incipit vita nova

The Eternal Present Tense and Fake Passive Voice

I recently got a response from a beta reader of Like Fire that informed me I was using "passive" language. Language like "He was" and "they were" and so-on. After a bit of discussion, this turned out to have originated with English teacher instruction in the past. Apparently the long-ago English teacher crossed out all uses of past tense, i.e. "Joe was reading the newspaper" and put "Joe read the newspaper." This instruction was oriented toward "Joe was reading" was "passive," while "Joe read the newspaper" was "active." 

Thanks, teach. "Joe was reading the newspaper" indicates an observation made by a viewpoint character if the writer has some control of narration. "Joe read the newspaper" would indicate either a different observation, or - that Joe is, himself, the third-person viewpoint character.

Passive voice isn't a progressive, indicative past tense verb (was reading). It is the reversal of "normal" subject-verb order in a sentence. By use of verb tense, it enables the subject to either come second in the sentence, and at times, to be completely elided. It is not the use of past or conditional verb tense to convey various nuances of meaning. Passive voice is, in and of itself, not bad. It is only bad in the sense that it tends to conceal the action or actor in a sentence. "The minutes were recorded." Thanks for telling me! Who recorded them? Possibly, the person doesn't want anyone to know in case bad questions are asked later. By whom? Why bad people, of course.

And then there's the "eternal present tense" - another recent conversation. Having written a story using this tense, as well as first, second and third-person narration just because I was an idiot reading The Death of Artemio Cruz and figured I'd try it, too -

HA HA HA HA HA HA - Carlos Fuentes ... frickin' Carlos Fuentes has a 3.9 rating on this book on Goodreads! My God I imagine the English and Spanish grammar police were/are after him ... "Recommended for Mexican history fans."

But back to "the eternal present tense." All of E.L. James' 50 Shades of Gray is written in the first-person, "Ana" viewpoint character present tense. How she managed to tell a coherent story including some aspects of Ana's perspective and Christian Gray history over this long narrative using this convention is a mystery and wonder to me. I tried copying it and became so exhausted that I couldn't make it past 2-3 chapters myself. I found my brain shutting down and access to the (admittedly, idiotic) characters' thoughts and feelings to be extraordinarily limited.

Just as Artemio Cruz is essentially dying after his long and somewhat evil and frustrated life in the Yo tense (and heaven forbid, the "Tu" tense ... 2nd person! Aiii!!!) so too does Ana experience the full Christian Gray-ness as it happens.

She made it work. I'm not saying 50 Shades of Gray is a masterpiece of literature. But E.L. James is nowhere near the "bad writer" some have falsely accused her of being.

So ...

I am up at 3 AM. Kiele and Meredith have spent plenty of time laughing and carousing, waking me long before my planned crack of dawn wake-up time. I find this aggravating, but say nothing. Instead, I rise and make coffee. I sip the black coffee as I work and plan my day. I text my beloved; he texts me. 

My heart beats fast with astonishment to see a review of Female Science Fiction Writer by a handsome, gifted young man of whom I've had no prior knowledge. I look at the handsome face of Carlos Fuentes and think, here is the man who gave rise to the advertising icon: The Most Interesting Man in the World. Rest in peace, great writer. He is worth far more than a 3.9 rating on Goodreads.

 

 

 

 

Motor-Mouth!

My horoscope for today began with, "You might be a real motor-mouth ..."

Apparently, Mercury the Messenger is visiting - and that guy just never knows when to shut up.

First, I don't know how this Rick Levine guy keeps getting this stuff right, but he's amazing. Second, yeah - I said more today to Meredith and Andrew about my business and ideas than I've said to anybody but Bruce in the past year. Heck, maybe ever. This was a total of about 10 minutes. "My head is exploding," I told Andrew. "I hardly know where to put all this stuff."

The main reason I've always written is that if I were confined exclusively to what I could say verbally to others, I'd communicate little. I'd never say what I really thought. When I was young, I was painfully shy. I was also discouraged from expressing my opinion at home. I also grew up in a home and among a larger extended family where only a few people listened -- it was nothing personal. It was simply the way things were.

At the ConDor convention this past weekend, I was reminded once again of this. I vividly recall a notable dinner at Denvention in 2007 - the World Science Fiction Convention - at which I attended a large dinner with Alan Rodgers, Russell Davis, and a pretty big group of other writers and industry professionals. I remember sitting at the end of this long table across from Russell and beside Alan. Russell's a very thoughtful and careful-spoken guy. Alan was hardly motor-mouth himself, but after years in the NY publishing industry, had developed tactics to make himself heard. He often said, "When I want people to listen, I just speak more and more quietly."

Not so around this table! Of course we'd gone to where Alan wanted to eat -- a Brazilian barbecue. This is a great type of place for socializing and good times. 

Ah, and it was like convention of the barnyard animals in more ways than one. Braying, bleating, honking.

When someone started grabbing food before others got a chance, I thought - "That's it! I can't believe this!" Russell and Alan were both nonplussed at the rambunctiousness. I doubt whether Russell and I got more than three words in edgewise all evening. And he was the new SFWA President, I the new SFWA Treasurer. It wasn't like we were, oh, Thialfi the Goat Boy or anybody like that.

