RE: Arturo Sandoval, Ghost Types, Online Self-Education

ARTURO SANDOVAL

I had a rather wonderful time last Saturday night at a performance featuring Arturo Sandoval which inspired an interesting spinoff of creative ideas. Read about them here.


GHOST TYPES

Earlier on Saturday, I attended a fiction writing workshop led by author Mindy Hardwick which addressed the subject of supernatural writing. I had no idea how much of my work comes from the wellspring of ideas known as the paranormal or the occult until I sat down before the workshop and examined my current works-in-progress—eight stories which contain some element that might be defined as supernatural, such as ghostly presences, witches, angels, and lycanthropes.

One thing I came away with from Mindy's lecture was a neat little list of the different kinds of ghosts, which I offer, in truncated form, here. The full explanation of these different ghost types, if my notes are correct at all, can be found in the book, The Case for Ghosts by J. Allan Danelek.

• Unaware ghosts
• Ghosts in denial
• Attached ghosts
• Jealous ghosts
• Fearful ghosts
• Melancholy ghosts
• Mission ghosts
• Comfort ghosts
• Curious ghosts
• Mischievous ghosts

ONLINE SELF-EDUCATION

I love the weblog, Pick the Brain. If you ever wanted to find a single place on the web for discussions of creative thinking as it pertains to brain and behavior, this one seems to be one of the most accessible and regularly updated. This week, I ran across a terrific action item: How to Educate Yourself Online. This is always of great appeal to me, as I won't likely ever go back to college (as much as I'd like to) even as my desire to learn new things continues unabated. This entry on self-education offers a great basic strategy for pursuing intellectual mastery of subjects using the Internet as a kind of free market of knowledge. I do well with lists, myself, so the notion that I could download this simple list of objectives toward a goal rings a bell with me. In a nutshell:

1. Choose your subject wisely.
2. Learn the vocabulary.
3. Start with the pillar sites.
4. Branch out cautiously.
5. Participate in a community.
6. Apply your knowledge.

An excellent plan, I think, and one that could work for anybody at any level.

Creative people, in particular, could use this strategy to building an expertise in a subject matter that seems to repeat itself in their work. Why not become an expert? What can you lose by mastering the subjects that seem to resonate for you anyway?

For instance, a painter whose projects seem always include a recurring reference to trees might decide to learn about the symbology of trees, or the trade of the arborist, or the history of forests, through self-directed web studies. By gaining a more well-rounded appreciation for trees using this strategy, the painter will have developed a kind of interior expertise on the subject that, it seems to me, would be wonderfully informative to future paintings. In fact, because of the painter's personal exploration into the subject matter, they may very well branch out (pardon the pun) into new techniques or perspectives in their work to further explore the subject, thereby growing as an artist.


---

For those of you celebrating Halloween today, have a terribly frightening holiday, and don't forget to trick and treat yourself with some pocket Poe!

The American Intellect, A to Z: A = Anti-Intellectualism

A=Anti-Intellectualism

It seems rather contrary to begin a discussion about one thing by defining its opposite, but what I'm actually alluding to is part of the title of a book by 1964 Pulitzer Prizewinner Richard Hofstadter. Anti-Intellectualism in American Life [get your copy here] was written to "say something about what the intellectual is, and can be, as a force in a democratic society" [as quoted from the text's back jacket].

I've been slowly reading through this book and will likely refer to it throughout this series on The American Intellect because I have already found Hofstadter's text illuminating and accessible in its attempt to understand what it means to be an intellectual in America. I am scarcely through the first part, the Introduction, and yet I have already enjoyed some terrific Aha! moments. To wit:

The rise of the current notion of anti-intellectualism can be historically linked to divisions in American ideologies as they related to changes in our national identity occurring at around the time of McCarthyism. The rise of big business at that time, Hofstadter points out, deflated the value of the thinking culture in America. The politics of the practical and the material began to set down roots that remain deep in our cultural soil even today, a medium that continues to find ways to reject the intellectual.

Hofstadter finds it simpler to define what is perceived as negative about intellectualism in order to illuminate what intellectualism is in the first place. He uses a dozen "exhibits" as theorems to express his point.

I'll do my best to boil these down below, but forgive me if I don't quite wrap my mind around every "exhibit." It would be better for you to read the book in order to best appreciate his examples. But I'll do what I can.

