Ben Peek's Blog, page 12
June 3, 2013
The Life of an Author: Two Years Later.
In June two years ago, my then agent stopped representing me.
I wrote about it because it helped to write about it. I had always been honest about my life as a writer, but mostly, it just helped to write about it. It was a rough time and I did not know what was going to be the outcome.
I certainly did not believe that I would be where I am now. I have a new agent, a nice deal, and I honestly don't know what the future holds, though this time, it is positive unknowing.
I am not sure why, exactly, I want to make a post about the reversal of my fortunes, today. I originally wrote in 2011 that I thought that the experience ought to be educational to someone, and I reckon it is still the case, to people pushing that stone, trying to get their break.
It can happen.
You just got to hold in there.
It can be hard, though. If you haven't lived it, you might not know what exactly holding in there means, and the choices you have to make. A lot of the time, it is hard choices. Don't get me wrong, it helps to be supported by your partner, family, friends, but at the end of the day, you are making that choice. It can feel selfish. It can feel foolish. It can feel as if it is all just one long hustle that will never result in anything. I am entirely lucky that when I made my choices, I was supported, but that's not always the case. Partners, family, and friends can begin to doubt you, but more than that, they can want things as well--things you want to have with them, even, and holding in there can sometimes be the choice between your desires and your desires with those around you. I am lucky that it wasn't the case, but for others it is, and holding on is even harder, then. I can't honestly tell you what I think is more right. Anyone who promises an easy and simple answer is lying, I suspect.
There are now, more than ever, more ways to get what you want from publishing, but that doesn't mean it is easy. Hell, two years from now, after I have finished Incarnation, I might be writing an entirely different story than what I am writing now. I hope not, truly, but nothing is written in stone, and one break doesn't mean you can sit back and not continue to work for what comes after. But I am here, and things changed for me one way, and it is not the only way, and I would like for you to remember that. My way is not the only way. There's choices. Use them all.
Truthfully, I wish I could tell you that there was an amazing, insightful way to get from no agent, no publisher, and no prospects to the complete opposite. Myself, I sat down and wrote a new book. It was, at times, hard to do that: hard because of the previous experience, hard because I stopped writing short fiction for the most part, and didn't have the little rewards that that brings in to help me along. It was hard because I doubted myself--doubted that it would work out, doubted that I was doing the right thing, doubted it all and everything. At times, I stopped writing for a month or two, and finances saw me begin a new business, which highlighted the fact that, if I wanted, I could do something different for money. Finding the belief to stay with what I wanted in fiction was hard in this situation, a lot harder than I think I can convey to you. My friends and I often joke that my alter ego, Dr. Peek, who is a strangely respected and well paid individual, but for a while, it was hard to say no to that.
But I did.
I stuck it out.
Despite all the doubts, the concerns, the offers to go do something different, I held on to what I wanted.
And two years later, everything looks different.
There's a lesson in that, somewhere.
I wrote about it because it helped to write about it. I had always been honest about my life as a writer, but mostly, it just helped to write about it. It was a rough time and I did not know what was going to be the outcome.
I certainly did not believe that I would be where I am now. I have a new agent, a nice deal, and I honestly don't know what the future holds, though this time, it is positive unknowing.
I am not sure why, exactly, I want to make a post about the reversal of my fortunes, today. I originally wrote in 2011 that I thought that the experience ought to be educational to someone, and I reckon it is still the case, to people pushing that stone, trying to get their break.
It can happen.
You just got to hold in there.
It can be hard, though. If you haven't lived it, you might not know what exactly holding in there means, and the choices you have to make. A lot of the time, it is hard choices. Don't get me wrong, it helps to be supported by your partner, family, friends, but at the end of the day, you are making that choice. It can feel selfish. It can feel foolish. It can feel as if it is all just one long hustle that will never result in anything. I am entirely lucky that when I made my choices, I was supported, but that's not always the case. Partners, family, and friends can begin to doubt you, but more than that, they can want things as well--things you want to have with them, even, and holding in there can sometimes be the choice between your desires and your desires with those around you. I am lucky that it wasn't the case, but for others it is, and holding on is even harder, then. I can't honestly tell you what I think is more right. Anyone who promises an easy and simple answer is lying, I suspect.