Now that I'm melding my non-profit, teaching, business development and writing careers, I realize.

I've never known a successful entrepreneur or truly successful executive who did not know it was better to listen than speak. I've never known a great salesperson who also did not know this simple fact. Nor have I ever known a great teacher who was inclined to go on for hours about him or her self, scarcely remembering student names. 

This past weekend I visited with a number of writers, including newer and aspiring ones and well-established writers. Almost to a person, with a few notable exceptions, the quality of writer was in direct relationship to the carefulness of speech and ability to listen. For example, many people know how quiet Vernor Vinge is. Well - and that's how good a writer he is as well. There are many people I talked with who haven't a clue about what I'm doing with Chameleon, nor how different it is from other models in the industry. And perhaps, they never will know.

I've seen many times in the classroom that it is often the quiet student in the back of the room who is thinking the most deeply, and who has the most to contribute. Over time, in a strong classroom, this student can develop confidence and respond more freely and openly. 

Of course I'm not "motor-mouth." But just as in a poorly-run classroom, the world is such that any time anyone but the motor-mouth speaks up or speaks out, he or she is well-prepared with tactics to keep that voice endlessly blaring, uninterrupted. Oh I suppose there are a few interruptions here and there. To, like, grab somebody else's food.

This is how I am discerning now. Those who listen are those who will thrive. Those who must talk and cannot listen? Will not.

Tell Yourself It's the UK's Problem With Gender Bias ... not US ... Tell Yourself Again

Sophia McDougall wrote a fascinating, thoughtful, painful article in the New Statesman about gender bias in UK booksellers, particularly among SF/F books and authors. In the article, she mentions surveying table after table of books of various types and finding among them ratios of 20:1 male to female authors. At-present in legacy publishing, female writers are most-often relegated to YA or children's writing, certain select nonfiction titles (i.e. Chelsea Handler - who has her E! show because she was sleeping with former Comcast CEO Ted Harbert), certain types of back of the table mysteries, cookbooks, weight loss and diet books, and of course: romance.

Earlier this year, readers and writers alike noticed "issues" with Waterstones SF/F promotional posters. No matter what the subgenre or category, the authors and books listed were, in the great majority, male. It's the UK so it should go without saying they were also all "white." Apparently Waterstone's promotional materials for SF/F, in addition to being hideously designed, listed 113 authors, of which 9 were female - i.e. 93% male, 7% female split. They were not even able to list more than a handful of female authors in urban fantasy -- despite the fact that in reality, this subgenre's bestsellers are by far, female.

For a number of years, McDougall has visited bookshops and talked to booksellers about this notable gender bias. According to her, "the bookshops blamed the publishers and the publishers blamed the bookshops, and nothing got better."

What an instructive statement. 

I cannot imagine a more illustrative example than this. When questioned about what is essentially product ossification and selection of product based on limited knowledge and personal preference (Why are you listing long-dead Isaac Asimov and less-long dead, but equally dead Arthur C. Clarke and numerous others as major product categories - ignoring new product?) - the retailers blame the manufacturer, and the manufacturer blames the retailers. 

So, a lot of people are writing letters and tweeting, etc.

McDougall says, "If you pick books from what you see around you and what you’ve grown up with and the names you see in the trade press, none of which requires any sort of malice, the monoculture persists."

But I'm not writing about the "monoculture" so much as I'm writing about the business of writing books, creating books, and selling books.

And again, such an instructive statement and such clear evidence of the lacks in the legacy publishing and bookselling industry, lacks that will not be rectified exclusively through self-publishing. "If you pick books from what you see around you and what you've grown up with ..."

How about this concept:

If you pick books responding to what the customers desire.

Dear Lord, what a concept. 

This has to be carried throughout the enterprise. In what business, when a customer is asking for certain things (i.e. Guess what? I already READ THAT BOOK BY ISAAC ASIMOV - I'D LIKE A DIFFERENT ONE NOW) does the retailer say "Sorry, I have only been sent these same books by the publishers," and the manufacturer says, "Sorry, we do develop new product but we don't particularly care about the new product and besides - it fails all the time - so here is another reprint of THIS BOOK BY ISAAC ASIMOV."

Imagine if this were Oreos, which used to be one of my favorite cookies. "Sorry, we're out of Golden Oreos but we have regular Oreos -- it's Nabisco's fault." Nabisco's response is, "Sorry, we haven't made any more Golden Oreos lately -- the groceries aren't ordering them. We got some orders from convenience stores, but frankly, we're certain customers won't want them. So we didn't make them."

Yeah. Like that.

It's one step at a time. And it begins with valuing the only possible engine of manufacture: the writer. Writers are perforce, also readers. There is scarcely a writer working who hasn't read many, many books. It begins by valuing the customer: the all-important reader.

People wonder why the industry is struggling in its legacy form? I just told you. And the lessons as to how it may revitalize are all around us.

 

 

As David Copperfield Said, I am the Hero of My Own Life

A long time ago, I might have considered myself a bit of a Dickens scholar. I have read nearly all of his novels -- some like Great Expectations, several times. I've even read Bleak House twice.

