A Publication Opportunity for YOU!

It's been a slow news week for me. Just reading, watching movies, writing...the usual. I did get a story rejected from a magazine this past week. Apparently it wasn't tight enough. I emailed them to ask what that means, in the interest of improving my craft, so we'll see if they get back to me.

I've also been watching a lot of Wishbone. You know, that show on PBS about the bookish dog? It's been fun to catch up with my childhood as I've watched the shows. It's also cool to watch now that I've read the books featured. (By the way, all the episodes are on Youtube. Go nuts.)

Anyway, this will be a short post because I mostly just want to relay some news to you, my readers. I know a number of you are writers and I just became aware of a possible publishing opportunity. My brother's friend is starting an online literary journal at his university and my brother sent me the details. See flyer below:

In case you can't read the email address, it's joseph.whitaker.iii@gmail.com.

In the words of the journal's creator, "Purfle and Gyve is a journal where each issue revolves around contemporary interpretations of a single myth. The first edition will feature works interpreting the myth of Narcissus and Echo. I am looking for short stories, poetry and artwork that depicts this myth with a modern twist."


Well, I love reading and writing retellings, so I'm game. I hope you take advantage of this, not just because it will help my brother's friend out. The deadline for submissions is October 6 of this year, so we all have plenty of time.

Also, for reference, here's the story of Echo and Narcissus. And another one, here.

Book Recommendations for My Cousin

I didn't post yesterday because I read a book I really disliked and didn't want to rant about it. I've done too much of that lately. I will say this, though: the thing I liked least about the book was the way it sounded like the writer set out to "write a book." It followed every popular cliche without much explanation and seemed so...pattern. I mention this because I want to implore you writers out there to write the books you want to write, not the ones you think the people want. The stories that shine to you will shine to readers, I promise.

I want to be positive today, and I have the perfect material. An aunt asked me to recommend some books for her middle grade/YA aged daughter, preferably books that are not silly romances where the girl is willing to do anything for the guy. So I went to the library, took notes, and sent her a list. And I've decided to put that list on here for all of you. Some of these should not surprise you; I talk about them enough. And the list is certainly not comprehensive. But I positively love all of them.


- Anything by E.D. Baker. She writes fairy tale retellings that have love stories but they are not the focus. Characters are great, storytelling is clever, protagonists are smart and strong. Good place to start is The Frog Princess or Fairy Wings.

- Anything by T.A. Barron. Seriously some of the best fantasy for children I've ever read. The Lost Years of Merlin series is a good start, but so is Heartlight or The Merlin Effect. Excellent worldbulding and characterization.

- Ordinary Boy books by William Boniface. About a boy with no superpowers in a town full of them. Goofy, enjoyable, clever take on superhero tropes.

- The Sisters Grimm series. Darker, grittier take on fairy tales with a mystery/detective vibe.

- So You Want to Be A Wizard by Diane Duane. Fantasy mixed with science, deeply thought-provoking and enchanting story about power and good versus evil.

- A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle. A classic. Science and fantastic elements mixed, intelligent writing that calls for intelligent readers, beautiful message.

- Anything by Nancy Farmer. Wonderful writer with well-researched books. Engaging stories. A good place to start here is The Ear, the Eye, and the Arm (sci-fi) or The Sea of Trolls (fantasy based heavily on Norse culture).

- Anything by Cornelia Funke. Some of the best fantasy I've read. Inkheart is her most famous book, but I also like The Thief Lord and, for a holiday treat, When Santa Fell to Earth.

- Dragon Slippers by Jessica Day George. Fantasy with some unique takes on dragons and typical fantasy styles. Writer is LDS and quite cool. Her book Princess of the Midnight Ball is also good.

- Theodore Boone: Kid Lawyer by John Grisham. Because it's Grisham. The protagonist is a boy, but the storytelling is great and the law references are as accurate as you get. Thrilling story and good characters.

- Anything by Margaret Peterson Haddix. Extremely clever science fiction writer. I recommend Running Out of Time or Turnabout to start, though her Among the Hidden series is classic. She also does some historical fiction.

- Princess Academy by Shannon Hale. Another LDS writer with powerful writing. She's one who knows how to string the right words in the right order. Strong female characters and great plot. Also recommend her book Goose Girl.

- Anything by Eva Ibbotson. British writer with sensible characters and whimsical fantasy. Great writing. Island of the Aunts is great, but Which Witch may be my favorite (witches compete in a pageant!). Her book Journey to the River Sea is realistic adventure.

