Yesterday was a red letter day in the Wiki world.
Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, unveiled his new search engine called Search Wikia here.
The New York Times reported "Like Wikipedia, Mr. Wales plans to rely on a 'wiki' model, a voluntary collaboration of people, to fine-tune the Wikia search engine. . . the service will rank pages based on a relatively simple algorithm. Users will be allowed and encouraged to rate search results for quality and relevance. Wikia will gradually incorporate that feedback in its rankings of Web pages to deliver increasingly useful answers to people's questions."
Unlike Wikipedia, which is run by the non-profit Wikiamedia Foundation, Wikia is a for-profit company, which plans to make money by selling ads. The start-up company has received $14 million, $10 million of which came from Amazon.
Most of the blogs that commented on the debut yesterday seemed a bit disappointed that Wikia wasn't a more sophisticated search engine. But Wales reminded everyone that, when he started Wikipedia in 2001, it only contained a few articles. When asked how long it would take Wikia to get up to speed, Wales was quoted by the IDG News Service saying, "I don't know how long it will take to reach industry-standard quality search results, but I'd say at least two years . . ."
Mr. Wales told the New York Times "I think it is unhealthy for the citizens of the world that so much of our information is controlled by such a small number of players, behind closed doors."
True to Mr. Wales vision, Wikia will be open source with its programming code and data visible to anyone.
At present, the top search engines are: Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Ask.com. It will be interesting to see whether Internet consumers embrace Wikia.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Monday, January 07, 2008
Top Sci-Fi In the Last 25 Years
Entertainment Weekly has an article on the top 25 sci-fi films and television shows of the past 25 years. I just had a great time scrolling through them.
My top favorites were on the list although not in the order I would have listed them.
You can see EW's list here.
And I've posted videos from my top five below, counting down from #5 to #1.
#5 on my list: E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982): Whose heart didn't break when E.T. and Elliot said good-bye, each touching his heart and saying "ouch"?
#4: The Matrix (1999): This is the scene when Neo and Trinity shoot up the lobby on their way to rescuing Morpheus.
#3 The Terminator (1984): This film started my infatuation with Michael Biehn. This is the scene where Sarah meets both Kyle and The Terminator for the first time in the club Tech-Noir.
#2 Aliens (1986): This film had everything. A kick-ass heroine, a cute kid, an evil Alien Queen AND Michael Biehn. This is my favorite scene in which Ripley utters those immortal words, "Get away from her, you bitch!"
#1 Blade Runner (1982): Every time Ridley Scott issues another director's cut, I buy it. I've got at least five versions of this film by now. This is the scene in which the last replicant allows Deckard to live while dying himself. Rutger Hauer was great as Roy Batty.
What are your favorites?
My top favorites were on the list although not in the order I would have listed them.
You can see EW's list here.
And I've posted videos from my top five below, counting down from #5 to #1.
#5 on my list: E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982): Whose heart didn't break when E.T. and Elliot said good-bye, each touching his heart and saying "ouch"?
#4: The Matrix (1999): This is the scene when Neo and Trinity shoot up the lobby on their way to rescuing Morpheus.
#3 The Terminator (1984): This film started my infatuation with Michael Biehn. This is the scene where Sarah meets both Kyle and The Terminator for the first time in the club Tech-Noir.
#2 Aliens (1986): This film had everything. A kick-ass heroine, a cute kid, an evil Alien Queen AND Michael Biehn. This is my favorite scene in which Ripley utters those immortal words, "Get away from her, you bitch!"
#1 Blade Runner (1982): Every time Ridley Scott issues another director's cut, I buy it. I've got at least five versions of this film by now. This is the scene in which the last replicant allows Deckard to live while dying himself. Rutger Hauer was great as Roy Batty.
What are your favorites?
A Quarterlife Deal
On December 18th, the day I had my hand surgery, the Los Angeles Times reported on an important media event.
"The first television series that originated on the Internet and then got picked up by a major broadcast network, Quarterlife, will premiere on NBC on February 18, the network said Monday."
The series was created by Marshall Herskovitz and Edward Zwick, the creators of thirtysomething, an American television drama that ran on ABC for four seasons, beginning on September 29, 1987. thirtysomething was an Emmy Award winning show about a group of friends in their thirties living in Philadelphia.
Quarterlife--as you might guess from the title--is about a group of friends in their twenties. It began life on the MySpaceTV platform on November 11th. The show runs in eight-minute episodes on MySpace.com and on the Quarterlife.com site. A social networking site is also connected to the show for viewers.
The lead character, a wannabe writer named Dylan Krieger tells the stories through her blog.
Less than a week after the show debuted, the New York Times announced NBC's "first-of-its-kind deal to acquire the talked-about new Internet and social network series Quarterlife for distribution as an hourlong drama series on the NBC network after it has first played" on the Internet.
Network television shows have been available on the Internet for some time. This is the first time a show originating on the Internet has gone the other direction to television.
The writers' strike will not affect the show's debut on NBC in February.
The episodes will always appear on the Internet first.
The New York Times said: "The idea originated more than a year ago when Mr. Herskovitz and his longtime partner, Ed Zwick, decided they had to find a way to create entertainment that would be free of corporate ownership — and creative interference."
"The first television series that originated on the Internet and then got picked up by a major broadcast network, Quarterlife, will premiere on NBC on February 18, the network said Monday."
The series was created by Marshall Herskovitz and Edward Zwick, the creators of thirtysomething, an American television drama that ran on ABC for four seasons, beginning on September 29, 1987. thirtysomething was an Emmy Award winning show about a group of friends in their thirties living in Philadelphia.
Quarterlife--as you might guess from the title--is about a group of friends in their twenties. It began life on the MySpaceTV platform on November 11th. The show runs in eight-minute episodes on MySpace.com and on the Quarterlife.com site. A social networking site is also connected to the show for viewers.
The lead character, a wannabe writer named Dylan Krieger tells the stories through her blog.
Less than a week after the show debuted, the New York Times announced NBC's "first-of-its-kind deal to acquire the talked-about new Internet and social network series Quarterlife for distribution as an hourlong drama series on the NBC network after it has first played" on the Internet.
Network television shows have been available on the Internet for some time. This is the first time a show originating on the Internet has gone the other direction to television.
The writers' strike will not affect the show's debut on NBC in February.
The episodes will always appear on the Internet first.
The New York Times said: "The idea originated more than a year ago when Mr. Herskovitz and his longtime partner, Ed Zwick, decided they had to find a way to create entertainment that would be free of corporate ownership — and creative interference."
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Life In A Wood
I've told you I live in a forest with hills and wild critters, but here's a concrete fact to illustrate what I mean.
There are a lot of oak trees on my property. Several are more than sixty feet high. They drop such a thick carpet of leaves that it's impossible to mulch them with a mower, so every year, I rake. It usually takes me three weekends working almost full time to finish the task.
This year, with a cast on my hand, raking was out of the question. So I hired a crew to rake (and mulch where they could). I purchased a big box of extra large leaf bags for them to use.
When they ran out of leaf bags at #48, they started mulching. They're not finished yet.
There are a lot of oak trees on my property. Several are more than sixty feet high. They drop such a thick carpet of leaves that it's impossible to mulch them with a mower, so every year, I rake. It usually takes me three weekends working almost full time to finish the task.
This year, with a cast on my hand, raking was out of the question. So I hired a crew to rake (and mulch where they could). I purchased a big box of extra large leaf bags for them to use.
When they ran out of leaf bags at #48, they started mulching. They're not finished yet.
First Impression Of the Republican Debate
I watched the debates last night with interest.
For me, probably the biggest disappointment was Mitt Romney. I've always regarded him as a very competent, fairly moderate CEO-type. The duplicity in his responses came as a huge surprise to me.
Romney came to the defense of the pharmaceutical industry, saying:
And don't turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big, bad guys...they're trying to create products to make us well and make us better. And they're doing the work of the free market. And are there excesses? I'm sure there are, and we should go after excesses, but they're an important industry to this country.
But let me note something else. And that is the market will work. And the reason healthcare isn't working like a market right now is you have 47 million people that are saying, "I'm not gonna play. I'm just gonna get free care paid for by everybody else." That doesn't work.
#2, the buyer doesn't have information about what the cost or quality is of different choices they can have.
If you take the government out of it to a much greater extent, you get it work like a market, and we'll rein in costs.
IMHO, to even suggest that the 47 million people without health care are making a deliberate choice not to pay is outrageous. I know. During the years I was writing full-time, I watched my health care insurance go from about $200 a month during the period I was covered by COBRA to well over $500 a month.
People don't carry health care because they simply can't afford it.
Pharmaceutical companies are making obscene profits while the public is having to decide between buying needed medications each month or buying food. Medications are being sold in other countries at a fraction of what they cost here, and Congress continues to protect those higher prices. That's NOT the free market at work. Romney's comments suggest he is pandering to the pharmaceutical industry.
On the Republican side, I thought McCain beat out Romney handily.
While I truly admire McCain as a loyal patriot and a great American, I suspect he is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative presenting as a moderate.
For me, probably the biggest disappointment was Mitt Romney. I've always regarded him as a very competent, fairly moderate CEO-type. The duplicity in his responses came as a huge surprise to me.
Romney came to the defense of the pharmaceutical industry, saying:
And don't turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big, bad guys...they're trying to create products to make us well and make us better. And they're doing the work of the free market. And are there excesses? I'm sure there are, and we should go after excesses, but they're an important industry to this country.
But let me note something else. And that is the market will work. And the reason healthcare isn't working like a market right now is you have 47 million people that are saying, "I'm not gonna play. I'm just gonna get free care paid for by everybody else." That doesn't work.
#2, the buyer doesn't have information about what the cost or quality is of different choices they can have.
If you take the government out of it to a much greater extent, you get it work like a market, and we'll rein in costs.
IMHO, to even suggest that the 47 million people without health care are making a deliberate choice not to pay is outrageous. I know. During the years I was writing full-time, I watched my health care insurance go from about $200 a month during the period I was covered by COBRA to well over $500 a month.
People don't carry health care because they simply can't afford it.
Pharmaceutical companies are making obscene profits while the public is having to decide between buying needed medications each month or buying food. Medications are being sold in other countries at a fraction of what they cost here, and Congress continues to protect those higher prices. That's NOT the free market at work. Romney's comments suggest he is pandering to the pharmaceutical industry.
On the Republican side, I thought McCain beat out Romney handily.
While I truly admire McCain as a loyal patriot and a great American, I suspect he is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative presenting as a moderate.
Bottoms Up
Readers of this blog know that I often comment on developments and trends in other industries. I do this because I believe those changes can give us insight into our future.
I'd like to talk for a few minutes about an interesting initiative out in San Francisco.
Back in 2004, SF Mayor Gavin Newsom proposed the creation of a wireless network to provide Internet access to his city. A RFP (Request for Proposal) was issued the following year and, in April 2006, the city announced that a proposal submitted jointly by Google and Earthlink had won the bid.
Sixteen months later, on August 29, 2007, Earthlink announced it was backing out of the contract. The next day, the San Francisco Chronicle reported the following: "The contract, which was three years in the making, had run into snags with the Board of Supervisors, but ultimately it was undone when Atlanta-based EarthLink announced Tuesday that it no longer believed providing citywide Wi-Fi was economically viable for the company."
The day before it backed out, Earthlink announced layoffs of 900 jobs--half its workforce--and its spokesman said the company "was not willing to work in the business model where EarthLink fronts all the money to build, own and operate the network."
Yesterday, an Associated Press story reported that "[a] Silicon Valley startup is promising to blanket San Francisco with free wireless Internet service, reviving a crusade that crumbled last year after two much larger companies, EarthLink Inc. and Google Inc., scrapped their plans to build a high-speed network for Web surfing."
The new initiative is being led by a network equipment manufacturer named Meraki Networks Inc. Google is one of the company's financial backers, which suggests that Google was hedging its bet on Earthlink.
AP's business writer Michael Liedtke says Meraki "hopes to complete the ambitious project within the next year by persuading thousands of San Francisco residents to set up free radio repeaters on their rooftops and in their homes. The 21-month-old company is to announce its plans Friday."
Earthlink's plan was to install transmitters on public property, and its efforts were stymied by bureaucracy and local politics.
Meraki plans to do an end run around these political impediments by going directly to consumers.
PC World says:
The startup . . . believes it will succeed where EarthLink and Google did not: Building Wi-Fi access throughout San Francisco at no cost to the city. It expects to finish by year's end . . .
Meraki is footing the whole bill on this project so it can learn how to roll out such networks for profit elsewhere. The good news, if the plan works, is that it could do so for less than US$5 million, lower than the cost many other municipal wireless projects have run into . . .
Meraki will build the backbone of its network with solar-powered rooftop access points and fill out its coverage with smaller repeaters to sit in windows or on balconies. Both will be designed and built by Meraki and provided free to residents and businesses that agree to house the gear on their property in return for better coverage. All the nodes will be meshed, so Meraki won't have to get wired broadband links everywhere its access points go.
The AP story says:
Since starting its tests about six months ago, Meraki has given away about 500 repeaters — enough to provide high-speed wireless, or Wi-Fi, access to about 40,000 people in San Francisco neighborhoods covering a roughly 2-square-mile area.
After raising an additional $20 million from venture capitalists, Meraki decided it had enough money to set up free Wi-Fi in San Francisco's remaining 47 square miles.
Meraki probably will have to give away 10,000 to 15,000 repeaters . . .
I was intrigued by Meraki's creativity in problem-solving and its grassroots approach to building a network. Instead of a "top down" solution, they opted for a "bottom up" response.
I've talked before about the centralization of publishing over the last forty years. Beginning in the '70s, publishing houses were swallowed by large media companies until today, there are seven media conglomerates that control most of the business. I'm not going to take the time here to go over that history. If you're interested, you can read my post for 3/7/07 here.
With the advent of digital technology and print-on-demand capability, I've predicted that the present centralized system will begin to fragment again. If you want to read more about that, visit my post for 6/25/07 here.
I believe that publishing is going to reinvent itself using a bottoms up approach.
I'd like to talk for a few minutes about an interesting initiative out in San Francisco.
Back in 2004, SF Mayor Gavin Newsom proposed the creation of a wireless network to provide Internet access to his city. A RFP (Request for Proposal) was issued the following year and, in April 2006, the city announced that a proposal submitted jointly by Google and Earthlink had won the bid.
Sixteen months later, on August 29, 2007, Earthlink announced it was backing out of the contract. The next day, the San Francisco Chronicle reported the following: "The contract, which was three years in the making, had run into snags with the Board of Supervisors, but ultimately it was undone when Atlanta-based EarthLink announced Tuesday that it no longer believed providing citywide Wi-Fi was economically viable for the company."
The day before it backed out, Earthlink announced layoffs of 900 jobs--half its workforce--and its spokesman said the company "was not willing to work in the business model where EarthLink fronts all the money to build, own and operate the network."
Yesterday, an Associated Press story reported that "[a] Silicon Valley startup is promising to blanket San Francisco with free wireless Internet service, reviving a crusade that crumbled last year after two much larger companies, EarthLink Inc. and Google Inc., scrapped their plans to build a high-speed network for Web surfing."
The new initiative is being led by a network equipment manufacturer named Meraki Networks Inc. Google is one of the company's financial backers, which suggests that Google was hedging its bet on Earthlink.
AP's business writer Michael Liedtke says Meraki "hopes to complete the ambitious project within the next year by persuading thousands of San Francisco residents to set up free radio repeaters on their rooftops and in their homes. The 21-month-old company is to announce its plans Friday."
Earthlink's plan was to install transmitters on public property, and its efforts were stymied by bureaucracy and local politics.
Meraki plans to do an end run around these political impediments by going directly to consumers.
PC World says:
The startup . . . believes it will succeed where EarthLink and Google did not: Building Wi-Fi access throughout San Francisco at no cost to the city. It expects to finish by year's end . . .
Meraki is footing the whole bill on this project so it can learn how to roll out such networks for profit elsewhere. The good news, if the plan works, is that it could do so for less than US$5 million, lower than the cost many other municipal wireless projects have run into . . .
Meraki will build the backbone of its network with solar-powered rooftop access points and fill out its coverage with smaller repeaters to sit in windows or on balconies. Both will be designed and built by Meraki and provided free to residents and businesses that agree to house the gear on their property in return for better coverage. All the nodes will be meshed, so Meraki won't have to get wired broadband links everywhere its access points go.
The AP story says:
Since starting its tests about six months ago, Meraki has given away about 500 repeaters — enough to provide high-speed wireless, or Wi-Fi, access to about 40,000 people in San Francisco neighborhoods covering a roughly 2-square-mile area.
After raising an additional $20 million from venture capitalists, Meraki decided it had enough money to set up free Wi-Fi in San Francisco's remaining 47 square miles.
Meraki probably will have to give away 10,000 to 15,000 repeaters . . .
I was intrigued by Meraki's creativity in problem-solving and its grassroots approach to building a network. Instead of a "top down" solution, they opted for a "bottom up" response.
I've talked before about the centralization of publishing over the last forty years. Beginning in the '70s, publishing houses were swallowed by large media companies until today, there are seven media conglomerates that control most of the business. I'm not going to take the time here to go over that history. If you're interested, you can read my post for 3/7/07 here.
With the advent of digital technology and print-on-demand capability, I've predicted that the present centralized system will begin to fragment again. If you want to read more about that, visit my post for 6/25/07 here.
I believe that publishing is going to reinvent itself using a bottoms up approach.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
More on Preditors and Editors
My friend, Sherrill Quinn, pointed out that my novel Bad Girl is also listed on the Preditors and Editors poll as best erotic novel here.
PLEASE VOTE FOR ME.
Thanks.
PLEASE VOTE FOR ME.
Thanks.
A Little, Brown Wolf(e)
Publishing is a business. If we needed a reminder of that, the news on Wednesday that Tom Wolfe will be leaving his long-term publisher, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, served the purpose.
Wolfe, now 76, had been with FSG for 42 years--since his first book, The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby, was released in 1965.
He's moving to Little, Brown and Co., a division of French publisher Hachette Livre.
So why would a writer suddenly pick up and leave a publisher he'd been with for more than half his life?
The answer can be found in his last book: the novel I Am Charlotte Simmons released in 2004. FSG lost money on the book, which was described by the press as a critical and commercial diappointment. In a blistering review on 11/14/04, The Chicago Sun-Times said:
At 74, Tom Wolfe has become an old fart. The worst kind of old fart, too: a right-wing scold, a moralizing antique, William Bennett in an ice-cream suit . . . It has been a long time since I have brought such high expectations to such a painfully disappointing novel.
In an article this past Wednesday The New York Times explained the numbers this way:
According to Nielsen BookScan, which represents about 70 percent of book sales, “I am Charlotte Simmons” sold 293,000 copies in hardcover and 138,000 copies in paperback. When Farrar, Straus published the novel, it announced a first-print run of 1.5 million hardcover copies. Although such numbers tend to be inflated, a more realistic print run of about 800,000 far outstripped sales of the book. It also far undersold “A Man in Full,” which sold about 1.1 million copies in hardcover.
So, when Wolfe and his agent Lynn Nesbitt came back to the table to negotiate the advance for his upcoming novel, Back to Blood, an exploration of class, race and corruption in Cuban Miami, due to be released next year, FSG balked at ponying up the $5 million advance Wolfe wanted. Jonathan Galassi, publisher of FSG, said, "We just couldn't agree on terms."
Little, Brown was willing to fork over an advance in the range of $7 million so Wolfe et al picked up their marbles and decamped.
As I said at the outset, publishing is a business. If you accept an advance based on anticipated sales, you'd damn well better deliver--no matter how famous you are.
If you need further proof, read this post of mine dated 11/8/05 here.
It's all in the numbers.
Wolfe, now 76, had been with FSG for 42 years--since his first book, The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby, was released in 1965.
He's moving to Little, Brown and Co., a division of French publisher Hachette Livre.
So why would a writer suddenly pick up and leave a publisher he'd been with for more than half his life?
The answer can be found in his last book: the novel I Am Charlotte Simmons released in 2004. FSG lost money on the book, which was described by the press as a critical and commercial diappointment. In a blistering review on 11/14/04, The Chicago Sun-Times said:
At 74, Tom Wolfe has become an old fart. The worst kind of old fart, too: a right-wing scold, a moralizing antique, William Bennett in an ice-cream suit . . . It has been a long time since I have brought such high expectations to such a painfully disappointing novel.
In an article this past Wednesday The New York Times explained the numbers this way:
According to Nielsen BookScan, which represents about 70 percent of book sales, “I am Charlotte Simmons” sold 293,000 copies in hardcover and 138,000 copies in paperback. When Farrar, Straus published the novel, it announced a first-print run of 1.5 million hardcover copies. Although such numbers tend to be inflated, a more realistic print run of about 800,000 far outstripped sales of the book. It also far undersold “A Man in Full,” which sold about 1.1 million copies in hardcover.
So, when Wolfe and his agent Lynn Nesbitt came back to the table to negotiate the advance for his upcoming novel, Back to Blood, an exploration of class, race and corruption in Cuban Miami, due to be released next year, FSG balked at ponying up the $5 million advance Wolfe wanted. Jonathan Galassi, publisher of FSG, said, "We just couldn't agree on terms."
Little, Brown was willing to fork over an advance in the range of $7 million so Wolfe et al picked up their marbles and decamped.
As I said at the outset, publishing is a business. If you accept an advance based on anticipated sales, you'd damn well better deliver--no matter how famous you are.
If you need further proof, read this post of mine dated 11/8/05 here.
It's all in the numbers.
New Mystery Imprint
From yesterday's Publishers Weekly:
Soho Press is launching a new mystery imprint this spring called Soho Constable. Set to start publishing in April, the imprint will be releasing mysteries just published across the pond by British house Constable & Robinson. The books, both historical and modern-day mysteries set predominantly in England and Scotland, are by such authors as Barbara Cleverly, R.T. Raichev and Roberta Kray.
Soho Press is launching a new mystery imprint this spring called Soho Constable. Set to start publishing in April, the imprint will be releasing mysteries just published across the pond by British house Constable & Robinson. The books, both historical and modern-day mysteries set predominantly in England and Scotland, are by such authors as Barbara Cleverly, R.T. Raichev and Roberta Kray.
Friday, January 04, 2008
New Survey on Consumer Habits
The Hollywood Reporter had an interesting story on December 28th.
During the last week of October, Deloitte & Touche did their second online survey of consumer habits this year. They surveyed 2,081 U.S. consumers.
Eight months earlier (February 23-March 6, 2007), their first survey had indicated 24% of consumers used their cell phones as entertainment devices. The new survey puts that number at 36%.
"The current figure [for cell phones as entertainment devices] soars to 62% among millenials (consumers 13-to-24-years-old) compared with 46% in the previous study . . ." Among the Generation X consumers (25-to41-year-olds), the new figure grew to 47% from 29%.
Approximately 38% of consumers are watching TV shows online, up from 23% in the previous study.
"About 20% of consumers said they are viewing video content on their cell phones daily or almost daily."
One really interesting stat is that 69% of those surveyed indicated they are watching or listening to consumer-generated content.
"Eight-five% of consumers still find TV advertising to have the most impact on their buying habits, but online ads are second best, with 65% of consumers saying they have the most impact, beating out magazines at 63%."
"'I think for advertisers one of the conclusions is you don't make decisions to advertise either on television or the Internet when you want to hit all the demographics, but rather you need to have a multiplatform strategy,' said Ken August, vice chairman and national sector leader for Deloitte & Touche's media and entertainment practice, which commissioned the study. 'It shouldn't be an either or proposition'."
During the last week of October, Deloitte & Touche did their second online survey of consumer habits this year. They surveyed 2,081 U.S. consumers.
Eight months earlier (February 23-March 6, 2007), their first survey had indicated 24% of consumers used their cell phones as entertainment devices. The new survey puts that number at 36%.
"The current figure [for cell phones as entertainment devices] soars to 62% among millenials (consumers 13-to-24-years-old) compared with 46% in the previous study . . ." Among the Generation X consumers (25-to41-year-olds), the new figure grew to 47% from 29%.
Approximately 38% of consumers are watching TV shows online, up from 23% in the previous study.
"About 20% of consumers said they are viewing video content on their cell phones daily or almost daily."
One really interesting stat is that 69% of those surveyed indicated they are watching or listening to consumer-generated content.
"Eight-five% of consumers still find TV advertising to have the most impact on their buying habits, but online ads are second best, with 65% of consumers saying they have the most impact, beating out magazines at 63%."
"'I think for advertisers one of the conclusions is you don't make decisions to advertise either on television or the Internet when you want to hit all the demographics, but rather you need to have a multiplatform strategy,' said Ken August, vice chairman and national sector leader for Deloitte & Touche's media and entertainment practice, which commissioned the study. 'It shouldn't be an either or proposition'."
The Preditors and Editors Poll
This blog has been nominated as a helpful resource for writers.
I'd appreciate your votes here:
http://www.critters.org/predpoll/writerinfo.shtml
Thanks!!
Addendum: I just realized you can only vote once in each category. This category includes a number of great agent blogs, including Nathan Bransford and Janet Reid. They deserve your votes more than I do.
I'd appreciate your votes here:
http://www.critters.org/predpoll/writerinfo.shtml
Thanks!!
Addendum: I just realized you can only vote once in each category. This category includes a number of great agent blogs, including Nathan Bransford and Janet Reid. They deserve your votes more than I do.
It's January Again
{sigh} It's that time of year again. Every January, a new crop of writers decides, "THIS is the year I'm going to see my book in print; even if I have to self-publish it."
In the last two days, I have seen at least six writers offer variations on the above statement.
I've been pretty proud of myself. I haven't made a single negative comment. I've resisted the urge to say, "Don't do it. Don't throw your money away."
After all, it is their money.
The thing that bugs me is that there's always a pattern to these things. A new person shows up on a list, posts for a couple of days and then--out of the blue--suddenly starts extolling the virtues of self-publishing.
If you're not familiar with the terms "sock puppet" or "astroturfing," go here and here.
As far as self-publishing goes, I read a post on Slushpile.net a year ago that resonated with me. Here's an excerpt:
When you self-publish . . . you are essentially going around (the) system. You’re taking your ball, going home, and making up your own game in the backyard. Your game might be fun, it might be valid exercise, it might be the perfect thing for your situation, but it’s not the same way all the other kids play. And to pretend otherwise is to invite scorn and derision.
Many newbie writers believe that having a physical copy of their book is the end goal. Their impatience blinds them to the impediments they'll face:
- The need for a distributor
- The need to market (you have to have a way to drive traffic to your site or to your book on Amazon)
- The refusal of many bookstore chains to accept self-published books for sale even when you have a distributor and accept returns
- The high costs charged for returns that eat into any profit
- The negative opinion throughout the industry for self-published books
The would-be writer shells out $2,500 and ends up with a box of unsold books in his car trunk or on a shelf in his garage.
Worse yet, he gives up on his dream of writing. And who knows, if he'd been less impatient, more willing to accept feedback and better able to tolerate rejection, he might have become a published writer by following the traditional path.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
A New Political Prediction
Early yesterday morning, Business Week announced ten likely events for 2008.
The predictions, which can be read here, include pretty safe ones like oil will top $100 a barrel (Duh! What a reach. Oil hit that target less than twelve hours later) and Facebook fatigue (Please, I'm begging you, don't invite me to be your Facebook friend).
But the one I found the most intriguing was this:
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will enter the Presidential race in February, after it becomes clear which nominees will get the nod from the major parties. His multiple billions and organization will impress voters—and stun rivals. He'll look like the most viable third-party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt. But Bloomberg will come up short, as he comes in for withering attacks from both Democrats and Republicans. He and Clinton will split more than 50% of the votes, but Arizona's maverick senator, John McCain, will end up the country's next President.
I found this prediction fascinating on so many levels. First, for those of you who are not political junkies, Bloomberg had been a Democrat his entire adult life--until, at about age 59--he switched to the Republican Party in order to run as Mayor of New York. After two terms as Mayor, in last June, he left THAT party and declared himself an Independent, fueling speculation that he wanted to make a run for the presidency and knew the country was shifting away from Bush's party.
Mort Kondracke, Executive Editor of Roll Call, had this to say last April:
Obviously, the historical record of third parties is dismal. Not even ex-President Theodore Roosevelt could win. But, every decade or two, third-party candidacies do serve a purpose. They impel the major parties to take action they might otherwise avoid.
In 2008, all indications are the public wants an end to incessant partisan combat and attention to pressing national problems. If Democrats and Republicans can't deliver, Bloomberg has shown that he can.
On December 13th, the San Jose Mercury News reported:
One major effort, Unity '08, is already gearing up to offer America a viable "third way" presidential campaign. Through a wide open, online convention next June, Unity '08 plans to nominate a true "unity" ticket, headed by a Democrat, Republican or independent presidential candidate, balanced by someone from the other party in the vice presidential slot. Speculation in the press so far has focused on New York City's pragmatic and very effective Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as well as respected former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
On Sunday, the Los Angeles Times had this story:
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end gridlock in Washington.
Others who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two major parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party presidential campaign.
The meeting will include Democrats Sam Nunn, Charles S. Robb, David L. Boren and Gary Hart, all former senators; and, on the GOP side, Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, former Republican National Committee Chairman Bill Brock, former Sen. John Danforth, and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman.
"It is not a gathering to urge any one person to run for president, or to say there necessarily ought to be an independent option," said the meeting's host, university President Boren. "But if we don't see a refocusing of the campaign on a bipartisan approach, I would feel I would want to encourage an independent candidacy."
If you disregard the period around the Civil War when the two-party system fell apart temporarily, no third party candidate has ever won the U.S. presidency. In modern times, there have been three serious attempts, but no third party winners. Every one of the three tries split the vote of a party, giving the victory to the other.
In the 1912 election, Theodore Roosevelt ran as the "Bull Moose Party" nominee. He won 27.4% of the popular vote. The split in the Republican vote gave Democrat Woodrow Wilson the presidency.
In the 1992 election, Ross Perot, running as an independent, won 18.9% of the popular vote. Conservatives complained he acted as a spoiler for Republicans, giving the election to Bill Clinton.
In the 2000 election, Ralph Nader, running as the Green Party candidate, won 2.7% of the vote. Although the percentage was tiny, it was significant in the tight race between Bush and Gore and gave Bush the edge he needed.
Bloomberg has been both a Democrat and a Republican. He aligns more closely to the social agenda of the Democrats, but is a fiscal conservative like the Republicans. A third party run by him could significantly impact the 2008 election.
Stay tuned . . .
The predictions, which can be read here, include pretty safe ones like oil will top $100 a barrel (Duh! What a reach. Oil hit that target less than twelve hours later) and Facebook fatigue (Please, I'm begging you, don't invite me to be your Facebook friend).
But the one I found the most intriguing was this:
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will enter the Presidential race in February, after it becomes clear which nominees will get the nod from the major parties. His multiple billions and organization will impress voters—and stun rivals. He'll look like the most viable third-party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt. But Bloomberg will come up short, as he comes in for withering attacks from both Democrats and Republicans. He and Clinton will split more than 50% of the votes, but Arizona's maverick senator, John McCain, will end up the country's next President.
I found this prediction fascinating on so many levels. First, for those of you who are not political junkies, Bloomberg had been a Democrat his entire adult life--until, at about age 59--he switched to the Republican Party in order to run as Mayor of New York. After two terms as Mayor, in last June, he left THAT party and declared himself an Independent, fueling speculation that he wanted to make a run for the presidency and knew the country was shifting away from Bush's party.
Mort Kondracke, Executive Editor of Roll Call, had this to say last April:
Obviously, the historical record of third parties is dismal. Not even ex-President Theodore Roosevelt could win. But, every decade or two, third-party candidacies do serve a purpose. They impel the major parties to take action they might otherwise avoid.
In 2008, all indications are the public wants an end to incessant partisan combat and attention to pressing national problems. If Democrats and Republicans can't deliver, Bloomberg has shown that he can.
On December 13th, the San Jose Mercury News reported:
One major effort, Unity '08, is already gearing up to offer America a viable "third way" presidential campaign. Through a wide open, online convention next June, Unity '08 plans to nominate a true "unity" ticket, headed by a Democrat, Republican or independent presidential candidate, balanced by someone from the other party in the vice presidential slot. Speculation in the press so far has focused on New York City's pragmatic and very effective Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as well as respected former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
On Sunday, the Los Angeles Times had this story:
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end gridlock in Washington.
Others who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two major parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party presidential campaign.
The meeting will include Democrats Sam Nunn, Charles S. Robb, David L. Boren and Gary Hart, all former senators; and, on the GOP side, Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, former Republican National Committee Chairman Bill Brock, former Sen. John Danforth, and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman.
"It is not a gathering to urge any one person to run for president, or to say there necessarily ought to be an independent option," said the meeting's host, university President Boren. "But if we don't see a refocusing of the campaign on a bipartisan approach, I would feel I would want to encourage an independent candidacy."
If you disregard the period around the Civil War when the two-party system fell apart temporarily, no third party candidate has ever won the U.S. presidency. In modern times, there have been three serious attempts, but no third party winners. Every one of the three tries split the vote of a party, giving the victory to the other.
In the 1912 election, Theodore Roosevelt ran as the "Bull Moose Party" nominee. He won 27.4% of the popular vote. The split in the Republican vote gave Democrat Woodrow Wilson the presidency.
In the 1992 election, Ross Perot, running as an independent, won 18.9% of the popular vote. Conservatives complained he acted as a spoiler for Republicans, giving the election to Bill Clinton.
In the 2000 election, Ralph Nader, running as the Green Party candidate, won 2.7% of the vote. Although the percentage was tiny, it was significant in the tight race between Bush and Gore and gave Bush the edge he needed.
Bloomberg has been both a Democrat and a Republican. He aligns more closely to the social agenda of the Democrats, but is a fiscal conservative like the Republicans. A third party run by him could significantly impact the 2008 election.
Stay tuned . . .
A Different Kind of Holiday Story
It's gotten cold here in North Texas. Not Canada cold or Colorado cold, but Texas cold. It was 24 degrees this morning with a wind chill of 10. And I can't get a coat sleeve over this damn cast.
My two feuding cats--Bob and Dinah--had been locked up inside for several days; each one in his or her own zone of the house.
'Twas the week before Christmas when I started hearing rustling under the floorboards. With everything else I had going on, I chose to ignore it. After all, raccoons and squirrels need to stay warm, too. As long as they stayed in the crawl space, I was willing to live and let live.
Of course, my friends and neighbors were appalled by this laissez faire policy. They offered to set traps for me and all kinds of other gruesome solutions. I steadfastly refused to have my holiday season marred with the sound of traps breaking small animal necks.
Bob and Dinah patrolled daily. I'd watch them stand on their hind legs, slide their claws into the groove of kitchen and bathroom cabinets and pop the doors open so they could check out the interiors. They were so diligent, I was confident the intruders would not enter the house.
Of course, all the biped males in my life pointed out that the critters below were probably chewing through my electrical wiring as we spoke.
During the week after Christmas, I began to doubt the wisdom of my hospitality. My non-paying tenants began climbing inside the walls. They celebrated New Year's Eve playing football in my attic. I lay in bed and listened to them rushing and tackling across the ceiling. Bob sat on top of my headboard all night, waiting for a critter to fall through, while Dinah must have climbed the drapes in my study because she was sitting on top of the valance the next morning.
On New Year's Day, it was warm enough to let the two cats outside. Bob is three years old and a very large, all black cat. Dinah is a one-year-old semi-feral cat, very, very tiny. I doubt she weighs seven pounds yet, but she is fierce.
I wish everyone had their work ethic. One went into the bushes; the other circled the perimeter of the house.
Over the next twelve hours, bodies began accumulating at my various doorsteps. Bob produced one and a half squirrels (I didn't ask about the other half) while Dinah exterminated two rats nearly as big as she is. I'm not sure how she got the bodies to my back patio or to the bottom of the front stairs.
Bob always leaves his kill within a foot of a door. Dinah's are always five or six feet away from a door. Up until now, I've assumed that was a reflection of her ambivalence about living with me. A Freudian conflict. However, in the case of the two rats, I imagined her paraphrasing a Clint Eastwood line, "I don't mind killin' em' for ya, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna sweat over 'em for ya."
I did my part. I provided body bags and removal service. I also circled the house, looking for places where the critters had dug under my foundation. I piled rocks in the holes.
We've now had two nights of blessed silence--not a creature stirring, not even a mouse.
Just goes to show. When you abuse your host's hospitality, you can expect to be evicted.
My two feuding cats--Bob and Dinah--had been locked up inside for several days; each one in his or her own zone of the house.
'Twas the week before Christmas when I started hearing rustling under the floorboards. With everything else I had going on, I chose to ignore it. After all, raccoons and squirrels need to stay warm, too. As long as they stayed in the crawl space, I was willing to live and let live.
Of course, my friends and neighbors were appalled by this laissez faire policy. They offered to set traps for me and all kinds of other gruesome solutions. I steadfastly refused to have my holiday season marred with the sound of traps breaking small animal necks.
Bob and Dinah patrolled daily. I'd watch them stand on their hind legs, slide their claws into the groove of kitchen and bathroom cabinets and pop the doors open so they could check out the interiors. They were so diligent, I was confident the intruders would not enter the house.
Of course, all the biped males in my life pointed out that the critters below were probably chewing through my electrical wiring as we spoke.
During the week after Christmas, I began to doubt the wisdom of my hospitality. My non-paying tenants began climbing inside the walls. They celebrated New Year's Eve playing football in my attic. I lay in bed and listened to them rushing and tackling across the ceiling. Bob sat on top of my headboard all night, waiting for a critter to fall through, while Dinah must have climbed the drapes in my study because she was sitting on top of the valance the next morning.
On New Year's Day, it was warm enough to let the two cats outside. Bob is three years old and a very large, all black cat. Dinah is a one-year-old semi-feral cat, very, very tiny. I doubt she weighs seven pounds yet, but she is fierce.
I wish everyone had their work ethic. One went into the bushes; the other circled the perimeter of the house.
Over the next twelve hours, bodies began accumulating at my various doorsteps. Bob produced one and a half squirrels (I didn't ask about the other half) while Dinah exterminated two rats nearly as big as she is. I'm not sure how she got the bodies to my back patio or to the bottom of the front stairs.
Bob always leaves his kill within a foot of a door. Dinah's are always five or six feet away from a door. Up until now, I've assumed that was a reflection of her ambivalence about living with me. A Freudian conflict. However, in the case of the two rats, I imagined her paraphrasing a Clint Eastwood line, "I don't mind killin' em' for ya, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna sweat over 'em for ya."
