Why Subject Yourself to the Cruelties of Publishing?

Yesterday came and went without a blog post. Sorry about that. I had a really great idea for a topic, but when I went to write the post, I couldn't remember what the topic was. C'est la vie.

This morning, I read a really great post over at BookEnds about why a writer would seek publication. I loved this line the best: "Why do you feel the need to continue to subject yourself to the cruelties of publishing?"

I commented, of course, but I wanted to expand on the idea here.

Why does a writer go through all the trauma and drama of getting published? Think about it for a second. Personally, I never really thought about NOT publishing my work. When I was fourteen and co-writing a book with my best friend, I know we had many discussion about what it would be like AFTER we got the book published. There was never a question of writing it just for us and our friends. We were going to see the book in print. Of course, we never finished it, so it sits in my storage bins, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. We were writing with the goal of publication.

Thinking about it now, I still don't know the exact answer. I know I want to have my work published. I want to hold my books in my hands--to smell them, to feel their weight, and to see the pretty covers. But that in itself is not a good reason for putting up with everything we writers do. If that was all I wanted, I could self-publish and be done with it. I even looked into getting my first book done over at Lulu (which seems like the best there is in self-publishing, btw). But it wasn't enough.

I want to see my books on the shelves at Barnes and Noble. I want to go into any given library and see my books there, too. I want mountains of my books on the tables at every bookseller. It sounds like an ego-trip, I know, but follow me here.

If my books are everywhere, it means everyone has the chance to read them. If everyone has the opportunity to read my books, I have the opportunity to touch the minds of people, to maybe make a little bit of a difference in someone else's life through my writing. Ideally, I'd like to touch a few minds, change a few of them, and make the world a better place. If that doesn't happen, I'd like to at least provide people a good entertaining read--something they might like to share with their friends and family, something they might want to read again and again. Hopefully, other people will think my writing is good enough to do both.

Yesterday, while I was researching agents for query purposes, one of them said they were looking for books that teach something new without being preachy. Aha! That's what I've been trying to do--albeit in a small way--for years. (Needless to say, I queried said agent last night.)

On the other hand, a while back my own darling daughter gave me the following piece of teenage wisdom: "Mom, you're never going to get your books published... They make people think, and people don't want to think." (Don't be all shocked about her bluntness. It's how we are together. She did go on to say how great my books were, but it wasn't the point she was trying to make.) I don't agree with her statement, but it's an interesting thing to think about.

I think people want to think, and I want to be the one to start the ember burning. I think my work does that. I also think people want to be entertained, and I think my work does that, too. Nothing preachy, nothing hammered at you from all sides, but just an underlying thought woven into the story. (Sneaky, I know, but most writers do it even if it isn't a conscious thing. Pick up a book sometimes and look for the author's philosophy behind the words. It's in there somewhere, trust me.)

So, now that I've rambled and gotten off on a couple tangents, it's back to the real question here. Why are we subjecting ourselves to all this work just to get published--especially in a world where posting our work on the internet would achieve a similar goal? I think everyone has a different answer, but I think the underlying cause is the same for all of us. We want to share something of ourselves with the rest of the world, and publication is the only way for that to happen in any meaningful way.

And, of course, there's the money. (What? You mean writers aren't all living like Bill Gates? *sigh*)

What say you? Why are you doing what you do?

.

WYSIWYG Person

If you aren't familiar with the term WYSIWYG, it's a computer acronym that stands for 'What you see is what you get'. When I first heard this term years ago, it struck me that I am a WYSIWYG person.

With me, what you see is really what you get. I don't do artifice well. I have a tough time even in real life hiding my thoughts, feelings, opinions... which is part of the reason why most of the people in this burg don't know me other than in passing. It's also the reason why I don't play poker in person - everyone would know my hand's strength the minute I looked at it. But I digress...

This morning as I was reading my blogroll, the issue of writers having a website/online presence came up again, and I was reminded of the web presence I present to the world. (Or more specifically potential agents.) I would hope that anyone reading this blog likes me and likes what I have to say, but realistically, not everyone will. *shrug* C'est la vie.