- Anything by Ally Carter. Clever writer whose books are just awesome to read. I'd Tell You I Love You, But Then I'd Have to Kill You is the first in a series of books about girl spies, and Heist Society is about art thieves. Fun writing and brilliant plotting. Memorable, lovable characters.

- The Wee Free Men by Terry Pratchett. One of my all-time favorite writers. British humor, sensible characters who do what needs to be done. The hero, Tiffany Aching, is one of my favorite female characters.

- Anything by Diana Wynne Jones. Brilliant writer who understands her genre inside and out. I recommend particularly Fire and Hemlock and Howl's Moving Castle.

- Dealing With Dragons by Patricia C. Wrede. Story about a princess who gets "captured" by dragons and doesn't want to be rescued. Heroic protagonist who is also sensible, great writing, great secondary characters, great use of the genre. Her other books are wonderful too.

- No More Dead Dogs by Gordon Korman. Fantastic realistic fiction with the best oddball characters and ridiculous plot. So clever, so much fun. Korman also wrote a modern teen retelling of The Great Gatsby called Jake, Reinvented that is worth reading.

- Fablehaven by Brandon Mull. One of my favorite LDS writers. Wonderful wordbuilding and use of mythology and folklore. Great pacing and (I like this) Mull is not afraid to hurt his characters, aka, the stakes are clearly high.

- The Squire's Tale by Gerald Morris. Retelling of Arthurian legend. Brilliant writing, clever characters, informed retelling based on texts and the writer's own logic. Also, real love versus the culture of love shown in most of the books.

- The Giver by Lois Lowry. Never mind the movie coming out, this is a classic. Excellent dystopian novel that everyone should read.

- Archvillain by Barry Lyga. About a kid who sees an alien land (think Superman) who becomes the town superhero. The kid gains powers too and decides to expose the alien by being the town supervillain. Great subversion of the genre and clever characters. Kind of like Dr. Horrible in book form, for kids.

- Ella Enchanted by Gail Carson Levine. The book is much better than the movie. Strong-willed, intelligent heroine and wonderful take on the "Cinderella" story. Levine's other books are good reads, but this one's the classic.

- The Cay by Theodore Taylor. Historical survival fiction about a boy blinded in a shipwreck and surviving on an island with an old black man. Classic book and good survival fiction.

- Anything by Rick Riordan. Exciting reimagining of classic mythology. Great characters and dialogue. The Lightning Thief is a good place to start.

- Half Upon a Time by James Riley. Mashed-up fairy tales with a twist. I like these because the writer uses the tales to tell a lager story; it doesn't feel episodic. Great characters, great dialogue, interesting twist.

- The Grimm Legacy by Polly Shulman. About kids working as pages in a library that stores items from fairy tales. Great characters and premise. Exciting plot.

- The Alcatraz series by Brandon Sanderson. Brilliant LDS writer and my hero. These books are cleverly written, exciting, and silly. Very fun and excellently written.

- The Bartimaeus Sequence. Story about sorcerers and one demon they raise (Bartimaeus). Wonderful 3D characters and excellent use of footnotes in fiction. Worldbuilding is also spectacular.

- Of Giants and Ice by Shelby Bach. Really clever fairy tale retelling: kids are trained to be characters in stories. Likeable characters, exciting plots.

A long list, I know. But it could be longer. I thought of other books and authors since sending the list. Like this: The Hero's Guide to Saving Your Kingdom by Christopher Healy. Very clever fairy tale take, where the Prince Charmings of Cinderella, Rapunzel, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow White team up as a heroic yet bumbling team of adventurers.

(Storytelling) Questions Raised By "Frozen"

I'm back! After only a week! Great, huh?

First news: apparently, Disney is planning to make a movie adaptation of A Wrinkle in Time. Not to be confused with the 2003 TV movie. I am not sure how I feel about this. I have a number of questions, like: Is it going to be animated? Is it going to be a musical? Will they stay true to the plot or completely warp it like they did the plot of "The Snow Queen"? Will it keep the same title or be called something like "Wrinkled"?

As much as I like seeing my favorite books adapted into movies, I have to say I'm apprehensive about this one, about the same way I am about The Giver adapted into a movie. I'm afraid to see The Giver because, while I'm okay with the actual events of the book changed, the trailers make it look like the whole spirit of the story is altered for the movie, and I'm not okay with that. If they stripped everything that made Lowry's book special out and turned it into another B-grade ripoff of The Hunger Games, I don't want to see it. I love the book too much. Same with A Wrinkle in Time. If Disney removes the depth and power that makes this book more than a touching family tale or a fun space jaunt, I'm not sure I'll see it. If anybody from Disney reads this blog, please, be respectful of the book. Lots of people love it.

