SickFic: My Next New Blog Series: First Up "A Flaw in the Blood"
I know...I have multiple blog series, and multiple styles of posts. I'm working on a new Falling With Style, but this next one is a blog series that I've been wanting to start for a long time.
As many of you know, I work a lot with children with chronic illnesses. Hemophilia and Von Willebrands to be exact. As well as carriers of those diseases and the like. However, I feel that same kinship towards most chronically ill children. I don't know why. I'm not chronically ill. But I do.
Because of that, it has always kind of irked me that characters in children's books are never just regular kids with chronic illnesses. If kids in a book have a chronic illness, that's the entire point of the story. That child is usually just a plot device, not an actual mover of the story, and that disease is usually portrayed incorrectly. This is probably why in most every story I write, there is a chronically ill character. Even in my historical fiction, I have characters with chronic illnesses, even if that chronic illness hadn't been discovered at that point. I know what chronic illness they have. And it usually influences the story (because let's be honest, we can't be traipsing through the wilderness for days on end with a hemophiliac and not have issues related to that), but I make a point of never making it the story. I don't believe that you should ever answer the question of "what are you writing about?" with "a kid with x." That's not a story. That's a character.
So, this series is called SickFic, and will be a way to see if that is a story that kids with that disease could read and relate to, or be encouraged by. The best way to encourage chronically ill children, I believe, is to show them that their life doesn't begin and end with that illness.
Books will be graded in five Categories, each worth ten points. There are also two Penalty categories and a Bonus category.
So, the categories
Category 1: Accuracy
This one is straightforward. Is the disease actually portrayed accurately?
Category 2: Humanity
Does the chronically ill character have humanity and personality beyond their illness, or are they a sick-blob-of-a-plot-device?
Category 3: Permanence
Chronic illnesses are, let's face it, chronic. Does the diseased character have the actual physical limitations of their disease, or does the disease vanish and then reappear whenever convenient for the author in a way that illness would not? (If the disease does have vanishing/reappearing symptoms--like it has attacks--then that's okay) It's important to not limit those with chronic illnesses, but some things just aren't options for them.
Category 4: Encouragement
Does the character encourage readers that share their disease? Do they show that people with the illness can still be successful and still can achieve and accomplish.
Category 5: The Cripple-Card
Does the character get excused from accountability because of their disease? In other words, does the person play the cripple-card and everyone else allows it? Or do the same rules of society apply to this character?
The You Must Have Faith Penalty
One of the worst in all of chronic illness literature is acting like if they just wanted to be healthy--really, really bad--they could get healed. Up to -5 for this.
The Stereotype Penalty
If the author reinforces already existing stereotypes, they deserve to lose points. Up to -5.
Bonus
If the main objective is not "learning to live with their disability," there are 5 bonus points available. That's an important thing to do, but that's not the number one goal of these children's lives. Is your number one goal to get over the fact that you don't have everything perfect? Or is to achieve everything you can, thereby overcoming your obstacle. If I asked my girls what they wanted out of life and all they could tell me is "learn to accept that I'm a hemophiliac," I would be very disappointed. No family? No marriage? No college? No happiness?
First To the Scoring Board: A Flaw in the Blood by Stephanie Barron
This is a story about Victorian England. We have this guy being targeted by Queen Victoria, and no one really knows why. Eventually we find out that she thinks he knows her greatest secret. That the hemophilia trait had never been in the royal family prior to her son, Leopold. And she thinks he knows the implications of that as relates to her bloodline.
One thing I will say about it: The hemophilia in the European royals stories are getting a little over-done. But, this one was fresh, because it dealt, not with Czarevitch Alexei of Russia, but with Prince Leopold of England. He was also a severe hemophiliac. It was kind of nice to switch it up.
Accuracy: 9. It's portrayed accurately for the time period.
Humanity: 6. When we meet Leopold, he is stubborn. He's a bit of a wild child. He has traits. But when all is said and done, he's kind of a plot device.
Permanence: 10. Leopold's issues are not going away any time soon. And when he does dumb things and rough-houses around, he ends up with bleeds. Which he would.
Encouragement: 5. Leopold may be fragile, but he's still a Prince, he's still intelligent, and he's still noble to those that are noble to him.
Cripple-Card: 10. Good job, Leopold, you're not a jerk. Or a Colin Craven. Maybe I should call this the Colin Craven Category. I'd say more people let him off the hook because he's the Prince.
You Must Have Faith Penalty: 0
Stereotype Penalty: -2
I debated on this one, because many of the stereotypes they reinforce are time period appropriate. I don't like the idea of the reader-public believing that that's the life of a hemophiliac today, but it is generally time period appropriate. So, I let them off. However, they did the "hemophiliacs will die of a paper cut" comment at one point. And hemophiliacs will not die of a papercut. EVER. Not even in Victorian England. Their platelets are fine, so that's a no-go. That's the -2 right there.
Other Purpose: +5
Final Score: 43/50
Good job. As for the actual book, if I were writing a book review: 3 stars. And don't give it to a child. It's Victorian England, and that wasn't exactly the most wholesome time in history.
I have some more to score, and a list of ones I need to read and score. But, if you know of any really good ones for this project (or for other book reviews), just let me know. For your information, I am currently not including mental illness in this project. I thought about it, and I might do a spin-off in the future. But I feel like they'd need different scoring criteria and stuff.