Following, in italics, are my remarks. And here's my own disclaimer: these are not, in any way, my attempts to support or defeat Hofstadter's points. I'm simply applying his ideas to what I understand about my own world. You know, thinking out loud? Pardon any cynicism or ranting that might occur; it doesn't happen because I am dissatisfied with Hofstadter's remarks, but rather because a/I am reacting to how applicable his 43-year-old theories are in today's cultural climate, and b/I can't help it; I'm GenX.

1. The introduction of the pejorative term "egghead" in the presidential campaign of 1952 sought to describe how intellectuals have become woefully disconnected from the "real" world of the Everyman.
   So that's when it started? The idea that a smart guy has nothing in common with his next-door neighbor? Of course, this still exists today, but our culture has slowly come around to the idea that smartypants are worth something. I mean, look at Bill Gates. Also, check out our pop culture. The nerd is no longer the social outcast he once was. Especially if he's got tech skills.
   
2. The notion of intellectuals as being addled by overthinking became popular.
   Overthinking does seem to vex all politics by committee. Discussion is long, action is slow, pricetags for action grow exponentially with the passage of time. A lot of folks in Seattle, where politics by committee is the form of rule, pine away for a benevolent dictator, for the relief of a decision made and acted upon. But is that the best way? Mayor Richard Daley plowed over Meigs Field in the dark of the night upon making his decision and acting upon it. That made a lot of people very unhappy.
   
3. The quality of a man's character could trump intellectual expertise when it came to filling positions of leadership.
   George W. Bush, anyone? He wasn't picked because he had experience, after all. Or for his brains, for that matter. Gore and Kerry lost to him, and they had both.
   
4. The intellectual pursuits of the sciences were wasteful unless directed toward practical ends.
   Hofstadter points it further, with "practical ends" meaning "military" or "national" ends (my quotes). In other words, if scientists are studying why fuzz pills up on wool, it darn well better be for the purpose of designing a better wool product that suits the budget of the army (my example). In a nutshell, science should serve the country, and not the freedom of inquiry that science actually is. But this seems utterly ludicrous, once you factor in, for instance, pharmacological advances that not only treat their intended disorders, but also help to treat other disorders. Without the initial discoveries made in the heat of inquiry, how can we find solutions for other problems? Science will never be that efficient. Mistakes have to be made.
   
5. It became fashionable to have a "folkish dislike for the educated classes and of anything respectable, established, pedigreed, or cultivated."
   I know this one from the inside out. Even in the 21st century, if you live inside a family which doesn't value higher education, and you have a degree, be prepared to take hits for it. I've been told that my college education was a waste of time and money so many times, even though my degree was in Journalism and I am currently a writer and use my education every day of my life. But because I am also a stay-home mother [who is resourceful enough to arrange a working life that doesn't require the hiring of childcare], it is presumed by some that all that extra knowledge gathering has been for nothing. Forget the evidence that educated mothers raise more capable youngsters. In example, it was determined by literacyresearch.org in 2000 that "children of single mothers are more likely to be among the poorest readers. Maternal education, however, boosts the scores of children from single-mother families into the top quartile of readers at a higher rate than for two-parent families." In addition, "children of two-parent families… are almost eight times as likely to be top readers if their mothers hold college degrees."
   
6. The rise of Communism was thought to be traced to universities.
   Oh, that old chestnut. I went to college in the 80s, when there were still ragged shreds of thought committed to the idea that the world of the university was a marketplace of ideas and free inquiry. I gather that, since then, this is not the case. Pardon my cynicism, but one must wonder, if it is no longer safe to think freely—even rebelliously, outrageously, and in contradiction to proscribed national values—in the university setting, then where is it safe to do so? Guantanamo Bay? China? I just read somewhere about how China is becoming the new vanguard of intellectual innovation. Holy cow, but how can that even be possible, unless the US has surpassed the Chinese with its own quiet censorships? Gads.
   
7. Common sense has come to trump literacy in matters of problem solving.
   This is another one that I'm so familiar with it's like peanut butter stuck to the inside of my throat. I want to gag. Since when does common sense and intellectual inquiry have to exist as mutually exclusive? Yes, I am a stay-home mother, and I will pick up a book of child development as one way to approach a behavior problem, but not at the exclusion of opening my eyes and looking at my child and making an intuitive observation and acting on it, as well.
   
   Why is it we are so caught up in such binary either/or thinking in our culture? Why can't it be both common sense and intellectual inquiry and then some? Living in an information age, we ought to be willing to tap all our resources, I say.
   