Anyway, purpose for the title of this post. My family got into town for a reunion, so I got to watch Frozen with my sister. We analyzed it to death, because that is what we do when we watch movies together. And here I am writing about Frozen yet again, because I, along with the rest of the culture, can't seem to...um, stop talking about it. (Hah! Didn't say it!)

But I'm not here to talk about Frozen's impact on society or its feminism or even its precedence for future movies. I did enough of that in the last post. I'm here to list the questions my sister and I had regarding the movie's storytelling. During our last viewing, we noted a number of things that never got as fully answered as we would have liked. Some are simple, some could spark a whole new movie. Here are our questions:

1. Why aren't the ice-cutting men the least bit protective of little Kristoff as he cuts ice with them? They don't even seem to notice his presence. I realize he has no family at that point, but the adults seem rather unconcerned with the child's welfare.

2. The Troll King asks Elsa's father if she was born with her powers or cursed. WHAT? The casual nature of the question seems to imply that kids in this kingdom are occasionally cursed with magical power. Why is this not talked about in the story? Who else is getting cursed with magic? Who does the cursing? What happens to the kids who are cursed with magic? Are they shunned or even killed? Why is it a curse to have powers? Is there this whole X-Men-esque situation in Arendelle and no one is talking about it? I want to see a whole movie about this!

Has the Troll King had other visitors with similar problems? He seems awfully prepared.

3. If kids do get cursed with magical powers, is that why Elsa's parents are so worried about people finding out about her ice magic?

4. Likewise, if kids are also born with powers (I mean, the Troll King asks it first thing, so I image there's a precedence), wouldn't it be more widely talked about? Are there other kids with magic who have to hide it? Or, are there kids with magic that get it explained to them and are taught how to control it? If so, why didn't the King and Queen try this option?

5. Why couldn't Anna leave the castle her whole life? Wouldn't it actually be easier for her parents to makes sure Anna had friends outside of the family and wouldn't focus so much on the secrets kept from her?

6. Why couldn't Anna learn about Elsa's power when she was old enough?

7. What exactly does Arendelle export that makes them such a valuable trade partner?

8. Why did the sled explode into flames when it hit the ground? What is Kristoff carrying?

9. Why didn't Anna want to tell Olaf the truth about summer? Out of kindness (though he would be safer knowing) or out of fear that he wouldn't help if he knew?

10. Elsa can create life in the form of sentient snowmen. Why is not one talking about this? Can she also impart life to less humanoid snow? Flakes? Drifts?

11. Why was Elsa so surprised that she froze everything? Could she not see the unseasonal snow everywhere from her high-up mountain castle with walls made of clear ice?

11. Why isn't the Hans revelation satisfying? I keep finding foreshadowing and I still don't like that twist as a storytelling move.

12. Why didn't Olaf's lighting the fire count as an act of true love?

And last,

13. Is Kristoff's ice business in danger? I mean, Elsa can summon ice whenever she wants. I'm sure she would hold off to allow her sister's boyfriend to maintain his livelihood, but how long before the citizens of the kingdom realize their queen can make ice and demand it as a free service?

Overthinking this, as always. But that's what I do. And I mean it: I want to hear the stories behind the Troll King's question. How many other kids in Arendelle have magic, and how did they get it?

A Movie Review and Bad Romance

First off, the campus bookstore here is rearranging everything and NOW I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE BOOKS ARE! It's like coming home and finding out someone redecorated your room while you were gone and you now have to go on an epic quest to find your pajamas.

Second, I saw Guardians of the Galaxy and it was fantastic.

 

 This guy was particularly awesome.

I don't want to go into too much detail, because I sooo don't want to spoil this one for you. But I will give my opinion. The movie is sufficiently action-packed without filling every little second with explosions. This writer knows when to ease the tension and how to balance serious with comic. It reminded me a little of Firefly. Also, the movie does a great job characterizing without backflashes and long storytelling sessions. They do a lot of work with a few key shots and a few lines of dialogue.

But more impressive, to me, it was a unique film. Not so much that I came out thinking, "Well, that was different," I'll admit, but enough that I was kept guessing. Also the ideas used were so interesting (a space station made of a giant severed head?) that I wondered how much was canon and how much was the writer. Last, the characterization was great. Well-defined characters all around who continue to act like themselves, which is impressive for a film about a bunch of criminals saving the world and essentially acting out of character.

