Kate Jaimet's Blog, page 6

The silver lining of poverty-level writing income

What to make of the newly-released survey by the Writers Union of Canada, showing that the average income from writing among its members is a paltry $12,879? On the one hand, yes it’s lousy, and yes, it’s a screwed-up situation that an entry-level bureaucrat at the Canada Council makes more money pushing paper than the artists who are the council’s raison-d’etre. And, yes, the university administrators who decided that the new Copyright law means they can copy stuff for free are odious in their hypocrisy. I agree with all that.

But on the other hand, the world doesn’t owe me a living as a writer. And, truth be told, I know a lot of writers and none of them is living the lifestyle of someone earning $12,879 annual income — you know, living in a room in a scuzzy boarding house, eating dented tins of beans from the food bank, scrounging clothes from the Salvation Army Thrift Store. Okay, some of them dress like they buy their clothes at the Salvation Army Thrift Store, but that’s a choice. The point is, most writers either a) have a spouse who makes enough money to keep their middle class lifestyle afloat; or  b) have another job. Somer of them are teachers, or journalists. Some of them work retail. The ones who have high-earning spouses are usually primary caregivers of children and do a lot of unpaid work at home. So is having another job such a bad thing for a writer?

Lately I’ve been reading a lot of John Buchan novels. Buchan was an interesting guy, a novelist, civil servant, and later MP, who became the Governor General of Canada in 1935. During the First World War, Buchan not only worked as Director of Information for the British government (ie, chief propagandist), he also wrote an ongoing History of the War which was published in 50,000 word installments, and three spy novels including his most famous, The 39 Steps. Okay, granted, he had servants and a stay-at-home wife, so he wasn’t exactly cooking and cleaning and mowing lawns as most of us have to do after a hard day of work. But still, an impressive output.

His novels are imbued with his wartime experiences, which brings me to my point: Perhaps working at another type of job isn’t such a bad thing for a writer. It gets us out of our little cubbies and into the world, where we meet people and have experiences that can serve as fodder for our fiction. Did you ever notice that when writers do nothing but write, their material tends to get a little faded and repetitive?

So let’s appreciate the silver lining of poverty-level writing income, and mine our jobs for good material. Who knows? It may just lead to a best-seller… and then maybe we really can make a living writing.

Kirkus praises Endangered’s “energetic sleuth, fast-paced plot”

As the August release date for Endangered approaches,  I face the prospect of book reviews with the usual mixture of hope and dread. Kirkus has just published the first one, and I must say, it’s not bad at all. It does criticize my book’s cliche’d romantic subplot, but then, what’s a hardboiled detective novel without a cliche’d romantic subplot? Overall, a fair review. Read it here.

Sexism in the kidlit world?

Here’s a controversial topic for all us kidlitters out there:

The Globe and Mail recently published an article asking whether sexism persists in the arts. The article wasn’t talking about the way that women are portrayed in arts and literature; rather, it was asking whether women as creators get the same breaks as men. The article quoted studies showing that women visual artists were far less likely to get one-person shows at galleries than men, and that women involved in theatre were less likely to become artistic directors or occupy other high-ranking posts.

That got me to thinking about women in children’s literature, and the strange fact that, at any given children’s literature conference, about 90 % of the attendees (published and aspiring writers) are women, and about 10 % are men. But when it comes to successful, published authors, the split seems to be closer to 50/50.

I don’t have any stats to back this up, but when I think about well-known, published authors, it seems to me that for every J.K. Rowling there’s a Rick Riordan; for every Barbara Park there’s a Jeff Kinney; for every Kate DiCamillo, there’s a Gordon Korman. No slight at all intended to my fine male writing colleagues, but statistically, this does not seem to make a lot of sense. What could account for the proportionally high success rate of men (or low success rate of women) aspiring to a career in children’s literature?

Several possible theories come to mind:

1. Men are better writers. Ummmm, no.

2. Lots of women decide they are going to write a children’s book when they have kids / go on mat leave / leave their jobs to stay home with children. Many of these women have no experience or particular gift for writing. By the time they have found out how difficult and frustrating it is to write a good book, let alone get it published, their kids have grown up enough that they decide to go back to work and forget about this whole idea of being a writer. Men are less likely to go through this trajectory because they are less likely to stay home with kids. Therefore, a larger proportion of the men who do go into writing for children are actually committed, talented and professional writers. Therefore, a larger proportion of men are successful, compared to the proportion of women.

