|
|
By Thomas Sullivan, on April 15th, 2012
Well, actually the Motel 6 was a Best Western War Bonnet Inn, but that makes the title of this essay too long. In any case, that’s where I was the night a pet theory of mine was severely wounded if not shot through the heart. See, it was my belief that listening to radio as opposed to watching TV helped me develop as a writer. No steady diet of pictures for me, I thought, thank you very much. I mostly supply my own because a visual media demands too much attention and seriously distracts from the on-board entertainment center that came with my brain at birth. For me, TV is largely radio with a visual proxy for one’s imagination thrown in. Oh, I turn TVs on – turn ‘em on all over the house – only, I keep doing stuff while I half listen and fill in the visuals from my own paper thin skull. But being on the road one night brought me face-to-face with a motel bed and a TV and nothing else between Minnesota and Idaho. So there was American Idol, a show you don’t necessarily have to watch. I mean, it’s about music and talking, right? (Like, “Now and then there’s a fool such as I”… Sully!) Turns out there’s lotsa drama, sex, violence, and subtle sabotage going on that you can’t always infer from a sound track. Take this particular night in Montana. There’s Joshua, who Ryan Seacrest tells us is sick with something like bubonic plague, fresh in from ER where he threw up 63 times…
Ryan: “How are you feeling, Joshua?”
Joshua (zombie voice): “Like I’m gonna fall off a ladder…”
Ryan (standing in platform shoes): “I know the feeling.”
Camera pans across tres cool trio: Randy Jackson nods amiably behind glittering dark glasses and flashes his piano-key smile. Jennifer Lopez in a tight mini crosses her left leg over her right, causing a small earth tremor along the Continental Divide as millions of America’s males in the TV audience tilt their heads left. Steven Tyler sits ramrod straight but swaying as if searching for gravity, his dark glasses glittering like miniature versions of Randy’s. Oh, wait. He’s not wearing glasses.
Joshua of the bubonic plague snuggles down the bench where all the finalists sit, driving contestant Jessica in the other direction with a series of gluteal contractions not unlike an inch-worm trying to sprint. She is momentarily saved from catching whatever Joshua has when Ryan calls him forward to account in the voting. But, alas, now Ryan calls her name as well, and Joshua offers her his hand. As they come forward, he drags her into his embrace. Ryan relates more details about the virulent flu that has brought Joshua to death’s door, then tells him he is “safe.” Joshua exhales with huge relief over Jessica, who begins to sway like Steven. When Ryan tells Jessica she is also saved, Joshua smothers her with hugs and kisses.
Camera pans to Randy, still nodding, flashing ivory smile. Jennifer uncrosses left leg, crosses right. Earth tremor along New Madrid fault line as millions of America’s males now tilt heads right. Suddenly Steven is the only person in the studio not swaying and this causes him to open his eyes all the way to a squint. Tremor subsides. Audience steadies. Steven resumes swaying, closes gumdrop eyes.
Ryan announces sneak preview of Jennifer’s new music video. Lights dim. And there she is, legs completely uncrossed, undulating out of skimpy clothes. It appears she will run out of clothes before running out of music, but male dancers surround her with ballet moves sort of like Swan Lake on Viagra. Video ends with Jennifer still dressed. Music wins — no FCC fines. Cut to commercial for Coke.
Live return focuses on benches, where Jessica has now turned into Typhoid Mary. Bubonic plague Joshua is puckering up to spread more good will. Other contestants perform a never-before-seen version of “the wave” to avoid them both. Ryan stands 10 feet away as Jessica drops dead. Cut to tasteless Charmin commercial of bears with toilet paper stuck to mangy fur butts.
When we return, the least physically endowed female — who sings exactly 2.9 times better than nearest rival — is being voted off. Inversely, male cutesy hunk whose chainsaw voice achieves almost a full octave on a good night is revealed to have garnered the most votes. Piercing screams from 10-year-old females fill studio, causing Randy to cringe, his eyes exploding into spotlights while his smile fades as though he is connected to a rationed power grid. Jennifer tries to cross both legs at same time, causing major neck dislocations across America. In Wyoming Yellowstone dome blows. Steven unperturbed. Appears to be humming Gregorian chant. Over on benches, Joshua goes for group hug. Three more contestants drop dead –
…CUT!
OK. Maybe I’m exaggerating just a tad. You see how my subconscious works. The techs of my imagination in charge of visuals aren’t used to this much stimulation. They’re used to winging it. Which is the whole point. I don’t want to dumb them down, smother their creativity, or put them out of work with TVs prepackaged orchestrations. But that’s not what just happened. On this particular night and at this particular dosage of canned visual media my circuits are working the same way they work in real life from prima fascia evidence. This is a useful discovery for a writer. It turns out the ON-OFF switch isn’t just on the Idiot Tube remote, it’s in my mind. I don’t have to watch like a spoon-fed infant or Igor the Zombie lying on a coffin couch with a six-pack of beer and half the refrigerator. I can interact satirically or with nuanced perceptions to play out all the “What if’s” of what I’m seeing, same as I do in everyday reality. Thank you, Motel 6. Thank you Ryan, Randy, Jennifer and Steven (…cool guy, Steven). Dunno if I’ll be back with full attention – I still like to move around the house multitasking when TVs are on – but I am nothing if not adaptable. So I’m fine-tuning the concept of being a spectator. I am an interactive spectator. Hey, maybe I should tape THAT – the running commentary on whatever I’m “watching.” Wouldn’t have to be just sarcasm, could add a touch of poignancy here, a little poetry there, and meaningful social/historical context…and let’s not forget romantic idealism, and – are you getting this? This could blossom into a new reality TV show. Imagine GUEST interactive spectators in my living room! Like, like…hey, Steven, what are you doing next — uh-oh. Got to shut down those rogue neurons in my papier-mâché brain before they go viral. Shakespeare Sully’s imagination has left the building.
Thomas “Sully” Sullivan
http://www.thomassullivanauthor.com
http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=1219261326
http://twitter.com/thomassullivan
http://www.amazon.com/The-Martyring-ebook/dp/B0069CIFL4/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1321818520&sr=1-1
By Bill Lindblad, on April 11th, 2012
Talk to any author who’s been around long enough and they’ll have a story for you about a bad publishing experience. Most common are the books which were supposed to pay royalties after the advance was made, but which mysteriously never quite made enough sales to cover the advance… sometimes despite going into multiple printings. There are others, though. Many, many others.
It’s enough to put new authors into a state of permanent distrust when dealing with a publisher. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, particularly when you don’t have an agent or another experienced person helping to draft a contract. But for the most part, horror has the best publishers in the literary field.
I suspect it is due to the prominence of the small press in horror literature. Whereas other genres have historically relied upon national publishers almost exclusively, horror has a long history of appealling directly to the fans. Arkham House, Carcosa, Whispers Press, Dark Harvest, Cemetery Dance, Borderlands Press, Fedogan and Bremer… these are among the best known publishers, and many of their titles were never sold through chain bookstores, instead focusing their distribution through specialty bookstores and catalog sales. With the growth of the internet, catalogs are now easily found either on the publisher’s website or at aggregate sites like Amazon. The ease of distribution has encouraged more small presses to develop, catering to a readership which was already familiar with mail order.