Okay, that's my movie review. This one deserves the hype. Now for the book commentary. This week I reread The Ballad of Sir Dinadan by Gerald Morris. If you haven't read Morris's The Squire's Tale series, please read it. It's clever, well-written, and fun. This book was one of them. These books tend to lampoon the sillier parts of Arthurian legend. In this one, the story skewered is that of Tristram and Iseult (also known as Tristan and Isolde).

It's a brilliant read and reinforces the ideas Morris uses over and over again about what true love is versus what love is thought to be. I agree with Morris a lot about this. So, I finished the book and wondered why stories like Tristan and Isolde and Lancelot and Guinevere are considered such romantic stories.

Think about it. In both cases, the woman is married TO ANOTHER MAN. In one, that man is King Arthur, who I think we can say is a good man. Neither affair ends well. Yet we make and view blockbuster movies about Tristan and Isolde and teenage girls everywhere swoon. Why? What is so appealing about forbidden romances that end in tragedy?

Isn't infidelity romantic?

I'm not against a good romance. I'm not necessarily against a good tragic romance. I like Romeo and Juliet, but I read it not as a romance but as the tale of stupid people doing stupid things and it all blowing up in their faces. But I know a lot of folks don't read it like that.

I don't get it. I really don't. I suppose people are attracted to the passion in stories like this, and I suppose the idea of a soul mate is appealing. But I think this kind of thought, especially glorified in film and story, is dangerous. It substitutes physical passion for the kind of love that is always, quietly there, growing as slowly as a plant but as vital as the sun's light. Passion can fade, but true love does not. In stories like this, the lovers die before this happens, but in real life, life goes on. We grow old and face challenges. Could be disappointing for readers who expect this kind of love.

I belief art can shape thought more than any public service announcement. No matter how many times we launch campaigns warning that violence against women is bad, if it continues to be glorified in our movies, video games, music and television, then the idea that it is acceptable will stick in our culture. By looking at the art of a culture, you see the values. This kind of romance, a selfish romance that consumes itself in a passion that doesn't seem to care about promises, morals, or what kind of collateral damage they leave in their wake, is appearing in our art and could shape our perspectives about what true love is. If it isn't already.

Sorry for the longer blog post. I suppose this is what happens when I don't blog for a while. I meant to review Guardians of the Galaxy and wonder why some romances have these selfish idiot lovers and why people like them so much (insert Fifty Shades of Grey insult here). I didn't mean to comment on our culture. But I think it needs to be said. I wonder how much stories like this have led to unhappiness that wouldn't have been there otherwise. I wonder if romances like this, these passionate, tragic tales, taint our perspectives of what love should be to the point that it damages our healthy relationships.

And, more broadly, I wonder what kind of morals we as storytellers need as we ply our trade. I don't like trying to force morals into a story; it causes bad writing. But if art shapes thought, if it defines our culture, shouldn't we be a little careful with it?

Happy Birthday, Harry Potter!

I solemnly swear that I am up to no good.

But I'm trying. Has it really been a month since my last post? Yeesh. I'd promise to do better, but let's face it: I'll probably do this again. I'm hoping this short post (because it will be short) will kickstart me into posting regularly again.

First off, the news: I sent my middle grade novel into the Utah Original Writing Contest and it passed all the basic formatting checks, so I'm in on that. I'll hear results in September and will report them to you, my readers. All 12 of you. I also attended the Books for Young Readers Symposium and met writers like Maggie Stiefvater and Nathan Hale. It was a good two day conference that didn't drain me but exposed me to what some good writers had to say about their craft. And, like always, I got inspired to write more.

I haven't gotten angry over books lately, except for the whole Fifty Shades of Grey thing. I'm against book burning; I think that although no book is perfect the vast majority of books have some redeeming value (Twilight included). However, should the zombie apocalypse come and I'm in need of toilet paper, I have my option picked out.

That was rude. But I meant it. Stay tuned for future rant.

Anyway, today is July 31st, otherwise known as Harry Potter's birthday. I went to a party celebrating it at a local restaurant and had a pint of butterbeer (it comes in pints).

(It didn't look this nice, but it tasted great)

So, here at least, there is a real party celebrating the birthday of a fictional character. J.K. Rowling, please accept my awe and admiration.

