biggest problem was that the writers didn't trust their viewers to understand the backstory without voiceover. The first couple of scenes are filled with voiceover from the main character, David (Hayden Christensen). Voiceover in movies is always risky because it's the epitome of telling instead of showing. And us writers know that's a big no-no in most cases.

via GIPHY

The thing I noticed, though, was that the movie didn't even need the voiceover. All the things in the voiceover were shared through the scenes. The emotional beats were strong on their own and would have impacted the viewer much more than they did with the voiceover. The voiceover cheapened the emotional beats that could have made the beginning of the movie strong.

The second problem that doomed the movie was David himself. Hayden Christensen played him very well, no doubt, but the writers gave their protagonist no redeemable qualities and no reason for the viewers to root for him. David was an objectively bad person. He robs banks to fund his lavish lifestyle of hopping around the world with his teleporting ability vacationing all the time. Nevertheless, he could have been a sympathetic character viewers rooted for with just one simple action.

via GIPHY

A common term for making antiheros likeable is "petting the pooch." If in the beginning of his kind of crappy lifestyle, David had pet a pooch, then that could have solved the likeability problem. This didn't need to be literally petting a dog, though. In fact, the movie had the perfect opportunity to have David pet the pooch. After the beginning set-up scenes, David is zipping around his apartment filled with pictures of his travels, generally having a good time and living for himself. He turns on the TV and watches a brief news clip of people stranded in a flood. The reporter even says that there's no way to get those people out. David takes this clip in, and what does he do?

He hops up, gathers a bag, and travels to London to pick up a hot date. He then travels to Fiji, which was just hit by a big storm, so he can catch some large waves.

Jeez. Talk about insensitive.

If, instead, David had used his buildup of supplies and money to help the stranded people and then gone on his vacation, that would have presented an interesting dichotomy, where he is using his gift compassionately, yet also doing terrible things with it and living a pretty selfish life. This simple change could have given viewers a reason to root for David.

One more simple change could have brought this movie up from lame and forgettable to memorable. This is the acceptance of moral nuance and introduction of a character arc. David, a selfish Jumper, is chased by a fanatical organization that wants to kill him simply for possessing his abilities. The movie uses this plot to emphasize the message "Murder bad, David good." However, there were seeds of complexity that could have enhanced the movie if capitalized on. For instance, the main bad guy (he was played by Samuel L. Jackson, so he was too Samuel L. Jackson for his name to register) tells David that all of the Jumpers, even if they start out good, always end up using their abilities for selfish ends, which in his mind justifies murdering them all. This claim actually is a fairly valid one, coming from the classic Invisible Ring scenario, which posits that any normal man, given an invisible ring, would become completely immoral and selfish, taking whatever he wanted because he has the power to do so.

David protests that he's different, but this conversation, which should have come earlier in the movie, could have been the impetus of his character arc (which was practically nonexistent in the movie). David is different, in that he didn't have a slow slide to selfishness but started out that way. A slow realization of his selfish behavior, and that he actually does fit the reasons Samuel L. Jackson wanted to kill him, could have slowly transformed him from the selfish man living for himself to the man you got a glimpse of in the pet the pooch moment we didn't have. In the end, without the character arc, David ends up in pretty much the same place he started out in, as does the bad guy, except for the fact that David has a girlfriend now.

Hayden Christensen is a good actor, but the writers for this movie really dropped the ball.

via GIPHY

In Christian Fantasy, How Far is Too Far?

   I love fantasy. A lot. Some of my favorite stories are fantasy stories: Ilyon Chronicles, Narnia, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars (no, Star Wars is not really science fiction, it is a space fantasy, and yes, I will die on this rock). Fantasy, however, can be a mixed bag, full of Lewis knockoffs, Tolkien knockoffs (I swear, if I see one more stuck up nature obsessed absolutely perfect elf race that is so much better than humans in every way, I will throw up), or Star Wars knockoffs. Sometimes if you're especially lucky, you'll find one that is all three at once (Eragon, anyone?). Christian fantasies done well can be world-changing (see stories mentioned above except Star Wars), but done badly can be super cringey. However, worse than bad writing is Christian fantasy that attempts to work in Christianity in some way, shape, or form, but does it in a way that misuses the Bible.