Most people familiar with literature know of Dickens' early days in the bootblack factory, and of his frustration at the imprisonment of his father and most of his family in Debtor's prison. Less-clear is the connection between the great, recurring family of Dickensian characters and his own life.

Beautiful, sweet young women tend to die in Dickens books. These young women, like Little Nell, were inspired by Dickens' young sister in law Mary, who died in his arms at only age 17. In terms of visioning, Dickens frequently walked past his large home at Gads Hill Place as the bootblack factory child, son of a debtor with many children, dreaming that one day, he would live in that great house. And so he did.

His dreams were so strong they led again and again to the story of a young boy of modest or humble beginnings -- sent from pillar to post, attending terrible schools, beset by troubles -- who eventually rises to the top through the inspiration and help of others. These others vary, but the story of the orphan boy who rises from humble beginnings does not. This boy is Oliver Twist, David Copperfield, and Pip Pirrip.

Dickens was born in 1812, which is a very long time, more than 200 years ago. His story was so vivid that I believe he did change the world. While today the word "socialist" carries negative connotations among many, at the time Dickens wrote, there was not even a glimmer of the former Soviet Union -- and little boys were absolutely put to work in bookblack factories, many people were prohibited from receiving a decent education, and there was no such thing as the Affordable Care Act, much less universal suffrage. Many people are unaware that women in the "States" did not receive the right to vote until over 110 years after Dickens' birth.

In Dickens' concern for prisoner rights, and his fiery opposition to the abuses of the British system of patronage and classism, he was absolutely correct and more than fought the right fight.

He grew up reading the picaresque novels of Fielding and Smollett. These were the primary types of books available when he was young. Fielding's famous book Tom Jones purports to tell the story of an amiable, admirable young "bastard," the book's eponymous hero, born on the estate of a wealthy squire. By the end of the book, Tom is revealed to be the legitimate nephew of the squire and thus eligible for all the good things his heretofore unknown good birth entitled him, including marriage to the squire's beautiful, virtuous daughter.

These were the accepted stories of the day. It was inconceivable that an orphan or bastard actually would be that, and would rise above his state. It should go without saying that "rise above her state" was not the province of any book anybody would admit to read. In the latter part of the 19th century, after Dickens and others achieved prominence, if a woman were to act outside of social convention, vengeful disaster was soon at hand. Notable examples of this type of story include Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina. The British being who they are, tastes ran more to Thomas Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles. While not quite as depressing as the death of Little Father Time in Jude the Obscure, Tess' story is still pathetic and horrible.

Eventually, stories improved for women. Now it's not only okay, it's desirable for women to be great detectives, great cops, great PIs, great hackers, and even to be the heroines of historical novels -- i.e. princesses, queens, or the mistresses of powerful men. They started out as governesses, like Jane Eyre (another of my favorite books).

I struggled for years to figure out what story I truly wanted to write. Unlike my hero Dickens, I never walked past a great house as a child and thought, "Some day I'm going to own that house." I spent my whole life doing things for other people. I spent countless hours assembling a notebook of potential ideas and historical background on the "heroine's journey." I laboriously matched this with the "hero's journey" and so-on. I flamed six years writing YA books (which do sort of include a mini-version of "my story" ... however since I wasn't thinking straight and hadn't walked past my own Gads Hill ... Byron June is a boy not a girl).

And the answer was staring me in the face since I was the same age as Dickens in the bootblack factory. As David Copperfield said,

"Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must shown."

It should be instructive that I've written professionally since 1996, and it took 17 years for me to think of writing a story about a woman who lost her husband and son, who values her precious daughter and people far over her own life, who at last, unexpectedly, fighting for everyone's lives, thinking only of others, falls in love. With a man as brutalized and damaged as she.

And I did not do that on purpose any more than I think Dickens wrote Oliver Twist on purpose, or purposely realized he was making himself the hero of his own life or books until probably after he published David Copperfield.

There's no telling what stories people will tell in the future. But Like Fire is the story of a late 20th century and early 21st century woman. And I've had the privilege of doing things no generation of women has been able to do before. And hence: Like Fire. 

I Got the Power

If you search for pictures with the word "power" on Google, most are pictures of the standard power button on monitors and other peripherals. Out of all the pictures, I liked Pipeline the best.

I have been at, and will finish up my work today, at the ConDor science fiction convention in San Diego. I was required to drive back up to Mission Viejo early this a.m. to give my Saturday class their midterm exam.

Yesterday at 5:00 p.m. I gave the first presentation of my life that I consider wholly-original, but more importantly, not on behalf of someone else or for educational purposes. Of these, I have done many. This was on behalf of me. Representing my ideas, my writing, and my company: Chameleon.

I feel this went well, from the simple perspective that I did what I set out to do and clearly communicated to the audience of approximately 40-50 people.

I realized during the presentation that much of what I was saying was new information to the audience. Simple facts; such as the average per-title sales for most trade fiction from legacy publishers would be 10,000 to at most, 15,000 copies. This is easily exceeded by the sales of a number of self-published authors, including J.L. Doty, who was kind enough to attend the presentation.

I explained that self-publishing success heretofore had arisen from niche audiences - i.e. pre-existing or established market segments with established channels. While it's certainly possible that such success could be achieved by authors not working in pre-existing market segments -- for example, contemporary mimetic fiction -- it's not likely.