For one thing, I know that the URL for this blog isn't for everyone. Atlas Shrugged was the inspiration for my i-shrugged, and that book is the kind you either love or you hate. I use the phrase because that's basically what I did. I worked in the corporate world, using my writing talents for everyone but myself. Then I shrugged. (If you haven't read the book, it's basically a euphemism for walking away from your job and working for your own benefit.) Now I write for myself, and while I haven't seen any financial benefits from it yet, I've gained so much personally, it's been worth it.

I also know my opinions here might not sit well with certain people. This is part of the reason why I don't often talk about politics, current events, celebrities, etc. (The other part is I don't really want this to be that type of blog, but that's not germane to the point of this post.)

The point is, I realize this blog might not be doing the best at forwarding my career. I know this, and I accept it. I can't be what I'm not. I'm an opinionated poker-playing, crocheting, cussing, smoking, home-schooling, slightly brain-damaged and mostly good-natured, ex-Michigander housewife who writes prolifically and whose writing entertains as well as niggles at the thought process. Similar to Atlas Shrugged, those who know me either really like me or really dislike me - depending on their own philosophies of life.

I can live with that.

Or in the words of Popeye: "I am what I am" - a WYSIWYG person. I can only hope that someday I find a WYSIWYG agent to represent me.

Now you tell me your thoughts on the subject. If you were an agent, would this blog turn you off? Would you even care? And btw, how's your poker face?

Philosophy on Flag Burning

This morning I was playing a little poker, minding my own business, when someone was seated next to me with an offensive image as his icon. The picture was of someone burning an American flag. I admit that at first, I was thoroughly pissed-off. (Maybe that was his intent - to put the US players on tilt about something besides poker.)

Then I remembered something my father always said. The US flag is supposed to be burned if it's touched the ground or has otherwise been defiled in some way. My father's take on the whole flag-burning thing was that any time someone who hates America touches the flag, it's been defiled, and so burning it is the only appropriate thing to do. People who burn the American flag are doing the flag a favor because it's no good after they touched it anyway.

God, I love my dad.

Like the asshole from Germany (not picking on Germans, btw... the site gives you the player's location - and his user name was in German anyway), people who burn the flag do so to piss people off. The more we can accept my father's philosophy about flag-burning--the less we let it piss us off when it happens--the less America-haters will do it.

Burn away, you raging morons. You're doing us a favor.

Or if we're lucky... to quote an anonymous jokester:

American Flag ...$25
Gasoline....$2
Cigarette Lighter...$2.50
Catching yourself on fire because you are a terrorist jerk...Priceless

Dipping into the Well

I don't know about the rest of you, but from time to time the well of my spirit needs to be refreshed. I get tired of life - not living exactly, but of everything else. The news all stinks, mankind seems like it's sliding into about two weeks before the fall of Rome, and all I want to do is crawl into a hole. Hermit life begins to look attractive.

It's times like these I have to dip into the well of the achievements of others. Sometimes I go to Quent Cordair Fine Art and check out the romantic realism there. I love Bryan Larsen. He's a hell of a guy (yes, I met him - he has (had?) a gallery he shared with artist Damon Denys, who I also love, in Salt Lake City and they used to host art parties there from time to time) and a spectacular artist. I would love for him to do my cover art, but that's a story for another time. Sometimes I stop at various other online galleries or listen to classical music (Rachmaninov anyone?) or look at pictures of grand architecture. I need to see something inspiring.

Sometimes that doesn't work.

In those cases, the only thing that fills my empty aching spirit is to read. Not just any book, but the one - Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

I first read AS as a freshman in high school. It showed me a world where people were more focused on achievement than popularity. Intelligence and integrity were more important than clothes and jewelry. I would've given anything to be Dagny Taggart instead of Eddie Willers. (Somedays, I still would.)

Oddly enough, the book was on a list of the top 100 books everyone should read. I don't think the teacher who gave out the list ever bothered reading the books on it. He sure as hell never read AS. He liked to bounce kids' heads off the lockers for sport. But as much as the guy was an ass, he did me a huge favor by giving me that list. I started at the top and read my way down. It was in alphabetical order, and the first few books were almost painful to read. (I still have the list around here somewhere. If I find it, I'll share it.) When I reached AS, it was like someone flipped a light switch and my dim world got brighter.

It still does.