 
   There are many ways to incorporate the Christian faith in a fantasy novel, but there are three different ways that are by far the most common.

1. Transplant the Bible into your fantasy world

   This first option uses a fantasy world but just doesn't change anything about the Bible. Jesus is called Jesus, historical figures like Daniel, King David, and Moses are talked about, etc. This is the option in the type of fantasy referred to as Kingdom Adventure tales and in any fantasies set primarily or exclusively on Earth.

Pros:

No messing with the Bible.

No grey areas.

No blurred lines.

No worries.

Cons:

No magical powers. Obviously, if you're working with the rules of our world, you can't just throw magic in the mix and expect people to be okay with that. If you want something like magic anyway, you'd better have a science gobbledy-gook explanation to pass it off as superpowers or something. Use lots of Latin words and mention anatomy stuff like mitochondria and the blood-brain barrier. Leave no ambiguity. There can be no room in here for demons, because, sadly to say, in this world, there are real things like witches and mediums that aren't always just con artists. 

No races other than humans. Otherwise, your theology gets stretched and weird and it just doesn't work. Bryan Davis tried to put literal dragons in his modern fantasy set on Earth, and he still wanted his characters to go around quoting the Bible and converting people, so he wound up having an ordinary human-dragon kid traveling to literal Hades (which is different from Hell in his books) and becoming a literal Messiah to lead the dragons to redemption because the last Adam-first Adam thing means that Jesus died for the human race (see Answers in Genesis articles about aliens), and without this random half-dragon kid to die for them, the dragons would be stuck in Hades forever. Yeah. Best just to avoid the whole thing. If you still want other races, see the next option.

The more obvious it is that your world is not Earth or a fictional country on Earth (a la Wakanda), the more you stretch your readers' suspense of disbelief. If this is clearly a fantasy world, there needs to be a really good reason why they're using Earth's Bible. You get a little more leeway the younger your target audience is, but if your target audience is teens or up, this obvious break of suspension of disbelief can ruin a story for some readers. 

2. Lewis's Supposal

   Next, you have the Lewis route. That is, you have the Bible and the Christian faith in your world, but everything is called by different names. The Jesus figure might be a lion. Everything is adapted to fit the fantasy world, but it's still clearly the Christian faith.

Pros:

You don't have to stretch readers' suspension of disbelief to the limit.

Your world can have different rules than our world, as long as you don't bump against solid theological rules.

More races! (Just please...no elves. I'm begging you! And if you have to have elves, please, for the love of all that is holy, don't portray them as perfect and more holy and just overall better than humans.)

Your story can be very powerful with this supposal
More freedom with world-building.

Cons:

As many ways as there are to do this right, there are many more ways to do this wrong. This creates a whole lot of grey areas and blurred lines, and it's hard to know what's right and what's not. There are quite a lot of pitfalls you can fall into. However, if done right, this option can be the most fun.
The different terms for familiar things can get super clunky.
Sometimes, authors seem to forget that their fictional representation of the Bible is just that: fiction. Fantasy authors that choose this option sometimes write dedications and even write internet posts referring to God with their made-up fantasy name, and it's somewhat disturbing. We should never forget while writing fantasy like this that our fictional representation is just a fictional representation and should never start worshiping our idea of God rather than God Himself.

3. Nothing At All

   This option is kind of the opposite of the first one. In this option, you keep Christian morals in your story, but forego any references to the Christian faith except the extremely subtle ones. This is the option Tolkien used in Middle-Earth in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings*. 

Pros:
None of the sticky situations present in the second options.
No deciding which rules are specific to Earth and which are fundamental to the Christian faith.
A little more leeway on magic.
Lots of freedom with world-building.
Reaches a wider audience.
Elves!

Cons:
No obvious Christian elements (prayer, conversion, Bible verses, etc.).
Christian themes have to be subtle.
Elves.

*Silmarillion not included. I feel like it doesn't really count.

   Option Three is the easiest one to pull off in the world of fantasy. No skirting around rules or inventing weird theology is necessary, just general Christian themes. However, as much of this frees up storytelling options in some areas, it also limits them in others. Sometimes, and especially depending on the author, option one or option two is the best way to go. However, as I mentioned before, these can get into uncomfortable theological situations that can cross the line and even sometimes border on blasphemous. So, how far is too far? Of course, it's impossible to know for sure, but here are some situations that should probably be avoided in most circumstances.