3. (Similar to 2) Lots of women who want to write a children’s book feel comfortable talking about it and going to conferences. They are socially inclined and want to connect. Perhaps a lot of aspiring male writers are shy or feel awkward about going to a conference dominated by women. Therefore, there are far more aspiring male children’s book authors than we ever know of.  This skews the perception of how many of them are successful.

4. Kidlit publishers are biased toward boy-friendly books. Yes, we’ve all heard it: girls will read books with boy main characters and “boyish” plots (action, adventure) , but boys won’t read books with girl main characters and “girlish” plots (friendships, relationships, self-image). Perhaps men are better at writing stuff that appeals to boys, since they have direct knowledge of what it’s like to be a boy, and so they are proportionally more likely to get their stuff published, since that’s what publishers are looking for. The flaw in this argument is, if “boyish” plots also appeal to girls, it means that “boyish” is really a false categorization. If these kinds of plots are actually universally appealing, wouldn’t women be just as good at writing this stuff as men?

I’m not sure what the answer to the riddle is. Thoughts, anyone?

 

Writing workshop at York Street School

Here’s a video of a writing workshop I gave recently at York Street Public School, sponsored by the Ottawa International Writers Festival:

The Arts ain’t just for geniuses

I recently read a short story by Somerset Maugham in which the son of a wealthy family disappoints his parents by telling them he wishes to study music. He spends two years at a music school in Germany and, when he returns, submits himself to the judgement of a famous pianist. If she judges him good enough, his parents will give him their blessing to become a professional musician. Unfortunately, his rendition of Chopin lacks “the tenderness, the nervous melancholy, the wistful gaiety” that would be the sign of a true artist, and the professional musician tells him to give up his dreams, because, well, if you ain’t a genius then why bother making art?

Phooey, I say.

Let’s face it. Most people who are very good, but not genius-caliber musicians (or writers for that matter) won’t end up with the life of a landed and privileged gentleman if they decide to give up their art. In the case of writers, too many stifled novelist will become marketers or PR professionals, pushing useless products or corporate messages on the masses. Better to create good (if not immortally brilliant) art, than no art at all.

It’s like my piano teacher Steve once told me. He wasn’t the best pianist in his class at school. There were at least 2 students better than him. But he persevered, got his Music degree, and ended up teaching and playing in bands around town. Did he make Carnegie Hall? Nope. Not even the Canadian Top-10 charts. But he’s making a life doing music.

And the guys who were better than him? Oh, (Steve shrugs) they ended up in science, poor guys.

Take that, Somerset Maugham.

The Three Good Fairies and the Bookstore

A STORY IN SUPPORT OF AUTHORS FOR INDIES DAY, MAY 2, 2015

Once upon a time there lived three good fairies whose names were Karen, Kim and Kelly. The fairies loved children so much that they decided to do something magical for all the boys and girls in the neighbourhood – they decided to open a bookstore.

This bookstore would not be for adults – oh, no! It would contain no dull volumes with titles like: An Encyclopedia of the Vitamin Content of Raw and Cooked Vegetables. Instead, this bookstore would be filled with tomes to tease and delight kids’ imaginations: brightly-coloured picture books, side-splitting comedies, and adventure novels full of witches, wizards, Gods and dragons.

And so, with a wave of their magic wands and a large loan from a kindhearted banker, the three good fairies opened their bookstore.

Children from all over the town flocked to the enchanted bookstore. Soon, it was too small to hold all the children and books, and so the fairies decided to look for a larger place for their bookstore.

As they were searching, a fellow in a long black cape approached them.

“What are you looking for, kind fairies?” asked the fellow.

“Oh, good sir!” cried the fairies. “Our enchanted bookstore is too small for all of the children and books. We are looking for a new place to open a new, and even better bookstore!”

At this, the gentleman in the long, black cape smiled.

“Why, my good women,” he said with a grin. “I have just the place for you in my brand-new building! Prime location! All the modern conveniences! Satisfaction absolutely, one-hundred percent guaranteed! We’ll be open in time for the Christmas sales! Just sign right here on the dotted line!”