I used to read the book at least once a year. 1168 pages of greatness and beauty defeating ugliness and depravity. Heroic men and women who ultimately win out over the basest evils. *happy sigh* I've read it at least a dozen times since then, and every time I see something I missed. And every time I come away feeling renewed. Oh sure, I cry when Eddie gets left behind. Eddie is the every man. I cry at the beginning when Dagny and Hank are battling to save the world from itself. I was crying last night and I'm only in the first 200 pages. I still love it. Sometimes you have to go through the pain to get to the prize at the end. (Sort of like writing, but I digress.)

Aside from what the book does for me personally, it is a wonderful piece of research material professionally. In her writings, Rand doesn't screw around. Everything in it is there for a reason. If I could achieve half her writing quality, I'd die happy. It also helps to know it took Rand 8 years to get published, and if she had to wait that long, I really shouldn't feel bad if it takes me twice as long.

Anyway, I know AS is not for everyone. I'm not advocating everyone should read it. I'm just saying what it does for me. In fact, I've had firsthand experience with people who hated the book, and weren't afraid to say so. (If you're one of those, please don't leave a comment. Negativity isn't welcome here.) I've also had people try to debate the book and its ideas with me. I'm done debating. I'm just enjoying and letting the words wash me clean again. Sometimes I just have to.

So, how do you dip into the well?

Whatever It Takes With One Caveat

Over at Murder She Writes, Karin Tabke poses the question: How far will you go? - with regard to what you will do to reach your goals.

My short answer was 'As far as is necessary without compromising my values'. Simple answer for me, really, but I'd like to talk about it a little further here this morning.

One of my goals it to write novels. Actually, I'm doing that - every day if I can manage it. I have two in the bag, and another three in various stages of editing, plus my WIP, so I am accomplishing that goal. Sometimes I work when I would rather be watching football, or Criminal Minds or NCIS. Sometimes I don't work when I ought to, and that leads to a big ball of stinky guilt. I never work when I'm supposed to be focused on teaching. First off, it's too hard to concentrate on both of those things at the same time, and secondly, my daughter's education comes first. It has to. I can write for the rest of my life, but I only have one shot to get my daughter started off right. That's part of where the 'not compromising my values' comes in. If it's a situation where there has to be a choice between writing and my family, the family always comes first.

The second goal is to get my work published. This is a little bit harder to accomplish, since it is not entirely in my hands. (Unless I want to go the self-publishing route, which I've considered and rejected.) On this front, I'm willing to read everything available to learn what it takes to be a publlished author. I've spent countless hours perfecting my query letters and synopses and outlines. I've tweaked my manuscripts until they shine, and then I go back to tweak them some more. I'd be willing to go to conferences and trade shows, if I had the money to do that. I'll schmooze and hobnob and rub elbows. I did that for years without any adverse effects.

The only thing I'm not willing to do is compromise my work.

I know that sounds like one of those pretentious phrases one hears from time to time. It's almost become snobby in its implications. What I mean by it, though, isn't anything like that. If getting published means I have to snip the meat out of my book, I won't do it. If it means taking an editor's suggestion to change the villian in Caldera from an eco-terrorist to a 'greedy businessman' I won't do it. It would go against my principles, and it would make the work less than it ought to be. If I accepted that, I would cry every time I saw one of my own books on the shelves. If I allowed that to happen, I couldn't look at myself in the mirror.

It doesn't mean the entirety of my work is sancrosanct. If some scenes need to be edited, so be it. If some passages have to be reworded to better convey their meaning, I'm all for it. Just don't cut out the ideas that are supposed to be in there. I'd rather burn everything I've ever written and live in a cave than see that happen.

So, if I have to sit here every day for the rest of my life--typing and editing and polishing--I'm happy to do it. If I have to leave the comfort of my hermitage in order to sell my books, I'm up for that, too. I'll just be doing it on my own terms, as I think it should always be. If that means I'll never get a single thing published, so be it. I won't be happy if I never publish, but I'll at least be content in the knowledge I never lost my integrity.

Now it's your turn. How far would you go to accomplish your goals? Do you think I'm out of my mind for publicly making the statement about not compromising my values? What wouldn't you do to accomplish your goals?

Drawing to an Inside Straight

I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but I play poker. Just online and just for free, but I play. I suppose you're wondering what this has to do with writing.