I think I also was able to make the point that marketing as it is known in many other industries (heck, virtually every industry outside the creative spheres) does not exist in the legacy publishing world, and that self-publishing successes are as a result of organic or natural marketing -- i.e. the work is a great fit for the target market. It's neither luck nor rocket science. For the SF/F writers out there, it's interesting that such great certainty arises from individuals such as Hugh Howey and Cory Doctorow. Lacking business, management and marketing experience, both believe their individual experiences may easily be translated to a broader sphere of endeavor. Apparently Hugh Howey believes that his use of freemiums can be adopted by any writer writing any type of book, yet this tactic sends a very different message to the general reader than it does to the niche, geek/hacker audience. When the general audience attempts to read Howey's work, their suspicions are confirmed. Because Cory Doctorow has supported himself through Web 2.0 blogging and speaking his mind, he believes this is the path for all writers.

Kris Rusch has referred often to the WIBBOW test ("Would I Be Better Off Writing?") time-management tool identified by Scott William Carter. The fact that such a test would have to exist is in and of itself, cause for concern and questioning. Kris has simply been making the point regarding what works for writers in the self-publishing environment and hybrid publishing environment as of right now. Few writers will ever be able to afford real marketing. This is of little matter to those working in established niches such as Howey or E.L. James. There will continue to be individuals coming up through that type of channel; it's highly unlikely they'll ever come up like top author brand Lee Child. Few authors even understand what marketing is.

Considering the TNG bestseller display I saw in my supermarket last week -- there's another layer of this problem -- legacy publishers do not seem to be working very closely with distributors. Heaven knows how the process works beyond the standard "name brand" marketing (that does NOT work - even Patterson's brand was languishing and I definitely smiled to see the stacks of Allegiants and Divergents). God forbid they should take metrics back from TNG, listen to them, and work in response to that feedback. Not pitch writers and find all-new ones - heaven forbid they should discuss what people are buying and how they buy in the impulse space (supermarkets/drugstores). With writers.

You know, the ones without which, there's nothing to sell? Nothing to put on TNG's fleet of 2,500 trucks, nothing to put into their 9,000 locations. One book sold per each location is ... add it up. Comes rather close to the average per-title sales for trade fiction across all legacy publishers and imprints.

I hope from this that it can be seen that just a few steps forward can make an improvement. It can make things better for writers. And ... for readers. Without whom books would have little point and the work would not exist.

 

 

Tim's Vermeer

If you're interested in maker culture or optics, the film by Teller (of Penn & Teller) about Tim Jenison's multi-year obsession to discover how Vermeer painted is a must-see.

I left the film vaguely disturbed. I understand the intellectual argument made in the film by Jenison and David Hockney -- that genius comes in all forms and that there is no intellectual difference between using mathematical formulas and other aids to perceiving perspective, and the technique uncovered by Jenison which almost certainly was the method by which Vermeer painted his work.

Vermeer's use of light is legendary. While I always considered Vermeer's paintings cold, especially as compared to painters like Rembrandt or Velasquez, I admired their luminosity -- and they had always seemed to me like photographs. As Jenison showed in the film, this is very likely what they were: 17th century photographs, made possible by optics. Jenison created -- or re-created -- a lens and mirror system inspired by the camera obscura. With the help of a convex shaving-type mirror, he achieved a level of clarity of projection that made possible a duplicate of Vermeer's "The Music Lesson." (left - the original).

In the film, there's a remarkable moment where Jenison realizes that while he's laid out the straight horizontal bars of the virginal (the musical instrument at which the young woman is standing), the curved mirror he is using causes a visual curvature in the complex dolphin scrollwork. Jenison notices there's such a "flaw" in the original painting and corrects it in his version. I'm familiar with the painting and had noticed before that the scrollwork wasn't "perfect" -- one of the parts of it that I most liked. Before the movie.

Tim's Vermeer is a documentation of an heroic effort -- the most enjoyable parts of the film to me were watching Jenison grind pigments and make paint, or laboriously grinding his own 17th-century quality lens. He uses every technology at his disposal to recreate Vermeer's studio in Texas. I was even willing to put up with Penn Jillette's skeptic blather and painted fingernail (yes, I know why he's always done that and I do love Penn) during these fascinating segments. I laughed when Jenison sawed his lathe in half because it was two inches too short to turn the legs of the Spanish chair. "I'm not a woodworker," said Jenison. "But you just can't buy chairs like this anywhere." So - he made it.

I think the film bothered me so much because they did nail it. There's no question Vermeer painted with the aid of optics, and very likely, something similar to the system Jenison created. There is no sign of sketching or underpainting with Vermeer's paintings. That alone shows that something else was at play other than the traditional methods of the other Dutch masters. Several other signs of use of optics are shown throughout the film. Once even one of these is shown, it becomes obvious to anyone who's ever painted.

Which Jenison had not. He's creating "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" using optical techniques and equipment. A British scientist is called in to explain various limits in human visual perception. David Hockney, whose work I've never much cared for, lends art expertise -- Hockney's book proposing that Vermeer used optical aids to paint was one of the inspirations for the massive undertaking.

So I'll say one thing about the film. I now like David Hockney. Watching him smoke and pontificate and drive and smoke and pontificate was a huge pleasure.

This is a film about maker obsession first, and art, second.

Now to me, Vermeer's work looks colder than it ever had. I can admire the genius of setting up the system to reproduce accurately beyond mere human sight. I can admire a man who was smart enough to make himself a 17th century photographer. I can admire the patient meticulousness and watchmaker's eye and hand of both Vermeer and his 21st century counterpart, Tim Jenison.

I have seen in-person several Rembrandts. These immediately strike the eye -- after 400 years -- the person is looking out at you. And these were not painted with the aid of any optics other than eye or hand.

I have seen in person several paintings by the man I call "the Master," John Singer Sargent. Sargent painted enough closer to our time that we know how he worked. Not with mirrors and lenses.

In Sargent, I think I see the idealized person or their inner nature looking back. Sargent's paintings are also larger than life, so they have the full impression that the clients of this portrait painter of the wealthy chose to make.

 

"The Daughters of Edward D. Boit" (1882) John Singer Sargent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Lady Agnew" (1893), John Singer Sargent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And of course, it's hard to pick a favorite, but I have seen him in person. And I really like Dr. Pozzi. "Dr. Pozzi at Home" (1881) John Singer Sargent, which is at the Armand Hammer Museum.

 

 

 

And the Master is just one of my personal favorites. Rembrandt painted people's true nature. Sargent, the "ideal." Velasquez, something rather different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my words, Innocent - was not. "Portrait of Pope Innocent X" (1650) by Diego Rodriguez de Silva y Velasquez.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Francis Bacon saw it. "Study after Velasquez' Portrait of Innocent X" (1953) Francis Bacon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Girl With a Pearl Earring" (1665-67) Jan Vermeer.

 

Photograph.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, I believe that Rembrandt and Sargent were without a doubt empaths. Velasquez - perhaps a wounded one.

Oh, John. It's at the Tate.

Marketing 101 for Writers

Hey! Wanna know what happens to your books? Here's one part of the book display at my local Ralphs (owned by Kroger).

I'll put the other part (endcap) later on. There is also a second side virtually identical to side one.

This display is serviced by TNG, formerly the News Group West, which has recently rebranded itself as "TNG." This company dates back 100 years and was founded in Canada. Through all subsidiaries, it services approximately 90% of the U.S. and Canada, and employs more than 3,600 people in the U.S. alone, with 15 distribution centers, 2,500 trucks, and 50 depots.

So there was some type of management or visit at my Ralphs store today. Everyone was in a good mood and up at the front of the store. I talked with some of the employees with whom I'm acquainted and they said the magazine people were due soon -- but hadn't gotten there yet.

In other words - it was obvious as to which books were selling and which had been sitting there like lumps on a log. Our top sellers at the Aliso Viejo Ralphs? A cookbook (Healthy Meals - surprise!) and Dr. Seuss - who's running out fast. Brandon Sanderson appears to have sold two books. And there's so many Allegiants they might well be converted to some other store use. Like maybe at the meat counter. In the fiction category, the only writer who looked to really have moved some books was Johanna Lindsay. More about her later on.

Demographics for those who shop at this Ralphs are going to be very good for high end goods, and I physically notice a lot of parents with young children in the neighborhood. Median household income is $94,558; median age is going to be slightly younger than average for the county, and it will be a primarily white community with a lot of individuals with professional degrees, as well as business owners. Aliso Viejo is sometimes called "the safest city in the U.S." and is one of several planned communities in South Orange County. It's built on the ranch formerly owned by the family of my Writers of the Future colleague Scott T. Barnes.

So here is the endcap. That is a paperback version of Todd Burpo's Heaven is Real, the story of the little boy who went to heaven and came back - beside the cookbook that has only one copy left. The woman in the black dress is Chelsea Handler. Big Nate (children's book) has outsold Clive Cussler, despite being sandwiched between a James Patterson (ersatz - one of his co-authors) and Handler. There are more Divergents and Allegiants on the other side. 

If there were more cookbooks, more Dr. Seuss, and more Todd Burpo, as well as presumably more Johanna Lindsay, there would be more blank spots, I'm certain.

Now, this all doesn't mean that much unless this display looks the same in all the other Ralphs with all similar demographics. Ralphs receives this bestseller "program" from TNG - I've seen it in many stores - it doesn't change much and I do not think it's tailored down to the individual store level. 

Now, please don't tell me that people don't read in communities like Aliso Viejo. I'm fairly certain readership is at a high level. In fact, the local library is always crowded, and even supports one of the world's worst coffee shops (which we discovered during NaNoWriMo). The community supports an active NaNoWriMo chapter and several book clubs and writers groups. Now - granted - there's a surviving Barnes & Noble in the same shopping center. Someone who'd buy a book would likely go there - unless they saw the title as an impulse buy, as TNG so helpfully says, for a great price while shopping for groceries. So cookbooks, children's books, Johanna Lindsey. Hm. I heard Historical Romance was dead (this is Cowboy romance). I did not investigate the separate mass market paperback area - I looked only at the hardcovers and trade paperbacks. 