There are books designed as treasures. Nearly the full line from Centipede Press, for example, or the artworks provided by Biting Dog Press. Lettered editions from Necessary Evil Press, whose metal traycases are as beautiful and intricate as professional sculptures. Books that are designed to not simply be read, but displayed proudly.
There are books designed as keepsakes. Signed and limited editions ranging in price from $30 to $50 from Necro, Gauntlet, PS, Delirium, Overlook Connection and many more. Compendiums of virtually unfindable older work from Ash-Tree and Tartarus Press.
There are books and e-books designed to get out of print work into appreciative hands at low prices. Crossroads Press is a pioneering e-book publisher in that field, for example, and Wildside Press has put dozens of public domain scarcities back into availability as print-on-demand for $20 and under.
And then there are the publishers of new work. People like Bad Moon Books, Dark Regions Press, Eraserhead Press, and Apex Books, providing new material by authors who have earned readerships but who may have difficulty getting deals inked with the larger New York and London firms.
The common thread among all of these publishers is that while you may occasionally hear of problems arising (Full Moon Press, most notoriously, angered authors and collectors by selling lifetime memberships before medical problems led to cancelling their ambitious catalog and shutting down the press after only two books) there is no shortage of fans who wish to help get their favorite authors’ stories into print, and this is a great sign for authors in the field.
These points were driven home at the most recent World Horror Convention. I had people coming by the table asking for Cemetery Dance and old Dark Harvest titles. I was set up next to Full Moon and Dark Regions, both of whom had great displays. Dark Discoveries were set up nearby. Centipede Press was across the way, with its usual display of books capable of inducing pain in the wallet (seriously, those are some beautiful books, worth every dollar charged and a few more additionally. Jared’s work sets a high bar for the modern collector’s edition.) It’s something I’ve seen at every previous WHC, although the publishers change. I’ve seen booths for Eraserhead, Night Shade, Gauntlet, Necro and more. As with most conventions, a new publisher was showing off their upcoming catalog… in this case, it was Genius Publishing, with titles out by Brian Knight, Harry Shannon and Gene O’Neill (rarely have I seen so promising a debut.)
Horror has an embarassment of riches when it comes to the small press publishers, which is undoubtedly why a separate award has been designed for them at the Stokers. Fans and authors alike are encouraged to familiarize themselves with these publishers; the former as a source of interesting fiction and the latter as the market avenue most likely to create and expand a fan base.
By Brian Hodge, on April 9th, 2012
They found a dead man in the New Mexico wilderness the other day, lying peacefully beside a cool stream. He went out for a run and never came back.
It probably wasn’t news where you live, but where I live in Colorado, it was top-headline material in the Sunday paper. It should’ve been an April Fool’s Day joke, but wasn’t. He was local, sort of, when he wanted to be. His name was Micah True, née Michael Randall Hickman, but a lot of people knew him best as Caballo Blanco, Spanish for White Horse.
I wasn’t one of them — don’t get the wrong idea. I knew of him only through the printed page, a book called Born To Run. I’ve raved about it ever since, as one of the favorite books I read last year, and among the books I got the most good out of.
Without Caballo Blanco, there never would have been a Born To Run. The events at the heart of this wonderful book would never have happened. He was the most indelible of a gaggle of indelibly larger-than-life characters, and probably — and, paradoxically — both the easiest and hardest to understand.
The Cliff’s Notes version: Two decades ago he dropped off the face of the civilized world, retreating to some of the most inhospitable country on earth, bonding with and learning from some of the planet’s most reclusive people, eventually becoming a kind of flesh-and-blood myth. He lived to run and ran to live. He made running the center of his existence. He sought out the people who do it better than anyone. He bridged worlds, with running as a common language.
By the end of the book, I was trying to imagine his future. It was impossible for me to imagine anything other than more of the same. He’s going to die out there — I really did think this, out there being Mexico’s Copper Canyons or someplace almost as remote. It wasn’t an ominous thought, just a nod to what seemed like a logical inevitability. But I certainly wasn’t expecting it to happen within a matter of months.
No, But If You Hum A Few Bars, I’ll Fake It
I began this thinking of Caballo Blanco as one of the most committed individuals I’ve ever heard of, but already I’m squirming away from that. Maybe it wasn’t so much a matter of commitment as it was an honest conviction that there were no other options, at least none worth considering. As presented in Born To Run, he seemed to be a character who recognized his unconventional path with such clarity that he was oblivious to the approval and good opinions of others. Even the people of the Mexican outback thought he was crazy, or maybe not even human.
At first.
He seemed like someone who’d heard his call, and heeded it, and kept heeding it while the rest of the world caught up to him.
And yes, of course that takes commitment. There are always paths of less resistance, and hills that aren’t as steep. But first it takes clear vision, and the willingness to see who and what you really are. It may take courage to accept that, and even more to shrug off the need for the approval and good opinions of others … especially the ones who have a ready-made box for you that they insist is just your size.
After that, well, what else is left but the journey?
I’ve told this before, but today it bears telling again. Pat Fish, proprietress of Tattoo Santa Barbara, who left a mark on me that goes all the way through, once told me how another legend-in-his-own-time, Ray Bradbury, gave her the one critical tool that helped her recognize just the road ahead.
“He came annually to speak to the journalism club at my high school, it was the Ray Bradbury chapter of Quill & Scroll, and he said one year something so profound it changed my whole life: that inside yourself you have an internal gyroscope that hums when it gets near the things you love, and leans you towards them. So if you learn to pay attention to this you never have to do a stupid job, you figure out what you love to do and then make it how you make money.”
All great journeys begin with the sound of a hum.
Which Came First: The Ending Or The Beginning?
I have long tried to live this way — to live as authentically as I can. I heard the hum, the One Great Hum against the background of secondary hums, and there could be no mistaking what it was.
And I take immense joy in the reports of others who say the same. I’ve lost track of the number of people — writers and otherwise — who’ve said that things began really working for them only when they put this singular ambition at the center of their lives. That what made the biggest difference was when they boldly committed their souls.
Yet, for all that, there are times I wish I hadn’t heard the hum. Or that I’d heard a different hum. Or that, while the hum was fine, I’d been more worthy of it. There are times when I wobble and doubt, and maybe listen for another hum that just isn’t there. There are days like that. We all have days like that … don’t we? Then it all comes around again, and something happens that leaves me glad I didn’t hear anything else.
It occurs to me that the most ineffectual times of my life have usually been when I’ve lost sight of this. When I’ve hedged or diluted, when I’ve let the focus blur and the center has not held. The flipside is true as well: that some of the greatest triumphs have come from sticking with something just a little longer than a better pragmatist might’ve taken to give up.
Somewhat notoriously, William Faulkner stated that writers are congenital liars, convinced they “can create much better truth than circumstance can.”
Fine. Lie to the rest of us, lie for the greater good, lie for the sake of a better story…
But don’t lie to yourself. Not about who you are and what you’re here to do, if you’re lucky enough to have seized upon these things.