Sometimes I use poker as a means of distracting my brain enough to unclog it. When I open the program and sit down at a table, the only part of my brain being used is the strategy part. That's not really a part I use much when I'm writing, so the part that actually creates the story is free to gambol about. If I'm drawing to an open-ended straight, and I can see a flush building on the table, do I try a semi-blush to throw other players out of the hand, or do I bide my time hoping I make my straight and the one card that helps me isn't suited to give the other guy a better hand? When you're worrying about pushing all your money in and either winning big, or busting out, you don't really have time to worry about the squirms (or writers' block, or whatever you call it).

Another thing poker has taught me that applies to this writing life is patience. You can play for hours and never end up ahead. You win a little and you lose a little, but if you don't have patience, you see you're not getting ahead and you leave - when your next hand could've been quads. So you bide your time. Sometimes you're doing all the right things and the cards aren't going your way. Sometimes you're getting the crap bluffed out of you by better players, but if you're patient and smart, you'll rake in the big pots. As long as you're patient, the odds are for it.

Sometimes you jump into a game and even though you think you know everything you need to know about the game, you find you still have things to learn. Every new table is a new learning opportunity. Every new hand teaches you about the game, about the other players, and ultimately about yourself. If you watch poker on TV, you'll see the best players are continually learning how to improve their game. (And even the best writers are finding better ways to write.)

And sometimes, the person with the best cards still doesn't win the hand. A suck out always hurts, but you survive and you keep going. (Or you quit and find a new line of work, which many have done over the years - both in poker and in writing.)

At this point, I could be trite and quote Kenny Rogers, but I think you all have the idea. Just remember, no matter what, you're drawing to an inside straight with one card to go. What's your bet?

Fahrenheit 451 - Misinterpreted

My CP just sent me a link to this article: Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451 Misinterpreted.

I'll let the article speak for itself.

Selling Out

Since I started this whole writing adventure, I've thought about the phrase 'selling out'. As some of you may know, I'm a huge fan of Ayn Rand. Somewhere I read a quote from her (which I am unable to locate at this time) which said something to the effect of "You can't write crap in the hopes that it will catapult you to the point where you can write a great novel."

Those are my words, but the sentiment is correct. To me, that would be the ultimate sell-out.

Selling out, IMO, is ditching your integrity and writing something that goes against your beliefs just to get published. Like if I wrote a pro-environmentalism book or a pro-collectivism book. I look at it this way: Both of those philosophies might be popular and get me published, but by the time I finally got around to writing what I really believe, my credibility would be shot to hell. (And I'd spend the whole time hating myself for writing that crap.)

Writing just a story for entertainment purposes, rather than a magnum opus, is not selling out. If you're writing romance to pay the bills until you finish your 'great American novel', fine. Hell, if you're writing it just because you love writing it, great. As long as you're not espousing anything in those romances that would be contrary to who you are as a person. Same thing with mystery, commercial... Pick a genre someone has turned their nose up at. As long as you're being true to yourself, it's not selling out.

You don't have to write books with big ideas; you don't have to write 'important literary works'. You just have to always ALWAYS keep your integrity intact.

Subjectivity

I read an excellent post over at BookEnds' blog yesterday - A Subjective Business. They start out talking about an editor who wasn't interested in a book because it went against her political leanings. I can respect that. If an editor truly believes in one thing, I don't see how they can, in good conscience, publish something antithetical to their beliefs.

Unfortunately, this may become a cause for concern for me someday. I may have already come up against this and not known it. Take Caldera, for example, where the antagonist is an eco-terrorist and his acolytes are all environmentalists. Let's say I query an agent who leans toward the environmentalist side. How happy are they going to be to represent Caldera? Probably not very.

Herein lies the rub when you're dealing with big ideas and larger issues - even in a fictional format. I knew this coming in, though. I could write my books without those issues, but then I wouldn't be true to myself and my writing would suffer. (Not that every book has to have big issues - although many times they do without even realizing it.) Heck, even AWJ, which is a nice little suspense/mystery still has issues woven within it. I can't help myself, and I'm not sure that I want to. To quote that cartoon icon, Popeye: "I am what I am".

I've spent the better part of the day thinking about the subjectivity of this business, and if anything could be done about it. Is there a way to be completely objective? Unfortunately, I don't think so. I think everyone just needs to be as objective as they can within the framework of their own philosophy of life.

I'm sure there are agents out there who are representing things they don't necessarily believe in - at least I hope there are, otherwise I've got a list of agents I couldn't even think about querying based on the people they represent.