Understanding what is up with this: that's marketing. Don't expect TNG to do it all for you publishers. They can only take your books and put them in stores. If you're shoveling Chelsea Handler between covers like there's no tomorrow or can't evaluate that not everything that has James Patterson's name on it is going to be purchased automatically and don't get Todd Burpo then ... well ...

Marketing 101. For writers.

 

 

 

 

 

Toward Renewed Humanism

As I was born, I am easily deceived. I can be easily taken advantage of, and am easily fooled into doing things for others which have little to no benefit for myself. This is ironic, considering that at the same time, person to person, I am one of the most difficult people to "fool" or lie to. 

Now at last I understand that the "fooling" or deception is not on the individual level, so much as on the level of society as a whole.

I know we are changing. I feel it deep in my bones. Each day, I sense more and more change and growth.

What I think is happening is, as a new friend, a visionary physician from Toronto, put it last week: we are experiencing a new Renaissance.

Just as in the early Renaissance, there were those who did not understand the new revolution in thought and learning, today there are those who do not understand the evolution we are undergoing in human interaction.

Part of this is certainly due to the internet. People are able to find each other more easily, communicate with each other more easily, and are exposed to new ideas and thought much more quickly.

Part of this is certainly due to genetics -- i.e. physical evolution. The change is in our minds, I believe. More and more people are being born every day with differences in their basic, underlying nature and understanding of the world.

We are familiar now with the different thought processes and abilities of those with Autism and Aspergers Syndrome, thanks to the lives, writing and work of brave people like Temple Grandin. The Autism Spectrum has been much-studied, with differences in cognition and neurological functioning documented. We are even to the point where people are coming to understand that these changes from many others are differences, not disabilities.

Just as the Renaissance was about a rebirth of learning, knowledge, art and music, and the Humanist era was about the discovery of the individual and ethics, so I believe, today, we are moving toward a new Humanism. A Humanism that recognizes the human in all diverse incarnations. 

The new words for people, such as transgender and cisgender, are part of this, I believe; however, to focus exclusively on external, physical differences is a step, not an end goal. 

 

It's not as though this is "new thought." But it is something for everyone to think about in terms of renewed commitment. 

When I look at all the systems and structures in which I participate, so much of what goes on, or has gone on, is about maintaining various individuals' personal "power." 

And this type of power is not only not power, it is a chain or anchor to those who seek it so strongly, and invest so much of their time and effort in obtaining it. 

Freedom is power. Joy is power. Love is power.

For example, let's look at the publishing industry. For years, I believed the advice in countless publishing articles, and that given by various professionals -- this was exclusively oriented toward "selling one's work." Well, that was basically not possible in the 19th Century. Writers like Emily Dickinson were paid nothing for their work; she ordered her sister to burn many of her poems before her death. Jane Austen was paid £10 for her work, much of which was published after her death. In the mid-20th Century, William Faulkner's work was out of print for a decade before he received the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Today, the great majority of writer's blogs that I see are devoted to pursuing a false form of fame. I know from exhaustive study of the publishing industry that it operates little- to nothing-like other manufacturing businesses. And it appears unable to understand that these difference exist, or the effect they have both on creative work, and on the company's bottom line. 

And all of the lacks or barriers or gaps in the publishing industry point to a single source: the human ego. For all the industry's protestations that it's all about money, it is failing to incorporate many different techniques that have proven effective in other industries that make things and sell them to customers via retail channels.

For example, the individuals who acquire product for sale (acquiring editors) have little to no contact with the end customer, and often, with the retailer. Sales staff face a near-impossible job, in the absence of product development and market research. They are selling to retailers, anyway -- and some retail systems have established robust come-one, come-all consignment based systems (Amazon, other e-book sellers).

All of these problems originate from this single source: the human ego. In the words of the only editor to achieve genuine name recognition, Hemingway's editor Maxwell Perkins, he was drawn to work in 

"one of those professions whose practitioners deal in the most powerful of all commodities — words." 

Perkins formed writers. Some believe he even wrote portions of his most famous authors' books.

Which makes them Perkins' books, and which should make his drive and motivation clear. And certainly, he did form much of American literature of the early 20th Century. The concept that everyone wants to "write a book," and that publishing a book is greatly special and confers special status upon the author, can be traced to Perkins and others of his generation.

The underlying concept that there must be an editor who selects material based on subjective quality concerns unrelated to market factors is very Perkins-like, and is embedded in our society. "Getting published" is a mark of quality in people's minds. Of course, self-publishing being made possible by emerging technology has blasted this idea completely out of the water. The replacement meme is "If it rises from the crowd, then it's good."

The reality is that work that meets both, or either, of these criteria as I've described will be the expected. It's "good" in the sense that a parent may say "good boy" or "good girl." It's "quality" in the sense that might distinguish a young woman or man from a wealthier family from one of uncertain parentage who grew up in a foster home.

I am far from saying that there is no such thing as "good" books (i.e. books that completely satisfy readers), nor that there is no such concept as "quality" literature (i.e. literature that has cultural in addition to commercial merit). I'm just saying that the system as has previously existed is devoted to an ever-devolving "norm." It supports derivative works by its very nature. It ensures that genuinely ground-breaking work will have extreme difficulties in reaching the public. But moreso, it fools good writers into a lifetime of mediocrity. Because they are being good workers. They are responding to the pressure to write for editors, or write to a trend, or simply, to write in the forms and genres and lengths that they "know" have been successful in the past.