8. American traditional arts were believed by some to be falling to the decadence of foreign influence (i.e. surrealism, dadaism and other movements of art considered subversive in nature).
   Having been a promoter of literary magical realism since 1998, I know this old argument from the inside out. Ooooh, art that criticizes the government…spooky and oh-so unpatriotic. Gimme a break. Free speech, free inquiry, and free expression are all part of democracy. What some "freedom lovers" will do in order to protect their freedoms (such as censor an author, create a chilling effect in a learning environment, or pressure an artist to withdraw his work) is utterly contemptible, and unpatriotic.
   
9. Intellectualism has become the root of moral decline in American society.
   This, from the Billy Grahams of the world. God is all knowing, so I guess we don't have to think before we drop a bomb or ignore a woman's right to her own body or restrict someone's access to medical care because they are poor. God will fix it later, right?
   
   This is not to knock religion, but why can't we all live in a world where both reason and spirituality share a toothbrush? They are less at odds with one another than people imagine.
   
10. American public education has failed to meet academic standards due to a focus purely on "informing the mind and developing the intelligence" at the exclusion of teaching lessons about morality, aesthetics, ethics, spirituality, and other aspects of American life.
    I surely am puzzled by this. Hofstadter illuminates it with examples from the time of Sputnik, when those loser Russians—remember them, the ones we fought in the Cold War?—outdid us in the space race.
    
    It's always easy to blame the schools when we can't keep our academic standings in par with the performance of our global neighbors. Let's not think, for a minute, about how our culture doesn't value intelligence to begin with, unless it is applied to making money or gaining power. And what about current family culture that overvalues sports and activities to the detriment of academic excellence? Fear of other cultural problems (drugs, violence, unwanted pregnancy) mean that families are constantly shifting their priorities to prevent these hazards. You can't blame them. Yet, no one thinks that maybe, just maybe, supporting one's child's career in education might be the best solution yet.
    
    But see "exhibit" #9: Reading, apparently, is the root of all evil.
    
11. Parents have found themselves helpless in the wake of "new math" and other updated modes of teaching, which leave them unavailable to help their own children with homework.
    I think this is a false problem, myself, one that reflects the American desire for control. Both of my daughters excel in the current math curriculum in this school district, and when I sit down to help them with it, I am buoyed by the realization that FINALLY it makes sense! I wish they had taught me this sort of math when I was a kid, then I might not have suffered math anxiety (which I overcame in college in a Probability & Statistics course, like so many others I know did). I'm not hip to the way they teach spelling these days: no word families, no learning by memorization. My kids aren't great at spelling, as a result. But their writing is far more thoughtful and organized than mine was at those grade levels. Who am I to say this is bad? A spellchecker and a dictionary can fix a lot of spelling gaffes, but it's only a good self-editor who can fix problems in reasoning and logic in writing. I work as a paid independent editor and can verify that most people, even good writers, are not good self-editors.
    
12. Controversy surrounded anyone who publicly thought that venturing away from the three "Rs" of education (reading, writing, arithmetic) might solve growing problems with illiteracy and academic learning.
    For me, this is the old "Change is bad" motif. Doing anything differently seems to guarantee, at least to some, a bad result. From the 90s forward, we are testing these notions by thinking "outside the box" (a cliche, sure, but relevant). Innovation and creative thinking are becoming more widely accepted, respected, and encouraged, at least from my point of view. For instance, university literary programs are starting to teach genre writing like they never did before (i.e. romance, mystery, science fiction). Technology and popular culture has created lots of positive images of people who march to their own beat (with an mp3 player usually implanted in their ears). It's now cool to work VO (virtual office) and walk around in headsets taking meetings while not being onsite in one's home office at all. A new language in text messaging has been born. People who cannot abide the digital world are thought of as dinosaurs. Change is no longer bad, it's simply inevitable. Upgrade or perish? Maybe.

I'd like to close today's discussion with a few lines from Hofstadter's introduction that fall inside the section titled "On the Unpopularity of Intellect." On matters of pursuing the truth, he has this to say about playful thinking:

"We speak of the play of the mind; and certainly the intellectual relishes the play of the mind for its own sake, and finds in it one of the major values of life. What one thinks of here is the element of sheer delight in intellectual activity. Seen in this guise, intellect may be taken as the healthy animal spirits of the mind, which come into exercise when the surplus of mental
energies is released from the tasks required for utility and mere survival. 'Man is perfectly human,' said [philosopher Friedrich] Schiller, 'only when he plays.'"