See? It even comes from the writer's side. I have my own set of values by which I measure those I deal with, and when my set of values and someone else's are diametrically opposed, it makes any kind of relationship impossible.

Here's hoping I can find an agent with a similar philosophy, or one who is at least close enough to see my work for the good it is. Otherwise, I'll just keep amassing manuscripts and hoping someday to have a place in the world of publishing.

Good luck to us all.

Expectations

Today's quote was: "High achievement always takes place in the framework of high expectation." - Charles Kettering

Heck, I'd even delete Kettering's use of the word 'high'. It's superfluous. Let's leave it at: Achievement takes place in a framework of expectations.

Expectations are the birthing ground of achievement. Let's think about that for a second as it relates to writing. If a writer expects to write a book - not just thinks about it, or wants it, or dreams about it, but expects it - chances are pretty good the writer is going to get it done. If a writer expects to secure an agent, it's going to happen. And if a writer expects to be published, it WILL happen.

None of this is just going to happen because he expects it will, but the expectation comes from somewhere, doesn't it? Behind that expectation is the drive to make it happen. This isn't like expecting a package from your grandma, or expecting that it's going to rain. This is an expectation whose fruition is entirely up to the achiever.

If the expectation falters, the achiever adjusts to make it happen. The achiever doesn't watch twenty-five rejections come in, and just keep sending out the same old query. The achiever doesn't sit idly by and wait. The achiever acts. Maybe he re-writes his query. Perhaps he polished his manuscript. Whatever it is, it is action of some sort. Achievement demands action. Definitely, whatever else he does, he writes more and more, getting better with each word laid down in his manuscript.

This goes back to what I've begun to refer to as Brennan's Rule: "We continue writing even in the face of rejection. We continue growing even when we’re told we write garbage. We write because that is who we are. We have the WILL." (From Allison Brennan's post - I WILL)

Why do we have the WILL? Because no matter how hard this road is and no matter how discouraged we may get, we all fully expect to achieve our goal of being published. And we WILL.

Now, stop reading blogs and get back to work. I expect it... Don't you?

WTF

Over the past few days I've been trying to find more quotes to add to my database, so I can continue to provide a daily quote without getting too repetitive. I use Barlett's Familiar Quotations for the most part, and it's always done well for me in the past. Typically what I do is type a word into the site's search engine and then go through it reading all the quotes that come up.

Yesterday I was looking for something inspirational, so I plugged in the word 'beauty'. Boy, was I disappointed. How depressing to be looking for beauty and find people trashing the concept. Feh. Today, I plugged in the word 'joy' - much better but still a few negative comments.

But what is wrong with the world when a simple concept like beauty draws so many negative comments? I won't quote any of them here, but geez, guys, give it a rest. There is beauty in the world, and there's nothing wrong with that. Beauty is not a negative concept. One person's beauty is not an insult to those who aren't beautiful. (And anyone who would say so has got some major self-esteem issues, IMO.)

Of course, there are certain specific people whose quotes I don't bother reading - because they are never positive, and frequently trash things like beauty, honor, integrity, truth... Those values should never be trashed by anyone, and yet some twisted thing inside these people make them want to spit on the good.

Sometimes I just sit here dumbfounded by the comments people make, and other times I could just cry.

Today, my mood is better, so I'll opt for dumbfounded and ignore the stupid quotes. There's good stuff out there, and I aim to find it. =oD

Literary and Commercial

There's been a massive debate about the difference between literary and commercial fiction. (Which I think stems from the general problem of defining your genre, but that's me.)

I liked what Nathan Bransford had to say on the subject: What Makes Literary Fiction Literary? - "In commercial fiction the plot tends to happen above the surface and in literary fiction the plot tends to happen beneath the surface." He goes on to explain what he means, so please read his thoughts on the subject. (You'll have to scroll past a couple paragraphs of Oscar stuff, but it's worth the time.)

Also, Kristin Nelson has some interesting insights in yesterday's post: Defining Literary.

(Keep in mind, these are not the only articles or posts I've seen on the subject, just the most recent and the ones that made the most sense to me.)

