Oh, Boston

I love Copley Square.

There was a summer, forever tinged with nostalgia, where a friend was taking a class near there, and the rest of us spent a few hours once a week rambling around the area waiting for her to be done.

We saw Great Big Sea out on the green in front of Trinity Church.

A short-lived work book group met in the courtyard of the Boston Public Library on a gorgeous summer day.

I played hooky from college classes one spring morning, hopped on the train and went into Boston. It was to Copley I went.

If we stay in town for our anniversary, chances are we go somewhere near Copley and the Pru.

Work is four Green Line stops away, near City Hall Plaza, surrounded by federal buildings. I was here in 2001, and went home last night feeling a dread similar to the one I remember from that terrible September morning.

I am sad, and angry, and much as I’d like to pretend otherwise, a little bit frightened.

I love this city.

My heart aches for the dead, the injured, those who lost loved ones, those who are afraid.

I am thankful for the first responders, for the runners who turned right back around and went to help, for the doctors and nurses and everyone who has been working tirelessly since yesterday afternoon.

For the people who gave blood, or offered places to stay for anyone stranded, for Boston residents who walked outside and passed out food, drink, and comfort; for restaurants and businesses that opened their doors and offered places to charge cell phones so people could contact their friends and families, places to simply gather and wait.

I think of those kindnesses, of those people embodying that Mr. Rogers quote that made the rounds over and over yesterday, and I am so goddamned proud.

I love you, Boston.

 

Posted in rambling | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Let’s Bust Some Bookselling and Publishing Myths

Last week, Salon ran an article by Hugh Howey (author of Wool) about how self-publishing is the future and the way new writers should turn.

I don’t entirely agree with that, as most of you who’ve been playing along at home might know. Chuck Wendig’s thoughts on the matter pretty closely match my own: do a little bit of both self-pub and commercial publishing! If you want! In whatever order works best for you!

That’s not the part of this business I want to focus on here. I’m going to pick at a few of the points in his piece where Howey repeats misinformation about trade publishing and bookselling that gets parrotted a lot by some of the bigger names in self-pub. I’m tired of hearing it, so fuck it. Let’s set some records straight.

Ready? Here we go.

The old route for literary success looks stodgy and outdated by comparison. You write in a vacuum or for a professor who frowns on genre; you workshop with other writers;

I’m not entirely sure how this first bit is different between writers who are published commercially and writers who self-pub. Unless you’re livestreaming yourself typing away at the keyboard and taking suggestions from readers as you go, most writers write in a vacuum, at least for their initial drafts. We pull ourselves away from the world and do that thing where we put words on the page, no matter how we plan on publishing it when it’s done.

Regarding writing for a “professor who frowns on genre,” I’m eyeing this line askance. Not because I’m arguing that some professors think genre is a waste of time — some do, and that’s bullshit — but because I occasionally see a sneery kind of dismissal of writers who do take courses on their craft. It wasn’t my path (last writing course I took was an elective in high school, and my teacher there loved genre), but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong for everyone. I dunno. It skirts close to the edge of calling other writers snobby, or dismissing their choices, and I’m not keen with that.

On workshopping with other writers: what, erm, is wrong with that? Whether it’s attending a physical workshop — shameless plug for Viable Paradise! applications open through June 15th! — or simply being a beta reader for your peers, I can’t see how this is stodgy or outdated. Going with Howey’s analogy about someone learning to play guitar, isn’t getting feedback on how to improve from other musicians a good thing? Isn’t working with other members of your band going to make you a stronger player?

you craft a query letter;

Yep, you do. I’ve seen people refer to the querying process as “demoralizing” or “demeaning,” and have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

When you apply to colleges, many of them ask you to write a personal statement — an essay that tells a little bit about who you are, what you’ve done, what you want to do.

When you apply for a job, you need to write a cover letter telling your prospective employer why they ought to hire you.

In both cases you need to be engaging, interesting, and yet (especially with a cover letter) succinct.

Querying isn’t much different from that. Some agents don’t respond if they’re not interested. The same with some HR departments. You ought to research the agents you’re querying first and know a little about their tastes; you should do the same with a company you’d like to work for.

Beyond that, query letters and book descriptions really aren’t that far off from one another. I imagine that most writers who self-publish have to fill out, for Amazon or Goodreads or for their own website, a short description of their book to hook the reader. If you can write good back cover copy, you can write a good query letter.

you appeal to the tastes of an intern at a literary agency;

Really depends on the agency there. Out of 40-something query letters Hill and I sent out, I believe two had replies that didn’t come from the agent themselves. This doesn’t mean, necessarily, that none of the other 38 weren’t from interns authorized to send rejections from their bosses’ accounts, but I’d guess the majority were from the agents.

Even still, let’s say the intern is charged with sorting through the slush. They’re at that job because they’re interested in books and publishing. For the most part, their job is to weed out queries that don’t follow guidelines, or for books in a genre the agent doesn’t represent, so the agent’s time isn’t wasted. But all right, you’ve followed the guidelines, you’re querying an agent who likes military SF with your military SF novel, and now the intern reads your 250-word summary. The interns know what the agents they’re working for are looking for. Chances are, if they’re on the fence about whether a query works or not, they’ll pass it along to the agent just in case.

you claw your way out of the slush pile;

Did you write a good book? Did your query make it sound interesting? Did you refrain from saying things like “This is better than the crap that’s on bookshelves these days”?