1. Putting a supposal on Earth
   This may seem a little obvious, but I read a Christian fantasy where seven random Earth kids were put in sleeper pods for no apparent reason and survived a nuclear war. They woke up to a post-apocalyptic Earth that was basically just a fantasy world with "radiation" to explain all the changes, and promptly meet "Goel", who's basically just Jesus. It would have been a decent fantasy series if set in another world, but to have this church-going kid and his new friends to immediately believe this mysterious dude who claims to lead a religion or something and then immediately start spreading "Goel's truth" to the world without even once making the connection that this sounds suspiciously like Christianity (and, on that note, immediately abandoning their presumed Christian faith for this new religion) was just weird. Also, post-nuclear war, there was no reason for Jesus to suddenly start walking the Earth again, except going by a different name. Plus, the Bible isn't really mentioned at all post-nuclear war, and the world eventually ends, but doesn't follow really any of the apocalyptic prophecies in Revelation. Don't use this option on Earth. Just don't.

2. Having entire scenes set in literal Heaven or Hell
   For this one, there are definitely exceptions. Notable ones are The Last Battle and Dagger's Sleep. But here's a hint: if your characters wind up seeing the literal Lake of Fire as described in the Book of Revelation, you've probably gone too far (especially if you're not even portraying a world ending, the characters just take a merry trip to see their enemies thrown into the Lake of Fire). A general rule for this is to use it super sparingly. After all, Heaven is perfect, which means there's not much room for strife in anything set in Heaven. Also, Heaven is indescribable and incomprehensible for us that are still on Earth, so the more you describe it, the less impact it's going to have. Finally, don't have a scene in Heaven as a cheap cop-out because you want to make readers feel better about the fact that you killed all your characters at the end of your story. You're not going to be able to recreate The Last Battle. Just acknowledge that you are a morbid writer. It doesn't make us feel better that your fictional characters went to fictional Heaven. They all died horrible deaths.
   Hell. I feel like I shouldn't have to elaborate on this, but apparently some authors haven't realized this isn't okay. First of all, Hell is literally Hell and way too freaky in its reality for any book scene. Second, you're never going to properly recreate Hell. Third, Christian characters should never ever take a visit down to Hell no matter what. Born-again Christians can't go to Hell. Remember Jesus telling the story of the rich man and Lazarus and how there's a gulf between the two places and men that can never be crossed? Fourth and finally, fantasy is a completely different genre than Pilgrim's Progess and Dante's Inferno. Those books are religious allegories, in which the setting of Hell is more appropriate. In pretty much any other genre, it's not.

3. Having an angel as a member of the questing party
   It's best to avoid having angels as characters at all, not the least because of the dangers of deus ex machina, but having an angel just...tag along on the quest? As a side character? No. No, no, no. Angels are not made in the image of God and do not have souls. They are not basically people. What angels actually are is pretty incomprehensible to the human brain. And you definitely shouldn't have scenes from the point of view of the angel.

4. In fact, it's probably best to keep angels and demons out of your fantasy story as much as possible
   Especially demons, and especially in the spiritual warfare vein. Either they're not going to be realistic and you're going to misrepresent them, or they will be realistic, in which case you're going to bring a level of horror to the story that most fantasy readers don't want. In addition, having a demon as the main villain is a bad idea for multiple writing reasons: First of all, it's simply tacky. Second, while you may think it raises the tensions and story stakes, it actually lowers them. After all, it's obvious the demon has to lose. (Sauron doesn't really count. Not only is he not even Satan, the readers don't know that he's supposed to be a demon unless they've already read The Silmarillion or live with an uber Tolkien nerd, and I hold that The Silmarillion doesn't really count.)

5. NO Biblical fantasies
   This pretty much applies only to fantasies set on Earth. Historical fiction set in Bible times is really good if done well, but fantasy shouldn't touch Bible stories. Don't ever, ever add your own fantasy twist to an Earthen Bible story. Any time you do that, it borders on blasphemous. Plus, it's really easy to get details wrong, which just doesn't look good. For instance, while I really like the character of Elam in Bryan Davis's Oracles of Fire series, it really bugs me that he was supposed to be Shem's son Elam. See, Elam in the series was kidnapped, wound up immortal, and was trapped underground for over a thousand years. He was kidnapped at too young of an age to marry or have kids, and yet Elam, Shem's son, in real life gave rise to an entire nation of Elamites which lasted for thousands of years until finally being assimilated into the Assyrian Empire.

