I was impressed with OneMinuteBooks’ review of Grace Awakening for a couple of specific reasons. Of course, I like that she’s enthusiastic in her praise, but specifically, I love that she GETS it.
She understands that since Grace is the narrator, the reader has only as much information as Grace does. (Well, they get a little more, as they get to peek in on those 3rd person mythic realm dialogues that Grace doesn’t know about). Yes. This is confusing. Yes. This was intentional. Yes. This means you are Grace, in all her confusion.
I like that the reviewer gets the mythical allusions, and understands the purpose behind not telling the reader straight out. Yes. You’re supposed to be smart enough to be able to look this up yourself (with the help of the glossary at the back). Yes. I expect that you are smart enough to figure out that there is another story happening, beyond the one that Grace knows about. Congratulations on discovering the puzzle pieces that Grace doesn’t understand! Reading between the lines and interpreting the additional clues take skill! Grace hasn’t figured it out. I’m glad when readers can! 😀
Once upon a time I was told “Grace Awakening is Twilight for intelligent girls.” I think this is true. Most people will get the surface story, but there is a lot more at play here than is apparent on the surface. It makes me happy when someone not only gets it, but actually appreciates that it’s there.
Followers of Athena, I salute you! This book was written for you!
Thanks Amanda for understanding what Grace is all about. After a couple of weird reviews this week when I suspected the reviewers hadn’t actually read the book, this gave me faith in the process again. Not everyone will get it, or like it, but there are more out there who do!
Shawn L. Bird 
latest press September 21, 2011
Tags: awakening dreams, first love, Grace Awakening, Observer, poem, Salmon Arm, Shawn Bird, writing
I was recently interviewed for the local paper. I ended up being interviewed by phone, and the interviewer did not have opportunity prep by visiting the blog and reading up on what the book was about. I tried to explain succinctly, but her questions led to complicated places. Had I been writing the responses for her, I could have been quite clear on the facts. As it was, paraphrases were just off enough to twist the meaning. The resulting interview was basically accurate, but had a section that was significantly off what I thought I’d told her.
I learned something from this experience. The journalist will miss something critical in your longish story! Typing and listening simultaneously is difficult. I must remember the Keep It Simple principle!
Aside from actually getting my website address incorrect, the biggest problem was that she missed that I was actually quoting from the poem for a bit there, and she wrote a quote as if I was speaking.
Specifically, the article says,
Based on a poem she wrote the year she turned 12, Bird says the book started as a story about the power of her first crush on a musician
That part is fine but then this
“I think in another life we were lovers and belonged together,” she says.
is a paraphrase of the quote from the poem that I recited for her which included, “I think we were loves once. In another life you and and I belonged.” Since it is not in the context of the poem, it gets a completely different slant.
“When you have one of these strong stories, you have to imagine it has been around in the universe before.”
must be a paraphrase of “I think a lot of people have the feeling when they fall in love that it’s so profound that it must have been in the universe forever.”
Regular readers of the blog who’ve read about the development of the story, the poetry, etc, will spot these issues right away. Other people will just raise their eyebrows. I was rather alarmed.
Yeah. Like I said. A learning experience. Keep it Simple. Simple. Simple. Phone interviews are apparently dangerous!
Live and learn.
PS. If you’re curious, the interview is here.
Share this: