David Lubar's Blog, page 3
March 1, 2012
Weeniedex!
Or Weendex, or even Windex. Call it what you will, I've created a topical index to all the Weenies short stories, along with a separate language-arts related index. If you are a teacher or librarian, you might find it useful.
Check it out. Tell your peers.
Check it out. Tell your peers.
February 14, 2012
A brief Valentine's scene
From Sleeping Freshmen Never Lie:
"Happy artificial holiday with strong commercial overtones." Lee handed me a wrinkled white paper bag. She was wearing a shirt with a heart on it. I guess in honor of Valentine's day. Except it was a real heart.
"Happy that to you, too." I looked inside the bag and shook it a bit. Jelly beans. All black. "I don't have anything for you."
"Reciprocity is not mandatory," she said.
"Now that would make a good t-shirt."
"Happy artificial holiday with strong commercial overtones." Lee handed me a wrinkled white paper bag. She was wearing a shirt with a heart on it. I guess in honor of Valentine's day. Except it was a real heart.
"Happy that to you, too." I looked inside the bag and shook it a bit. Jelly beans. All black. "I don't have anything for you."
"Reciprocity is not mandatory," she said.
"Now that would make a good t-shirt."
February 10, 2012
Can we combat ignorance?
I suspect many people will be discussing the latest Santorum quote: "I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat."
I'll leave it to others to attack the main issue. For me, the glaring part was "even more unique." As anyone who works with words could tell you, it is bad form to modify a superlative. True, we have fallen into the habit of using phrases such as "very best," but "unique" is special, not just because it is a superlative, but because it is the superlative that most grammar weenies wait to pounce upon when modified. It is, in essence, one of the "gotchas." Or, to go meta and describe in by way of another pet term of grammar lovers, it is a shibboleth. Even the more-permissive grammarians, who might allow "more unique," would probably blanch at "even more unique."
By the way, I'm fully aware that any post about grammar will have at least one glaring error. Say lah vee.
I'll leave it to others to attack the main issue. For me, the glaring part was "even more unique." As anyone who works with words could tell you, it is bad form to modify a superlative. True, we have fallen into the habit of using phrases such as "very best," but "unique" is special, not just because it is a superlative, but because it is the superlative that most grammar weenies wait to pounce upon when modified. It is, in essence, one of the "gotchas." Or, to go meta and describe in by way of another pet term of grammar lovers, it is a shibboleth. Even the more-permissive grammarians, who might allow "more unique," would probably blanch at "even more unique."
By the way, I'm fully aware that any post about grammar will have at least one glaring error. Say lah vee.
February 5, 2012
Rick Santorum fails to hit a Homer
I know there's a big game on, but I need to talk about something else. (And it's pretty obvious to me who will win. It's going to be the Denver Brocnos, proving once and for all the miraculous powers contained in the prayers of a devout athlete.) But to the matter at hand...
Rick Santorum, in a recent doomsday speech at a university, said, "Go back and read what the sirens did once you arrived on that island. They devour you. They destroy you. They consume you."
Any fifth grader, any college student who halfway paid attention while reading Homer, and (I'd like to hope) many of the folks who read this blog, would blink or frown in puzzlement at this statement. Devour? No way. The Sirens lured sailors to their island. Depending on which source you go to, the sailors either stayed on the island for the rest of their lives or perished in the attempt to get there. Where the heck did Santorum get the idea they devoured anyone? I especially love that he began with, "Go back and read..." Good advice, twit. Oh, and here's another tricky little thought that might contain too much logic for Santorum and his ilk. If you believe in any form of the Apocalypse as described in Revelation, then you can't also believe that man will destroy the world. You can't end something twice. But that's another matter.
Now, as much as it's pleasant to make fun of him and his ridiculous ideas, there's a deeper problem here. The media should have been all over it. It has all the elements for a perfect story. (Especially given the "go back and read" part and the fact that he said it at a university and nobody corrected him.) But the story of this error received almost no coverage, as far as I can see. I'm just hoping this doesn't mean we have a generation of underschooled reporters following around a generation of badly educated candidates. Let's hope it just means all the smartest reporters have already stopped listening to Santorum. (Guess what, Rick? You're candidacy is living in the end times.)