Read Teresa Nielsen Hayden’s “Slushkiller” post, especially point 3 about the context of rejection.

you hope to win over an editor at a major publishing house;

You read “Slushkiller,” right?

your book comes out a year later

Yep, a year, maybe two! During which time the following things happen:

  • You and your editor make the book stronger, taking a few passes until you’re both satisfied.
  • Six to nine months before your pub date, your book is collected in the publisher’s seasonal catalog, and the publisher’s sales reps sell it to bookstores, or booksellers placing their orders through Edelweiss see it in electronic form. I can’t stress this part enough, because the claims of “My book got no marketing!” so often overlook this point. This is marketing, too.
  • A lot of books have either physical advanced reading copies or digital galleys available ahead of time, giving booksellers, reviewers, and bloggers time to read the books and get buzz going.

and sits spine-out on a bookshelf

Sometimes. Or maybe it gets put into a staff picks section. Or on a wall of new SF. Or faced-out because the bookstore ordered several copies. This idea that bookstores just toss books on the shelves and make no effort to sell them is boggling to me.

Does every bookseller read every book that comes into their receiving area? Hell no, not with tens of thousands of titles. But neither do they shelve ‘em and forget ‘em.

for six months; it gets returned to the publisher

Booksellers do not have an egg timer set to ding six months after they receive a book into their inventory. If it sells, they’re likely to reorder a copy and keep it in stock as long as it keeps doing so. If it doesn’t, however, yes, after a time they will pull it from the shelves and return it to the publisher to make room for other people’s books. It’s the Circle of Life, bookstore style.

Damn it, now I want to rewrite those lyrics and apply them to writerly things.

Would that we could keep every book in stock, forever and ever until each and every copy found a home. But that would require an ever-expanding store footprint, and retail space is expensive. And, with people going to Amazon rather than their friendly local indie, well, how should bookstores determine how they’re going to pay for that retail space?

By selling books, and curating (yes, curating! I said it!) their stock to be as profitable as possible.

So they can stay in business.

And sell more books.

To readers.

and goes out of print;

Bzzt, not necessarily, and certainly not after only six months.

When a book is released in hardcover, then six months, nine months, a year after pub, it will very likely come out in paperback. Maybe trade paperback, maybe mass market. Booksellers will send the hardcover back and pick up the trade because readers will often go for the cheaper edition if they have the option. Much like, as Howey mentions, they’ll prefer to pay the lower price on the ebook.

That hardcover edition will eventually be placed out of print. Or remaindered. But the paperback edition lives on!

And will still live on not only months from its paperback pub date, but very likely for years, as long as there is stock in the publisher’s warehouse, and as long as there is demand for them to reprint it.

Go into your local bookstore. Browse their paperback fiction section (not the new releases!) and pick a small, random sampling of books. Open up to the cover page and find the copyright date. They are not all going to say 2012 or 2013. They’re not. So enough with this “you get six months and that’s it” thing.

When a book goes out of print, the rights revert to the author. Some books are declared out of print before the publisher runs out of stock, because they’ve dipped below a certain sales thresshold. That’s something you or your agent hashes out with your publisher. Rights reverting isn’t the end of your book’s life! If you’re going for the long tail and you have your rights back, you can bring that out-of-print book back into print on your own and catch those fans who didn’t find you the first time around.

you start over.

Please tell me you’ve been writing another book or two in the year and a half since you sold that first one. Especially since a lot of publishers will do multi-book deals.

The general reader is a mile away from you in this process. You never had a chance to be heard by the only people who truly matter.

Way to disappear the booksellers there.

Also, if the book was on the shelf for those six months, how is that “never had a chance to be heard”? If, as Howey points out later on, writers have to do some of their own promo, isn’t that prime time for them to reach out to readers and say Hey, my book is out in stores now?

If a reader goes into a bookstore and asks for the book, the store can special order it for them if it’s not in stock. Sometimes, booksellers will bring in a copy for that reader and an extra for the store. We also live in the days of pre-orders. If the self-promoting author lets fans know their book is forthcoming, those fans can show their support by ordering it in advance. It lets the booksellers know there’s concrete interest.

Moving along:

These days, manuscripts need to be perfect before they’re submitted to agents or before you self-publish, so don’t fool yourself into thinking a rough draft can become a great novel with the help of an agent or editor.

This is pretty sound advice. Why would you want to show your work to readers if it’s not the best you can make it? This is why the earlier point about writers honing their craft through self-publishing — unleashing your would-never-get-out-of-the-slush-pile book while you’re still learning — confuses me.

Back to the guitar analogy: I’m learning to play. I’m not very good. No way in hell would I put my hat out on the street and busk at this skill level. If I’m fumbling my way through Counting Crows covers and fucking up my bar chords, the record companies aren’t being mean or snobby for not offering to sign me. It’s because I’m not good enough yet.

“Not good enough” is a subjective thing, to be sure. Some gems will get overlooked. Some have already been missed, or passed over, and have done so smashingly well in their self-published form that trade publishers have come back around making offers.

(Here’s an anecdote I have yet to hear but would be curious to know about: have any of the big self-pub success stories been offered a contract from an editor, or been wooed by an agent, who had previously rejected them for that specific book?)

I do, however, quibble with this next bit:

…[your book] won’t be amazing just because some agent or editor seems to think so.