There are now, more than ever, more ways to get what you want from publishing, but that doesn't mean it is easy. Hell, two years from now, after I have finished Incarnation, I might be writing an entirely different story than what I am writing now. I hope not, truly, but nothing is written in stone, and one break doesn't mean you can sit back and not continue to work for what comes after. But I am here, and things changed for me one way, and it is not the only way, and I would like for you to remember that. My way is not the only way. There's choices. Use them all.
Truthfully, I wish I could tell you that there was an amazing, insightful way to get from no agent, no publisher, and no prospects to the complete opposite. Myself, I sat down and wrote a new book. It was, at times, hard to do that: hard because of the previous experience, hard because I stopped writing short fiction for the most part, and didn't have the little rewards that that brings in to help me along. It was hard because I doubted myself--doubted that it would work out, doubted that I was doing the right thing, doubted it all and everything. At times, I stopped writing for a month or two, and finances saw me begin a new business, which highlighted the fact that, if I wanted, I could do something different for money. Finding the belief to stay with what I wanted in fiction was hard in this situation, a lot harder than I think I can convey to you. My friends and I often joke that my alter ego, Dr. Peek, who is a strangely respected and well paid individual, but for a while, it was hard to say no to that.
But I did.
I stuck it out.
Despite all the doubts, the concerns, the offers to go do something different, I held on to what I wanted.
And two years later, everything looks different.
There's a lesson in that, somewhere.
May 30, 2013
On Racism
Racism is not something you self identify with.
Think about that statement for a moment, while I fill in the background.
Over the last week, there has been a vague conversation taking place in Australia about racism. It is difficult to have a real conversation about racism in Australia, in part because to do so would be to admit that a lot of the country's foreign policy is based on racism. It goes much deeper and wider, as well--my girlfriend, who is American, is constantly shocked by the racist things we accept in the country (and it's not just about Coon cheese). But this particular conversation about race began when a thirteen year old girl called Sydney Swans player Adam Goode an ape while he was on field. Showing a hell of a lot of class, Goode made a public case not to vilify the girl, but to help her. It was an excellent thing to see, a moment of profound gravity and awareness of the situation that it turned an awful moment into something to admire... which of course, is about when Eddie McGuire called Adam Goode King Kong.
Since then, it has gotten ugly. McGuire has fronted the media, stated he isn't racist, that it was a slip of the tongue. People have defended him. People have attacked him. The good of Goode's original act has been completely lost and McGuire has said he'll wear the bad of it, but he isn't going anywhere.
Should he?
Personally, I believe not, but not because of any of the reasons that have been stated. There is a trend in the current media to take someone aside, put them in a box, and 'teach' them the error of their racist ways, off camera. Mostly, that teaching accounts to teaching them to watch what you say, and once the lesson is taught, the presenter, or whoever, returns to the mainstream media and everyone pretends it hasn't happened. You don't actually have to look far for that to see examples of it, most of it sport related in my recent memory. But I honestly don't believe that that is a reasonable way of dealing with the situation. It's all neat and swept under a rug, and it is all polite, and bloodless. For the majority of people involved--and for those who listen to these people--the over riding belief is that political correctness has gone to far, shrug it off, and come back later. Which is exactly why McGuire shouldn't be sent off to a box, but rather kept on air, and told to correct himself in front of everyone, repeatedly, and forever, if necessary.