Okay -- back to the nachos.
Rick Santorum, in a recent doomsday speech at a university, said, "Go back and read what the sirens did once you arrived on that island. They devour you. They destroy you. They consume you."
Any fifth grader, any college student who halfway paid attention while reading Homer, and (I'd like to hope) many of the folks who read this blog, would blink or frown in puzzlement at this statement. Devour? No way. The Sirens lured sailors to their island. Depending on which source you go to, the sailors either stayed on the island for the rest of their lives or perished in the attempt to get there. Where the heck did Santorum get the idea they devoured anyone? I especially love that he began with, "Go back and read..." Good advice, twit. Oh, and here's another tricky little thought that might contain too much logic for Santorum and his ilk. If you believe in any form of the Apocalypse as described in Revelation, then you can't also believe that man will destroy the world. You can't end something twice. But that's another matter.
Now, as much as it's pleasant to make fun of him and his ridiculous ideas, there's a deeper problem here. The media should have been all over it. It has all the elements for a perfect story. (Especially given the "go back and read" part and the fact that he said it at a university and nobody corrected him.) But the story of this error received almost no coverage, as far as I can see. I'm just hoping this doesn't mean we have a generation of underschooled reporters following around a generation of badly educated candidates. Let's hope it just means all the smartest reporters have already stopped listening to Santorum. (Guess what, Rick? You're candidacy is living in the end times.)
Okay -- back to the nachos.
February 2, 2012
The fresh air was nice
So, for those who followed along, we had an interesting discussion during the past several days, exploring whether men have an advantage in kidlit. A blog's comment section isn't the ideal place for an extended dialogue, so I suspect the conversation will die out soon, if it hasn't already. But I need to do a bit of wrap-up. First, I want to thank everyone who participated. It was great to hear from authors, librarians, and award judges. (Thank you for keeping it civil, too.) Second, just to sum the it all up, several things seem to have been established, or at least well argued. First, we shouldn't mistake public discussions for what happens in award meetings. Second, many of the writers are not concerned about intentional bias, but about subconscious bias. Some fairly good arguments were given to bolster the belief that women face biases in many areas. (Confidential to ANON#2 -- you made some excellent points. I hope you disclose your secret identity to me, via email, so I know who I'm praising. I can keep a secret.) I have to say it's pretty obvious to anyone who functions in the real world that women have to deal with far more types of subtle and subconscious bias than men do. But one cure for that is revelation and discussion.
Thanks again, all who played the game. I'll get back to funny stuff in my next post.
Oh -- one more thing. If you feel badly about not getting a Newbery, a Printz, or some other award or honor, think about this -- just being eligible means you had a book published. That's a pretty awesome achievement. You rock.
Thanks again, all who played the game. I'll get back to funny stuff in my next post.
Oh -- one more thing. If you feel badly about not getting a Newbery, a Printz, or some other award or honor, think about this -- just being eligible means you had a book published. That's a pretty awesome achievement. You rock.
January 31, 2012
And the winner is -- the Y chromosome
I recently posted a question on a listserve for librarians, asking whether there is a bias toward males in kidlit awards and promotion. Some interesting and informative responses resulted, as did some interesting replies to those responses in various private message boards. In the interest of generating a more-public discussion, and allowing everyone to talk in the same place, I'm posting my original question here (with slight modifications to remove the library-specific aspects). ANother interesting blog post, focusing on the Caldecott, can be found here.
START OF ORIGINAL POST
There's been a passionate discussion among authors about whether (or why) there seems to be a disparity between the ratio of male to female authors and the ration of male to female award and honors recipients. Many of the female authors I know would love to see the issue discussed in public, but most feel it would seem whiny for the affected side to raise the issue. (I can testify that none of the parties in the discussion is in any way whiny.) Anyhow, I figured it would make for a good discussion (and might shed some light on aspects the authors hadn't considered), so here's the basic issue. Based on various unscientific methods, there seem to be far more women than men writing YA. (All that follows holds true for books for younger readers, and for illustrators, too, but I'll stick with YA since it
takes less time to type.) The ratio could be as high as 7 or 8 to 1. (While scanning a Goodreads list of all YA from 2011, I ran into such a high female-to-male ratio that I had to take a break and get a testosterone shot.) The ratio of male to female award and honors winner for the major awards, over the years, is about 1 to 1. (Interestingly, BFYA -- Best Fiction for Young Adults -- ran 2 to 1 female this year, and 4 to 1 for top 10.)