Well, no, of course not. But a good editor can make a book that’s pretty solid on its own even better – not by simply thinking it and having it happen through magic, but by actually working with the author to shore up plot points and strengthen characters/dialogue/setting.

Skipping down to the end:

Even if you land with a major publishing house, the success of your work will depend on you knowing this business and embracing all the challenges that a self-published author faces.

As I said above, there are aspects to trade publishing that are nearly invisible to anyone outside the business. Inclusion in seasonal catalogs is just one of them.

Even if you don’t get a $500,000 marketing campaign, or even a $5,000 one, you still have access to your publisher’s publicity and marketing departments. They might not send you on a twenty-city tour, but they know your local booksellers and can help get you in touch.

Knowing the business is simply a smart move no matter how you get published. Whether your royalties are coming from a publisher’s finance department or from Amazon, this is your career, your money. Being incurious about how it all works or thinking “Welp, now that I’m with one of the Big Six-Five-Four-Eleventy, I don’t have to think about it anymore” is only going to hurt you in the long run.

Be curious. Be savvy. Be professional. No matter which way you go.

There are only a handful of authors in the world who can make a living writing and passing along those words to someone else and not doing a single other thing.

I guess some bestselling authors can just type “the end” and move on to the next book, but most of the ones I’ve seen — Stephen King, say, or George R.R. Martin — still do interviews and publicity and signings.

Most people who attempt this method teach creative writing for a living, and not because they want to.

That’s… ouch. It looks like Howey’s taking a shot at both trade-published writers and creative writing teachers here, and I really don’t understand why. I hope I’m wrong!

I’m also unclear on the meaning of this — the “method” referred to is, I think, from the previous sentence: passing along work to someone and not doing anything else. But those writers are, again from the previous sentence, making a living from their writing. Soooo why do they also need to teach creative writing for a living? I’m confused.

Promotion will be up to you.

There’s certainly an amount of author-involvement required in promotion, and it’s not always spread out equally among writers on a season’s list. Not every book gets a full-page ad in the New York Times, or a fifteen second spot on TV. Not every writer gets a big huge book tour, or an interview on NPR or Good Morning America.

Some writers get a lot less. They still have access to resources from their publisher that a self-published writer either doesn’t start out with or has to cultivate on his or her own over a period of time.

Your publisher will want to see your social media presence before they offer you a book deal.

No. Nononononono. I don’t know where this one started, or why it keeps getting repeated. But every time this comes up — whether on writers’ forums or on twitter or during panels at conferences — editors and agents say, “We’d rather you write a good book than spend your time getting thousands of followers.”

So why do people keep trotting this out?

Sure, if you have ten hojillion twitter followers, that’s probably going to help with sales. Or if you run a popular blog about puppies and wrote a mystery about a puppy detective, that’s helpful.

But if you wrote a really good fucking book, an editor’s not going to shy away from making an offer because you don’t tweet ten times a day. So can we just dispense with that one now?

Please?

Whatever way you get your words out there — whether you’re going all trade, all self-pub, or a little bit of both, it’s wise to learn a lot about the bookselling industry. That’s going to mean learning to think critically about the claims that are made in one direction or the other.

Posted in books, writing | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Google Glass, Privacy and Willful Misunderstanding

I’ve seen links to this Verge article going around, including one heavily quoted section of the piece:

At one point during my time with Glass, we all went out to navigate to a nearby Starbucks — the camera crew I’d brought with me came along. As soon as we got inside however, the employees at Starbucks asked us to stop filming. Sure, no problem. But I kept the Glass’ video recorder going, all the way through my order and getting my coffee. Yes, you can see a light in the prism when the device is recording, but I got the impression that most people had no idea what they were looking at. The cashier seemed to be on the verge of asking me what I was wearing on my face, but the question never came. He certainly never asked me to stop filming.

It bothered me that the cashier was filmed without his knowledge or consent, first and foremost — a privacy issue that others have already spoken to quite well. But there was something else itching at me about that quote. I set it aside for awhie, but stumbled across it again in my feed reader*this morning, and it clicked into place.

Again, from the article, but cutting out the middle of the paragraph:

[...]As soon as we got inside however, the employees at Starbucks asked us to stop filming.[...] But I kept the Glass’ video recorder going, all the way through my order and getting my coffee.[...] He certainly never asked me to stop filming.

Do you see it?

The Starbucks employees asked them to stop filming. Full stop.

Joshua Topolsky, the article’s author and wearer of the Google Glass device, kept filming.

He seems to be justifying his continued recording, even though the cashier was clearly wary, because he wasn’t specifically asked to stop using his device.

The point is, the cashier shouldn’t have had to ask him to stop using Google Glass, because other employees at the Starbucks asked the whole crew to stop filming.

That request doesn’t mean “only the cameras we can see need to be shut off.” It means every camera, including the little widget attached to your glasses that doesn’t look like one. When the crew shut off their cameras, the Starbucks employees believed they were no longer being filmed. Sneakily keeping the Glass device recording because it wasn’t specifically named in the request was not okay.

Benefit of the doubt here, I’m guessing Topolsky did that partly to point out how easy it would be to record someone via Google Glass without their knowledge or permission. I don’t believe he was intentionally being a jerk. However, the end of that paragraph, where he says he was never asked to stop filming less than 75 words after he states the crew as a whole was “asked us to stop filming” (bolding mine), bothers me.