“Begin with the end in mind” — common advice, but you always hear it small-scale, on a project level. For the sake of argument let’s stretch it out for a lifetime.
Imagine the great end, whether it comes to you in your bed or rush-hour traffic or beside a cool New Mexico stream. Then imagine what comes next. The gatekeeper at the delivery door checks the paperwork from the original order and frowns at what he sees. You know how these clipboard guys are. Everything has to match up just so.
“Are you sure?” he says. “This is you? No, this doesn’t look like you at all.”
Who wants to hear a thing like that? How about this, instead:
“Yeah, yeah, come on in. And put your ID away. I’d know you anywhere…”
It’s a start, anyway.
***** For a wee nightcap, you’re invited over to my own blog, Warrior Poet, where the latest post clears up a little reader misperception, with “When ‘I Can’t Get No Satisfaction’ Is A Good Thing (If Not Necessarily Good Grammar).”
[Photo by Falashad]
By Gerard Houarner, on April 4th, 2012
Last month I did something I usually try to avoid – look for reviews online. It’s one of those “be careful what you wish for” exercises I regret more often than I find satisfying. I did find a nice quote from a review of a story published in a U.K anthology, Blind Swimmer:
There are writers who write stories for the sake of entertainment, and then there are storytellers who understand what stories and myths are meant for. Gerard Houarner is both a writer and a storyteller.
Thanks, tangetonline. I’ll be using that one. But, of course, I found some less than enthusiastic comments about other things, and, more disturbing, silence. Chunks of work, ignored. It’s like sending a piece out and not only don’t you get an answer, there’s not even a response to a query.
But that’s just business. You bust your butt, but there are no guarantees. Maybe your work gets published. Maybe it sells to an editor who maybe asks for a few changes, says some nice things, puts together a great project, and you get to see your name in print and cash a check.
Maybe a reader says something nice, sometime, in a convention hallway or on Amazon. Movies, awards, yeah, they’re all right around the corner.
The best warning I’ve heard about reviews is that if you believe the good ones, you’ll have to believe the bad ones.
Good ones don’t help sell the next book. Bad ones won’t kill your career.
Sales will.
Reviews won’t help you write the next one, either.
But. In our new online universe, reviews are a form of currency. They appear everywhere, from retailers to reader sites to blogs to social networks. Good ones encourage attention, which may lead to sales. Bad ones, especially a lot of them, pretty much kill the deal.
Used to be, dedicated specialists, hardcore readers, folks with an understanding of some kind of literary history, whether world, western, genre, or maybe just what they read when they were growing up, used to write them. They were a kind of mint, producing a steady stream of dependable currency. And because these reviews were printed in little magazines, or specialty magazines, or the NYT and Atlantic Monthly and such, there were standards maintained for reviews, and a community of a certain kind of audience found them and made their buying decisions accordingly.
Not anymore. The community has gotten better. Anybody can write them. Everybody’s got an opinion. Standards, well, they’re all over the place, and often no place at all.
(An interesting discussion of reviewing occurred recently on Jeff VanderMeer’s Facebook page, bringing up the point that reviews, in general, are still an individual reader’s experience of a story and tastes and subjectivity play a role, no matter how intricate the intellectual dressing. And then there are the pressures of pumping them out on deadline. Oh, yeah, and opinions change over time, anyway. And not just about Melville.)
It’s hard to earn good (and by good, I mean genuine and positive) ones, just like real money. People who like your writing need to care enough to post something. That’s hard, because it’s often easier to complain about something that you think sucked than to be write something positive about something you liked. Being pissed off gets you energetic. Being happy makes you do other things that make you happy, which often isn’t sitting online writing reviews. Human nature. Sometimes, you have to go after them by encouraging readers to post.
Or you can make them up in your own little counterfeiting operation.
That’s part of the problem, of course. Little conspiracies, friends popping up with the same wording on the reviews like perps telling the same story the same way to understanding detectives – very embarrassing. But, human nature.
Unfortunately, hundreds of short, even monosyllabic five star reviews tend to cheapen the occasional good, genuine ones, and overwhelm the dozens of genuine bad ones. Alas, this creates confusion and cheapens the currency, makes it suspect.
But the currency doesn’t seem to be going away. At every turn, we’re asked to evaluate, to review, to give feedback. It’s the age of accountability, after all. Or, maybe it’s the age of spin control. Is it the age of bullshit, yet? I get confused, sometimes.
Despite the problems, I do believe a healthy account of positive reviews behind a book listing does garner attention. Builds that all-important readership, the kind of people who like what you do, not how – as in what specific genre or style you might decide to work in – you do it. The kind of people who want to read anything by X because they like what X does.
(Yes, I know, some folks stray way off the reservation and go all “abduction” or “Jesus” on people, driving away even the core readership. Human nature is a bastard.)
In my own shopping experience for anything, I’ll research, read the reviews, read them critically for factors like taste (current Amazon.com reviews for Ghost Story have 12 one-stars, 15 two-stars, out of 139, seriously). One guy says a jacket’s sleeves are too long, okay, got it, but if two or three people have the same reaction and not enough evidence to the contrary services, pattern recognition kicks in). In hotel reviews, there’s always somebody who was stuck with a bad room, a noisy neighbor.
So, what to do about earning some more of those genuine good reviews?
Hmmm, still thinking about that one. Does asking nicely really help? I’ve seen writers gently ask folks who may have written a nice formal review if they’d post it on Amazon, and I’ve seen some reviewers do that unasked.
Run contests for posted reviews? I’m uncomfortable with that.
There’s the old editor’s response to “what will it take for me to sell you a story” – write better stories, of course.
If you read it and you like it don’t clap your hands, post a review.
Just ask.
Look, I started this off with the old advice of not taking this stuff too seriously. But, with reviews becoming so much more important as a marketing tool, and with money at stake, that’s not so easy to do, anymore.
Once again: But.
Lots of people have opinions. Some of these opinions are pretty well informed, or at least founded on a set of literary standards, a well-defined sense of taste and some skill and experience in presenting an argument. Doesn’t make them right for you, of course. Other opnions, not so much.
Take it easy out there. I’ll take my little tangetonline quote, use it on the site. Maybe it’ll wind up on a book or an ad. I got a moment’s validation out of it, which very quickly evaporated. A few of them put together may sustain the illusion of a career, if you’re lucky. Not as much as contracts, checks, and work coming out on a regular basis. Just don’t let them lull you (or depress you) into lowering your guard, ambition, work ethic, creativity, standards, discipline, and all the other things that keep a writer looking more at the space where the next word goes instead of the space occupied by other people’s opinion of what you’re doing.
Otherwise, well, if you haven’t caught up to it yet, you can check Christopher Priest perhaps taking the “awards” thing (not unlike the “review” thing) a bit too seriously.
http://www.christopher-priest.co.uk/journal/1077/hull-0-scunthorpe-3/
He’s not the first person I’ve heard who wanted to fire judges. Some folks wanted to fire the professionals who supposedly selected this or that as the best, or the readers, who picked a over b,c and d.