In her post, Ms. Nelson starts off saying: "Nothing dooms a query faster than mislabeling the genre of your work." Sound advice. When I started submitting Spectacle for representation, I was calling it 'mainstream' and just 'literary'. I was clueless about genre, and the rejections made that perfectly clear. (Especially when you consider I was sending it to agents who don't touch thrillers - except maybe when they're reading for pleasure.)

So, I've settle on 'literary thriller'. One person on an internet forum, who'd only read the blurb in my query letter, said she didn't think my work was literary, but since she hadn't read the work itself, I blew her off. Reading both Mr. Bransford's and Ms. Nelson's blogs, I'm happy I did. My writing fits their criteria. Good enough for me.

But even before I read their thoughts on the subject I was leaning toward literary because my work has a literary bent. You see, to me, literary work is defined by the ideas encapsulated in the words. IMO, if you're thinking about the philosophy behind your work, and you're weaving ideas into your story, then you're writing a literary work. Additionally, literary work is shown by the way the story is written. If you look at those works labeled as literary (and I'm not talking about the more recent 'literary' works, but those books that are literary classics), and compare them to the works one thinks of as commercial, you'll see a difference in the way the stories are written - how the author creates the story and it unfolds before you.

Mind you, I'm a neophyte in the writing world, but it seems pretty rational to me. So, until an agent or a publisher smacks me upside the head and tells me that my work is in no way literary, I'm sticking to my guns.

What do you think the difference is?

Piracy

There's been some news recently about the latest bit of thievery (aka piracy). I'd give the name of the site, but I'm not giving those folks any free publicity.

It seems somebody got the bright idea to steal other people's books and post them on the internet for free. Not surprising since they've already done it with music, and software.

And once again, I've heard people trot out the same old excuses for this kind of stealing.

1) Libraries buy a book and hundreds of people, if not thousands, read that one copy for free. Ummm... Yeah. The reality is: The library buys a copy and allows other people to read it. They don't buy one copy and allow all of their patrons to make copies of the book. Also, every person who owns property or buys anything pays, in part, for the having a library in their area (i.e. they pay property or sales tax). Kinda makes this argument for thievery moot, ya know?

2) Writers are making boatloads of money anyway, so they won't miss the few sales they lose when someone downloads their books for free. Okee Dokee. I don't know what planet these people are living on, but from what I understand, most writers aren't going to be appearing on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous any time soon. But even if writers had more money than they knew what to do with, it doesn't matter. It's still their property you're stealing. With thinking like this, what's to stop a bum from taking your property - I mean, since you obviously are wealthy by comparison.

3) This free downloading is free advertising for the authors, and therefore, drives sales. That's like saying because every car stolen means another car gets purchased, and that car has to be built, which keep factory workers employed and in the end, car thieves drive the economy (pardon the pun). Please. I'm sure most authors don't appreciate the favor. I know I wouldn't. Leave the marketing to the people who know how to do it right.

So, if you're one of those people who thinks it might be okay to download a book for free, think again. It's stealing; plain and simple. And if you're too poor too buy a book, visit your local library. (And if you're too cheap to pay for a book, you probably shouldn't be wasting money on internet fees and computers anyway.)

Rant over. Have a nice day.

Ignorance and Darkness

"The ignorance and darkness that is in us, no more hinders nor confines the knowledge that is in others, than the blindness of a mole is an argument against the quicksightedness of an eagle." - John Locke.

Unfortunately, he was not entirely right. Maybe at the time he wrote this, he hit his mark. Today? Well, things change, often for the worse.

The problem with ignorance today is that it not only hinders and confines knowledge, it obscures the truth. It spreads like hot tar, and darkens everything it touches. Or to paraphrase my husband, it spreads like a venereal disease. (If you've been to Cobwebs of the Mind, no Teddy is not my husband. He just liked the phrase and used it because it fits so perfectly.)

Just a few instances where ignorance has spread:

• librarians are now talking about banning that awful middle-grade novel... you know the one that mentions a "scrotum". Apparently knowing the proper term for a body part is wicked.
• people still think the use of a swastika or something closely resembling a swastika is cool (or rad or whatever), and other people think that's just hunky-dory because it's only a symbol. Umm... Yeah. Sure it was only a harmless symbol once upon a time, but that time has long passed. It means something really really REALLY nasty now. Stop using it.
• DDT is still banned because of one stupid book. See here. Millions have died of malaria/west nile/etc. because some wacko-chick decided decades ago to fudge her data. (Ignorance really had a field day because of this, and it spread like wildfire across not only this nation but most of the world.)