He was certainly part of the “us” at the start of the section. “Us” implies that the first-person speaker counts himself as part of the whole group. By the end of the paragraph, he switches to “never asked me to stop filming.” He’s split the crew into “the guys with cameras” and “me, the guy with Google Glass” which he seems to think exempts him from the employees’ request.

It doesn’t work that way.

I don’t think Topolsky would have, after the cameras were shut off, whipped out a smartphone and started recording on the presumption that “they didn’t ask me not to record on my iPhone.” So why would he consider Google Glass any different?

Say a teacher tells her test-taking students, “Don’t copy off the person sitting next to you.” A student who copies from the person sitting in front of them knows full goddamned well she isn’t supposed to copy from anyone.

If she gets caught, do you really think the teacher’s going to buy the excuse of “Well, you didn’t say we couldn’t copy from the person in front of us”?

No. That kid’s going to fail the test, and rightfully so.

That sort of willful misunderstanding of the employees’ legitimate request is something I worry about with the advent of Glass. Wiggling around a person’s right to privacy because they didn’t ask exactly the right question in exactly the right way?

Come on. We need to be better than that.

 

*The soon-to-be-defunct Google Reader. I get the irony

Posted in geekery, language, Politics | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

On “Just Ask Them To Stop”

Here is a reaction I see all the time when someone complains about harassing behavior, or behavior that makes a person uncomfortable:

“Why don’t you ask the person doing it to stop?”

or

“How do they know there’s a problem if you don’t ask them to stop?”

or

“Before [someone in authority] can act, the person who feels bothered/harassed/upset has to ASK THE PERSON DOING THE THING THAT’S BOTHERING THEM TO STOP. Then, if the behavior continues, [someone in authority] can step in.”

A nerd analogy, to start.

I play World of Warcraft.

I play World of Warcraft on a roleplaying server.

I have lost count of the number of times, over the last *mumbledycough* years, that I’ve been sitting around RPing with friends — in a tavern, out in the world, wherever — and someone’s come along, LOLed, stripped to their pixellated skivvies, and danced on the nearest table (or whatever else happens to be smack in the middle of the group.) Or they sit down and start speakething in Ye Olde Faketh Englifhe. Or unleash a series of area-of-effect spells that players can’t not see. Or they buy stacks of booze, chug them one after one, and repeatedly trigger the puking animation. You know. Obnoxious shit like that.

Blizzard’s recommended way to deal with these people, the ones who are intentionally and knowingly disrupting other players’ experiences?

“Ask them (politely!) to please stop.” (Because they’re being so polite to us, right?)

THEN, if they don’t, you can report it to a GM. But only if you, the harassed, ask your harassers to cut the shit first.

I’ve never had this work in my favor. I’ve never, not once in *mumbledycough* years, had the person I asked to cut the shit actually cut the shit. Most times, they find some way to up their asshattery. Some call in guildmates, even. Some, if you decide to vacate the spot and go elsewhere, follow you as far as they can to continue the griefing.

We have one guildmate — ONE — who has a high success rate with this method. I think she has secret internet mind control powers.

The point here is, asking harassers to stop usually only gets them to keep doing it. Hold onto that thought for a moment, shall we?

When I was little, there was a kid in my kindergarten class who liked to pull my hair. Probably because it made me cry. He learned: pull hair, get reaction. I was told by multiple parties, “Ignore him and he’ll go away.” Tried that! Didn’t work! Hair got pulled even harder! Eventually a teacher had to intervene.

That advice, the variants on “ignore them and they’ll go away,” is ALSO bullshit.  Women hear that all the time, too.

Ignore the trolls!

Ignore the misogynists!

Ignore that guy who says women can’t code can’t play video games can’t build houses can’t take apart an engine can’t write science fiction can’t can’t can’t et-fucking-cetera.

First, telling us to suck it up and ignore it is silencing.

Second, how do you want it, world? Should we face our harassers or ignore them?

Consider, too, that “just ask them to stop” assumes the person who’s bothered by those actions feels safe enough to do so. Speaking up for yourself puts you into a terribly vulnerable position. You get told you’re overreacting. Or “it was just a joke.” Or the classic gaslighting response of “it wasn’t that bad.”

It can put you in a bad situation socially or even professionally, as others around you brand you as someone who is an over-sensitive shit-stirrer.  “She’s just looking for something to be upset about.”

We stay quiet, we’re not assertive enough. We speak up, we’re no-fun-having bitches. Awesome.

How about, instead, the people who have some sway, who are standing on the sidelines saying “yeah, not cool” to themselves actually try saying it the fuck out loud?

Because here’s the thing: if you are not the target of the “jokes,” if you are not the target of the slurs and the comments, you have more power than the person who is. Generally, that’s going to mean men need to call out other men when they hear shitty things being said about women. In this case, gents, you are the Blizzard GMs. You are the kindergarten teachers.

You might not think you have that kind of power, but you do.

Posted in feminism | Tagged , | 1 Comment

This is Rape Culture

Rawstory — CNN grieves that guilty verdict ruined ‘promising’ lives of Steubenville rapists

You guys, I just can’t even, right now.

Go read that link.

CNN’s Candy Crowley, on reporting the guilty verdicts in the Steubenville rape case, bemoaned the loss of the men’s football careers. (And yes, I’m saying men, not boys. Because let’s not fucking pretend they were innocent little children committing rape, shall we?

Oh, and yes, I’m going to swear.)