So here it is: instead of talking at you, like I normally do, I want to ask you why you think Harry Potter has made such a splash. Is it cross-cultural details (aka, Americans finding boarding school life fascinating), the development of a world (Quidditch, butterbeer, and other elements that can be pictured and recreated in our world, along with jargon like "muggles"), the characters, the plot, and politics...what is it? Every time I think about it, I have a new idea. Please, if you want to weigh in, post your thoughts below. If we can figure out what is working in the Harry Potter books, I think we'd all become better writers.

Mischief managed.

Movie Review: How to Train Your Dragon 2

Hello again! I hope you had as awesome a week as I did. I spent a lot of time revising my novel for the contest, and I'm feeling pretty good. I had a plot point that required my protagonist to act in a way that was very much not in his character, but I figured out a way that he could act like himself without ruining the plot point that needed to happen. I am worried that I'm revising this novel to death, as it has changed a lot since I last worked on it. But I have it with readers, and I'll see what they think. Gotta love writing.

So, as the title of this post implies, I saw How to Train Your Dragon 2 this past weekend. Twice. The first time in 3D, the second in regular 2D. And I loved it. Here is my review.

No story is perfect, and neither is every movie. I felt that the ending of HTTYD2 lacked the resonance the first movie's final scene had. But it should tell you something that this is the worst criticism I can level against the film.

Before I go on, I should list out what I want in a story, be it on paper or on screen: I want a story about a person. Epic battles, large-scale destruction, witty banter, etc. are all well and good and I like them all in their place (large-scale destruction to a lesser amount), but what I always want is a story about a character's personal growth and his/her actions and responses to things around him/her. I want to meet and sympathize with a character to the point that I feel what they feel and I want them to succeed, regardless of the circumstances. I once read a story by one of my students about a child who wanted to catch a fallen, red leaf. That's all. Small circumstance, but I have never wanted a kid to catch a leaf so badly because of the way the writer showed me why it mattered to that one child.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 did this very well. Yes, they battles were larger and more intense than those in the first movie, and the animation was beautiful. But what struck me was how good the writers were at making me care about Hiccup and the things he goes through. This happened in the first movie, too, and seems to me to be the first thing that gets lost in a movie sequel. Not here. This movie does a great job of having large stakes for the world of the film, but also for the hero. By the end, I was emotionally absorbed because what mattered to Hiccup mattered to me.

I'm deliberately avoiding spoilers in this review. But I will say that if you are the kind of person who cries at movies, you may cry during this one. I didn't, but I'm not the kind of person who cries at movies. One thing I've learned about writing is that you think of the worst possible thing that could happen to your hero, and then you make it worse. How to Train Your Dragon 2 did it. Bad got worse. But it wasn't gratuitous; that moment (that I will not discuss) pushed the characters to behave in ways that moved the story along.

One of the things I love about this franchise is how active the characters are. They don't sit around and wait for things to happen. They go out and do things, even though those things sometimes are mistakes. I love that. I also love that characters behave in character, and this continues on to the second movie. The characters have changed, but not so drastically that they've stopped being the characters we loved in the first movie.

HTTYD2 avoided the trap many sequels fall into: the plot and jokes and hallmarks of the second film are exactly the same as those of the first. This time, the sequel is its own movie. It builds on the first, but the plot is its own and the characters grow in new ways. It adds to the story, not rehashes what we have already. And all new surprises are, of course, foreshadowed. No shocks that don't feel right, like they belong to the natural flow of the story.

Last note, and then I'm done: HTTYD2 expands Toothless as a character. I love this. Not just because I love Toothless (and who wouldn't? Look at him!)

but because in the sequel you see a lot more of Toothless's personality. He's not just an animal; he's a character. Dreamworks does such an amazing job with the dragon, maintaining and animal feel while making him as intelligent as Hiccup and an equal partner in fighting to save Berk.

Overall, I give this movie an A. Visually lovely, music as good as ever, and an excellent move forward in a larger story. Plot and characters handled so well, making me the viewer emotionally engaged. That last bit is the sign of a good movie to me. If you don't care about the characters enough to root for them, then what does it matter what else happens?

I'm going to buy the DVD when it comes out. You can count on that. But until then, I'm just going to have to reread the books and hope the last one comes out soon.