See? Ignorance is being used to obscure the truth. Now, I don't have a problem with ignorance in general. Not everyone can know everything all the time. If we did, we'd all be friggin' geniuses. But when ignorance passes itself off as knowledge, then it stops people from actually seeking out the real knowledge. You have a question, you get the answer, and you stop looking asking the question. Right?

And the darkness of stupidity reigns.

(Anybody seen Diogenes lately? I could use his lantern.)

Endings, Etc.

I'll admit, I'm not great whiz at writing endings. I don't really know what should go there. I have a tendency to what to write an epilogue, or wrap everything up in a neat little bow. After all I like reading books where everything is wrapped up. I hate not knowing what happens to everyone after the whole shebang has ended. I blame John Irving. I read "The World According to Garp" when I was a teenager and I've been hooked on having everything wrapped up since then.

So, while I'm not really sure how a story should end, I do know how one shouldn't end.

Please, for the sake of everything that's human within you... Don't end your story by killing off one of the main characters.

Unless you have a very very very good reason, you're going to piss off the end user of your product (i.e. your readers, your viewers... you know... the people who ultimately fund your work).

Going back to Garp. If you haven't read it, the following is a major plot spoiler...

Everyone dies in the end. Okay so maybe not a plot spoiler. We're all going to die someday, right? What Irving does is take each character's life to its logical end, and he had a very good reason for doing so. It was necessary for the story. (Please understand, Irving had a horrible sense of life and a very negative view of the world. Maybe he still does... I don't know. So I'm not saying Irving is the best guy to take life lessons from. He was/is however an excellent writer.)

The other night while I was sitting on the couch crocheting, my husband was flipping through the channels looking for something intelligent on TV. What he found was a movie called "Pay It Forward". If you haven't seen this movie, I'm going to ruin it for you, so stop reading now.

The premise was pretty good. A kid gets an assignment to figure out something he can do to change the world. So he decides he's going to start a chain of good deeds. His idea is to help out 3 people, and then each of those three people helps three people and so on. In the end, he helps some people and his own life is better because of it. Everything is going great. His Mom quit drinking, found herself a good man, and everyone is happy... Until he tries to help out one more person, and he gets stabbed in the process. And he dies. Bingo bango bongo. Dead.

So much for happy. So much for good. Umm... Hurray for futility? Yippee for martyrdom??

Don't do this to people. Don't perpetuate the myth life is futile. Don't perpetuate the idea that death without purpose is somehow noble. The only noble martyrs in history didn't set out to be martyrs. They didn't want to die. And in fiction, you don't have to kill your characters unless you are trying to make a point.

And going back to my posts on philosophy, think about what you're saying and why you're saying it. Think:

"Is this the point I really want to make?"

Happy Birthday, Ms. Rand

Today would have been Ayn Rand's 102nd birthday. I never met her - she died when I was twelve - but she had a very profound effect on my life. I read Atlas Shrugged when I was 14 and something about it struck a chord, even though I was too young and too screwed up to know what that thing was. In that book, I saw man as a heroic being; I saw a dream of how life ought to be.

Over the years, I gobbled up her other novels - Anthem, The Fountainhead, We The Living - over and over again; never comprehending the scope of her philosophy. It has only been during this millenium I discovered her non-fiction works, and the works of her intellectual heirs. My life has been better because of it.

Thank you, Ms. Rand, and even though you're gone... Happy Birthday.

(And if you're interested in learning more: A Brief Biography of Ayn Rand)

Speak of the Devil

Just yesterday (or was it this morning? I forget) I mentioned what I believe to be a truly horrid YA book - Bridge to Terabithia.

Tonight, I saw an ad for a movie based on this book.

I only have one thing to say:

WTF? (Which is internet for What the F***?)

I am constantly amazed by the utter crap that not only gets published (and wins the Newberry Medal, btw), but by what gets made into movies. If people really believe that book is good, we're doomed. My daughter saw the commercial, too. She reminded me that the commercial looks nothing like the book, so there's a bit of hope for the film. Still, if the film makes more kids read the book, that really sucks.