When you — like Candy Crowley and alarming percentage of the town of Steubenville! — value the lives and careers of rapists over that of their victim, you are contributing to the rape culture.

When you blame the victim for being too drunk to consent, or for “putting herself in that situation,” you are contributing to the rape culture.

When you suggest that the girl who was raped is at fault for the football players not being able to toss around the pigskin anymore and oh noes their careers and their scholarships and the poor colleges who won’t have them on their teams, you are contributing to the rape culture. Also, bonus, you’re an asshole.

If you think the answer to this is to teach girls not to get drunk at parties instead of teaching boys not to rape, you are contributing to the rape culture.

If you are judging the victim on her inebriation, what she wore, where she was from, for going to the party in the first place, or not leaving soon enough, or not having a friend with her to save her from the rapists, or in any way suggesting she had the power to stop being raped, you are contributing to the rape culture.

If you think “she didn’t say no, so she wasn’t really raped,” fuck you, and you are contributing to the rape culture.

If you think boys were just being boys, you are contributing to the rape culture.

If you think we need to teach women how not to be raped (because that’s 100% effective, amirite?), and don’t think we should be teaching men not to fucking rape in the first place, you are contributing to the rape culture.

That’s all I have the spoons for right now. If you have some points you’d like to add, drop ‘em in the comments.*

*Fair warning, coming here and “playing devil’s advocate,” or being all “what about the menz” or “women lie all the time” isn’t going to be met with kindness. I’m not in a state of mind to give anyone the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions, and I’m not going to apologize for that. My space, my rules. Be an asshat and I’ll take away your vowels.

Posted in feminism | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Be Professional

Glitter
(Glitter, by CaptPiper on flickr)

 

Last night I followed a twitter hashtag hosted by editors and agents who were answering writers’ questions.

It was going well — good questions, enthusiastic participation.

Then I saw That Guy slip into the conversation.

The one whose twitter handle is also the name of his series.

The one who couches bad information in a question, with the “GOTCHA” barely concealed behind his back.

The one who can’t resist taking a shot at the industry, while simultaneously trying to garner interest in his work from the very professionals he’s insuting.

The one who repeatedly implies that agents ignored or turned down his work and were clearly wrong to do so because his work is so good and they clearly have no taste.

The one who reveals his true colors towards the end, suggesting editors are only looking for books that will make them scads of money, that publishers only buy books that are carbon-copies of whatever trend sits atop the bestseller list, that anyone who has an agent is desperate, and if they got one, it’s because they were big suck-ups.

Lovelies, dont be That Guy.

The professionals in the chat engaged That Guy in good faith at first, correcting his misinformation (probably for the benefit of other writers following along, so they don’t walk away with bad intel). When the QQing began, they shut him down poitely but firmly.

Here’s what has me still seething:

The trade publishing route isn’t for everyone. That’s okay!

Some people have legitimate reasons not to like trade publishers. That’s okay too!

Barging into a conversation to say, essentially, “YOU’RE ALL MEAN GREEDY JERKS (but here’s what my book’s about in case you’re interested)” is childish and unprofessional. Don’t do that.

And, because I’m feeling feisty, let’s go ahead and address those loaded “questions”:

“You only want to buy books that will make you lots of money.”
First and foremost, NOT TRUE. Editors buy books they’re passionate about. Because they love the characters, the story, the setting, and want to share them with the world.

Second, most books don’t earn out their advances. If editors only bought books that made scads and scads of money, that’d mean most books would earn out.

Third, why would you turn your nose up at earning scads and scads of money? I mean, you’re content to work your ass off writing a book and don’t want good things to happen to it, including putting cash in your bank account? I call bullshit. Read this post by Chuck Wendig. Read this post by John Scalzi.

Writing is a BUSINESS. Artists should get paid for their art. If we don’t get paid, we either write more slowly (because y’know, we need to find another way to pay the bills so we can have electricity and paper and booze) or we don’t write at all. If an editor wants to hand me a big fat check for my writing, you’re damned right I’m going to make grabby hands.
(Editors: it can be a moderate-sized check too!
/makes phone-to-ear gesture
/mouths “call me.”
/wink)

And while we’re at it, let’s address the tired old, “But but but celebrity tell-alls! Butbutbut Snooki’s book! Butbutbut This Series I Love To Hate!”

Yup. Publishers put out some stuff you’d never read, stuff that has questionable literary chops, stuff that got to someone’s desk because the author’s on TV or Knows a Guy. You can rail against it, but you don’t have to read it. And, thing is, if that book you love to hate makes the publisher scads and scads of money?

That profit lets them give a debut author a chance later on down the line. Maybe that debut author will be you!

If publishers don’t make money, they don’t stay open, which means they stop putting out books. I really don’t see how condemning them for, y’know, turning a profit is helpful.

“You only buy whatever the hot new trend is and all the books are the same.”
If something’s trending, it’s because readers are asking for more of it. And publishers would be fools not to provide that if they’ve got something good in that vein. It doesn’t mean every book is a knockoff of the original hit.

Also, publishing schedules run 1-2 years out. A lot of the dystopian books that were published in the wake of The Hunger Games had already been contracted before it hit big. Did some get bought afterwards to catch the wave? Sure! Does reader-fatigue set in after awhile? Sure! It’s a matter of finding that balance between getting readers what they want and finding something new for them to fall in love with.