I did my part. I provided body bags and removal service. I also circled the house, looking for places where the critters had dug under my foundation. I piled rocks in the holes.
We've now had two nights of blessed silence--not a creature stirring, not even a mouse.
Just goes to show. When you abuse your host's hospitality, you can expect to be evicted.
Where To Find CPs
Where does one find decent critique partners? I have spent plenty of time on the internet, but have not found anything promising.
I don't know where other people find their CPs, but I can tell you where I found mine.
When I first went looking, I joined two organizations: Romance Writers of America (RWA) and Sisters-in-Crime. S-in-C has a subgroup called the Guppies (the Great Unpublished), and the Guppies match people for critiques. I was matched with four other people. Over six months, three of the others dropped out, but two of us remained together and are still CPs more than three years later.
I took an online class and met a number of very supportive newbie writers. Two of them became my CPs two years ago.
A little over a year ago, I joined a large online writing group. Another writer and I clicked, began talking outside the loop and have been exchanging critiques.
Not all of these people exchange with each other, but all exchange with me. I've met two of them in person and have spoken with all of them over the phone.
Three years ago, I was invited to submit an application to join a closed group of five writers looking for a sixth. I provided a sample of my writing and was selected over the other applicants for the vacancy.
At the time, three of the group were much better writers than me, and two were probably not as strong as I was. What I discovered was that the three best were competing to prove who was the cleverest. They were not interested in helping me or my work. After six months of attending frustrating, non-productive (backbiting) sessions, I resigned and joined a public writers' group in the community. None of the writers there were as strong as the group I'd left, but I got better, more sincere critiques from people genuinely interested in helping me.
I'd suggest that you take every opportunity you find to exchange critiques--even if you think the writers are not as good as you are. At worst, you'll meet a lot of nice people and, maybe, just maybe, you'll click with someone.
I've been with three of my CPs more than two years now. We've all grown as writers--and we've all influenced each other.
I believe the key is to find CPs in whom you can develop trust. You need to know that your CPs want only the best for you. When you have that kind of trust, you can listen to the hard messages you need to hear.
Of course, it's a two-way street. You MUST reciprocate in kind. A few months ago, I spent a fair amount of time critiquing something for another writer. Because we seemed to be clicking, I sent him something of mine to review. I got a facile, "Not my genre, but looks well-written." From that response, I couldn't even tell whether he'd read it.
The next time he asked for a critique, I pointed out I had not gotten one back. Instead of hearing what I was saying, he actually referred me to his original response. Hello? He's since asked for another critique. Not going to happen.
Moral of the story: When you find a good CP, treat him/her like gold. If you are a taker and not a giver, the relationship won't last.
Good luck on your search.
I don't know where other people find their CPs, but I can tell you where I found mine.
When I first went looking, I joined two organizations: Romance Writers of America (RWA) and Sisters-in-Crime. S-in-C has a subgroup called the Guppies (the Great Unpublished), and the Guppies match people for critiques. I was matched with four other people. Over six months, three of the others dropped out, but two of us remained together and are still CPs more than three years later.
I took an online class and met a number of very supportive newbie writers. Two of them became my CPs two years ago.
A little over a year ago, I joined a large online writing group. Another writer and I clicked, began talking outside the loop and have been exchanging critiques.
Not all of these people exchange with each other, but all exchange with me. I've met two of them in person and have spoken with all of them over the phone.
Three years ago, I was invited to submit an application to join a closed group of five writers looking for a sixth. I provided a sample of my writing and was selected over the other applicants for the vacancy.
At the time, three of the group were much better writers than me, and two were probably not as strong as I was. What I discovered was that the three best were competing to prove who was the cleverest. They were not interested in helping me or my work. After six months of attending frustrating, non-productive (backbiting) sessions, I resigned and joined a public writers' group in the community. None of the writers there were as strong as the group I'd left, but I got better, more sincere critiques from people genuinely interested in helping me.
I'd suggest that you take every opportunity you find to exchange critiques--even if you think the writers are not as good as you are. At worst, you'll meet a lot of nice people and, maybe, just maybe, you'll click with someone.
I've been with three of my CPs more than two years now. We've all grown as writers--and we've all influenced each other.
I believe the key is to find CPs in whom you can develop trust. You need to know that your CPs want only the best for you. When you have that kind of trust, you can listen to the hard messages you need to hear.
Of course, it's a two-way street. You MUST reciprocate in kind. A few months ago, I spent a fair amount of time critiquing something for another writer. Because we seemed to be clicking, I sent him something of mine to review. I got a facile, "Not my genre, but looks well-written." From that response, I couldn't even tell whether he'd read it.
The next time he asked for a critique, I pointed out I had not gotten one back. Instead of hearing what I was saying, he actually referred me to his original response. Hello? He's since asked for another critique. Not going to happen.
Moral of the story: When you find a good CP, treat him/her like gold. If you are a taker and not a giver, the relationship won't last.
Good luck on your search.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
2007's Best Sellers
From Publishers Weekly:
Whatever Hachette is paying James Patterson, it may not be enough. The prolific author placed six titles among the top 50 sellers, based on Nielsen BookScan sales data through December 16. Patterson helped Hachette place the most books on BookScan's top 50 list; its 11 bestsellers sold a total of 4.8 million copies. Although Scholastic had only three titles on the list, those three—including the year's top seller, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows—sold 8.6 million copies.
Simon & Schuster had eight titles among the top 50, led by The Secret; the company's bestsellers sold 6.6 million copies. Seven Penguin titles—selling a total 6.5 million copies—made the top 50. The country's largest trade publisher, Random House, also had seven titles (selling 3.2 million copies) among the top 50; its biggest bestseller, The Road, came in ninth place. The four HarperCollins books on the list totaled sales of 2.5 million copies.
BookScan captures approximately 70% of total book sales.
Whatever Hachette is paying James Patterson, it may not be enough. The prolific author placed six titles among the top 50 sellers, based on Nielsen BookScan sales data through December 16. Patterson helped Hachette place the most books on BookScan's top 50 list; its 11 bestsellers sold a total of 4.8 million copies. Although Scholastic had only three titles on the list, those three—including the year's top seller, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows—sold 8.6 million copies.
Simon & Schuster had eight titles among the top 50, led by The Secret; the company's bestsellers sold 6.6 million copies. Seven Penguin titles—selling a total 6.5 million copies—made the top 50. The country's largest trade publisher, Random House, also had seven titles (selling 3.2 million copies) among the top 50; its biggest bestseller, The Road, came in ninth place. The four HarperCollins books on the list totaled sales of 2.5 million copies.
BookScan captures approximately 70% of total book sales.
The Other Side of the Query
After yesterday's post, I got several emails offline from writers expressing the same frustration as the writer I'd talked about--although they were more cautious about expressing their annoyance toward agents directly.
I know I've talked about this before, but it probably bears repeating.
Agents are business entrepreneurs. They cull through the slush pile looking for pearls, which they can then present to the editors they believe might have an interest in them.
I just checked Kristin Nelson's blog here to see if she had published her statistics for 2007 yet. She had.
Here are the ones I was looking for from her post of 12/19/07:
30,000--estimated number of queries read and responded to (and yes, that is up from last year)
74--full manuscripts requested
8--number of new clients
22--books sold
Just think about those numbers for a moment. She read 30,000 queries, asked to see 74 fulls and ended up signing eight new clients. That is simply staggering. That means that, even if she took a two-week vacation, she read 600 queries every week.
That's six hundred queries every week to get one client about every six to seven weeks.
And writers are wanting feedback???? Let's assume she took five minutes to scribble notes on each of those 29,926 queries she rejected. That's 2,494 hours taken away from her real job--and her clients. That's 312 days. Guess what? There are only 260 weekdays in a year (and that's without taking any holidays into account).