Hofstadter goes to the root of my own inquiry here at the blog. Never mind that my attempts at understanding what it means to be an American intellectual are nothing less than puzzles for my own mind. But really, I see anti-intellectual behavior everyday and everywhere I go in this country, and I wonder why it's so terrible to want to know. Why do we resist new ideas? Why do we accept the lies of our leaders? Why do we shut down when people ask us our opinions about things? Why is something new in our culture a dangerous thing? These are questions that I think any creative person needs to raise. And that's what this series, The American Intellect A-Z, is all about.

Thanks for reading. I'd love to know which picket on this fence you like the best; I imagine we are all birds resting there at any given time. Gimme a squawk, would ya?

UPDATE 3.14.2008: I've decided to suspend further entries to this series indefinitely. Life is overfull. Thanks for reading! Rhymes With Camera regular entries continue, all the same. TKS

RE: Writers, Redirect!

I've decided to split this blog into two.

Rhymes With Camera will continue on as a discussion about creativity, culture and current events, but for writer-specific entries, you will want to subscribe to the feed for the new Writer's Rainbow blog, which I just activated. There, you will find a spectrum of discussions to compliment the work I'm doing for Writer's Rainbow.

Hey, sometimes change just makes sense. At any rate, please update your feeds accordingly, and thanks, as usual, for reading.

TKS

RE: problems with feed

I am in the process of improving feed reception on this blog. I recently discovered that my feeds stopped working after around September 13. Somehow I can't seem to update my settings effectively. Thanks for your patience while I fix that problem and try to resolve some other formatting issues I've been having of late.

Tip: You can always just put a shortcut on your desktop that points to http://tamarasellman.blogspot.com, if you want the convenience that a feed normally offers.

King on Short Stories: the discussion continues

Just a moment ago, I found this tasty little tidbit of advice from Grumpy Old Bookman regarding Stephen King's recent essay on the short story:

"…if there is one message which comes through from Mr King,
with my endorsement, it is this: don't be afraid to write the
damn thing. Do it your way. For preference, give it some balls,
or the female equivalent. And for all our sakes, pay no attention
to any of those creative-writing people.

'Talent,' says King, 'can't help itself; it roars along in fair weather
or foul, not sparing the fireworks.' So, light the blue touch-paper
and step well back."

You know, it's not as if short story writers ever needed permission to do what they do. But it seems we need to be reminded that we write not because we want to advance our careers on the heels of an appearance in The New Yorker, but because we have, well, stories to tell, and we understand that we are the only ones who can tell them.

So yes, do it your way. (I wear my editor's hat when I say that.) How else are short story writers going to make gains in publishing otherwise?

Jean Thompson misses by a mile

Stephen King's recent discussion about the struggles for the short story writer and the seeming disappearance of the form have inspired a fairly interesting discussion of late. I'm going to go back to that original New York Times article myself to read up on the replies.

Maud Newton posts a rejoinder from writer Jean Thompson in her blog today which attempts to address King's argument. I found Thompson's (often insulting) reply did more to support King's points than to detract from them and think the essay is mostly full of self-centered hot air. I expect Thompson to do better, what with the precious MFA under her belt which she defends. I mean, come on: referring to writers like Flannery O'Connor and programs like Iowa in this context is like referring to Abraham Lincoln and policies like the Emancipation Proclamation to discuss issues of modern-day racism. Please join the 21st century, would you, Jean? More useful for her graduate experience might have been classes in debate and argumentation. Suffice it to say, if her essay reflects the depths from which she writes her fiction, then I won't be putting any of her books on my Amazon wish list.

Disagree? Tell me why. I don't get how talking about objects in the sky over Kansas has anything to do with the realities of contemporary short story publishing, nor do I think that citing a famous literary author of short stories like Lydia Davis up for a book prize constitutes proof that the short story is alive and well. (But I am glad for Ms. Davis, whose work simply rocks.)

Celebrating Nobel laureate Lessing

From the Literary Encyclopedia

"The Memoirs of a Survivor (Octagon Press, 1974) is a pivotal novel. It marks a transition from Doris Lessing’s earlier preoccupation with psychological inner space (most apparent in Briefing For a Descent into Hell, 1971) to her space fiction series (Canopus in Argos: Archives, 1979-83, featuring benevolent alien colonisation of earth).