The fact that is forgotten by many people is that racism is not something that you self identify with. A lot of the people who are caught being racist turn around and say something like, "Oh, hey, I'm not racist, that was a slip of the tongue, or a stupid thing to say." Some even have public work with disadvantaged indigenous youth. And though, when that comes up, I often feel like asking how much work they do with refugees, or if they volunteer in struggling African communities as well, the point is that they cannot be racist because they recognise the inequality that exists, and they strive to adjust it. Which, yes, is nice, but that doesn't mean they're not racist. It just means that they're not the small selection of people who will get on our TV and say how much they hate black people or yellow people or white people and then say, "At least I'm fucking honest about it," as if honesty somehow makes their hate somehow acceptable. That such people are now even giving birth to real political parties and movements is even more distressing, but they are still a minority, and even then, in those groups, people will say it isn't racism that drives them, but rather nationalism, and protecting their own people.
Most people are like that. Racist is not something that you decide to be. Racism actually doesn't work like that. It doesn't knock on the door and say, "Hi, I've worn my best hat of please insert colour you like." It sneaks into you. It gets in to the quiet little dark corners. When you look at two African kids sitting on the side of the road, it makes you think they're up to no good. It makes you think that the Asian girl ahead of you is quiet and submissive. It makes you think the white family down the road don't care about education. It's what makes you think that making a joke about King Kong, or black people lost in the dark, is alright, and not a huge problem, because, hey, you're not like that Golden Dawn Party in Greece who want to see birth certificates before they give you food.
Racism doesn't always work like that.
And it's time we all started remembering that.
Think about that statement for a moment, while I fill in the background.
Over the last week, there has been a vague conversation taking place in Australia about racism. It is difficult to have a real conversation about racism in Australia, in part because to do so would be to admit that a lot of the country's foreign policy is based on racism. It goes much deeper and wider, as well--my girlfriend, who is American, is constantly shocked by the racist things we accept in the country (and it's not just about Coon cheese). But this particular conversation about race began when a thirteen year old girl called Sydney Swans player Adam Goode an ape while he was on field. Showing a hell of a lot of class, Goode made a public case not to vilify the girl, but to help her. It was an excellent thing to see, a moment of profound gravity and awareness of the situation that it turned an awful moment into something to admire... which of course, is about when Eddie McGuire called Adam Goode King Kong.
Since then, it has gotten ugly. McGuire has fronted the media, stated he isn't racist, that it was a slip of the tongue. People have defended him. People have attacked him. The good of Goode's original act has been completely lost and McGuire has said he'll wear the bad of it, but he isn't going anywhere.
Should he?
Personally, I believe not, but not because of any of the reasons that have been stated. There is a trend in the current media to take someone aside, put them in a box, and 'teach' them the error of their racist ways, off camera. Mostly, that teaching accounts to teaching them to watch what you say, and once the lesson is taught, the presenter, or whoever, returns to the mainstream media and everyone pretends it hasn't happened. You don't actually have to look far for that to see examples of it, most of it sport related in my recent memory. But I honestly don't believe that that is a reasonable way of dealing with the situation. It's all neat and swept under a rug, and it is all polite, and bloodless. For the majority of people involved--and for those who listen to these people--the over riding belief is that political correctness has gone to far, shrug it off, and come back later. Which is exactly why McGuire shouldn't be sent off to a box, but rather kept on air, and told to correct himself in front of everyone, repeatedly, and forever, if necessary.
The fact that is forgotten by many people is that racism is not something that you self identify with. A lot of the people who are caught being racist turn around and say something like, "Oh, hey, I'm not racist, that was a slip of the tongue, or a stupid thing to say." Some even have public work with disadvantaged indigenous youth. And though, when that comes up, I often feel like asking how much work they do with refugees, or if they volunteer in struggling African communities as well, the point is that they cannot be racist because they recognise the inequality that exists, and they strive to adjust it. Which, yes, is nice, but that doesn't mean they're not racist. It just means that they're not the small selection of people who will get on our TV and say how much they hate black people or yellow people or white people and then say, "At least I'm fucking honest about it," as if honesty somehow makes their hate somehow acceptable. That such people are now even giving birth to real political parties and movements is even more distressing, but they are still a minority, and even then, in those groups, people will say it isn't racism that drives them, but rather nationalism, and protecting their own people.