I can hear someone muttering it now. She doesn't have to actually scribble a note. She could create a form letter with a list of reasons and just go down it, checking them off. It would take less than a minute.
Disregarding the fact that this would still take 62 days, every good-natured agent who has ever tried to do something like this quickly stopped. Why? Here are just some of the reasons:
- Some writers see this as an invitation to open a dialogue, writing back--or worse--phoning to discuss the feedback. Feedback which the agent has long since forgotten.
- Some writers see this as an invitation to edit and resubmit the query. If an agent wants to see something again, s/he will ask for it.
- Some writers want to argue. A few can become abusive. The whack jobs can even become stalkers.
What some agents do instead is blog. People like Kirstin Nelson, Nathan Bransford and Jacky Sach (of my own agency BookEnds) provide feedback and answer questions on line. Take a look at the list of agents to the right of this blog. Visit their sites and pay attention to what they say.
I can also tell you what I did.
To begin with, I did not send out a barrage of letters all at once. I sent no more than six letters to carefully selected agents. Because I was impatient (and because Miss Snark was and is my god), I sent six pages of manuscript with every query. If I got six rejections, I figured something needed to change, and I sought feedback--from critique partners, from chapter members, and from published authors before sending out the next batch of queries.
Remember that quote often attributed to Einstein: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
If you want to read about my first critique from a published author, go here. I've told the story before on this blog. It isn't a pretty tale.
To make things worse, I hadn't yet gone looking for any critique partners. All I had was feedback from my family and friends. They were all literate and big readers. They'd pumped me up so high, I thought I was gold. I knew my writing was good, and my punctuation, spelling and syntax were excellent.
What I'd forgotten was that I also needed to tell a compelling story. No matter how well you write, the story--not the backstory
--is the thing. Catherine taught me that.
It was brutal, but I needed it. I'd lost perspective. I was like the Emperor with no clothes. I had begun to believe my own press. And Catherine was kind enough to bring me back to reality.
If you ended 2007 with more than twenty-five form rejection letters for one manuscript, think about doing something different in 2008. Remember Einstein.
Take a class, join a professional organization, find critique partners, seek feedback from the published authors in your chapter . . . the list goes on and on.
And let me know how it works out for you.
Here's to a successful 2008.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Happy New Year
I love new beginnings. I love picking up a new book and entering a universe where I'll meet new characters.
Maybe that's why I love new years so much. It's a fresh start on a new adventure.
I just finished writing a message to an bitter wannabe writer. He is angry because all he keeps getting are form letter rejections. He blames the publishing industry for being cowardly and calls the agents who've rejected him amateurs. He refuses to compromise his art for anyone and rages that his 600,000-word manuscript is being ignored.
I asked him "why" he writes. His response was eloquent, well-written and a bit schizophrenic (the way all writers tend to be sometimes). He writes for the joy of it, because he can't help himself and because he wants to earn money.
And therein lies the rub. When you're writing for yourself, you can write anything and any way you want. Your vision is what counts.
When you are writing for money, you must be able to adapt to
the vision of the buyer. That means, as a writer, you must produce what publishers are looking for.
I get so tired of reading posts about a repressive and short-sighted publishing industry that crushes artistic endeavors.
The industry isn't trying to crush anyone or anything. It is trying to stay alive.
The only other industry I can think of that takes as much flack is the filming industry. And, in both cases, the public is to blame, not the producers. We vote with our dollars. If we keep watching reality shows and Rambo 15, we'll get more reality shows and Rambos 16 through 22. If we buy crappy books, we'll get more crappy books.
Look at it this way. If you hired a painter to paint your house and agreed to pay him $5,000 to do it, you'd expect he'd paint it the way you wanted. If you asked for cream with black trim, you'd be pretty unhappy to get red-and-white polka dots. His explanation that polka dots were a part of his artistic vision probably wouldn't placate you.
That same principle applies to publishing. If a publisher asks for a 80K to 120K word fantasy, it's going to reject a 600K-word submission--no matter how well-written.
When someone tells me she has a 250K-word manuscript, I can almost guarantee I'll find tons of unnecessary backstory, tedious details about daily activities, and gobs of introspection. Any action will be lost in a sea of endless narrative. Some critics would call this literary fiction {grin}. I'd call it unsaleable.
I urged the writer who'd complained to decide on the purpose of his manuscript. He can write to please himself, or he can write to please his buyer. Hopefully, he's flexible enough to find a compromise that will permit both.
Otherwise on 1/1/09, we'll be having this exact same discussion all over again.
Maybe that's why I love new years so much. It's a fresh start on a new adventure.
I just finished writing a message to an bitter wannabe writer. He is angry because all he keeps getting are form letter rejections. He blames the publishing industry for being cowardly and calls the agents who've rejected him amateurs. He refuses to compromise his art for anyone and rages that his 600,000-word manuscript is being ignored.
I asked him "why" he writes. His response was eloquent, well-written and a bit schizophrenic (the way all writers tend to be sometimes). He writes for the joy of it, because he can't help himself and because he wants to earn money.
And therein lies the rub. When you're writing for yourself, you can write anything and any way you want. Your vision is what counts.
When you are writing for money, you must be able to adapt to
the vision of the buyer. That means, as a writer, you must produce what publishers are looking for.
I get so tired of reading posts about a repressive and short-sighted publishing industry that crushes artistic endeavors.
The industry isn't trying to crush anyone or anything. It is trying to stay alive.
The only other industry I can think of that takes as much flack is the filming industry. And, in both cases, the public is to blame, not the producers. We vote with our dollars. If we keep watching reality shows and Rambo 15, we'll get more reality shows and Rambos 16 through 22. If we buy crappy books, we'll get more crappy books.
Look at it this way. If you hired a painter to paint your house and agreed to pay him $5,000 to do it, you'd expect he'd paint it the way you wanted. If you asked for cream with black trim, you'd be pretty unhappy to get red-and-white polka dots. His explanation that polka dots were a part of his artistic vision probably wouldn't placate you.
That same principle applies to publishing. If a publisher asks for a 80K to 120K word fantasy, it's going to reject a 600K-word submission--no matter how well-written.
When someone tells me she has a 250K-word manuscript, I can almost guarantee I'll find tons of unnecessary backstory, tedious details about daily activities, and gobs of introspection. Any action will be lost in a sea of endless narrative. Some critics would call this literary fiction {grin}. I'd call it unsaleable.
I urged the writer who'd complained to decide on the purpose of his manuscript. He can write to please himself, or he can write to please his buyer. Hopefully, he's flexible enough to find a compromise that will permit both.
Otherwise on 1/1/09, we'll be having this exact same discussion all over again.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Meet Your Daemon
I'm restless tonight. My hand is throbbing inside the cast, and I'm trying to avoid a pain pill. I'm entertaining myself visiting my friends on line while waiting to get sleepy enough to go back to bed.
My friend Maria Zannini had a review of the film The Golden Compass here. One of the conceits of the story is that humans wear their souls outside their bodies in the form of an animal called a daemon. While you are a child developing, your daemon may take different forms, but by the time you are an adult your daemon is fixed.
The site for the film allows you to answer 20 questions and learn the identity of your own personal daemon. Of course, I immediately went to the site here to find my daemon.
When you get to the site, click on the Daemon icon in the toolbar. Then wait for the site to populate. There will be a "Meet Your Daemon" icon in the lower right of the screen. Then you can either listen to the daemon spiel or click on "Meet Your Daemon" again.
My daemon is named Anicetos. He's a tiger (Interesting since I was born in the year of the tiger). The site said I was assertive, competitive, inquisitive, spontaneous and a leader. It nailed the first four just fine. I have a serious problem getting along with authority figures so the "leader" thing is probably not a good fit
for me.
Go meet your daemon.
My friend Maria Zannini had a review of the film The Golden Compass here. One of the conceits of the story is that humans wear their souls outside their bodies in the form of an animal called a daemon. While you are a child developing, your daemon may take different forms, but by the time you are an adult your daemon is fixed.