The Memoirs of a Survivor is set in the near future at “a time of savagery and anarchy” (p.54), although it is never made clear what kind of global crisis brought about such anarchic conditions. In this respect, Memoirs is less explicit than the final dystopian section of the earlier novel, The Four-gated City (1969), which describes planet Earth as contaminated by the aftermath of war and radiation. In Memoirs, the degradation of the atmosphere, the collapse of law and order, and the loss of a material infrastructure lead to, among other destructive effects, the break-up of stable, biologically-related families. Thus the novel demonstrates Lessing’s persistent interest in familial groups and collectives as alternatives to the nuclear family. Groups of people, disparate survivors of one kind and another, band together for self-protection. Feral children, selfish, primitive and lacking articulate language, are also forced to join together for survival. "

Buy the book here

RE: Burning Words: Podcast Reviews/Well Told Tales

Well Told Tales

Great stuff if you're into pulpy noir, sci fi, horror or hardboiled fiction. Great listening for spooky folk during Halloween's dark month as well.

Ergonomics for creative people

As I prepare to head out for my monthly chiro appointment (Dr. Craig Benson: I highly recommend him for Kitsap County/Olympic Peninsula folks), I'm reminded that I've found a few good resources for learning more about and dealing with ergonomics issues, which are probably the largest source of physical problems at work for artists, writers, editors and the like. If you have trouble with your vision, your wrists, your back, your neck, or other issues like cold feet, asthma related to chemicals, or even jaw grinding, you should think about how your postures, tools, and exposures at work contribute to these maladies.

The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA) have an excellent site addressing ergonomic challenges for writers and editors. About.com offers this article on Ergonomics for Musicians. Potters can get some tips from Pottery Making Illustrated. Ganoksin offers this advice for jewelrymakers, as well. From Arclight come additional tips for painters in studios.

If all else fails, you can contact OSHA; they have plenty of resources for helping to prevent work injuries due to ergonomic problems.

Remember, creative work is REAL work. And many of us feel how real it is everyday. For me, it's joint issues, jaw-grinding (from concentration), low oxygen (from concentration) and carpal tunnel. (Believe it or not, at age 42 my eyes are better than they were a few years ago.) But creative people, contrary to conventional notions, do not have to suffer for their art. At least not in this way. So check out these resources as well as check in with your own body, to make sure you can't prevent some of the problems you might be having.

New books: The Glimmer Train Guide to Writing Fiction

I just got it in the mail, so I can't offer a review just yet, but this little guidebook is simply lovely. Interviews and contributions come from a flurry of top-notch literary writers, including these faves of my own:

Margaret Atwood


Charles Baxter


Toi Dericotte


Stuart Dybek


Mary McGarry Morris


Tim O'Brien


Chris Offutt


Katherine Vaz


Tobias Wolff

Robert Birnbaum interviewed Charles Baxter in 2003 and here's a snip of that Q&A in book's chapter entitled WRITING AND RESPONSIBILITY:

RB: "How possessed are you by the idea that there is something about literature that perhaps could make the world better, save the world—the idea that literature has some great moral impact?"

CB: "Literature does change the world, but it does it subversively, it does it invisibly. I like to think that Chekhov has helped more people as a writer than he would have had he gone on to practice medicine instead of writing his plays and stories. And in the same ways, now and then, I hear from readers who have been helped out of clinical depression, people who have been cheered and heartened in some way by reading something of mine. So then I've thought this is a form of changing the world. It may not involve bricks and mortar. It is a change."

***

In light of that, I am reminded that I have a story up at Long Story Short right now which started out as a poem and ended up as a short, slightly experimental piece (at least, experimental for me). The editors selected it as the October 2008 story of the month (hooray!) and I have already received one letter from a reader who found the story inspiring. I'm not sure I changed the world but I was able to transport that reader back to a place from their childhood, and it brightened their day. Not a huge change, maybe, but even this small miracle—an intimate meeting of minds shared between reader and writer—makes a difference. I know that myself, as a reader.

Hey, it all counts, methinks.

RE: new media—book trailers

Don't know what a book trailer is? Let Circle of Seven, who coined the term, tell you themselves.
You don't have to pay someone else to put one together for you. Brenda Coulter made one herself.

Here's a groovy animated book trailer for a book (The Oblivion Society by Marcus Alexander Hart) that definitely makes me want to read the book.

Canadian author Jamieson Villeneuve includes book trailers among the many components that comprise a book promotion plan, which he outlines in this article at American Chronicle.

You can even go to a website that offers nothing but book trailers.

Seems like a great idea to me. If you have a book trailer story to share, by all means, send me an email.

INTRODUCING The American Intellect, A to Z

At Google, type in "intellectualism in america" in the search window and see what happens. All of the first 1-10 results from about 7,990 are, in fact, devoted to anti-intellectualism.