And the truth is, no matter what the industry, a good worker is one who is self-directed, and who works for his or her own satisfaction. This worker has his or her own standards for excellence.

And the smart industry is one that makes it possible for that worker to be that way. In terms of publishing, there is only one person who can create product: the writer. And in few industries, is the engine of manufacture so neglected, so abused, so mis-used, so disrespected, and so extraordinarily poorly-paid. There's no retirement plan for authors. They are fortunate to have health insurance. They are independent contractors. Currently, publishers are writing non-compete clauses for authors despite the fact that in all under industries, these are known to be incompatible with independent contractor (1099) status. Even if authors successfully establish themselves as brands, they may face extraordinary challenges in earning a living.

In other industries, decades ago, such practices were determined to be inhumane. Today, the law is not required to compel companies in the west that are seeking genuine sustainability and success to provide the necessities of life for those without whom there is no company: employees. This concept goes beyond "basic market forces" of salaries and the law of supply and demand to a deeper level of understanding. And it does exist, and it is growing. 

Publishing operates in many ways on a 19th century basis, where certainty was the commodity of the day. Without question, the industry maintains its operational habits and patterns because of Maxwell Perkins' belief that words were "among the most powerful of commodities."

Yet if they can be called "commodities," the most powerful are not in fact words. They are love, freedom, tolerance, faith, hope and charity. 

In love and tolerance can be found the knowledge that all humans were created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of the elusive happiness.

The simplest foundation for renewed Humanism can be found in the "Golden Rule" - treat others as you would yourself, like to be treated. Do not rationalize mistreatment of others. And recognize that your investment in good treatment of others is one which will be economically and personally rewarding. By exploiting, nothing of lasting value is gained, and in fact, debts are assigned to your life ledger -- spiritual debts, time debts, and ever-expanding responsibilities and burdens. 

Beyond this, give up the 20th century and all earlier centuries concept that some people are "better" than others. More useful, more desirable, with "better" anything than anyone else. In individual areas, of course some people are more capable than others. But for each great chef, there is a great mother. For each great teacher, there is a great musician. For each great man, a great woman. For every wonderful physician, a marvelous nurse. And so on and so on ... until the end of time.

And for every person with Autism or Aspergers, with special gifts of perception and insight, there is an empath who senses others acutely. As the Autistic child often spins or self-stimulates for comfort with too much sensory input, so does the empath child withdraw, or even harm himself or herself, for comfort from too much emotional input.

This is what I, the empath, have to say on my 52nd birthday, March 10, 2014.

And I have also to say, rest in Peace and God's love Alan Paul Rodgers, August 11, 1959 to March 8, 2014. Farewell sweet prince.

 

 

 

Persephone

I am half Persephone.

In ancient Greek myth, Persephone is called Kore, or simply "The Mistress." Queen of the Underworld, she was wed against her will to Hades, Lord of the Underworld, who, in love with her beauty, abducted and raped her after springing out of the earth. Her mother Demeter, Goddess of the Earth, searched everywhere for her, until finally, finding her in the Underworld, entreated Zeus to free her -- which he did -- but Persephone was forced to return to Hades for six months of the year thereafter, as Hades had given her three pomegranate seeds while she was with him, and she consumed them. Thus having eaten of the fruit of the Underworld, she was bound to it.

We are now leaving the Underworld of the 20th Century and emerging into the light.

All those of us who grew up in that time have tasted of the pomegranate and walked the dark ways of death.

This ancient myth holds truth today, for we are leaving the time of darkness and have the choice to enter the light and life. Or, we could return to our master of the past.

I think we are entering a time of new Humanism, where "human" means exactly what it says. As simple as that. All humans are of worth and value, precious to the world.

Are We There Yet? Sheila Finch Asks

This is a message from your space witch. I read through a goodly number of the essays for the Women Destroy SF! Issue of Lightspeed, which were used to support their successful Kickstarter campaign.

In her thoughtful essay, Sheila Finch told several anecdotes related to being a female SF writer. After noting that she appeared on radio shows to fill air time, and that one of the DJ's asked her what a nice lady like her was doing writing science fiction, Sheila said, "About this time, an editor rejected a story, telling me he just couldn’t believe in its science underpinning. I had—as usual—done copious research, and everything I’d speculated about was either on the horizon or perhaps already being done in secret experiments somewhere."

I don't know about you, but when I have confirmation from someone else that I'm "not alone," it makes me feel better. I cannot say how many times this has happened to me; in reviews of published work, I've had documented science PRESUMED to be wrong by the reviewer, who had some type of empirical opinion whatever the matter at-hand was, it was unrealistic because it was a) presented by a dumb bimbo like me; and b) the reviewer hadn't heard of it. Heaven forbid they should ... look it up. Julie M. Jones is presently ordering equipment for her disability that is directly related to the equipment detailed in "To Kiss the Star" (F & SF, 2001, 2002 Nebula Award Nominee). This was questioned at the time. Of course. I even got an e-mail from a guy who said I couldn't write a story about someone with a disability as it was "biased" (or discriminatory, I forget) and furthermore, he was going to sue me! I never saw any lawsuit and I didn't reply to the e-mail.