And so the good fairies signed on the dotted line. They returned to their old bookstore and hung a “closed” sign on the door and packed all their books in boxes in preparation for the moving day. The children stood at the door crying, but the fairies said, “Don’t worry my dears! We’ll be open in a jiffy in our brand-new book store!”

They piled all their boxes of books in the back of a wagon and they set off through the snow to the building where their new bookstore would be located. But Alas! when they reached the building, they found that it was only half built! Snow blew in through the open windows. The walls were nothing but bare steel beams. The man in the long black cape was nowhere to be found!

“What will we do?” cried Kelly. “It’s almost Christmas! Where will all the little children buy their books?”

The three good fairies could not allow the children to go bookless for Christmas. And so, huddling and shivering in their sparkly-but-not-very-warm fairy dresses, they stood on the street-corner and sold their books out of the back of their wagon.

The good children received their books for Christmas, but by the month of January, the new bookstore still was not ready for the fairies to move in.

“This can’t go on!” exclaimed Kim. “My toes are freezing in these slippers and the books are getting covered in snow! I miss our warm and cozy bookstore filled with books and happy children! We have to do something!”

And so the fairies took out their most ancient, most weighty, most powerful books of spells (and for good measure, they hired an ancient, weighty, and powerful lawyer) and with a wave of their magic wand and some good legal advice, the bookstore was finally finished.

As soon as it was built, they moved in with all their books and invited the children to come back. And if ever you travel to the town of Ottawa, you can go to the foot of the Bank Street Bridge right next to the Rideau Canal, and there you will find a store with a sign that says Kaleidoscope Kids Books. And if you go inside, chances are you’ll find one of the three good fairies standing behind the counter, just waiting to wave her magic wand and pick out the perfect book for you. And if you happen to visit on Authors for Indies Day on May 2, you’ll also have a chance to meet some of the authors of those very un-boring books.

For, thanks to their love of books, the children, the authors and the fairies (and their banker and lawyer) all lived happily ever after.

THE END

Tennis Club Faces For-Profit Transformation Bid

Next week, shareholders will meet to cast their ballots in a critical vote that will affect the very future of the much-loved Ottawa Tennis and Lawnbowling Club – the setting of my Orca Sports novel Break Point.

On Thursday, February 26 at 7:30 p.m., a new Board of Directors will be elected, which will be tasked with either transforming the club into a for-profit corporation, or keeping its not-for-profit status by modernizing its structure.

If you are a shareholder of the club – as I am – I urge you strongly to attend the meeting at Trinity Anglican Church. If you are a member of the club, but not yet a shareholder, I advise you urgently to spend $100 and buy a share (email club president Peter Sutcliffe at psutcliffe.m42@gmail.com ). Apparently these shares will only be issued in May, meaning that you cannot vote for the Board of Directors on Thursday, but you will still be able to vote on any future restructuring of the club. Owning a share is the ONLY THING that will give you a vote on the club’s future.

What is at Stake?

In the coming year, the Ottawa Tennis and Lawn Bowling Club will face a critical question about its future: Will it become a for-profit corporation, owned and controlled by a few shareholders, most of whom are not members of the club? Or, will it dissolve its shareholder-structure and continue to be a not-for-profit club, serving its members and the community?

Although the OTLBC has operated as a not-for-profit club with a shareholder-structure since 1939, this model is no longer allowed under Ontario law. The club must modernize its structure to conform to the new law. It must be either a shareholding club or a non-profit; it cannot be both.

Who are the Shareholders?

The OTLBC has two types of Shareholders.

The “founding shares” were issued in 1939. There are 868 such shares, belonging to 453 people who either bought the shares in 1939 or (more commonly) their descendants. The vast majority of those shareholders are not current members of the club. Their interest in the club lies in the fact that they own shares in a property worth an estimated $10 million, and in their historic connection to the club. Were the club to become a for-profit corporation, these shares would be valuable indeed.