So, we have the fact of the award ratio, and the probable fact of the writer ratio. Now, we get to the discussion issues. It boils down to two questions. 1. Is there a bias toward males when it comes to industry recognition? 2. If there is a bias, where does it come from? If the answer to #1 is "no," then #2 is moot. Note that there seem to be two ways to disprove bias. You could show that the ratio is actually closer to 1 to 1. Or you could show that the ratio of books which might reasonably be considered for awards and honors is closer to 1 to 1. (This is one of the areas where the expertise of librarians would come in handy.)
Those who believe there is a bias have offered various explanations. The most common claim is that publishers tend to promote male authors more than female authors. Again, librarians, being on the target end of much of the promotion, should be able to offer some insights. Those of you who receive boxes of books should be able to share some thoughts. Another issue is the ratio of female to male librarians. Some writers wonder whether this has any affect on awards. (Don't shoot the messenger.)
There are a lot of people out there who would love to hear your thoughts on this. I hope some of them will slip into the discussion with their own insights. And, just to make sure I'm not the target of any cranky responses, I have to emphasize that I'm interested in the issue, but not involved or invested. For me, this is purely an academic question.
END OF ORIGINAL POST
One issue I neglected to mention was that of physical appearance. Many feel that there are vastly different standards in the publishing world when it comes to what is acceptable or desirable in male and female authors. Some feel that more men than women are sent on book tours. Some feel that men have an advantage when conferences book speakers. Obviously, many of these issues aren't restricted to publishing. (There's been a similar discussion on SUMO-bk, for example.)
I look forward to a spirited discussion. I hope some of you who posted in the listserve will copy your posts here.
START OF ORIGINAL POST
There's been a passionate discussion among authors about whether (or why) there seems to be a disparity between the ratio of male to female authors and the ration of male to female award and honors recipients. Many of the female authors I know would love to see the issue discussed in public, but most feel it would seem whiny for the affected side to raise the issue. (I can testify that none of the parties in the discussion is in any way whiny.) Anyhow, I figured it would make for a good discussion (and might shed some light on aspects the authors hadn't considered), so here's the basic issue. Based on various unscientific methods, there seem to be far more women than men writing YA. (All that follows holds true for books for younger readers, and for illustrators, too, but I'll stick with YA since it
takes less time to type.) The ratio could be as high as 7 or 8 to 1. (While scanning a Goodreads list of all YA from 2011, I ran into such a high female-to-male ratio that I had to take a break and get a testosterone shot.) The ratio of male to female award and honors winner for the major awards, over the years, is about 1 to 1. (Interestingly, BFYA -- Best Fiction for Young Adults -- ran 2 to 1 female this year, and 4 to 1 for top 10.)
So, we have the fact of the award ratio, and the probable fact of the writer ratio. Now, we get to the discussion issues. It boils down to two questions. 1. Is there a bias toward males when it comes to industry recognition? 2. If there is a bias, where does it come from? If the answer to #1 is "no," then #2 is moot. Note that there seem to be two ways to disprove bias. You could show that the ratio is actually closer to 1 to 1. Or you could show that the ratio of books which might reasonably be considered for awards and honors is closer to 1 to 1. (This is one of the areas where the expertise of librarians would come in handy.)
Those who believe there is a bias have offered various explanations. The most common claim is that publishers tend to promote male authors more than female authors. Again, librarians, being on the target end of much of the promotion, should be able to offer some insights. Those of you who receive boxes of books should be able to share some thoughts. Another issue is the ratio of female to male librarians. Some writers wonder whether this has any affect on awards. (Don't shoot the messenger.)
There are a lot of people out there who would love to hear your thoughts on this. I hope some of them will slip into the discussion with their own insights. And, just to make sure I'm not the target of any cranky responses, I have to emphasize that I'm interested in the issue, but not involved or invested. For me, this is purely an academic question.