If you listen more than you talk at certain kinds of gatherings, you hear old stories and questions about this or that award ceremony, the legendary meltdowns, the gossip, frustration and resentment. The CP tempest in a teapot inspired a range of reactions, some pretty funny. I liked Nick Mamatas’ response:
http://nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com/
Stop whining.
The Literature will survive. If it’s worth it, so will (some small portion) your work. If you’re very, very, very good. No matter what the reviews said.
This is Lawrence Block on blurbs, which are kind of related to reviews:
http://lawrenceblock.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/no-i-wont-give-you-a-blurb-heres-why/
And finally, word from a publisher:
http://www.gollancz.co.uk/2012/03/right-to-review/
Civil reviews and critiques. Yes. Never mind that you can get away with saying anything from behind an electronic mask. Say it like you’d like your boss or a customer, your spouse, your kid, to pull your coat on something you did that was less than stellar.
Say it like you’re saying it to somebody’s face. Take the same risk the writer did to put the work out there.
And if you’ve got it, show some love.
By Alma Alexander, on March 30th, 2012
Not too long ago, the website www.cracked.com produced a list of <a href=”http://www.cracked.com/article_19667_6-horrifying-implications-harry-potter-universe.html“>six horrifying implications of the Harry Potter universe</a>.
They included mismatched technology and life experience (modern (our) contemporary world, buses, modern London, but steam train to a medieval castle? Wizards have never heard of or can use phones? Just what do young wizards DO, career wise, when they leave school – other than become Aurors or go to the Dark Side and start plotting to take over the world?), privacy invasion (Marauder Map tracks your every move – big brother is definitely magically watching all the time!) and more.
And yes. It’s funny. It’s even all true, when you take every single thing literally. But how RELEVANT is it all?
When you take the magical and fun things out of Rowlings’ universe, what you are left with is a pretty withered ancient British-Boarding-School story which has been told and told and told and told before, ad infinitum, until every ounce of originality or enjoyment has been wrung from it. What Harry Potter and his chums brought to this hoary old chestnut of a tale was their creatrix’s immense gift for making up things on the fly.
The living portraits on the walls of Hogwarts are listed as a horrifying implication by the cracked.com people, but they were one of the incredible things that we loved about that universe – wandering through the halls of the school, watching staircases tumble around in a scene that might have inspired Escher’s visions, and those portrait people getting on with their own “lives” inside the ornate frames. It was amazing. It was a novelty. It was something that had not ever – or at the very least had very rarely – been done before. And we took this fantasy world, and we hung our sense of disbelief at the door, and we dived in and drank in the wonder of it all – because it was magical, because it was different, because and in spite of the fact that it was not consistent with the tenets of our own rational universe and that we could make no sense of it all.
Here’s the thing. Fantasy… is permission to let your mind out to pasture. ANY fantasy dissected too closely is going to end up being ridiculous and, well, unbelievable. Start with the fairy tales of old, and if you did what cracked.com just did for Harry Potter you’d be brought to a screeching halt right at the beginning, no matter whether you were looking at the ancient hallowed horrible versions or the Disneyfied saccharine renditions thought to be the only thing fit for today’s protected and etiolated children who appear to think that wolves only do exist inside fairy tales (perhaps that is why there’s so little outright horror at news reports of aerial wolf killings – they can’t be REAL wolves, after all, don’t they only live in deep dark forests and go munching on defenseless grandmothers living in cute thatched cottages in distant clearings…?) The question that begs to be asked is how MUCH reality needs to be in a fantasy world for it to be of an acceptable verisimilitude to our own and therefore “real” or “true”?
The only thing that a fantasy world owes to itself is to be SELF CONSISTENT. Within any given fantasy, there should be rules – and the rules should be known (or at the very least learned the hard way by the protagonist along the way) and followed. You, the writer, the creator of this fantasy world, are the only person in charge of setting these rules – and the response of your readers depends on how well you do this thing.
Let’s put it this way – something doesn’t have to be completely rational according to the laws of physics of our own world for it to function quite happily inside a certain world of your own manufacture – but the laws that it DOES obey must actually have a certain internal coherence and you as the author are entrusted to keeping that coherence going to the point that the reader accepts it not so much as a replacement set of rules for the world that he or she knows but certainly as something that governs the world about which they are reading, and thus functions as a skeleton on which the flesh of that world can be supported.
J K Rowlings was HAVING FUN. I don’t, personally, think that she thought any of her stuff through to a worldbuilding perfection. She invented stuff as she needed to, and you know, it worked for her – but this is partly why her tacked-on epilogue to the whole Potter saga fell so flat. All of a sudden these kids who were having these wild wacky adventures with dragons and mermaids and dark lords oh my – all of a sudden they were all “grown up”, with their hair up and wearing long pants, with their OWN progeny old enough to climb aboard the steam train to a (miraculously rebuilt) Hogwarts on their way to a thoroughly useless magical education which applies to nothing at all in the “real” real world that their parents now supposedly live in at least partially.
That’s where the thing blurs for Rowlings – she wanted there to be an intersect between the real (our) world, the Muggle world, and that other world in which Potter and company existed, the one where goblins ran the banks which stored Real! Gold! In Underground! Vaults! Guarded! By Dragons!… a link between the streets of real London, and a Diagon Alley. And as long as you don’t think too hard about it – about the world that you WILLINGLY leave behind when you enter Potterworld – it’s fine, it all works, it’s dandy. It’s when you try to interpret stuff from THAT world according to the physical rules and laws that inevitably govern OUR world that you come apart.
And that’s where the epilogue collapses – when the kids board the train, the grown-up Potter crew goes back, presumably, through that barrier of platform 9 ¾ and step into King’s Cross station. OUR King’s Cross. And their role in our own world… is non-existent. They have nothing to do with our world, or in it. But without the Muggle world to use as a backdrop against which her own magical creation shows up so rich and strange, Rowlings would have had a very different story on her hands. And the cracked.com analysis starts gaining traction when you – the reader – return to the real King’s Cross and try to reconcile it with the platform which has the little steam train that goes to the Heavenly Boarding School for those lucky enough to be able to wave a wand at something to make it disappear. Because… you can’t. Your mind blanks at this point. Harry and Ginny step back into Muggleworld after sending off their kid to Magic School – and do what?
And if they do NOT step back into Muggleworld, then what’s the whole point of taking a flying run at a brick wall to access the magical platform in the first place – wouldn’t it just exist in real terms (THEIR real terms) and be accessible via, oh, I don’t know, an escalator…? So where are they, Harry and company – Muggleworld? Potterverse? Or Limbo?
I write fantasy myself. I have resisted the temptation to simply “play” in my universes. When I create a world everything in it has repercussions. If I am writing a wholly secondary-world fantasy, set in its own space, then none of this matters, and the only thing that is important is that the secondary world in question actually hangs together in a self-consistent and coherent way – for example, the wholly and totally invented secondary-world fantasy of the “Changer of Days” books. But if it is a world that crosses somewhat with a “muggleworld” of our own time and space and dimension (for instance, my own YA Worldweavers series books, or my newest more “grown-up” book, “Midnight at Spanish Gardens”) I have some interesting decisions to make as to how and why – and I don’t just dangle the fun and pixie-dusted stuff in front of a reader so that they can go “OOoh! Shiny!” and then forget about trying to slot it all together in a coherent way.