If you don’t think editors are perpetually looking for something new, boy howdy are you not listening to all their tweets and blog posts saying just that. What do they gain from lying about it? Do you think they want extra slush filling up inboxes and office space?

“People with agents are desperate.”
Okay. Look. Now you’re slamming your fellow writer, and that’s shitty. I know there are successful writers out there who insist agents are Teh Ebil, and they’ve got lots of people parroting their beliefs, but that phrasing is belittling to other people in your chosen profession. If you can do it without an agent, good for you! Please respect those of us who disagree with that mindset and choose to partner with an agent.

“If you got an agent, you did it by sucking up to them or you knew someone.”
Again with the being shitty towards other writers. Cut it out. People (hi!) get agents by writing good books and professional, attention-grabbing query letters. If you think being polite is sucking up, welp, good luck with that attitude. If you think researching agents is beneath you, and mentioning why you think you’re a good fit for them is sucking up, welp, good luck with that, too. The industry requires writers to be savvy and knowledgeable. To be curious, even, about the people they’ll be working with. Try it out!

And, here’s the thing — That Guy might have a great book. Maybe he had a weak query, or queried the wrong people, or was quite simply too impatient to wait and find the right one. Any number of other factors could have led to his lack of response. That Guy might be totally awesome in person.

But what this all comes off as, quite honestly, is a huge case of sour grapes, with a smattering of Speshul Snowflake syndrome. Add in the thinly-veiled intent to make a conversation aimed at helping new writers to instead be about how the industry has done That Guy wrong, and yuck.

It’s obnoxious. It’s like going to someone else’s dinner party and talking over the other guests, saying the soup is cold and you heard the chef spits in it anyway, and the food you make is so much better.

Seriously, don’t do this. Not only because it’ll make you look unprofessional, but (if you don’t care about that), because it’s unfair to the people who are there to learn and ask questions. Those agents and editors volunteered their time — unpaid! — to help and encourage newcomers. If you can’t respect the industry professionals, at the very least respect your fellow writers.

Posted in writing | Leave a comment

State of the Things, February 2013

Hello, February. Hello, cold weather. Hello, new trip around the sun.

A couple of quick updates on writerly things:

  • I’m moving Gavrick’s off the sidebar. Tabling it for now while I focus on The Fire Children, which has gone from a middle grade novel to young adult. Adrift stays, because it’s what comes next.
  • The Fire Children is chugging along. I’ve hit the 20,000 mark, which is about right for where I am, plotwise. Of course, this propels me into the tricksy, fiddly, middle section of the book — early middle, at least, so I get a few thousand words to deal with the twist I just threw at my main character. But at some point comes the middle middle, which is about pacing and revealing and eep.I also wibble between leaving the opening chapters be until my first draft is done, or going back to shore them up (and bring the MG-flavored bits up to YA) now. So far I’ve settled for warning my readers if I’m referring to something in a chapter that seems to come from nowhere. It’s there in my head, I swear!
  • If you’ve been following my adventures here or on twitter long enough, you probably know I’m a gamer. If you’re a gamer, too, or are thinking you might like to try that whole dice-rolling, character-generating, why-is-the-GM-giggling, roleplaying thing out, you should watch this space. Because erm. I’ve done some writing (and am doing some more!) for some really fuckawesome games. When I have release dates and permission to say Hey, I worked on that!, I’ll shout about them to the internets.

The projects list, if you’re curious (these are mine. Freelance/work-for-hire stuff won’t be listed here for now):

Active projects:

  • The Fire Children 22,000 words and counting. Still aiming to have the first draft done in early spring.
  • Adrift — part of writing, for me, is reading. Both Master and Commander and Nine Princes in Amber were recommended to me several times during VP. I own and have started both. Looking forward to nicer weather, so I can go do research on ships in person. Probably a May or June start for this one, draft done sometime in the fall?

On the horizon:

  • “Wolves” — moved this above Billy, since it’s been loudest in my head recently. Might have something to do with the weather turning cold and us finally getting some snow. Really thinking I should take a night off from The Fire Children and poke at it, see if I can find its shape.
  • “The Reunion Tour of Billy James and the Flamethrowers, or How Billy Got the Band Back Together”
  • “The Desert in Fimbulwinter”
  • Cavale stories
Posted in writing | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Tell Me What Does It Mean

’13…

I did a lot in 2012. I’m not great at setting goals, really, but my “resolution” last year was to make it “the year I give myself a break, and the year I demand more from myself.” Not sure how well I did on the first front, but looking back over the things I accomplished, I think I did all right on the second:

  • Went on-submission with two novels, Night Owls and Gid
  • Oh, hey, finished Gid in the first place.
  • Had a short story appear in an anthology
  • Traveled to Worldcon
  • Applied to and was accepted for Viable Paradise
  • Contributed to a couple of projects whose titles/themes I’m not announcing quite yet, because I’m weirdly superstitious and still a newbie to this particular branch of the writing/freelancing thing. Worded differently, I neither want to jinx myself nor commit a professional faux pas. When I know I can say stuff, I’ll say it. It’s keen, exciting work, and something I’ve wanted to do for a long time.

I don’t know if 2013 needs a theme or a challenge, but why the hell not. I took risks last year, shoved myself firmly out of my writerly comfort zone, and good things came of it. Taking a page from the Curiosity rover and the MSL team, then, (and in turn from Teddy Roosevelt), for 2013 I shall dare mighty things.