And if anyone reading this blog loves the book in question, I'm truly sorry. (Not for my comments, but for the twisted psyche that would make a man like that book. I blame the culture.)

Nuff said.

Sad, Strange Little World

It has occurred to me that this is a sad, strange little world we live in. If I concentrate on it too long, it's really very depressing.

Recently, a writers' blog I visit regularly had a post about this particular writer and her stalker. She's afraid, and she has every right to be. Apparently, this stalker believes her right to have her story ghost-written trumps the writer's right to make her own decisions and control her own life. Sheesh.

On an agent's blog I like, in the comment chain, is someone who has an obvious axe to grind and is anonymously using this agent as his personal whetstone. Apparently this commentor believes his opinion that the agenting community is out to screw writers trumps the facts presented by the agent and by her published clients. Go figger.

On Absolute Write, there are people who claim to be writers but whose only writing seems to be in the forums, and only ever seems to be filled with animosity. Apparently, their need to vent trumps the fact that AW is supposed to be a writing forum. Shucky-darns.

Play nice people. And if you can't play nice, find a nice quiet place somewhere far away from your fellow man, and slowly rot. You're slowing rotting inside anyway; don't subject anyone else to your deterioration.

I suppose if I was going to find an upside to this strangeness, it would be this:

All the sickness and bizarreness in the world makes excellent fodder for stories. Sad that truth really is stranger than fiction sometimes. (Or as I like to tell my husband, "I can't make this shit up.")

Entertainment or Ideas?

Let's talk for minute about the purpose of art. I mean writing is art, isn't it? Like the above quote ("The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance. - Aristotle") for instance.

I'm old school when it comes to writing. I believe writing has a purpose above just entertainment. In my posts on philosophy, this is clear. But it seems to me that many authors have lost the objective, or they've unconsciously avoided it. Perhaps this is because many readers have looked at reading only as a simple passtime. (Or in the words of my mother, "I don't like to read anything that makes me think.")

Now, I'm not dismissing this idea as wrong. I don't see anything bad about reading for pleasure. I've spent countless hours involved in reading for pleasure. I'm just saying not all writing has to be strictly about entertainment. Nor should it. You as a writer have the ability to entertain and enlighten; to please and to teach. I try to do both.

Needless to say, Mom's not to keen on my books, but she's not the target market anyway. She's the kind of person who can zip through three entertainment books in any given Saturday. I'm hoping for the type of reader who wants to think about the ideas in my novels. I'm hoping such readers still exist, and in sufficient quantity to make my books profitable.

So, which do you prefer? Are you like Mom and want to read for entertainment, or do you want to read about ideas? Or is it a bit of both?

Short Attention Span Theatre

Sounds like a joke? Well, it was. I'm not the person who coined this phrase. I gleaned it from some comedian back in the '80s. However, as much of a joke as it was, it has become a way of life today. Everything is thrown at us in rapid fire--from commercials to tv shows to writing. Nothing should be too long because for some reason, the idea is that humans have a very short attention span and if you don't keep it short, your audience's mind will wander. (And they wonder why ADHD is a problem? But that's a topic for a different blog.)

What I'd like to concentrate on here is the movement toward SAST in writing. I think this is best characterized by the 'Show vs Tell' argument. The popular philosophy in writing is that one should show what is going on rather than telling what is going on. Unfortunately, all Show and no Tell ends up with a machine gun effect story, IMO. I actually can't get more than a few paragraphs into an 'all-show' story before my brain revolts and I get a headache.

I believe it was Aristotle who said (and I'm paraphrasing here) - "All things in moderation." I like a nice balance between showing and telling. It shows in my writing. I mean, think about it. If you're writing in third person omniscient, some things are just going to have to be told rather than shown. It's natural. And from the standpoint of a reader, all writing should flow naturally. (And I'm not referring to a stream-of-consciousness type writing--that just sucks, no matter how 'natural' it's supposed to be.)

Now you might think I'm making this argument to justify my writing style. Perhaps I am. But that doesn't make it any less of a valid point. All show panders to the SAST mentality, while all tell is like listening to your great-grandmother extoll the wonders of linament. A nice mixture of the two seems like the best way to go. Unfortunately, I don't think the professionals in this business share my sentiment, so it may mean my books go unpublished until the day when the SAST goes away.

If any of you have a valid argument for 'all-show', I'd be happy to hear it.