END OF ORIGINAL POST
One issue I neglected to mention was that of physical appearance. Many feel that there are vastly different standards in the publishing world when it comes to what is acceptable or desirable in male and female authors. Some feel that more men than women are sent on book tours. Some feel that men have an advantage when conferences book speakers. Obviously, many of these issues aren't restricted to publishing. (There's been a similar discussion on SUMO-bk, for example.)
I look forward to a spirited discussion. I hope some of you who posted in the listserve will copy your posts here.
January 6, 2012
The Daily News Myers Itself
I posted this on YALSA-bk, where there's been a bit of discussion about the Daily News piece that trashed Walter Dean Myers, but I figured I'd share it with a larger audience. (That means both of you, my two loyal readers.)
The hot-issue quote seems to be "The purpose of literature is to elevate." Honestly, I can't argue with this. I know, more than once, when I needed to grab something that was just out of reach, I stood on a book. It really works. I was elevated. Though all literature isn't equal. The later Harry Potters do a much better job of elevating than those really thin books like The Dubliners.
Seriously, the whole thesis of this article, as stated in the headline, is spurious. You can't dumb down literature. Literature comprises a spectrum of depths. You certainly can't ascribe a universal purpose to it. Homer was probably writing to preserve history, and to show off his mad rapping skills. I doubt he saw himself as an elevator. I know that when I write, my main goal is to entertain. I'd like to think some of my output counts as literature. Alas, I'll be dead and cold before the final vote is tallied. Writers don't make literature. Time does.
Really, the bottom line to all of this requires me to use a slight bit profanity. For anyone to write this sort of article right after Mr. Myers was named kidlit ambassador is basically just a self indulgent and shitty thing. It is the opposite of elevation.
The hot-issue quote seems to be "The purpose of literature is to elevate." Honestly, I can't argue with this. I know, more than once, when I needed to grab something that was just out of reach, I stood on a book. It really works. I was elevated. Though all literature isn't equal. The later Harry Potters do a much better job of elevating than those really thin books like The Dubliners.
Seriously, the whole thesis of this article, as stated in the headline, is spurious. You can't dumb down literature. Literature comprises a spectrum of depths. You certainly can't ascribe a universal purpose to it. Homer was probably writing to preserve history, and to show off his mad rapping skills. I doubt he saw himself as an elevator. I know that when I write, my main goal is to entertain. I'd like to think some of my output counts as literature. Alas, I'll be dead and cold before the final vote is tallied. Writers don't make literature. Time does.
Really, the bottom line to all of this requires me to use a slight bit profanity. For anyone to write this sort of article right after Mr. Myers was named kidlit ambassador is basically just a self indulgent and shitty thing. It is the opposite of elevation.
December 29, 2011
Oops, I did it eGain
So, having discovered how amazingly easy it is to publish an eBook (not counting the multi-week learning curve or that fact that publishing is 1,000 times easier than publicizing), I decided to put together something that might interest the teens and adults who are already reading my books. It gives me giddy pleasure to introduce my brand-new publication.
A Sharp Collection
A Sharp CollectionMany things can pierce – sharpened stakes, fencing swords, cat's claws, short stories, ideas, earrings, and love, to name just a few. This collection of eleven penetrating stories, gathered from my contributions to YA anthologies, contains some of my favorite pieces, including a slapstick account of a young man sent on a mortifying mission by the girl he loves, a tale about the mysteries of faith and belief, and a comedy of errors where a Transylvanian immigrant arouses suspicion in the darkness of the Alaskan winter. I've had the pleasure of writing short stories for the best anthologists in the YA world. Now, I have the pleasure of sharing those stories with my readers in one sharp collection.