If you analysed my own worlds, you’d be able to connect the dots, despite the fun-and-games kind of shenanigans that go on in the background. To me, the whole picture matters, not just the little fun jigsaw puzzles which are fun to play with, like moving portraits or pseudolatinate spells (and even there Rowlings isn’t consistent. “Leviosa”? Maybe. You could stretch Latinate definitions to that, the roots of “levitation” and what have you. But “Wingardium” is purely her own nonsense language. And what exactly would Avada Kedavra mean in any actual Latin sense – but oh, it sounds so good and so cool anyway so – well – we’re just having fun here…)
Having said that… I am not sure that any fantasy at all can survive being deconstructed to the point that cracked.com does Harry Potter’s world. There are things in any fantastical universe that will be ridiculous or flat unbelievable in the context of our own world WHATEVER the writer does with those things – and that is part of the magic (and I mean the writerly magic, not the worldbuilding stuff) of creating a whole new universe. You simply cannot hold a fantasy writer accountable, in the end, to the point that he or she has to explain exactly how a flying carpet works. It might be possible, but doing so would remove the magic from the thing, and render it a merely mechanical object obeying its own set of laws.
Arthur Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic – and some of it SHOULD be, for the story’s sake.
So what am I saying here…?
I guess I am saying that, as a reader of the fantastic, come on in, the water is fine. A certain amount of weirdness is inevitable and indeed welcomed – do not raise your eyebrows at everything you see or experience, that senssawunda is what you came here for, in the first place. But at the same time keep in mind that there are different levels of the fantastical and the wonderful. Some of them are content to entertain you – witness the Harry Potter phenomenon. Others have been crafted to more rigorous frames, and invite full immersion and actual BELIEF in that secondary world which you have entered. Feel free to deconstruct, in other words – just keep in mind that some stuff will crumble in your hands if you try to do it too hard, or too closely.
Deconstruct magic at your own peril…
By Richard Dansky, on March 27th, 2012
Sometimes stories get rejected. It happens to good stories. It happens to bad stories. It happens to my stories, and your stories, and pretty much everyone who isn’t Neil Gaiman’s stories. That being said, there are reasons behind every rejection, even the rejections of stories that might be pretty good. They’re not always good reasons. They’re not always communicated, they’re not always right, and they’re not always logical. But they’re there, and they can occasionally be anticipated and avoided. To wit:
- Your Opening Stinks – Here’s a dirty little secret for you. Most editors don’t read every line of every story they get sent. That’s because if they did, they’d be reading nothing but slushpile submissions until the heat-death of the universe, and even then there’d be another stack waiting in the first mailbox of the next universe over. They’re busy people, and they can’t afford to spend time on a story that has come onstate with the metaphorical equivalent of doing a faceplant into the orchestra pit and jamming its head inside the tuba. The surest way to get an editor to read the second page of your story is to put maximum time into polishing the first and making it enticing and punchy. And yes, there’s more to this than having a zinger for a first line – make sure you’re actually opening a story, instead of throwing out your best bon mot and hoping for lightning to strike.
- It’s The Wrong Market Part A (You sent it to the wrong place) – Reading submission guidelines is not an art form. Hell, it’s not even particularly arduous, because the only thing folks hate more than reading submission guidelines is writing them. (Seriously. You think it’s fun to hammer out “For the love of God, do not tell me about the ancient vampire who lives in your basement” for the three hundredth time?) The least you can do, in that case, is read the damn things so that you don’t end up adding insult to injury and, say, sending a completely Lovecraft-free manuscript to an anthology called “Temple of the Tentacles: A Tribute to H.P. Lovecraft”. If the story doesn’t fit, it doesn’t fit no matter how good it is, and you look like an ass for having sent it. You’ve wasted your time, the editor’s time, and possibly more of your time down the road, as there’s a non-zero chance the editor who wrote the guidelines you ignored will say to themselves, “Aha! The schmuck who can’t read guidelines!” the next time one of your stories crosses their desk.
- It’s The Wrong Market Part B (Something you didn’t know) – Mind you, very few markets actually expect authors t be psychic, which is good. After all, if we were psychic, we would have foreseen what writing professionally actually does to your posture, self-esteem, and liver, and chosen different callings. And with that in mind, sometimes there’s a finer granularity at work in the selection process than the guidelines describes. The editor of a humorous horror anthology may have a weakness for slapstick that doesn’t get communicated until the rejection letter, when you sent in something with more puns and less pie in the face. Or a vampire antho may have an implicit, rather than explicit “no sparkling” policy. You get the idea. If that’s the case, it’s regrettable, but them’s the breaks. It’s not a comment on your story, other than it’s a bad fit for that particular market.
- You Rushed It Out The Door – Your story may be good. Your story may be great. But if you shove it out the door before it’s ready – before you’ve had time to revise, to clean it up, to get other people’s critical eyes on it, then you’re potentially shortchanging both yourself and your story. Look, you owe it to yourself and to your writing to get the best possible version of every piece you write out there. That means, no matter how in love you are with it, no matter how flushed you are with the victory of finishing the piece, don’t let real live editors see it until you’ve done the writing equivalent of waking up the next morning in bed with it and trying to remember if you ever learned its first name. Take your time. Take another, critical look once the rush has worn off – and then another and another. There’s all kinds of definitions of “done”, and “I just typed the last word” is the least useful of the bunch, professionally speaking.
- Your Cover Letter Was Obnoxious Beyond All Human Comprehension – You do not need to list every writing credit you’ve ever had, going back to the stuff you wrote for your middle school newspaper. This goes doubly true of by doing so, you turn your cover letter into the missing volume from The Wheel of Time. If you’re good enough to have that many credits, your writing should speak for itself, and your letter should just have edited highlights. Similarly, getting overly cute, slamming other authors the editor you’re writing to has published, or including the phrase “I bet you’re never going to read this anyway” are surefire routes to the “we’ll call you” pile. The first two are annoying; the third rapidly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- You Included An Easter Egg In The Text – And by “easter egg”, I mean putting “Ha ha I bet you don’t read this far” in the text somewhere an editor who is actually reading your story is likely to read it. I mean, sure, it seems funny and original when you’re six tequilas to the wind, but then again, so does watching Zardoz. For one thing, I can assure you that no one, ever, has thought of that joke before, and no editor has ever stumbled across it[i]. For another, you’ve just told every editor who does get that far in your manuscript that they’re not professional enough to do their jobs. And rest assured, there’s nothing editors like more than being told they’re rank amateurs by the folks vying for their favor.
- They Already Got One, And Oh Yes, It’s Very Nice – No matter how good your story is, if an editor just bought something similar to it, it’s going to be a tough sell. At moments like that, your only crime is having gotten there second. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad story. It doesn’t mean that the market in question is forever closed to it. It just means that most editors aren’t going to risk running two “school cafeteria worker defeats hopping vampires through pluck and spatulas” stories in a time frame shorter than a Kardashian marriage.