6. The character of the Jesus figure doesn't resemble Jesus in the Gospels
   This one is pretty self-explanatory, but if your fantasy has a representation of Jesus, then the Jesus figure should resemble Jesus. You don't have to try and represent every aspect of Jesus. That's impossible. But it should be fairly obvious to readers, if not to the character, that the fictional character is supposed to represent Jesus. If you can go two-and-a-half books without the readers being sure whether the character is a generic Chosen One or a representation of Jesus, there is something fundamentally wrong with your representation of Jesus.

7. Scenes from the POV of the character that represents Jesus
   Yes, I have actually seen this in a book. Sadly, it's from an author I actually really respect. Although, I'm not entirely certain, because it's also the situation in the last scenario. However, the fact that I've gone over two books without being able to tell whether Telwyn is supposed to be the Messiah or not is disturbing. He's not enough like Jesus character-wise to properly represent Him, but there are enough resemblances for Telwyn to not be appropriate if he's just a random Chosen One a la Anakin Skywalker. Please, don't ever, ever have scenes from the point of view of a character supposed to represent Jesus. It's just wrong.

What are your favorite and least favorite fantasy stories?

P.S. I don't hate every story with elves. I like Legolas and Farrandel, and their respective series. It does, however, take a lot to win me over.

Why "Save-the-World" Stories Are Usually Boring

   In all this craze of superhero movies, most of the movies we see nowadays are about saving the world. In fact, many, many, many books, movies, and TV shows are about this very subject: Lord of the Rings, Makilien Trilogy, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1 & 2, Avengers, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Avengers: Infinity War, Thor: Ragnarok, Iron Man, Thor: The Dark World, The War of the Worlds, Independence Day, Star Wars, Doctor Who: the Movie, Tomorrow Land, Harry Potter, Superman, Dreamlander, Armageddon, War Games (and almost every other Cold War movie), the Lunar Chronicles, the Ilyon Chronicles, Batman Begins, 24, Star Trek IV, Raiders of the Lost Ark, about half of the books in the Fantasy genre, and of course, many, many more. With all the diversity of fiction on this list, what is the most common theme between all save-the-world stories?

   Most of them are boring.

   Why, though? Shouldn't saving the world be something we all care about? After all, every one of us lives in the world. It should be the ultimate relatable story.

   Far from being the ultimate relatable story, however, save-the-world stories are often the ultimate unrelatable story. After all, few if none of us have ever been in a position where the entire world is in danger. All of us, however, have probably been in a situation where our country was in considerable danger, which marks the big difference between save-the-country stories and save-the-world stories.

   It's very easy to understand why a protagonist would want to save his country: because he loves it (or because he lives in it; you know, practicality and all that). Though there are some people that do not love their country, I'm willing to bet there are many more that do. Most protagonists of save-the-country stories attempt to save their country because they love it, they live in it, they desire to defend their home, or they just don't want them and their family or friends to die. Very relatable.

   However, most protagonists of save-the-world stories attempt to save the world "because it's the right thing to do."

   Excuse me?

   Exactly how many times have you done something simply because "it was the right thing to do"? That's right. Never. Even Christians don't do the right thing because "it's the right thing to do," but because we love the Lord. Right for right's sake has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it.

   This is why, even though I love Captain America, a lot of people think he's boring. Because everything he does is because it's "the right thing to do." (I contend that he does the right thing not for the sole virtue of "the Right", but because he loves freedom and his country and despises bullies, but that's neither here nor there.) Contrast this with the Guardians of the Galaxy:

 
   Guardians of the Galaxy was far from boring. In fact, it was wildly successful beyond Marvel's biggest expectations. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is definitely because someone was finally saving the galaxy for a relatable reason.