Most people are like that. Racist is not something that you decide to be. Racism actually doesn't work like that. It doesn't knock on the door and say, "Hi, I've worn my best hat of please insert colour you like." It sneaks into you. It gets in to the quiet little dark corners. When you look at two African kids sitting on the side of the road, it makes you think they're up to no good. It makes you think that the Asian girl ahead of you is quiet and submissive. It makes you think the white family down the road don't care about education. It's what makes you think that making a joke about King Kong, or black people lost in the dark, is alright, and not a huge problem, because, hey, you're not like that Golden Dawn Party in Greece who want to see birth certificates before they give you food.
Racism doesn't always work like that.
And it's time we all started remembering that.
May 28, 2013
Wherein the World Beings to Learn About Cardinal Pell
Here’s a hint: When you’re talking about systematic coverups of child rape, it’s best to stick with apologizing. It’s good to remember that you can admit you’ve made mistakes without making the ludicrous, easily refuted claim that you’ve always been on the side of the victims, or humble bragging that the real problem is that you weren’t “gossips.” Doing the morally and legally responsible thing of acting when someone is abusing children is not, by the way, “gossip.” And you want to consider, while you’re explaining yourself to the world, that you still have much soul searching yet to do. Because right now, Pell remains a harrowing example of the evil of complacency.
Perhaps the most telling moment of Pell’s appearance wasn’t anything he said about the crimes on his colleagues or the litigation of victims. Instead it was when, on Monday, the deputy chairman of the committee, Frank McGuire, asked Pell point-blank, “Were you guilty of willful blindness?” And the man of God answered him confidently, “I certainly wasn’t.”
Link.
May 22, 2013
Rape and Gender in Fantasy Literature
On her blog, Tansy Rayner Roberts is talking about the gender roles of men and women in fantasy, in particular George RR Martin's The Song of Ice and Fire, with occasional references to the TV show. It has a lot of spoilers, as it would.
It is an interesting read, but the part that struck me was when Tansy wrote that "main characters who are women are threatened with rape on a near-constant basis, while men almost never are – there are a few instances, but such a tiny number in comparison to the massive weight of female rape & rape threats that they are statistically insignificant. Physical humiliation and degradation are heaped on male characters, don’t get me wrong, but like most literature ever, A Song of Ice and Fire exists in a reality bubble where no one is willing to acknowledge how common male-male rape is in situations involving war, slavery and well, history."
Sadly, I think Tansy missed a more telling, and more awful point: that the rape of women in fantasy literature is more acceptable and readable than the rape of men, performed either by women or by men (as equal problem in the rape narrative of women always being the victim is that men are always the perpetrator--all doors of victimisation swing both ways, sadly).
It is a terrible thing to accept, or even to agree with, and perhaps people will disagree with me, but that has always how I've interpreted the situation. It's ugly, there's no doubt about it. It's not right, either. I actually don't like that it exists, and I find, personally, that it is one of the things I actively strive against in my own work. I am not against rape events in literature--I am not against any narrative event, unlike the real world, where I am against all forms of rape--but you cannot have such a narrative event in your work and not be aware of the larger ramifications of it in your field, your world, etc. For fantasy literature, I find myself aware of the fact that the rape of women by men is an acceptable event in the work, not because it is pleasurable to read--though we can make the argument that it is readable, which in itself opens up a whole new set of ugly conclusions--but because the genre has made it an acceptable form of degradation against female characters.
Ugly, like I said.
It is an interesting read, but the part that struck me was when Tansy wrote that "main characters who are women are threatened with rape on a near-constant basis, while men almost never are – there are a few instances, but such a tiny number in comparison to the massive weight of female rape & rape threats that they are statistically insignificant. Physical humiliation and degradation are heaped on male characters, don’t get me wrong, but like most literature ever, A Song of Ice and Fire exists in a reality bubble where no one is willing to acknowledge how common male-male rape is in situations involving war, slavery and well, history."
Sadly, I think Tansy missed a more telling, and more awful point: that the rape of women in fantasy literature is more acceptable and readable than the rape of men, performed either by women or by men (as equal problem in the rape narrative of women always being the victim is that men are always the perpetrator--all doors of victimisation swing both ways, sadly).