- The Editor Is Wrong – People make bad choices. So, occasionally, do editors. It’s not a moral judgment on you, or on them. It just happens. The anecdotes about the number of editors who rejected Carrie or Harry Potter[ii] are legion; the mind boggles at the numbers of good or great short stories rejected by multiple editors before they found homes. It happens. It’s not you. And it’s not your story. At least, not always.
[i] This is what we call “sarcasm”.
[ii] Note to self: pitch mashup of King and Rowling called “Carrie Potter”, about a teenaged girl with magical powers who gets humiliated at her prom and summons up Azathoth to punish her classmates. Or something.
By Robert Jones, on March 19th, 2012
This essay might be of special interest to writers of detective and mystery stories who would like to enrich their stories by providing their readers with a gift of some extra bits of detail. It might also be of general interest to many other readers.
The area described in this essay was not chosen merely to represent one of many areas in this country having similar problems. In addition to its problems, the area has historic links to a past that many readers might find interesting.
My previous piece, FORENSICS 150: A ROAD TOO OFTEN TRAVELED, described the treatment a hired killer received while growing up that played a role in developing his murderous lifestyle. This piece describes an important chemical involved in developing a child’s future capabilities and behavior.
Once upon a time in Cincinnati, there had been a waterway named the Miami and Erie Canal that ran southwardly from Toledo. Cincinnati drivers might not be aware that they are following along the course of the old canal when they travel on what is now Central Parkway.
During the mid-1800s, large numbers of German immigrants settled in the area on the far side of the canal from downtown Cincinnati. The immigrants built most of its ornate brick buildings. Architectural styles included Federal,, Greek Revival, Italianate, Queen Anne, Renaissance, Revival and Second Empire.
Bridges spanning the canal provided passage between homes in the area and downtown Cincinnati, and the German residents began to refer to the canal as “the Rhine” in reference to the Rhine River in Germany. The area soon became known as Over-the-Rhine, or simply as the OTR.
A resident of the OTR was Devin, who had grown up in one of the many old houses built prior to 1978. Like many houses in the area, it had originally been painted with bright colors and well maintained. Also like many of the houses, it had more recently been neglected and had fallen into disrepair. The outside had long needed a fresh coat of paint, and even some of the paint on the inside had withered and flaked off areas of aging plaster walls. Paint commonly contained lead to improve its adherence and longevity. Dust containing lead from window frames was created as windows were opened and closed, and this created a substantial health hazard. The neighborhood in general displayed a depressive grayness where, even on a sunny day, a person would be hard-pressed to smile.
Devin attended a neighborhood school He was an unruly student from day one and showed little respect for any of his teachers. Several times, he climbed upon his desk and danced. He rarely paid much attention to lectures. When he did, he often had trouble understanding them. His temper flared easily. When he had trouble solving a mathematics problem, he would swear, wad up his test paper and throw it in the general direction of a wastebasket. Hardly a week passed when he didn’t get into a fight in school or out. As might have been expected, his last day in school was not when he graduated. It was on a day when his temper had exploded, and he had physically attacked a teacher during a class.
Given his academic record and lack of education, Devin found it difficult to get a job. Given his attitude and behavior, it was also difficult for him to keep one. He couldn’t seem to hold a job very long without getting into a serious argument or an actual fight. His lack of ready means to earn an adequate income and his contempt for rules might have first urged him into a criminal lifestyle. His temper and lack of self-control spiraled him into a life filled with violence and cruelty.. Eventually, his violent actions resulted in murder.
Unfortunately, the foregoing, “constructed” scenario does not represent a rare occurrence. It is all too typical of real situations, and these situations have commonly been found to involve lead. The University of Cincinnati has, for some 30 years, been tracking 250 persons from its own, highly lead-contaminated neighborhoods. Evidence compellingly reveals that early lead exposure, even at low levels and even while a child is still in the womb, is linked to later violent crimes. There is apparently no safe level of lead in children’s blood.
All violent acts are certainly not believed to be linked to lead; but, among arsonists, those who had set fires impulsively; and among prisoners, those who had committed impulsive, violent crimes and had exhibited more frequent aggressive and violent behavior, were found to have low levels of serotonin. At normal levels, this chemical reportedly acts as a brake on impulsiveness. Guess what element lowers serotonin levels. Lead.
An important function of the frontal lobes of brains is to recognize future consequences that might result from current actions and to suppress unacceptable social responses. A University of Cincinnati researcher found that children having higher levels of lead had smaller frontal lobes as they reach adulthood.
Experts reportedly believe that between 10 and 40 percent of impulsive, violent behavior is linked to lead. The U.S. government began phasing out lead in gasoline in 1975, and it banned lead in paint in 1978. A chilling statistic is the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of children, many under the age of six, in the U.S. who have high levels of lead in their blood.
A sticky question arises about how society and its legal system should treat persons who, by no fault of their own, have been predisposed to violence by their early physical and psychological environments. Banning the use of lead that can get into our environment will be a long-term solution. Meanwhile, citizens must be protected from criminals. Should persons who have already been poisoned and who subsequently commit violent acts be treated the same as criminals who have not been so predisposed?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
1. According to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, ‘’Lead-based paint is a major source of lead poisoning for children and can also affect adults. In children, lead poisoning can cause irreversible brain damage and can impair mental functioning. It can retard mental and physical development and reduce attention span. It can also retard fetal development even at extremely low levels of lead. In adults, it can cause irritability, poor muscle coordination, and nerve damage to the sense organs and nerves controlling the body. Lead poisoning may also cause problems with reproduction (such as a decreased sperm count). It may also increase blood pressure. Thus, young children, fetuses, infants, and adults with high blood pressure are the most vulnerable to the effects of lead.’‘ Gross symptoms of lead poisoning also include seizures, palsy, loss of control of the limbs, and impairment of hearing and sight.
The problem of lead poisoning of children was first reported in 1892. More then a century later, it remains a problem; and lead is now known to cause many problems in adults as well. Of forensic interest in this essay, however, are the consequences of lead poisoning of yesterday’s children.
By the mid 1900s, medical authorities acknowledged that the effects of lead poisoning could be permanent. Victims had trouble concentrating and learning, and they exhibited aggressiveness, explosive tempers and violent behavior. Their nervous systems had been seriously impaired, and they lacked an ability to foresee consequences of their behavior.
Studies have shown that tendencies toward violence can be counteracted by good parenting that includes love and nurturing and sometimes by pharmaceutical products such as lithium, Prozac and Zoloft. A treatment for lead poisoning is chelation therapy, which involves drinking a chemical that binds to lead in blood and ushers it from the body in urine.
2. Residents of Over-the-Rhine that are of note include Anna Marie Hahn, who poisoned a series of men for financial gain. She was the first woman to be executed (in 1938) in the state of Ohio.
Nicholas (Nick) Clooney, a journalist, anchorman and television host, also lived in Over-the-Rhine. He was the brother of the late Rosemary Clooney and is the father of George Clooney.
Another resident was Venus Ramey, who was the Miss America of 1944.
Yet another resident was Levi Coffin, a descendant of Tristam Coffin. Tristam was one of nine persons who bought Nantucket from the Indians. By the time Levi moved to the OTR in 1847, he had already helped several thousand escaped slaves along the Underground Railroad. Once there, he helped another 1,300 to safety. He was often referred to as the President of the Underground Railroad.