By 1989, the club was faced with the problem that most of the active members of the club had no influence over how the club was governed, because they were not shareholders. Therefore, the board created 1000 new shares, which could be bought by members at a cost of $100 each. Unlike the 1939 shares, these shares cannot be re-sold or inherited, and they lapse once the shareholder ceases to be a member of the club. However, although the club can issue up to 1000 of these shares, so far only 76 members have chosen to buy a share. This means that the 1939 shareholders vastly outnumber the member-shareholders.

The coming conflict

On Thursday, February 26, the shareholders of the club will meet to elect a new Board of Directors. The Board of Directors will have great influence on whether the club chooses to become a for-profit, share-holding corporation, or a not-for-profit, non-shareholding corporation.

A group of 1939 shareholders, led by Mr. Ian Macdonald, is running a slate of candidates who wish to transform the club into a for-profit corporation. They have retained a corporate lawyer and an accounting firm and have formed a “1939 Shareholders’ Protective Committee.” They do not wish to be dispossessed of their shares, which is what would happen if the club retained and modernized its not-for-profit structure. Their slate of candidates consists of: Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Jason Lee, Mr. Robert Woodbridge, Mr. Don MacMillan, and Mr. Phil Montgomery.

By contrast, the current (and now outgoing) Board of Directors favours steering the club in the direction of the non-shareholding, not-for-profit model. These Board members hold 1989-issue shares and are active club members. Those running for re-election include: Imran Syed, Bill Lawson, Andree Mongeon, and Jenny Mitchell.

The problems with the for-profit model

As the most immediate consequence, changing to a for-profit model would mean the club would face a whacking tax increase. It would pay corporate tax on its profits, and it would pay a higher rate of municipal property tax. For a property valued at $10million, it’s staggering to think what the property tax might be assessed at. These higher taxes would very likely lead to a jump in membership fees. Many current members might no longer be able to afford membership.

Perhaps more importantly, though, moving to a for-profit model would mean that the club would be run for the profit of its shareholders, not necessarily for the benefit of its members. Although the current 1939 Shareholders profess a deep commitment to the club, they will not live forever. Future shareholders, who inherit or buy the shares, may have no connection to the club except as a money-making venture. They may prioritize earning share dividends over spending money on club activities or upgrades. Ultimately, they could choose to sell the club for its valuable river-front land. Once it is a for-profit club, profit risks becoming its main raison-d’etre.

Why I favour the not-for-profit model

If the club remains a not-for-profit, it will continue to benefit from low tax rates, keeping membership fees affordable to those who live in the neighbourhood, and in greater Ottawa.

Furthermore, as a not-for-profit, the club will have a sole mandate to serve its members – not shareholders who may not even be members of the club.

I understand that I will lose my $100 share if the club becomes a non-profit. This is a

price that I am more than willing to pay, to assure the future of the club as a non-profit. In fact, I urge all members who have not yet become shareholders to email club president Peter Sutcliffe (psutcliffe.m42@gmail.com) and tell him you want to buy a share. Owning a share is the only thing that will give you voting rights on who runs the club and how the club will be restructured. Although you may lose your $100 investment if the club becomes a non-profit, consider it money well spent for the right to vote on your club’s future.

Endangered giveaway!

Many years ago, when I was unmarried, childless, and just starting my career in newspaper journalism, I began working on a YA mystery novel. I didn’t have a clue how to write a novel, let alone a mystery, but in the blithe ignorance my youth, I didn’t let that stop me from churning out page after page of nearly unreadable schlock.

Well, it’s been a long road since then with many rejections, revisions, rewrites, recriminations, but finally my novel Endangered (now eminently readable and not at all schlocky) is on the verge of publication. It’s a thrilling tale of 17-year-old Hayley Makk, a highschool dropout who works as a reporter for her dad’s independent tabloid newspaper in Halifax, Nova Scotia. While covering the murder of a teenage drug dealer, Hayley uncovers connections between the murder suspect and a black-market ring that deals in endangered wildlife.

Best-selling author Rick Mofina says: “Endangered is a gripping tale, an adrenaline-driven adventure, chocked full of suspense. It will hold you hostage until the very end.”