   **Spoilers for Avengers: Infinity War ahead**

   Avengers: Infinity War is pretty much the ultimate save-the-world story. Thanos wants to destroy half the population of the universe and the universe's mightiest heroes do their level best. Yet none of the characters, superheroes no less, seem to be doing it because "it's the right thing to do." Thor tries to stop Thanos because Thanos murdered every one of his people (including his brother). Bruce Banner joins the fight to stop Thanos because he witnessed the murder of the Asgardian people and can't stand that happening to Earth. Tony Stark, Dr. Strange, and Spider-Man try to stop Thanos because their city is attacked by a giant alien spaceship. The Guardians try to stop Thanos because he's committed planet-wide murder in their galaxy for a long time, he's the stepfather of Gamora and she's learned all his plans, they came across the murder of the Asgardians and realized Thanos is fianlly trying to murder half the galaxy, and they have a healthy wish to not die.

   So if you want to write a save the world story people will actually care about...

   Make. It. Personal.

Why Can't Christian Media Be Good Quality?

   There's a lot of media out there. There's millions of songs being released every year, thousands of books being published, especially with the new self-publishing phenomenon, and oodles and oodles of movies. As Christians are called to be lights in a darkened world, we feel a calling to place our own songs, books, and movies out there with our worldview to counteract all the other media people are constantly gushing over. Yet we never see people fangirling over the latest Christian book releases all over Facebook or Pinterest. Millions of screaming girls don't flock to concerts of Big Daddy Weave and Casting Crowns. And Christian movies get nothing but mockery from everyone that doesn't publicly claim to be Christian. Is this just all symptoms of a deranged world turning its back on its Creator and Lord? Or is the world willing to admit something about Christian media we ourselves are too afraid to?

   Now don't get me wrong: many times, the producers of Christian media have their heart in the right place. They honestly have a good message they want to share and they are genuinely trying to spread the Gospel. This is why I think many Christians are too afraid to admit the truth about Christian media. They're afraid that other Christians will claim they're denying that the Gospel is true instead of denying that Chris Tomlin is the next John Newton. That's not what I'm saying, so don't misunderstand me. I'm not criticizing anybody's beliefs. 

   But what is it about today's Christian media that isn't hitting the mark? Secular people might claim it is our "stuffy" worldview. But any examination of classic media that still lives on and is well-loved today will show that's not true. Charles Dickens' books have lived on through over a hundred years, countless adaptations, and constant fans the world over. Yet Charles Dickens was a devout Christian, as is obvious in his books.  Treasure Island and The Swiss Family Robinson have been well-loved for ages, and they are also written by Christians. Jane Eyre, A Little Princess, Alice in Wonderland, Little Women, Anne of Green Gables, The Wind in the Willows, Heidi, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lord of the Rings, and countless others were all written by Christians. And it's not limited to books. Some of the most famous songs of all time, Silent Night and Amazing Grace, were both written by Christians, and pastors to boot. Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, and others were all Christians. And the lion of all modern entertainment who shaped the twentieth century and what exists of the twenty-first, Walt Disney himself, was an unapologetic Christian. Christians have the most amazing heritage of well-done, unforgettable, life-changing media of anybody in the world. So why is modern Christian media today the butt of all jokes and something that nobody but Christians even cares about?

   The answer is simple: most modern Christian music, books, and movies are not good quality. Most modern Christian books are not quality literature and are not even close to comparing to the works of Charles Dickens and C. S. Lewis. None of the Christian artists out there today are ever going to write anything as memorable as Silent Night or Amazing Grace and only a few, such as Michael W. Smith for example, are true musicians. And ever since the death of Walt Disney during the production of The Jungle Book, wholesome good movies made by Christians have been almost non-existent. Instead, all we have are movies like Left Behind and The Mark. All we get from Christian books, movies, and music nowadays is shallow messages, preachy words, and sub-par work. But why is this and how do we fix it?
   Most Christian artists, writers, screenwriters, and movie producers are too concerned with their label and the message they're trying to get across than with the actual works of art they're supposed to be producing. They really are trying to spread God's kingdom. But they're producing music, books, and movies for all the wrong reasons. They produce them because they know that's where the people are and that's what our culture revolves around, when they really should be producing music and books and movies because they have a passion for creating music, books, or movies deep down inside of them.