But it gave me a fast heartbeat for a bit. Back when I actually cared about that stuff and was too naive to know what it really was: garden variety harassment.

Most of the younger writers are commenting that they haven't really experienced harassment or anything "non-supportive" while pursuing their starting careers as SF/F writers. I believe this is true, as I have experienced far-milder incidents in the past 5-6 years than I did in the 90s, and it's not just because I've finally aged out of the grope/slap/2nd grade gum-in-the-hair insult category. I kinda haven't. Most people have no idea of my age unless I pointedly tell them in an effort to ward off this type of fun and games. Most gentlemen (and I do use the term loosely) know better than to enthusiastically put their mitts all over a new acquaintance or someone they literally do not know in a social or work situation. Because they can, like, get in trouble - word's finally seeped through to nearly all segments of society now, including the SF/F community.

But few of the younger writers have yet experienced the "silencing" that's very much with us. Sheila Finch pointed at some of the more overt and literal examples, such as being the only female on a hard science-oriented con panel and getting shouted down (in Sheila's case - over her head - such has happened to me as well) by over-exuberant hollering males with axes to grind, cases to make, and dominance behaviors to illustrate. How many of the younger female writers writing these essays are writing hard, speculative SF? About such concepts as Sheila mentioned, "I was interested in children, and family, and relationships—and I wanted to explore what was going to happen to them in a future dominated by aggressive male ideas."

That is so dangerous.

According to Cheryl Morgan, "Keep writing, ladies; we have a patriarchy to destroy."

I'm no lady. I'm a woman. And I want to destroy nothing. I want to help others to build and grow. I want what I said almost 20 years ago when asked by a dear friend and very wise man, "When you come to the end of a long life, what is it you want to look back upon and say you've accomplished?"

I told him, "I want to be able to say I left this world a better place than when I found it."

This type of thinking is far more dangerous to the destroyers, the denigrators, the dominators, than any type of open threat or battle cry. This is in no way saying I won't fight. I have fought, I am fighting, and I will continue to fight.

The wonderful young women commenting in these essays haven't had the pleasure and privilege that Sheila and I and others in the older age group have of being poked, prodded, whacked, publically insulted (garden-variety and more "special" attempts at humiliation, denigration, patronization) and all of the above all at the same time. They seem to have not yet had the pleasure of having their work declined for review, bypassed, or reviewed late - sometimes with not even knowing that happened - or of struggling to get some type of platform or audience.

They don't yet quite know the incredible feeling of seeing years of discipline and hard work and careful thought bypassed over and over for the most puerile and gassy exhalations of male authors with big platforms and tiny minds. It's to the degree where I've often wondered if in reality, I am confused -- what I think is thoughtful and meaningful -- is so far from what I see presented as good thought that it seems almost an alternate world. Even simple concepts - like "When is the last time you did hard research on anything?" seem unimportant.

The younger writers haven't yet experienced the necessity to devote time and energy to one's family and being a single mother, rather than writing continuously, devoting 100% of one's time and effort to one's writing career. Being unable to do that, because others - in my case, hundreds of others - were depending on me so they could keep their jobs, have a decent place to live, and feed their families. They don't know what it's like to devote a decade to supporting a man and fighting some of his battles for him - because you loved him - and thereby taking what could have been some of the best writing and personal years of your life off the table forever.

They tell themselves that there are no significant challenges for them, certainly not like those faced by PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi, who has told others that as a woman born in Chennai, India, she faced the twin challenges of being both female and a woman of color in the corporate world, and openly states she had to work far longer and harder than her male counterparts or "white" counterparts to achieve her position -- as one of the world's most powerful female executives, well-known for pioneering employee and family-friendly, as well as environmentally-sustainable initiatives.

What I have faced has made me stronger. It has made me empirically better than most, if not all, of my male counterparts, who've never had to face the type of opposition I have had just to publish my work or make a few things known to the public. Everything some of these authors say is enshrined in gold and retweeted hundreds of times immediately by adoring fans. Those "pearls of wisdom" are not necessarily pearls. Sometimes they're feces coated in gold leaf; sometimes, the gold leaf frays and the feces blows back. Ever to these individuals' astonishment and amazement -- if that's not last year's SFWA Bulletin controversy -- I don't know how else to define that. While the controversy was overblown for the isolated incident, it was hardly overblown in general. Because people have been putting up with gold leaf-clad feces presented as fine truffles from many male authors and "futurists" for decades. 

I'm not saying that the simple change of allowing women and non-white, non-American males to have a platform would rectify the problem. Nor am I saying that everything any woman or non-white, non-American male might contribute would be a delicate, perfect, butter and cream truffle coated with gold leaf rather than a bonus prize from my little dog Gambit dipped in white chocolate.

I am saying that this happens on purpose. People aren't stupid. It's embarrassing for guys who believe themselves to be as smart as Einstein but better-looking, to be shown up by quiet, dignified and thoughtful women like Sheila Finch. Yes, they're threatened, fellow writers. And yes, they will fight. And don't forget the power of inertia. The people who make money off this type of person and phenomenon will not give their percentages up without a fight. And do not consider yourself exempt. No one is.