It is a terrible thing to accept, or even to agree with, and perhaps people will disagree with me, but that has always how I've interpreted the situation. It's ugly, there's no doubt about it. It's not right, either. I actually don't like that it exists, and I find, personally, that it is one of the things I actively strive against in my own work. I am not against rape events in literature--I am not against any narrative event, unlike the real world, where I am against all forms of rape--but you cannot have such a narrative event in your work and not be aware of the larger ramifications of it in your field, your world, etc. For fantasy literature, I find myself aware of the fact that the rape of women by men is an acceptable event in the work, not because it is pleasurable to read--though we can make the argument that it is readable, which in itself opens up a whole new set of ugly conclusions--but because the genre has made it an acceptable form of degradation against female characters.
Ugly, like I said.
May 15, 2013
May 13, 2013
German Rights for Children Trilogy Sold
So, good news to share this morning:
Cool, hey?
Link.
(As a side note, this time I remember not to type 'German Rights for Children Sold'.)
Carsten Polzin at Piper Verlag has acquired German rights in three fantasy novels by Australian author Ben Peek from Jon Mitchell, Rights Manager at Pan Macmillan in a pre-emptive deal for a strong five-figure sum in Euros. Julie Crisp acquired World rights in the books from agent John Jarrold in April 2013 for a six-figure sum after an auction. Other authors on the Piper genre list include Robert Jordan, Ursula K Le Guin, Hannu Rajaniemi and Michael Ende.
The trilogy is called ‘Children’—the books are entitled IMMOLATION, INNOCENCE and INCARNATION. IMMOLATION is set fifteen thousand years after the War of the Gods. The bodies of the gods now lie across the world, slowly dying as men and women awake with strange powers that are derived from their bodies. Ayae, a young cartographer’s apprentice, is attacked and discovers she cannot be harmed by fire. Her new power makes her a target for an army that is marching on her home. With the help of the immortal Zaifyr, she is taught the awful history of ‘cursed’ men and women, coming to grips with her new powers and the enemies they make. The saboteur Bueralan infiltrates the army that is approaching her home to learn its terrible secret. Split between the three points of view, IMMOLATION’S narrative reaches its conclusion during an epic siege, where Ayae, Zaifyr and Bueralan are forced not just into conflict with those invading, but with those inside the city who wish to do them harm.
Cool, hey?
Link.
(As a side note, this time I remember not to type 'German Rights for Children Sold'.)
May 12, 2013
Space Oddity
Yeah, everyone is linking it round, but it's pretty cool.
May 8, 2013
Finding Vivian Maier
Here's my cool discovery for this morning.
May 6, 2013
Why Do I Still Have Eyes?
Below is the link to a kickstarter for the artist John Connell, organised by his son, the writer Brendan Connell.
Link.
It's a fantastic looking project--with a fantastic title--and Brendan has been posting various bits of his father's work over the last week on facebook, all of it terrific and wonderful, in my opinion. I haven't donated yet (I have a set of bills to pay in the next couple of weeks), but plan do so at the end of May, wherein I hope to find the project already funded and on the go, and my money will be only for prostitutes and drugs for those involved.
Why Do I Still Have Eyes?
A comprehensive book on the artist John Connell
In spring 2014 Radius Books, an award-winning non-profit publisher based in Santa Fe, New Mexico will be publishing a comprehensive book on John Connell. The book will be co-curated by Brendan Connell, who is the person responsible for this Kickstarter.
The Story
My father John Connell was one of the most well-respected artists to ever work in New Mexico. He showed his work at most of the major galleries and museums, painted murals around the state, and received wide recognition.
Though his work has been documented in numerous museum catalogues, newspapers and magazines, there has never been a comprehensive book of his work.
Shortly before he died, he and I and some of his colleagues had begun discussing the publication of a book on his work. It is my intention to see this project through to completion.