That X Factor

Sorry for the delay in posting; I had a lot of revision to do and I went on vacation. But I'm back and ready to rant. First, I heard Maleficent wasn't a great movie. I heard it's cliche and weak. I haven't seen it yet, but based on what people with similar tastes as mine have said, I won't be for a while. I just want a real anti-hero, not a villain who's misunderstood and good inside. I liked what Marvel did with Loki; he's evil, no doubt about that, but you sympathize because you see and understand what caused him to be like that.

My personal preferences should be set aside, however, today. This time I want to discuss the "X Factor," as I call it, that seems to separate the award-winning films and books and plays from the rest. This may be a long, rambly post because, frankly, I have no idea what it is. I do know what it looks like when I see it, as I think everyone might, as shown by this trailer for every Oscar-winning movie ever:

This parody video nails it. Every movie that wins an Oscar looks like this. I think the same goes for plays (my family has decided that edgy works win Tonys for Best Play/Musical) and for books. I can't tell you how many times someone has recommended a book to me on the basis that it made someone cry. I don't think that's valid proof that a book is a solid work of literature. I've read books that made me cry too, but I was crying in pain.

This is the part of the post where I allow that one of the definitions of literature is that literature strikes us where we're most human. It discusses what it means to live and love and hurt like human beings. I agree with this. Maybe this is the X Factor. But personally, I've seen plenty of films and read plenty of books that do this but are definitely not award-winner material. For example, Titanic is a movie that wins awards. And it's a stupid story with flat, obnoxious characters. Wreck-It Ralph, on the other hand, has a sold plot and really well-developed characters, as does Tangled. I would be shocked if either won major accolades.

The best literature can find this X Factor without beating it to death (which I think some books and movies do) and explore it in a well-told story with great characters. I thought Wonder by R.J. Palacio did this. I think what made Shakespeare great was that he could do this. He explores in his plays the heights and depths of human nature and the human condition, but the characters feel real and the stories are interesting. There's a lot of murder in Hamlet.

So what are we to do? I still have no idea what the X Factor really is, but I'm going to do my best to analyze it based on some of the more hackneyed, award-scrounging works I've seen and read. The X Factor seems to incorporate:

1. Tragedy. For some reasons, comedies rarely win big awards or get remembered in history. How many times did you read Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet in high school? Did anyone read The Importance of Being Earnest? Anyone? If so, you're lucky. Despite the potential for spectacular characters and creative social critique in comedies, they rarely rise above the ranks. High school English was a depressing 4 years.

2. Edginess. I think we've been trained to think that high art pushes the envelope. So it's no surprise that the works we hail as great are somewhat edgy, dealing with taboos of society and harder characters. WARNING: This element of the X Factor can be a cliche trope. Edginess is fine in aid of plot, characters, and meaning of a work. But throwing it in a story that works just as well without it to look artsy is kind of pathetic. It becomes a "sex sells" thing, when the story alone should have the power to compel based on its ability to connect to humanity. Everything should be in aid of the story and the characters that move it.

3. Current societal trends. Yes, this matters. I swear. Watch the video above for the parody of the social connections. Whatever disease or war or financial scandal is happening today, I promise you will see it reflected in the works that win awards nowadays. On the one hand, this seems like a pandering to mass culture and not the timelessness that classics have. However, awards aren't given by eternity but by a panel of judges right now. Humans also respond more to the things that speak to them right now. Horror stories, the best ones, do a great job of this. Dracula was a monster that directly terrified the Victorians, and Frankenstein's monster was horrific to the Romantics. What made them last was the fact that they still terrify us on a deeper, human level.

I'm going to call it here. If you have other elements you see that I missed, please put them in the comments. I could also add good writing, heavy focus on the characters over plotting, symbolism, etc. But these seem to rise and fall, while the above seem pretty constant. I also want to add that genre (mystery, sci-fi, fantasy, horror) rarely gets the nod. That angers me. The quality of crafting the story should matter more than it does.

Why do I care? Well, the Tonys were last night, and I'm getting sick of the self-congratulatory nature of awards shows in general. Also, I'm entering a writing contest (which me luck) and I spend too much time calculating my chances. I'm not altering my story to fit this formula or ranting about the unfairness of the system, I promise. I'm just thinking about what separates different kinds of stories.

Last, if there is a formula for the kind of books and movies and plays that win awards, we as writers need to know about it. It may give us an insight into the kind of stories that resonate with people most, which can boost the power of our writing. But it can also hinder us if we start using the X Factor's elements as a way to gain cheap recognition. A book isn't good just because it can make you cry. It might just be emotionally manipulative. The more knowledge we have, the better our writing will be because we can make conscious decisions to craft it the way we want it to be.