Via Pinterest

   MGM Studios has a motto: Ars Gratia Artis, which is Latin for "Art for art's sake." This idea really captures where good art (books, music, and movies) comes from: artists who would create their works even if no one was watching and their works would never be seen by the light of day. As Christians, we who were born artists have an even greater reason to create the art that demands to be let out of us: our God who loves us and has adopted us has given us a talent that can't be suppressed. If for no other reason than to make Him smile do we want to create our art, but our beliefs and our callings push through and drive us so that our art becomes not only a thing of entertainment, but a creation with the possibility to change the world.

   Christian musicians and authors and movie makers should focus not on making Christian music, books, and movies, but on being good artists creating good art. And because God has given us a new nature and made us a new man, and because true art is a reflection of the soul of the artist who created it, our art will not reflect us, but Christ who lives in us (see Galatians 2:20).

   And that is when art changes the world.

Not All Story Drafts Are Novel Material

I've always loved watching old TV shows. One of my favorites is I Love Lucy. The other day I watched an episode entitled Lucy Writes a Novel. Naturally, Lucy tries to write a novel. She eagerly writes a draft about the her life and that of her friends and sends it off to a publisher. She awaits the publishing of her first book...and ends up getting rejected. She declares that that the publishers were thick-headed men who were keeping back her masterpiece from the world. I started thinking about the episode later that day, and ended up thinking about the many new authors I've seen eagerly wanting to publish their books, and their denial, like Lucy's, when told their book shouldn't be published.

We've all been there. If you're a writer, you've surely experienced the point where you know what good fiction is and you love good fiction, but what's coming out of your pen isn't good fiction. It's worse when you think what you're writing is good fiction...but it's not. Sometimes the idea is great, but the draft is horrible. For instance, I have one old draft of a story that I really wanted to publish when I began it. When I started it, I thought the writing was brilliant. By the time I finished it, however, the first pages made me blush at how bad they were. It took me a while to get through the phase where my writing was sub-par at best, but by then, I was aware of the fact that my writing needed major work. But in so many cases, writers give up or wind up crashing and burning because someone tells them that their book needs work to be published and they, like Lucy, declaim the critic as a thick-minded fool keeping a masterpiece from the world.

News flash: some drafts just aren't meant to be published. If someone tells you that your book isn't ready to be published, that it needs to be rewritten, etc...they're not trying to be mean. They're not saying you can't ever be a writer. Many times, they're seeing something you can't because of your closeness to the work. They see mistakes you made that can be fixed with a lot of hard work. It's hard to reconcile yourself to the fact that the long draft you just finished needs to be rewritten...again. I say this right in the middle of yet another rewrite of book one of the Condemned Patriot series...which still needs a ton of work before anyone outside my family can read it. Some stories take a while to be written. And if you're a newer writer, the stories are going to take even longer to get right. But that's really okay. It's okay not to be ready for publishing right now. I'm not ready for publishing. That doesn't mean I'm not an author. That doesn't mean you're not an author. Being an author means more than just getting your first book out there. Being an author is the wisdom of knowing when to rewrite and when to just edit. It's listening to everyone's advice even if it's hard to hear. Being an author means sacrificing and killing your darlings and rewriting as many times as your book needs it because that's the career you've dedicated yourself to. If you want to be published, people assume you are trying to be an author, not just a writer. Don't shoot down the critics that are treating you like an author. They are working towards the goal of getting good fiction out into the world. And being an author, published or otherwise, means that needs to be your goal, too. 

So dear Lucy Ricardo and all you other new writers out there trying to be authors... Your first draft is not ready to be published. Your first book probably isn't either. I know, it's exciting to be a writer, and it's hard to resist the urge to jump into publishing as soon as possible. But being published means making a commitment to be an author, not just a writer. And the only thing that turns you into an author is hard work and perseverance and lots and lots of writing...and rewriting. It's okay for right now to just write and learn and grow in writing. The people telling you to wait to be published want to see you as an author just as much as you do. But they understand that being an author, a real author, means sometimes doing the hardest thing of all...listening.

So just keep writing better drafts. Write a bunch of different stories. Rewrite your drafts. Get a bunch of feedback from the people around you. One day you'll be ready to publish, and when you get there, it'll be all the sweeter for waiting. Don't give up and don't get angry at the people who tell you your book shouldn't be published. With a lot of sweat, hard work, and perseverance, you'll have a finished, publishable novel...one day.