"Anti-intellectualism in America"

"Anti-intellectualism in American Life"

"The New Anti-Intellectualism in America"

"Catholic anti-intellectualism" (three references)

"Deconstruction and Anti-intellectualism"

"Richard Hofstadter" (author of Anti-Intellectualism in America)

Okay, that's one survey, in Google, where keywords battle for popularity. It doesn't prove anything, except that"anti-intellectualism in America" is more likely to yield results than "intellectualism in America." After all,you can't have one without the other, right?

But is American culture truly anti-intellectual? One might fall to that assumption.

I can't say for sure. I live in an overeducated, liberal, affluent community. I am lucky to say that I am privy to intellectual discussions all the time, even with my own neighbors. Our monthly library book sales are amazing in what they offer. Orhan Pamuk, anybody?

So I am making a bald assumption right now: I don't think that typical American communities of 20,000 or less in population are having library book sales where folks are fighting over Orhan Pamuk. If I'm wrong, I'm happily wrong.

But more to the point: what does it mean, exactly, to be both American and intellectual?

I'm going to try to figure it out here, at this blog.

Introducing "The American Intellect, A to Z," my series of essays on what it means to be both American and intellectual (or anti-intellectual) in the 21st century. I don't promise anything groundbreaking here; I only promise that I am going to take a look at some different aspects of the definition of intellectualism and see how they spin out in everyday life. Call it "thinking out loud on a blog."

I'm sure I'll still get things wrong. I'm sure I won't cover every angle. I'm also sure that it doesn't matter as much as the effort to understand does, which is why I'm launching this series in the first place.

What can I say? You know that song, "You're jammin' me," by Tom Petty? That's the way I feel about our new media age sometimes; so many ideas, so many words, so many images… not enough time to consider, interpret, synthesize. But if we don't, God help us.

I'm hoping to run a new entry in the series every other week, taking on a new theme which coincides with the next letter of the alphabet. That means I'm in this for 13 months. I hope you'll be part of the next 13 months with me. Feel free to wade around in these murky pools. Comments are open; I want your thoughts.

Information does not equal Knowledge. This I know. The rest, I'll muddle through here. It'll be imperfect; it'll probably reveal my biases, my shortcomings. Heck, maybe my own intellect isn't up for it at all.

So what? Nothing ventured, right?

UPDATE 3.14.2008: I've decided to suspend further entries to this series indefinitely. Life is overfull. Thanks for reading! Rhymes With Camera regular entries continue, all the same. TKS

Moira Allen at Writing-World.com on Time Management

Moira Allen rocks.

There it is, simple and declarative. To be more precise, the queen of Writing-World.com rocks when it comes to advising writers about how to best make use of their time.

The tips she offers seem simple enough to wrap the ol' mind around:

1. Treat time as an investment.

2. Examine your time budget.

3. Examine your priorities.

4. Eliminate time-wasters.

5. Teach others to respect your time.

But Moira gets into the real nitty-gritty with these, especially for points 3 and 4, which I would agree are the big dogs taking the biggest bites out of your time bone.

I can't think of a time (every pun intended) when I've met with writers where the discussion of time management hasn't come up. Really, if you take what Moira says to heart and really give it a go, you'll be rewarded with a new skill set that will help you maintain your writing career into your first publications and beyond.

Every effort counts in this life

Okay, I've fulfilled my first New Year's resolution twice now: I wrote to author JL Navarro about a book he wrote which has been inspiring to me as a writer, The Blood Cake Vendor & Other Stories. (The first writer was Karen Brichoux, and Stephen King's still on my list, if I can only summon the cojones.)

JL writes dark, risky narratives that plumb some less-than-seemly territories. The title story of his book is, more or less, literal in its meaning. Read it here, but don't expect to have an appetite later.

I had to thank him because, thanks to reading his book, I have unblocked a self-censor who has previously discouraged me from writing the horrific. Not very literary, the self-censor points out, curling its lip. No lasting value to visceral horror.

With the self-censor kicked out of that dusty closet in my brain-attic, I was able to write a story that started out as a nightmare IRL. And I just got word that a magazine I submitted it to has decided to publish it.

So there, lip-curling, judgmental self-censor! Take that!

This is, in fact, why we should write letters to those authors who have done us the favor of prodding us forward when we're stalled or otherwise in limbo. And who knows? Maybe those writers will need to know that about themselves, as well, so they can keep going?