No, I’m not likely to send a roving science lab hurtling towards Titan, but I can propel myself and my writing further — sic itur ad astra.

Quick updatery, then.

Active projects:

  • The Fire Children sits just shy of 16,000 words. I’m wibbling over the main character’s age, which makes the voice fluctuate wildly from scene to scene as I test things out. It’s currently middle-grade, but it could be a young YA if I make her older. Still, I’d like to be done with the first draft by early spring.
  • Adrift — the first two chapters were my VP submission, so at some point I’ll start incorporating my notes and edits. Heaps of reading and research to do for it, too.

On the horizon:

  • “The Reunion Tour of Billy James and the Flamethrowers, or How Billy Got the Band Back Together”
  • “Wolves”
  • “The Desert in Fimbulwinter”
  • Cavale stories

The Cavale stories are a project still in the mulling stages, but essentially, I’d like to write some short prequel stories set in the Night Owls universe. Not sure just yet whether they’ll be something I could submit around — it depends on how well they stand alone, I suppose. Cross that bridge when they’re written, I suppose.

Posted in writing | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

On Self-Publishing Packages: Intro

Some days I feel like a broken record. Or a line from Needful Things (“You’ve been here before.”) Or maybe I’m a Cylon: All of this has happened before; all of this will happen again.

Today the news is about a Big N* publisher making a deal with a big self-publishing outfit. Other commercial publishers have done similar things in the past, and it won’t surprise me if more do it in the future.

Thing is, even without Big N relationships, these big ol’ give-us-money-and-we’ll-make-you-an-author outfits really aren’t great deals for writers. Since it’s almost time for my yearly Don’t Submit/Self-Publish Your NaNo Project Yet post, this is fairly timely. Thing is, there’s a lot to unpack when it comes to self-pub packages, so rather than one long-ass post, I’m going to do this in bite-sized chunks, examining the various aspects and offers that some of the most popular ones have on their menus.

A few quick hits, for you TL;DR types:

  • Watch the wording. “You might get noticed by Someone Important at a Big N company” is not the same as “Big N publishers will read your book.” Unless you’re selling in the tens of thousands, or you’re famous, or you’re related to someone famous (or infamous), or you have a huge platform to exploit, it remains unlikely you’ll be plucked from the masses. Not many editors and agents watch the sales figures of vanity presses looking for new clients.
  • “We’ll make People at Big N aware of our top sellers” is similarly vague. It could mean someone runs a monthly report and forwards it on to an intern, who will promptly delete it. But hey, someone there was “made aware!”
  • Beware the “editorial” packages. The lowest level is generally a critique of your first chapter. If you have good, honest beta readers and crit partners, you’re probably not going to get much out of this. (If you don’t have honest beta readers and crit partners, why not? The internet is rife with good communities for writers.) For higher level edits — line and content — you’ll be paying by the word, and it adds up fast.
  • Beware, too, the publicity and PR packages. They’re going to send out 500 press releases? Sending them out does not guarantee publication. Most unsolicited “local man writes book” press releases get deleted unread. They’ll provide you with business cards, bookmarks, and posters? So can your local copy shop, and probably for much cheaper.
  • Thinking it’s worthwhile to shell out several hundred dollars to be reviewed in a professional industry magazine? First, that does not guarantee a good review. They might tear your book to shreds. Be ready for that. Chances are it’s not going into Kirkus Reviews itself, next to books from the Big N. More likely, that review goes into the magazine they dedicate to self-published books only.
  • That make-your-book-returnable deal doesn’t guarantee you placement in bookstores. Being up on Edelweiss is nice and all (though you’ll have to pay to get on there and pay to stay there), but if no sales reps are pointing those catalogs out to booksellers, are they going to even look in them? And, how do they even order the books if they’re interested? Who’s going to pick up those orders from Edelweiss and feed them to the order department? (This is as much a note to myself to explain how Edelweiss works…)
  • Even if you only pay for the basic, no-frills, no add-ons package, you will have to sell many, many copies to recoup your investment. The average self-published book sells no more than 200 copies. Ever. (We’re talking print here, not e, but I don’t expect the numbers to be much better once I’ve done some research on that.)

Cheaper, better options exist to get your book out there if you don’t want to go with a commercial publisher.  Packagers can make their services sound good, but in the end you’re overpaying for services you can either do yourself or hire out. Other times, you’re throwing good money at options whose return on investment is… *does the math* roughly fuck-all — most of which will only serve to annoy journalists and booksellers.

I’ll go more in-depth into each of those points over the next few weeks, but if there’s something you’d like me to touch upon, sing out in the comments!

 

*Since we went from Big Six to Big Five and may soon be the Big Four, I’m just going to use a variable from here on out. Okay? Okay.

Posted in books, writing | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

There’s Room for Everyone in the Nerd House

Yesterday was apparently some weird sort of internet Groundhog Day, since I must have shouted “HOW ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS?” at my monitor three or four times. I was going to froth about a terrible New York Times article that.. asked questions about publishing it didn’t bother answering (and got a lot of things wrong along the way, because that’s what happens when you let someone who knows a lot about the economy of widgets write about the book industry, but that’s another post ahem.)