The Artist
John Connell (1940–2009) worked prolifically in painting, drawing and sculpture through a fifty year career. His first exhibitions were in New York City in the early 1960s and were early attempts at what would become the elaborate environments he is known for. He was the set designer for the San Francisco Mime Troupe, before moving to New Mexico. He is known for large installation pieces of figurative sculptures made from papier-mâché and tar, as well as his numerous drawings, paintings and sculptures made from a wide variety of materials. His work is in many public collections including The Albright-Knox Gallery, the Amon Carter Museum, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
The Fundraising
The book is planned for Spring of next year, and the publisher is a non-profit publishing company based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, who donates at least 300 copies of every title they publish to a nationwide network of libraries and schools, with the hope and expectation that these books will reach and inspire new audiences, particularly young people.
I have already raised $26,425 from various private donations and foundations.
However, an additional $5,575 is needed to meet the production budget goal.
The Book
The book will be a beautifully designed hardcover, with a cloth cover and dust jacket. Donald Hess, of the Hess Collection, has written a preface to the book. The art writer MaLin Wilson will write the introductory essay. Aside from numerous photos of John Connell’s art, there will also be samples of his writing. The back of the book will have a timeline and extensive biographical information put together by Brendan Connell.
Link.
It's a fantastic looking project--with a fantastic title--and Brendan has been posting various bits of his father's work over the last week on facebook, all of it terrific and wonderful, in my opinion. I haven't donated yet (I have a set of bills to pay in the next couple of weeks), but plan do so at the end of May, wherein I hope to find the project already funded and on the go, and my money will be only for prostitutes and drugs for those involved.
April 30, 2013
Two Days after Harper Lee's Birthday
A few days ago, it was Harper Lee's birthday. She was eighty-seven.
I first read To Kill a Mockingbird in my twenties and it quickly became one of my favourite books. It is not original to say that that: many people love it, after all. I cannot claim to have any new insight into it, but I will admit that I had read Truman Capote's In Cold Blood first, a book I also greatly love, and when I found out the connection between the two, it made me love both, even more. But I am like that: I like the little lines and webs between authors and books and I like the stories that nestle between books.
Perhaps one memory I will share, however, was one I had years after I'd read it, while I was teaching in a coaching college. A girl in year nine had been assigned to read it, and, "My teacher said he had only written one book?"
"He? Harper Lee is a woman."
"My teacher said he was a man."
"She's still a woman. Her first name is Nelle."
"So," the girl said, "she's a black woman?"
"No, she's a white woman."
"Oh."
The following week, she told me that her teacher didn't believe her. I told her she was free to look it up and she told me she had already done so. A week later, however, she told me that she quite enjoyed the book, which put her one up on me. At fifteen, I doubt I would have appreciated it.
One day, I reckon I'll buy a nice copy of it. According to Abebooks, it's only twenty five thousand dollars for a first edition, signed by the author herself.
Only, as they say.
I first read To Kill a Mockingbird in my twenties and it quickly became one of my favourite books. It is not original to say that that: many people love it, after all. I cannot claim to have any new insight into it, but I will admit that I had read Truman Capote's In Cold Blood first, a book I also greatly love, and when I found out the connection between the two, it made me love both, even more. But I am like that: I like the little lines and webs between authors and books and I like the stories that nestle between books.
Perhaps one memory I will share, however, was one I had years after I'd read it, while I was teaching in a coaching college. A girl in year nine had been assigned to read it, and, "My teacher said he had only written one book?"
"He? Harper Lee is a woman."
"My teacher said he was a man."
"She's still a woman. Her first name is Nelle."
"So," the girl said, "she's a black woman?"
"No, she's a white woman."
"Oh."
The following week, she told me that her teacher didn't believe her. I told her she was free to look it up and she told me she had already done so. A week later, however, she told me that she quite enjoyed the book, which put her one up on me. At fifteen, I doubt I would have appreciated it.
One day, I reckon I'll buy a nice copy of it. According to Abebooks, it's only twenty five thousand dollars for a first edition, signed by the author herself.
Only, as they say.