One of the escaping slaves was a woman who carried her child across treacherous ice on the Ohio River. Readers might recognize her as the model for the Eliza Harris character in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. That Eliza was also the Eliza of the phrase ‘’Eliza crossing the ice,’‘ which refers to a narrow escape.
Since 1983, the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood, which includes 943 contributing buildings, has been listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Among the buildings are those that comprise the largest collection of Italianate architecture in the United States. The area puts one in mind of the historic areas of Charleston, New Orleans (French Quarter), New York (Greenwich Village) and Savannah. The Over-the-Rhine area is thought to be the largest and most intact urban historic district in the United States.
Unfortunately, by the end of the 1900s, it had become so infamous for its poverty that one magazine referred to it as a “ground zero in inner-city decline.” Fortunately, one positive result was that crime and a decreasing population lowered the cost of property. This stimulated developers to begin buying and renovating many historic buildings. Hundreds of millions of dollars have since been invested, and the crime rate has been steadily declining.
By Bev Vincent, on March 17th, 2012
I once put a Nobel Laureate to sleep.
I grew up in a rural part of a sparsely populated province in eastern Canada. I only knew of famous people through books and television. I never thought I would get to rub arms with a celebrity or talk to someone famous. Even after I moved to Halifax to attend university, I felt like I was at the edge of the universe. We thought we hit the big times when Supertramp or Chris de Burgh came to town. Someone like Elton John would never venture so far off the beaten track.
My first encounter with celebrity took place when I was working for the town newspaper in northern New Brunswick for a summer job. The mill wasn’t hiring students any more (it has since closed). I was a cub reporter, in effect. Taking notes at town council meetings and snapping pictures during the summer festival. Sitting in on court sessions. Then came the Royal Visit: Prince Charles and Princess Diana came to town, of all places. It was a fleeting visit, but everyone in town turned out. A couple of my fellow reporters got press credentials, but I didn’t. I was in the crowd with everyone else, and I got to shake Diana’s hand. (Turns out, the reporters with press credentials were cordoned off in a different area and didn’t even get close. My lucky day!) It was one of those heart-pounding moments when time seems to stand still. It was over twenty years ago, and I remember it like it was yesterday.
When I went to graduate school, my thesis adviser arranged a visit by his former adviser, who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1964. She was well into her seventies when she came to our university. Still sharp, but in a wheel chair some of the time. My adviser put me in his little closet of an office with her for an hour so I could tell her all about my research. It was a warm summer day. The room grew stifling. She nodded off. I was a nervous wreck, prattling on about alkylammonium hexachlorostannates. I was convinced she didn’t hear more than a few words of what I said, but she later told my adviser she thought I was “sharp.”
Being in science, you tend to meet up with famous people at conventions (I met Linus Pauling at one), and as you work your way up the academic ladder, but it’s still always a little strange.
Shortly after I came to Texas in 1987, I heard that Stephen King was going to be signing in Houston. I took a Greyhound bus 120 miles each way to attend the event. Only chance I’ll ever get, I thought at the time. My wife got me tickets to see Ray Bradbury when he was in town a bunch of years ago. One of my all-time favorite writers. Never in a zillion years growing up in eastern Canada did I ever expect I’d get to shake his hand and have my picture taken with him.
Since I started writing and publishing in 1999, I’ve gotten to meet and become friends with a number of authors and other celebrities. It always seems surreal. My nerves still get the better of me.
As I write this, I’m battling nerves yet again. For my current project, I’ve had to interview quite a few people. You’d probably recognize some of the names. Today as I write this (the day before this post goes live), if all goes according to plan, I’ll be interviewing an Academy Award winning screenwriter. It’s a daunting proposition. To top things off, our home phone decided to act up this morning, adding to my stress level. Tomorrow, again if everything goes according to plan—these are very busy people and schedules can get changed on a moment’s notice—I will be interviewing an actor-turned-director whose name you would undoubtedly recognize.
OK, this doesn’t have very much to do with writing—except that many of these opportunities came my way because of writing projects or writing conferences. With an April 1 deadline for my next book, and all these interviews to conduct and transcribe and incorporate into the book, I don’t have much spare time to write an essay for Storytellers Unplugged this month.
Except, as I see, I sort of accidentally did.
By Thomas Sullivan, on March 15th, 2012
Wazzup, World? Goin’ for the jugular here. This month’s column is gonna lay out the case for: What You Should Spend Your Hard-Earned Moolah and Precious Time Reading. Too glib? Okay…rephrase. This month’s column is: A Discussion of the Best and Worst Genres. Too blunt? No problem…upgrade to: A Polemic on the “A Priori” Attributes of Meritworthy Prose. Blah. All right…the essay this month is: Good Writing vs. Bad. Except for one thing…
No matter how I style the title, I can’t tell one from the other, even as an example in kind of good or bad writing.
Haven’t a clue. On the other hand, I’m reasonably sure no one else can make a universally agreed-upon distinction between good writing and bad either. This is not a face-saving position for a writer to take. Still, readers know what’s good or bad, don’t they? The reader in each of us has no doubt whatever. Consider the following:
Hannibal Gacy Geronimo from East Mungleopolis requires three copiously bleeding murders per chapter in order to avoid snoring. Arty Pharty hates stories in which something actually happens. Brandy Bonbon reads three books a week about women made beautiful by buff men with x-ray vision who see only their souls. A. B. Cee prefers one-syllable words and anything past two gives him lip cramps as he sounds them out. Howie Bangs reads from the waist down and pictures are a plus. Gramma R. Wooden gets heartburn whenever she sees a dangling participle and will read a sentence fragment over and over until it completes itself or she gets a migraine, whichever comes first. Al L. Gore zones out and does a face plant across any page with less than a graphic description of a pint of bile and two cups of other bodily fluids. Dewey Gettit goes catatonic whenever he reads a metaphor — you know, things like Snow White or Sleeping Beauty or Rip van Winkle or… And while Hugh G. Warfann loves a book about a man who stabs a blood-lust herd of saber-toothed tree shrews to death before taking out six laser-guided missile sites and saving the Universe from the do-deca-nano-mega bomb planted in a baby pacifier, Bambi Hart only wants to know how said hero FEELS about his wife and children while his life is passing before his eyes.
Bambi may have it right, if there is a right. At least in so far as all stories need to get us on board emotionally. Reader identification. People Stories. But is there a Golden Mean that reaches all those readers, a one-size-fits-all approach for the writer trying to communicate universally? Can a writer appeal across content lines in a preference neutral style?