Anyway, just a great reminder that, in a pinch, we have our very own fellow writers to turn to for inspiration, permission, and courage, so if you're stuck, all you have to do, really, is pick up a book. It's that simple.

Potential authors, listen to Patricia Fry

I recently trolled the web for blogs of interest to writers and other creative folk. When I found Patricia Fry's Writing and Publishing from Matilija Press, I wanted to reference one particular entry, but scrolling through her blog, I decided it would be more useful to simply point my readers to it directly and let them scroll through themselves. Take a look at these recent entry titles:

How to Sell Books Through Bookstores

Which Publishing Method is the Right One?

Listen to the Experts; Your Success Depends on it

Do You Engage in Book Promo Babble?

Things Busy Authors Can Hire Done

Authors Should Strive to Learn Something New Every Day

Don’t Bypass the Onramp to Publishing Success

Ah, a kindred spirit, but she lays it out far better than I ever could.

Take a peek. Heck, grab a cup of joe and cuddle up with her blog next to the fire. You're gonna learn something, I guarantee it.

Paradise lost, dear 21st century writer: it's not just about being good enough

Martin Wagner gives writers a pretty good snappie of the state of publishing vis á vis agents in a recent edition of the Guardian.

Some snips from the snappie:

"Visions of piles of unsolicited 'slush' should be enough to turn off most
self-respecting writers—divided into two categories according to one
agent I spoke to: one of typescripts to be rejected straight away, and
another of typescripts to be rejected a little later."

"The undiscovered writer is the acceptable victim of a system which,
ironically, works for everyone concerned except for the very people
who are its lifeblood."

***

I know, there are writers among my readership who will roll their eyes at the notion that I'm not being very encouraging. Isn't this whole writing life already filled with enough downers? they would ask. Do you really have to shine a spotlight on the bad news?

Yes and yes.

Part of the reason why so many writers fail to see their work into print has to do with things they can exercise some control over (like, ahem, writing well and behaving like a professional in every communication).

Many writers complain about the downers of rejection; as an editor, I have sent out thousands of rejections myself, but a majority of the bulk of them were for writing that wasn't even close to being good enough. That's an editor's downer, by the way. We want to find diamonds, not pyrite. Our days are fatigued by not-ready-for-primetime writing. So are our eyes.

Still other writers achieve a moderate amount of success publishing individual pieces, but run up against road blocks when they advance to the book-length project or dip their toe into a different pond (say, moving from journalism to fiction). And they are surprised by this new struggle. Why? Do they think that they have nothing more to learn? That once they have a few credits, the writing will get easier? That their previous work is qualification enough? That they don't have to earn it every single time?

The thing is, they do need to earn it. Every piece is different, and it must be at least as good as the last piece. Every composition must have its own legs. Welcome to the hard work of the writing life.

I hear complaints frequently from authors who have one or two books already under their belts who are ready to quit writing. Why? Because, what, it's too hard?

When has it ever been possible to write a decent book without laboring over it? Dang, even the crappiest pulp fiction is hard to write. So how is it that these otherwise blessed writers have gotten this far without realizing they had a long row to hoe ahead of them? Did they not work hard before? Did they just get lucky? Or are they just learning as they go, only now they are realizing how much bigger the publishing world is than they originally thought, how much harder it is to have a writing life in the 21st century, where books are commodities and the idea of literature is fast losing cultural currency?

So, yes, let's be real about this business, folks. Especially those of us who write short forms (poetry, short fiction) and/or otherwise so-called "noncommercial" work. It's all hard work, even for those who are excellent writers and who know how to behave professionally in all their various communications. Even for those who choose self-publishing. Especially, perhaps, for those who choose self-publishing.

A writer's life is not an easy life, nor will it get easier over time. The sooner we all accept this fact, the easier it will be for us to jump in and try to learn all we can about the business end of publishing. Otherwise, what is the point of working so hard at something that will ultimately belong to the realm of therapy and hobbies?

Yes, I mean that in the pejorative. I don't need therapy, and I already have hobbies. I don't write to keep myself busy. Neither should you, so if you are, think about doing something else, and let the writers who really want it move forward three spaces on the game board.

***

Related: I sat in on a workshop addressing production and publicity schedules following the acceptance of a manuscript at the PNBA convention held in town recently.

Having worked for a publishing house myself both in production and editorial, I'm already aware of the numbers of departments and people and stages that any manuscript must go through to become the book everyone wants it to be.