Today, my publisher revealed the cover design (tres sinistre, non?) and earlier this week I received my box of Advance Review Copies. For your chance to win an Advance Review Copy, enter my Goodreads giveaway at:

.goodreadsGiveawayWidget { color: #555; font-family: georgia, serif; font-weight: normal; text-align: left; font-size: 14px;
font-style: normal; background: white; }
.goodreadsGiveawayWidget img { padding: 0 !important; margin: 0 !important; }
.goodreadsGiveawayWidget a { padding: 0 !important; margin: 0; color: #660; text-decoration: none; }
.goodreadsGiveawayWidget a:visted { color: #660; text-decoration: none; }
.goodreadsGiveawayWidget a:hover { color: #660; text-decoration: underline !important; }
.goodreadsGiveawayWidget p { margin: 0 0 .5em !important; padding: 0; }
.goodreadsGiveawayWidgetEnterLink { display: block; width: 150px; margin: 10px auto 0 !important; padding: 0px 5px !important;
text-align: center; line-height: 1.8em; color: #222; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold;
border: 1px solid #6A6454; border-radius: 5px; font-family:"Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
background-image:url(https://www.goodreads.com/images/layo... background-repeat: repeat-x; background-color:#BBB596;
outline: 0; white-space: nowrap;
}
.goodreadsGiveawayWidgetEnterLink:hover { background-image:url(https://www.goodreads.com/images/layo...
color: black; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer;
}


Goodreads Book Giveaway







Endangered



by Kate Jaimet

Giveaway ends April 13, 2015.

See the giveaway details

at Goodreads.

Enter to win

Swimmin’ with the Bajan Turtle

On my family vacation in Barbados last week, I took the opportunity to shoot some footage of a sea turtle for a video that I’m working on to accompany the release of my new YA mystery novel, Endangered. In the spirit of sharing the Carribbean sun with all of my snow-bound fellow Canadians, I invite you to take a minute to hang with the turtle:

The Method is the Message

This year, author Andrew O'Hagan made a new year’s resolution to write a novel on an old-fashioned typewriter.
“I’m sick of computers and all their bleeps and updates and their terrible openness to interruptions,” he wrote in the Globe and Mail. “… this year I am determined to slow everything down to the careful old thump, the beat of the heart.”
If I had read this just a few months ago, I would have rolled my eyes and groaned.
“Here we have another dinosaur of the Literary Establishment,” I would have thought, leaping to judgement like the proverbial dumb lemming jumping over the cliff. “Out of touch with the modern world, probably subsisting on university tenure and arts agency grants, while the rest of us go careening through the Twitterverse of instant content and digital media.”
Slowing it down is a luxury we writers don’t have in today’s world, I would have said. After all, I’ve written six novels and thousands of stories on my computer, since I began my career as a journalist and author 17 years ago.
But something strange happened to me a few months ago. I started writing a new novel– with a ballpoint pen, in lined notebooks.
I am almost ashamed to make this confession. I know I sound like a fossil. But the two voices in the novel belong to a 10-year-old girl writing in her journal, and an old dodo bird who has miraculously escaped extinction. And no matter how much I sat, staring at the LED screen, with my hands poised over the keyboard, neither of them would come to me on a computer.
Yes, scoff at me. (I would have scoffed, too, not long ago). But the Muse works in mysterious ways. Perhaps what I am experiencing is a sort of “method acting,” for writers. Call it method writing.
It’s a laborious process, to write the first draft out in longhand But somehow, it allows me to understand the feelings of my characters in a way that typing at the computer does not. Perhaps the screen, instead of being a ‘window’ into the fictional world, has become a barrier. Computers simply do too much. As I sit in front of my computer, my mind is suddenly and unwittingly cluttered with thoughts of online banking, and scheduling appointments, and responding to emails about children’s school activities. It isn’t even the frivolity of Facebook and Twitter that distracts me; it’s the mundane and unrelenting demands of everyday life.
The blank page of a notebook is a sanctuary. It makes no demands. Instead, it offers a single invitation — the invitation to write.
“Writing is an action, not an afterthought, it is a job of love and faith, not a sneeze … Why are we so determined to take the effort out of everything and save time? The fun of getting it right is the joy of work,” Andrew O’Hagan wrote.
Good on you, Andrew. While you’re sitting there, clickety-clacking on your typewriter, I’ll be curled on my sofa, scribbling in my notebook.
Taking the time to get it right.