Short answer, no. Oh, you can try to get it all in, but that’s like feeding each animal on Noah’s Ark every other species food. Call that forced diet dim sum dumb, because you’ll wind up with all partakers who have an opposable thumb shoving it down their throats. Still, across categories there is common ground in the use or omission of certain content and stylistic elements. These have mostly to do with emphasis and proportion, I believe – in other words, how you serve up what you serve up. But before you can decide the “how” you have to consider carefully what the choices are. If you simply go with your artistic reflexes, you won’t have that choice (which is fine so long as you understand your narrowed focus). Here are just a few balance elements that even in the most tightly strictured genre can help a writer adjust their aim to either narrow (fine tune) or broaden their range of readers. I’ll present them as opposing couplets that represent reader preferences:
ACTION (spell it out, for crying out loud) VS. INFERENCE (oh, please, let me figure it out a little and don’t bore me with tired sensory bombardments – even adrenaline can become a cliché)
CHARACTERS DRIVEN BY FEAR (jangle me with cheap thrills and confirm my cynicisms about life) VS. CHARACTERS DRIVEN BY DESIRE (give me hope and fulfill my fantasies)
NARRATION (take me for a tightrope walk between show & tell) VS. DIALOG (let me overhear life just like it really happens)
THINGS & EVENTS (I know who I am, just put me some place and do something) VS. IDEAS & PEOPLE (been there, done that, so show me the impact and skip the meaningless action – if a tree falls and there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a…?)
PHYSICAL DETAIL (describe, describe, please) VS. EMOTIONAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL DETAIL (…yes, but what’s going on below the surface?)
ENHANCED LANGUAGE (metaphors, images, adjectives etc) VS. LITERAL LANGUAGE (grunt level nouns and verbs, please!)
ASSOCIATIVE FLOW OF TIME AND MEMORY (let me move freely through all aspects of people and their stories) VS. SEQUENTIAL WRITING (and then and then and then…)
There are many more juxtapositions, of course; but these are the potential imbalances I see that so often deny category writers a general readership and lock them into the most dogmatic corner within a genre. Of course, you can do it all wonderfully right and you are still at the mercy of market perceptions and how you are promoted even after you are published. Lots of luck on that one…
And I’ll close with deepest thanks for the astonishing volume of response from last month’s Q&A column [ http://storytellersunplugged.com/thomassullivan/2012/02/15/thomas-sullivan-of-silver-souls-and-carousels/ ]. Clearly many readers identified with me or my soulmate. Advice, opinions and questions crossed all borders, and I very much appreciate the feelings and frustrations you shared. Still weighing how to respond in some future Sullygram. Meanwhile, being of Irish persuasion, I offer you this St. Paddy’s Day wisdom: The trouble with a bore is that he lacks the power of conversation but not the power of speech.
Thomas “Sully” Sullivan
http://www.thomassullivanauthor.com
http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=1219261326
http://twitter.com/thomassullivan
http://www.amazon.com/The-Martyring-ebook/dp/B0069CIFL4/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1321818520&sr=1-1
By Bill Lindblad, on March 11th, 2012
World Horror Convention 2012 occurs roughly three weeks from now. I’m going to spend more than 40 hours on the road to get there and back again, and I’m going to be in the dealer’s room for another twenty to twenty-five hours. The transit time is unusual but the room time isn’t. On top of that, I’ll be doing about twenty hours of preparation work finding and arranging the books and magazines I’ll be bringing. This is an opportunity for which I’ll pay anywhere from $60 to $400 per table, depending on the convention.
With the money generated by dealer’s rooms and the work put into them by the dealers, there’s no reason for so many bad experiences. I believe the problem comes from the expectations and focus of the con staff. They consistently do well at the most important things: I have never had anyone steal from my table overnight, I have watched as door guards stopped people without badges from entering, and I have even seen a thief caught. In other matters, dealer’s rooms often vary widely. I’m going to present some of the best and some of the worst ideas I’ve seen.
BEST:
The Food Runner
This is a brilliant idea that has caught on at some conventions. The reason behind it it simply: many dealers are covering their tables alone. They eat just before the dealer’s room opens and again after it closes. This results in hungry, somewhat crabby dealers. In recognition of this situation, some conventions have staff members walk through the dealer’s room and offer to go on a lunch run. The source of the lunch run is identified (usually a fast food venue nearby or the hotel dining room) and orders are taken, money collected. About an hour later, the runner returns and distributes the food to the participating dealers.
Bathroom breaks
Similar in methodology to the previous item, someone from staff coming around to the single-dealer tables and offering to watch their table during a bathroom break is something which many dealers greatly appreciate. Necessity has created a system where dealers will ask neighbors to watch their tables while they’re gone and prevent anyone from stealing things, but having a trustworthy con volunteer stepping in (possibly even keeping a potential buyer around until they can return) is greatly appreciated.
The Change Person
This is a new phenomenon I’ve rarely encountered, but hope to experience more often. A person goes from table to table and checks to see if they need change. The person has stacks of ones, fives, and tens and will exchange them for twenties, fifties and hundreds. One of the problems encountered by dealers is the tendency for person after person to pay in large denominations, typically just pulled from a nearby ATM. The change person isn’t seen very often, but is adored when they are around.
WORST:
Variable Hours
Every person in the dealer room wants to make money. This happens only when people purchase the items for sale, and they can only purchase them when the dealer’s room is open. If people don’t know when the room is open, people don’t enter and no sales are made. I have seen the dealer’s room held back from opening on time because door guards weren’t available and I have seen the hours extended in an effort to encourage more sales. Unfortunately, there are other factors involved besides sale opportunity, and those include things like meals, arranged meetings, and event attendance. Hours should never be extended or diminished without giving the dealers at least a full day to change their plans, and hour changes should be posted in as many places as possible.
PRODUCT WARNING
When a dealer purchases a table, they are investing money and time in an effort to reap a profit. While there is no legal reason that a convention should warn potential dealers away, there are moral reasons. Some vendors do not fit with a convention, and are very likely to lose money on the venture. If such a prospective dealer is warned of the disparity ahead of time, there is rarely any problem: they knew the risks and took their chances. If they are not warned, anger and resentment grow and become bad publicity for future conventions. I have seen media stars at literary conventions instead of their usual conventions. Instead of getting lines of people paying $20 or more per autograph they’re usually lucky to sell five signed phots all weekend. I’ve seen authors selling at comic book cons and vice versa, webcomic people at anime conventions, and possibly the oddest situation has been a person selling customized sex toys at a literary sf convention. Sometimes it works, often it doesn’t, and failing to warn the dealer ahead of time is a bad mistake from the con staff.
BAD HOURS
Dealers are people too, and most of them are fans. While they are certain to miss almost every panel, it adds to the value of the show if the hours are arranged to allow them some participation. Some huge conventions, like Worldcon, start programming early in part to facilitate this. But a smaller convention that schedules all of the programming against the dealer’s room time is just asking for unhappy dealers. And unhappy dealers may not return.
And the one big point of debate:
OPEN DEALER’S ROOM
Depending on the convention, this can be a terrible or wonderful idea. There are people for whom the dealer’s room is the center of the convention, and if they can get in for free they won’t bother to pay to attend the con. On the other hand, an open room can add to exposure for the field and increase sales for the dealers. In my estimation, if a convention is expecting a thousand or fewer attendees, an open dealer’s room is a great idea. A smaller convention can live or die by the publicity they generate, and that includes expanding their fan base. If they’re expecting more than a thousand, or if it’s at a venue where the majority of attendees won’t be interested in panels (like at a college) they’re better off considering keeping it closed. Either way, it should be considered, and it usually isn’t.
|
|