Only $2.99
Get it for the NOOK at Barnes & Noble
Get if for the Kindle at Amazon.com
Get it in ePub, mobi, pdf, and other formats at Smashwords. com
December 23, 2011
I have the coolest fans
Really -- they really help keep the temperature down in the summer. Wait. No. Wrong fans. Sorry. I got up too early. Speaking of which, I woke up to find, via Twitter, that the amazing librariansdaughter (as she is known on YouTube) made a video blog post about my eBook. I'm tickled. And I'm sure she'd be pleased if you took a moment to watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdaRalkMg_0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdaRalkMg_0
December 7, 2011
My premature thoughts on being a frozen embryo
I should probably keep my mouth shut about the news that Amazon has purchased Marshall Cavendish's kids book until things become clearer. Whatever I say will annoy someone. But if I can broadcast my feeling about the loathsome snarkiness of Kirkus Reviews and be so audacious as to tell folks at the ALA that Best Books was broken and needed to be fixed (which eventually happened, though you'd have thought I was suggesting they decapitate puppies and make slippers out of them), I guess I can take another dump in public. A couple years ago, I had a manuscript that wasn't right for my publisher. It was a project from the heart. I had no expectations for major sales, but I wanted to get it out on the market. I even thought about printing it myself. It was that kind of book. Last year, while sitting next to Margery Cuyler at a book signing, I pitched it to her. She liked it. We made a deal. The book is scheduled for the fall of 2013. I met my Cavendish editor, and liked her. I was excited, end they were enthusiastic. That's a good combination.
When I saw the news this morning, my first thought was that I knew how a slave felt when he was sold. But that's bullshit. Slavery, rape, and the Holocaust are far too dreadful to be used metaphorically for every sling, arrow, and hangnail. This, in truth, was just about a book, and not about my survival, honor, or freedom. My editor, who was wonderfully responsive and will probably be spending the next 24 hours on the phone, did assuage my initial fears. The book would still be published as planned. Which brings up my newer, better metaphor. I feel like a frozen embryo, or perhaps a puppy (with its head still intact) trapped in a custody battle. If Amazon prints this book, will Barnes and Noble and the indies stock it? I don't want to antagonize them. I sell a lot of books through Barnes and Noble, and I sell a lot through indies, especially when I do school visits. If I decide to make some sort of self-destructive grand gesture and offer to buy back my contract, I piss off Amazon and Marhsall Cavendish. Amazon sells a lot of my books. I just published my first eBook, both there and on Barnes and Noble. I have friends at Marshall Cavendish. I don't want to piss off anyone. (Except for Kirkus.) I want everyone to like me. (This is a genetic defect common among Jews.) And I want everyone to buy my books. More than anything, I want to spend my time writing books, not sleuthing all over Google to try to figure out what this morning's news will mean to me two or three years down the road. It could be terrible. It could be the best thing that ever happeend to my career. Odds are, it will be neither. But I hope I never again wake up to the news that I've been sold.
Wait, forget the embryo. I feel like Joseph Merrick. "I am not a commodity! I am a man!"
When I saw the news this morning, my first thought was that I knew how a slave felt when he was sold. But that's bullshit. Slavery, rape, and the Holocaust are far too dreadful to be used metaphorically for every sling, arrow, and hangnail. This, in truth, was just about a book, and not about my survival, honor, or freedom. My editor, who was wonderfully responsive and will probably be spending the next 24 hours on the phone, did assuage my initial fears. The book would still be published as planned. Which brings up my newer, better metaphor. I feel like a frozen embryo, or perhaps a puppy (with its head still intact) trapped in a custody battle. If Amazon prints this book, will Barnes and Noble and the indies stock it? I don't want to antagonize them. I sell a lot of books through Barnes and Noble, and I sell a lot through indies, especially when I do school visits. If I decide to make some sort of self-destructive grand gesture and offer to buy back my contract, I piss off Amazon and Marhsall Cavendish. Amazon sells a lot of my books. I just published my first eBook, both there and on Barnes and Noble. I have friends at Marshall Cavendish. I don't want to piss off anyone. (Except for Kirkus.) I want everyone to like me. (This is a genetic defect common among Jews.) And I want everyone to buy my books. More than anything, I want to spend my time writing books, not sleuthing all over Google to try to figure out what this morning's news will mean to me two or three years down the road. It could be terrible. It could be the best thing that ever happeend to my career. Odds are, it will be neither. But I hope I never again wake up to the news that I've been sold.
Wait, forget the embryo. I feel like Joseph Merrick. "I am not a commodity! I am a man!"
David Lubar's Blog
- David Lubar's profile
- 244 followers
David Lubar isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