As many of you know, I work a lot with children with chronic illnesses. Hemophilia and Von Willebrands to be exact. As well as carriers of those diseases and the like. However, I feel that same kinship towards most chronically ill children. I don't know why. I'm not chronically ill. But I do.
Because of that, it has always kind of irked me that characters in children's books are never just regular kids with chronic illnesses. If kids in a book have a chronic illness, that's the entire point of the story. That child is usually just a plot device, not an actual mover of the story, and that disease is usually portrayed incorrectly. This is probably why in most every story I write, there is a chronically ill character. Even in my historical fiction, I have characters with chronic illnesses, even if that chronic illness hadn't been discovered at that point. I know what chronic illness they have. And it usually influences the story (because let's be honest, we can't be traipsing through the wilderness for days on end with a hemophiliac and not have issues related to that), but I make a point of never making it the story. I don't believe that you should ever answer the question of "what are you writing about?" with "a kid with x." That's not a story. That's a character.
So, this series is called SickFic, and will be a way to see if that is a story that kids with that disease could read and relate to, or be encouraged by. The best way to encourage chronically ill children, I believe, is to show them that their life doesn't begin and end with that illness.
Books will be graded in five Categories, each worth ten points. There are also two Penalty categories and a Bonus category.
So, the categories
Category 1: Accuracy
This one is straightforward. Is the disease actually portrayed accurately?
Category 2: Humanity
Does the chronically ill character have humanity and personality beyond their illness, or are they a sick-blob-of-a-plot-device?
Category 3: Permanence
Chronic illnesses are, let's face it, chronic. Does the diseased character have the actual physical limitations of their disease, or does the disease vanish and then reappear whenever convenient for the author in a way that illness would not? (If the disease does have vanishing/reappearing symptoms--like it has attacks--then that's okay) It's important to not limit those with chronic illnesses, but some things just aren't options for them.
Category 4: Encouragement
Does the character encourage readers that share their disease? Do they show that people with the illness can still be successful and still can achieve and accomplish.
Category 5: The Cripple-Card
Does the character get excused from accountability because of their disease? In other words, does the person play the cripple-card and everyone else allows it? Or do the same rules of society apply to this character?
The You Must Have Faith Penalty
One of the worst in all of chronic illness literature is acting like if they just wanted to be healthy--really, really bad--they could get healed. Up to -5 for this.
The Stereotype Penalty
If the author reinforces already existing stereotypes, they deserve to lose points. Up to -5.
Bonus
If the main objective is not "learning to live with their disability," there are 5 bonus points available. That's an important thing to do, but that's not the number one goal of these children's lives. Is your number one goal to get over the fact that you don't have everything perfect? Or is to achieve everything you can, thereby overcoming your obstacle. If I asked my girls what they wanted out of life and all they could tell me is "learn to accept that I'm a hemophiliac," I would be very disappointed. No family? No marriage? No college? No happiness?
First To the Scoring Board: A Flaw in the Blood by Stephanie Barron
This is a story about Victorian England. We have this guy being targeted by Queen Victoria, and no one really knows why. Eventually we find out that she thinks he knows her greatest secret. That the hemophilia trait had never been in the royal family prior to her son, Leopold. And she thinks he knows the implications of that as relates to her bloodline.
One thing I will say about it: The hemophilia in the European royals stories are getting a little over-done. But, this one was fresh, because it dealt, not with Czarevitch Alexei of Russia, but with Prince Leopold of England. He was also a severe hemophiliac. It was kind of nice to switch it up.
Accuracy: 9. It's portrayed accurately for the time period.
Humanity: 6. When we meet Leopold, he is stubborn. He's a bit of a wild child. He has traits. But when all is said and done, he's kind of a plot device.
Permanence: 10. Leopold's issues are not going away any time soon. And when he does dumb things and rough-houses around, he ends up with bleeds. Which he would.
Encouragement: 5. Leopold may be fragile, but he's still a Prince, he's still intelligent, and he's still noble to those that are noble to him.
Cripple-Card: 10. Good job, Leopold, you're not a jerk. Or a Colin Craven. Maybe I should call this the Colin Craven Category. I'd say more people let him off the hook because he's the Prince.
You Must Have Faith Penalty: 0
Stereotype Penalty: -2
I debated on this one, because many of the stereotypes they reinforce are time period appropriate. I don't like the idea of the reader-public believing that that's the life of a hemophiliac today, but it is generally time period appropriate. So, I let them off. However, they did the "hemophiliacs will die of a paper cut" comment at one point. And hemophiliacs will not die of a papercut. EVER. Not even in Victorian England. Their platelets are fine, so that's a no-go. That's the -2 right there.
Other Purpose: +5
Final Score: 43/50
Good job. As for the actual book, if I were writing a book review: 3 stars. And don't give it to a child. It's Victorian England, and that wasn't exactly the most wholesome time in history.
I have some more to score, and a list of ones I need to read and score. But, if you know of any really good ones for this project (or for other book reviews), just let me know. For your information, I am currently not including mental illness in this project. I thought about it, and I might do a spin-off in the future. But I feel like they'd need different scoring criteria and stuff.
Comments