The site for the film allows you to answer 20 questions and learn the identity of your own personal daemon. Of course, I immediately went to the site here to find my daemon.
When you get to the site, click on the Daemon icon in the toolbar. Then wait for the site to populate. There will be a "Meet Your Daemon" icon in the lower right of the screen. Then you can either listen to the daemon spiel or click on "Meet Your Daemon" again.
My daemon is named Anicetos. He's a tiger (Interesting since I was born in the year of the tiger). The site said I was assertive, competitive, inquisitive, spontaneous and a leader. It nailed the first four just fine. I have a serious problem getting along with authority figures so the "leader" thing is probably not a good fit
for me.
Go meet your daemon.
Rebuilding A Bridge
One of the things I've learned over the years is that I can overthink stuff. Instead of just going with the flow, I try too hard to analyze or to find meaning where there is none.
This post is a perfect example. I'd been trying to come up with a subject to blog about on the last day of the year. I'd vetted half a dozen ideas, but none felt right.
I ran to the market yesterday afternoon to pick up some black-eyed peas and salt pork for the New Year (a Texas tradition I've embraced). My supermarket runs a loop of soft rock music targeted at Baby Boomers. As I entered the store, Art Garfunkel was singing Bridge Over Troubled Water. I hummed along while picking up the few items I needed. The song ended just as I got on the checkout line.
I never turn off the car radio so it comes on when I switch on the ignition. When I returned to the car, A Prairie Home Companion blared out of the speakers. God love him, I cannot STAND the sound of Garrison Keillor's voice. I've said it before: that slow drawl is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. All that folksy humor makes my skin crawl. There's something about that show that just screams "smug" to me.
Trying to escape Keillor, I hit the first button on my radio, and Garfunkel singing Bridge Over Troubled Water eased my mind. I grinned at the coincidence of hearing the same song twice in ten minutes.
Last evening, a little over three hours later as I was winding down, I switched on PBS without checking the TV listings. There was a reprise of the Gershwin Prize show honoring Paul Simon. And, there was Paul and Art doing a duet of--you guessed it--Bridge Over Troubled Water.
Okay, I know it was a popular song, but that was almost forty years ago. Three times in less than four hours???? I sat on the den floor and watched the two men who've known each other, loved each other and sometimes hated each other for nearly fifty-five years.
At the time Simon wrote the title song to what would be their fifth and final studio album, the duo was pulling apart. They'd been singing as an act for thirteen years and being together constantly was wearing on their friendship. Garfunkel was off filming a movie when Simon wrote the song for him. Garfunkel initially resisted singing it, saying he thought Paul's voice was better suited to the piece. A couple of years later, Simon said giving that song to his partner was his biggest professional mistake.
The album Bridge Over Troubled Water was selected as the 51st greatest album of all time by Rolling Stone magazine in Dec. 2003. It was also Columbia Records' best selling album.
As I've made my goals for 2008, I've thought a lot about friendship. I've been blessed with friends I've known since junior high and high school. I also have newer, very strong friendships.
2007 has been the best of times and the worst of times for me. I saw my first novel released and a contract for a second novel offered. I also had three (count 'em THREE) auto accidents in 2007--my first in more than twenty years. I've been stretched thin and distracted a lot of the time. Most days I barely covered all my responsibilities. I suspect I haven't been as good a friend as I should be.
Two things brought this home to me. One was my critique partner disappearing from sight. I'd known she was under a lot of stress, but my own daily burdens prevented me from realizing how serious the situation was. I'm not suggesting I could have prevented her from falling off the grid; I'm not that arrogant. I just wish I could have offered more support.
What goes around, comes around. My feelings were wounded last week when one of my best friends didn't call, just sent a terse "good luck tomorrow" email before my surgery and then didn't check in for more than three days afterward. I didn't need help, but I could have used a shoulder to whine on {grin}.
Among my personal resolutions for 2008 is to be a better, more supportive friend. To do that, I'll need to manage my time better, which means not over-scheduling myself. Perhaps that will also prevent my being so distracted.
And maybe . . . just maybe . . . hearing Bridge Over Troubled Water three times was what it took to get me to pay attention to the message.
Happy New Year, everyone. The video below is my rainbow, shared freely with you.
When you're weary, feeling small,
When tears are in your eyes, I will dry them all;
I'm on your side. When times get rough
And friends just can't be found,
Like a bridge over troubled water,
I will lay me down.
This post is a perfect example. I'd been trying to come up with a subject to blog about on the last day of the year. I'd vetted half a dozen ideas, but none felt right.
I ran to the market yesterday afternoon to pick up some black-eyed peas and salt pork for the New Year (a Texas tradition I've embraced). My supermarket runs a loop of soft rock music targeted at Baby Boomers. As I entered the store, Art Garfunkel was singing Bridge Over Troubled Water. I hummed along while picking up the few items I needed. The song ended just as I got on the checkout line.
I never turn off the car radio so it comes on when I switch on the ignition. When I returned to the car, A Prairie Home Companion blared out of the speakers. God love him, I cannot STAND the sound of Garrison Keillor's voice. I've said it before: that slow drawl is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. All that folksy humor makes my skin crawl. There's something about that show that just screams "smug" to me.
Trying to escape Keillor, I hit the first button on my radio, and Garfunkel singing Bridge Over Troubled Water eased my mind. I grinned at the coincidence of hearing the same song twice in ten minutes.
Last evening, a little over three hours later as I was winding down, I switched on PBS without checking the TV listings. There was a reprise of the Gershwin Prize show honoring Paul Simon. And, there was Paul and Art doing a duet of--you guessed it--Bridge Over Troubled Water.
Okay, I know it was a popular song, but that was almost forty years ago. Three times in less than four hours???? I sat on the den floor and watched the two men who've known each other, loved each other and sometimes hated each other for nearly fifty-five years.
At the time Simon wrote the title song to what would be their fifth and final studio album, the duo was pulling apart. They'd been singing as an act for thirteen years and being together constantly was wearing on their friendship. Garfunkel was off filming a movie when Simon wrote the song for him. Garfunkel initially resisted singing it, saying he thought Paul's voice was better suited to the piece. A couple of years later, Simon said giving that song to his partner was his biggest professional mistake.
The album Bridge Over Troubled Water was selected as the 51st greatest album of all time by Rolling Stone magazine in Dec. 2003. It was also Columbia Records' best selling album.
As I've made my goals for 2008, I've thought a lot about friendship. I've been blessed with friends I've known since junior high and high school. I also have newer, very strong friendships.
2007 has been the best of times and the worst of times for me. I saw my first novel released and a contract for a second novel offered. I also had three (count 'em THREE) auto accidents in 2007--my first in more than twenty years. I've been stretched thin and distracted a lot of the time. Most days I barely covered all my responsibilities. I suspect I haven't been as good a friend as I should be.
Two things brought this home to me. One was my critique partner disappearing from sight. I'd known she was under a lot of stress, but my own daily burdens prevented me from realizing how serious the situation was. I'm not suggesting I could have prevented her from falling off the grid; I'm not that arrogant. I just wish I could have offered more support.
What goes around, comes around. My feelings were wounded last week when one of my best friends didn't call, just sent a terse "good luck tomorrow" email before my surgery and then didn't check in for more than three days afterward. I didn't need help, but I could have used a shoulder to whine on {grin}.
Among my personal resolutions for 2008 is to be a better, more supportive friend. To do that, I'll need to manage my time better, which means not over-scheduling myself. Perhaps that will also prevent my being so distracted.
And maybe . . . just maybe . . . hearing Bridge Over Troubled Water three times was what it took to get me to pay attention to the message.
Happy New Year, everyone. The video below is my rainbow, shared freely with you.
When you're weary, feeling small,
When tears are in your eyes, I will dry them all;
I'm on your side. When times get rough
And friends just can't be found,
Like a bridge over troubled water,
I will lay me down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