I was derailed from that particular clusterfuck by this one. If you don’t want to clicky, the short version is a (white, hetero, presumably cisgendered) male comic book artist wrote a facebook screed saying women who dress up in sexy cosplay outfits aren’t real nerds and should GTFO of his comic book conventions. Because they’d never give the shy, awkward (male!) comic book geeks in attendance the time of day if they met on the street. And they don’t really know enough about nerdy things to be there. And stuff.

(And it seems that while that was going on, someone else in the industry stepped in it, too. On the same topic. Yeesh.)

Look. We already went over this shit in July. Scalzi, as usual, knocked it out of the park with his response.

But clearly we can’t have nice things, like, oh, women in what has been predominantly a male community, because some dude doesn’t get to sleep with them? I guess? And if he does, they’re whores and should go home? I don’t even

Gather ’round, nerds, and let’s talk a bit about cosplayers, sexy geeks, and inclusion. Auntie Falconesse is going to throw some quick pointers at you.

First of all there is no base-level requirement for a person to be a nerd. Someone’s passionate enough about a thing that they consider themselves a nerd? Bam. They don’t have to have a stack of comics this tall to ride the roller coaster. They don’t have to take a quiz about Golden Age comics, or speak passable Klingon. They’ve never watched any sf television before but they’re digging Fringe like whoa? Invite them the hell in.

I present to you a relevant XKCD comic:

Replace “Diet Coke and Mentos” with your favorite nerdy passion.

So very many of my geeky passions came from people saying “You haven’t seen/read X? HANG ON WE HAVE TO FIX THIS.”

I might not have started watching Doctor Who if it weren’t for Marty doing just that the first time we met. “Let me put on the first episode; you’ll love it.”

I might not have seen Firefly if my friends Dale and Erik hadn’t said “Hold on, we have it with us!” and pulled the DVD set out of their trunk in a movie theatre parking lot.

I might not have read Sandman if a friend hadn’t made a reference to “Dream of a Thousand Cats” and, at my questioning look, dropped every trade paperback into my lap.

My to-read pile grew exponentially at Viable Paradise, every time someone said, “You haven’t read that? Oh my god, you have to.” (Hello, Nine Princes in Amber. I see you there.)

Any of those people might have scoffed at me and told me I was doing it wrong, that clearly I had to hand in my nerd card, chisel my name off of the wall of geeks, and shoo-fly. But they didn’t. Not a one. Because the more people who share their passion for those things, the better.

Which is a long-winded way of saying, if you find one of the ten thousand, share with them.

Next: a person in a cosplay outfit — even and especially a revealing one — is either already part of the nerd community, or would like to be included in it. Maybe their particular nerdy passion is recreating those outfits. Maybe that Batgirl over there rented her costume for the weekend because her partner wanted to go as Batman and their kid wanted to go as Robin, but the fact she’s dressing up to enjoy the experience with her family doesn’t mean you get to tell her she doesn’t belong. Maybe she’s never read a comic in her life, but something about that image inspired her to dress up. In public. In a roomful or hotelful of people she doesn’t know. 

You don’t get to police cosplayer’s bodies or experiences. Harris and Manning are partly upset because some cosplayers, or sexy nerds, or whatever, get attention. And some of those people enjoy that attention, which is somehow even more offensive to them. If a person goes to a con, dresses up in a way that shows a lot of skin, and likes the attention they get, that’s no one else’s fucking business. What I get out of a con doesn’t have to be what you get out of a con doesn’t have to be what he or she gets out of a con.

The problem comes in when people stop treating those fans — and yes, they’re fans — as human beings and start acting like they’re sex objects. Here’s a tip: Cosplayers aren’t there for YOU. No, really. Do they want people to notice their costumes? Possibly! Especially if they’ve put a lot of work into it. But you’re not the reason they’re dressed up. They’re doing it because they like the character, or they like making costumes, or their group of friends decided to go as the Avengers, so they joined in. The costume is about the cosplayer, not about the people looking at the cosplayer.

Which also means you don’t get to judge a cosplayer’s appearance. Surprise! Not all fans have supermodel bodies. You see that bullshit in Harris’ screed about women who “think” they’re pretty, or who are “con-hot?” We call that missing the fucking point. And policing their bodies and clothing choices. The only thing that’s gross here is Harris’ attitude.

If you can only talk to her breasts, kindly grow the fuck up. Remember how she’s not there for you? That includes “she’s not there for you to maybe fuck.” If you treat every woman at a con as a potential date, or are angry at any who aren’t receptive to your overtures, the problem isn’t with the women. Just saying.

Couple more things:

Don’t assume that cosplayer = clueless about fandoms. If she’s dressed as Wonder Woman, there’s a good possibility it’s because she really likes Wonder Woman. If you’re striking up a conversation with her, and you go in with the attitude of “Well, I’ll teach the little lady a thing or two about comics,” you might want to check that.

Following on that, if it turns out she isn’t familiar with whatever fandom you’re looking to chat about, don’t mansplain, don’t condescend, don’t talk to her like she’s a child or your potential future lifemate. You want to talk about geeky things you’re passionate about, talk about why you’re passionate about them. If she needs clarification, she’ll ask. If she’s interested. Which leads to…

Know when to disengage, or when she’s looking to do so, and end the conversation. If she’s not interested, that’s okay. Don’t corner her. She might simply have no interest in your particular fandom. That’s the keen thing about geek culture: we can all like different things.

Now can we please be done with this whole “who is allowed to be a geek” thing? Please?

I have publishing industry shit to rant about, after all.

Posted in feminism, geekery | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments