Not necessarily related , or helpful, to your question, but I've found a new (to me) website, and he does a great job of describing what I think (hope) I'm doing ...

This guy calls it 3rd person narrative POV (as opposed to 3rd person limited and 3rd person omnisicient)

http://www.novel-writing-help.com/third-person-narrative.html

At any rate, I've had a real struggle in my head about what I seem to be doing, vs. the 3rd person "tight" or 3rd person "close" POV that everyone seems to recommend, because I thought I was writing somewhat in omnisicient, which everyone has told me is too 19th century and generally won't be published.

But given his examples and explanations, I'm not really doing omni, which is a huge relief, although I will still need to tighten up once I hit the first revision pass.

Somewhere else on the site, he does mention that most (all?) urban fantasy is written in 1st person POV ...

But he (and many others) also repeatedly say, "do whatever best serves the story being told".

It wasn’t my intent to use gatekeeper in a pejorative sense, or to cast any particular aspersions on agents.

My personal preference is to go the traditional “get an agent, find a publisher” route.

Nor do I wish to heap all of the “blame” on the editors, who to an extent are bound by the same limitations as the agents.

In the current, traditional model, publishers make a fairly substantial upfront investment when they agree to publish a (real) paper book, and thus have a tendency to stay within certain conservative parameters, playing it safe by only publishing what sells really well, what fits the currently common mold, etc.

Agents are just like anyone else, they have bills to pay and families to feed, and they do so by representing us and our stories, and submitting them to the (more or less) above described publishers.

So, by extension, the agents have to know what the publishers do and don’t want, and so have a natural tendency to only pick up authors who are delivering those things. And who can really blame them.

My hope is that if the traditional publishing houses embrace the e-book model, they will be willing to take a few more risks, and go a little more outside the established norms, since the e-books will not have those big, upfront costs.

That might in turn allow agents to also “open things up” a bit more, and still be able to put food on their tables.

The above obnoxious word has been widely used of  late by Joe Konrath and others, but since I see the "new publishing paradigm" coming up here now and again, I thought the link might be newsworthy in this space.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/business/media/perseus-creates-new-service-for-authors-seeking-to-self-publish.html?_r=1&src=recg

This one’s a hybrid lying between traditional brick and mortar publishing and the current e-book environment, where anyone can basically publish anything, even if its "lousy".

This seems a better way than the others I’ve been seeing, where agents are becoming e-publishers themselves, and thereby bringing in questions of just whose interests are coming first, the author’s or the agent as publisher’s.

The method shown still places the agencies as the gatekeeper to being published though, which makes things tougher on new authors.

But since there’s very little monetary risk for the publisher, maybe it will allow agents to open things up a bit more.

Amazon reportedly has a similar deal, but without the need for an agent. I’ve no idea how they acquire authors though. I’ve not looked into their submission requirements, etc.

TBH, I’m kinda glad I’m not really ready for this step yet. It will give me more time to see how things are gonna shake out. ;-)

I've been handling this in a bit of an odd (or maybe a good) way.

When folks first meet, they are primarily referred to by race, or by their profession, etc. in the mind of the current POV character.

It's only after a character gets to know another character that they actually begin referring to that person by their given name.

*shrug*

seems right to me

This just popped into my head , spawned by the poster above ... my apologies if its already been mentioned.

Maybe its just too dangerous to walk around with a gun, whether it shoots bullets or balls, because the casters can make the gunpowder spontaneously explode.

This might give rise to really eloborately made, single shot guns, designed to ward the powder from the mages.

The character you're writing about turns and looks back at you like Sonic the Hedgehog, giving you an "okay, now what?" look.

Don't know much of anything about YA, but in the case of theft and morality, I'd say be sure and show consequences to his actions, and/or have him know internally that stealing is wrong.

heck, you might even use that as his growth arc.

He starts out as a thieving little shit, but as time and the plot goes on, due to the results of his thefts, he "begins to see the light", etc.

FWIW

I'm not really in a position to help you, at least not at this time, becase I basically share your predicament.

I'm building a cast of chracters that yes, will turn ino "the Hero's party" so obviously, I can't kill any of them off just yet.

And, depite the oft quoted advce to "kill your darlings" I'm going to need these folks to be around for quite some time ... through several books, if things go as planned.

But, folks have to die, somewhere along the way, right? Otherwise, the evil isn't evil enough, the bad isn't bad enough, etc.

So, for now, I'm casting about for some minor characters that I can add, just so I can kill them. 

I've already killed a few nameless townsfolk, a few evil minions, and of course some critters, but before too long I'll need some more folks to kill ...

So, as an addendum to the previous question, who do you kill?

PS. esp. if you're doing long form fiction *coughneurovorecough*