But sitting there in what ended up being a packed house, I was startled to realize that, among my closest writing peers, I would venture that only 2-5% of them have any idea what happens after their book-length work is accepted, and of those 2-5%, most of them are publishing their work in very small literary presses where one person is managing almost all of the tasks that a big house provides. This is not the same reality as commercial publishing. The print runs are smaller. The promotional budget is nonexistent. The advances, the percentages, do not reflect the bigger picture of American commercial publishing.

Me, I'm a supporter of the small press and I actively seek out work that isn't on the bestseller list, including short story collections, work in translation and the like, because I prefer the raw, risk-taking, mind-blowing experiments performed there over the polished, homogenous predictables that end up populating bookstore displays and end up in the hands of book groups run by people who don't really care about the words, not when there's a great dessert and neighborhood gossip to be had instead.

But the small press, God love it, struggles to rise out of the realm of obscurity.

Obscurity isn't much of a step up from being unpublished, is it? Or is it?

Shouldn't we want for more than 200 copies of our own book handsold out of the trunks of our cars? Shouldn't we want for a decent wage for all the time we took away from our family to put words on the page? Is it vulgar to want for more than the prestige of being published? I mean, anyone can be published these days. POD and vanity will get you where you need to go, if that's all that matters.

But I've seen some pretty horrible self-published work, which has made up my mind on that topic. I'd rather not be published at all than put out horrible work.

Publishing work that is obscure and perhaps only appealing to the other people in my writing workshop is only slightly better.

I don't think it's wrong to want for more. A check that does more than cover my promotional expenses. Some acknowledgment outside my circles of family and friends. An actual book review from someone I don't know.

Which is why I think it high time that writing programs add more classes addressing the architecture and process of publishing. Be realistic. Talk economics. Highlight trends. Release the statistics. All of them, inspiring and dismal.

I think that writers who aren't in writing programs can master the topic independently. There are ways to do it. Regional bookselling association conventions, trade journals, real live work at a publishing house, research on the web. Anything to show them just what kind of hole they are writing themselves into. It doesn't have to be a black hole, but it will be if writers don't know what to expect after the acceptance letter comes for them.

I'm startled because I hear this all the time from writers, that they truly think their work is done when the manuscript is accepted. That good writing is enough.

Not only is it not enough, but without some interest in looking beyond the acceptance letter, I can't imagine writers ever being able to develop a career that will last more than one or two titles.

I have more titles in me than fingers and toes. I don't want to stop at one or two. Do you?

***

So you want to be published? You want to get an agent? Write until you just can't make your manuscript any better. Then learn everything you can about the commercial publishing world, and hang on to your seat. Even if you find a solid track for your work, you're in for a bumpy ride.

One Bright Point on the (Event) Horizon? The Internet

Publishers Seek Talent Online



The New York Times, 10.1.2007

Joining the growing list of publishers that use public votes to decide what to publish, Penguin Group is teaming with Amazon.com and Hewlett Packard for the Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award.

From today through Nov. 5, contestants from 20 countries can submit unpublished manuscripts of English-language novels to Amazon, which will assign a small group of its top-rated online reviewers to evaluate 5,000-word excerpts and narrow the field to 1,000.

The full manuscripts of those semifinalists will be submitted to Publishers Weekly, which will assign reviewers to each.

Amazon will post the reviews, along with excerpts, online, where customers can make comments. Using those comments and the magazine’s reviews, Penguin will winnow the field to 100 finalists who will get two readings by Penguin editors.

When a final 10 manuscripts are selected, a panel including Elizabeth Gilbert, the author of the current nonfiction paperback best seller “Eat, Pray, Love,” and John Freeman, the president of the National Book Critics Circle, will read and post comments on the novels at Amazon.

Readers can then vote on the winner, who will receive a publishing contract and a $25,000 advance from Penguin.

Separately, Borders Group, the bookstore chain, is teaming with Gather.com, the social networking site, and Court TV to solicit unpublished manuscripts from mystery or crime writers. A panel of judges that includes the writers Harlan Coben and Sandra Brown will crown the winner from a pool of finalists selected by voters on Gather.com. The winner will receive a $5,000 advance and will be published by Borders itself.

Editor's comment: Hmmm, be careful. Should booksellers be given even more latitude in deciding what kind of content to sell? See yesterday's post. Also, is populism the best way to decide what is art? Hmmm. This seems like American Idol for the American Novel, and it's all about selling books, not about writing them. Last I checked, most of the Nobel Laureates were not bestsellers. See my conundrum?