Josh Lanyon's Blog, page 87
September 12, 2011
Float Like a Butterfly Sting Like a Bee
Speaking of short stories, I've been thinking a lot about the creative process lately. Maybe too much, because over-thinking and over-analyzing can make you stilted and self-conscious in your craft. But anyway, I've been mulling over where ideas for stories come from. Does everyone get ideas for stories? And, if so, what form do those ideas take? Why do only some people write the stories that occur to them? I mean, I understand why everyone wouldn't choose to publish everything, but just the process of writing those stories out…there's something satisfying about that, something that completes the thought.
And yet, once the story is written, it dies out of my brain. So in one sense, putting the dream or fantasy into a story form almost spoils it….
Hm.
Maybe spoils isn't the right term. But it changes it. I can't read my stories and enjoy them in the same way that I enjoyed the initial idea or dream. Once it's in story form it becomes technique and craft and stops being a dream or a fantasy or whatever story ideas are.
I can't see my stories as others do. No writer can. Which is natural. But also weird.
Anyway, there are a lot of yellow jackets and bees in the yard right now -- they get very aggressive this time of year -- and as I was splashing around in the pool the other day, I suddenly remembered an essay I'd read years ago by Elizabeth Choi. It was about a woman (Choi) on a hiking trip with her boyfriend. She gets stung by a yellow jacket and discovers the hard way that she's allergic. That experience changes her negative feelings about marriage and her antipathy toward commitment.
So I was thinking about bees and bee stings and wondering if I too might be allergic and not know it, and inevitably a story began to unfold in my mind starting with a first line.
"About last night," I began awkwardly.
There I floated, staring up at the clouds moving across the sky, and I began to wonder what this particular situation would entail where one guy -- probably the "I" character -- gets stung by a bee, and how or why it would make a difference in his life and his relationship with….
With Grahaem.
Grahaem handed me the red plastic coffee cup. Steam rose from the fragrant liquid. "Yeah," he said. No particular inflection, but I knew my worst fears were confirmed.
Worst fears about what?
Well, obviously I need to write an entirely different story from Choi's essay. So the point of the story must change and the narrator can't be the one who doesn't want to be in a relationship. Which means Grahaem must be. Which means that "I" (what is this guy's name?) does want the relationship.
Or does he?
Yeah, he does.
Okay. That's sort of sad. Why doesn't Grahaem want "I" when I is such a cute, funny, sweet guy? Why are they out camping -- which they must be if the steaming coffee is being served in red plastic cups -- if Grahaem doesn't want "I"?
Oh. Because Grahaem does like "I" a lot but he's already been in a relationship. The best relationship anyone could have. The perfect relationship. With…
Jase.
Who is dead.
Poor Grahaem.
He's already had the best that love has to offer. How can poor "I" compete? Plus the pain of losing that ultimate perfect love is enough to make anyone terrified of risking it all again. And "I" (what is his name?) isn't anything like Mr. Perfect AKA Jase.
And there it is. Not enough of a plot for a novella. Just a short story about a day that changes everything for Grahaem and…whatever the hell his name is. An awful day. A day where everything goes wrong that can possibly go wrong including anaphylactic shock. And yet, despite it all, everything turns out well. A perfectly awful day…a perfect day.
Perfect Day.
And that's it. Away I go, spilling it out as fast as I can without stopping to correct or fill in the blanks because it's crucial to get the bones down before it all starts to slip away.
I sipped the coffee and stared at the meadow the blue tent the fields of gold beyond that in the early morning mist looked like a golden lake in the distance. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. From the beginning -- practically the beginning -- from the first night I'd spent at Grahaem's X apartment he'd said he didn't want anything serious. Not looking for anything serious. Not looking for a relationship. It didn't get much clearer than that. But the problem was Grahaem was everything I wanted. He was thirty seven and a geologist. Okay, geology wasn't part of the dream man job description. In fact, I'd always pictured my dream man more GQ than Field and Stream, but Grahaem with his slow grin and gray eyes -- gray, not blue or green -- and that little touch of silver in the dark hair at temples and his wide shoulders and narrow hips and his confident straight stance like an old time explorer surveying the vistas -- with his easy laugh and his maps and compasses and soft flannel shirts. Short story long, I guess. I fell in love. Despite my best intentions. Despite his warnings. I fell in love.
And that's how a story begins.
September 10, 2011
You Get What You Pay For
I happened upon a three star Amazon review for "The French Have a Word for It" wherein the reviewer stated:
I know it only cost $1.49, but it's only 631 locations (translation for the rest of us: 8,362 words -- or 20 pages) there are free sample downloads that length. So while Lanyon is a skilled writer, this is really just a snippet and I'm not going to buy anymore stories this length because they are too short to satisfy me. Colin is a young artist, Thomas is significantly older and used to be his body guard, and they bump into each other in Paris...
There is nothing wrong with the writing or the ideas here, it's just too short to build any meaning for me.
Now, not everyone loves short stories. I do get that. But where did the idea that all short fiction should be free come from?
You don't get this attitude from those readers still buying print books. But maybe that's because they're under the (false) impression that the bulk of a book's price has to do with the physical end product?
I have to admit that review -- those comments -- floored me. Are a lot of ebook readers this far out of touch with publishing reality? Are they honestly this spoiled? Or is it simply that because so many readers in this genre come from a fan fiction background where all the stories are free, they don't grasp the fact that writing is a skill and a trade like any other, and the practitioners of that trade need to earn a living?
If skilled writers can't earn a living, then you won't have skilled writers penning your stories. You'll have fiction from people who have trouble giving their stuff away. Oh yes! On another Amazon forum they're debating that very thing. Debating whether Amazon ought to charge authors upload fees (one person suggested $500 - 1000. ) as means of weeding out all the dreck that is currently showing up at low, low prices and apparently making it too hard to find good stories.
Yeesh.
Come to think of it, maybe the bigger concern here is we might have a generation growing up that can't tell the difference between a snippet and a short story. There is a difference. It has to do with plot and point. I think most readers get that, right? Please tell me this woman is the exception and not the rule of our new book buying paradigm because there are writers who specialize in short fiction. They make a living at short fiction. The short story is a perfectly valid art form, and while print markets for individual stories are dwindling, the market for anthologies is growing. Magazines like Alfred Hitchcock and Ellery Queen still pay around 5 - 8 cents a word.
I happen to love writing short stories, but not so much that I would write them for free.
I know it only cost $1.49, but it's only 631 locations (translation for the rest of us: 8,362 words -- or 20 pages) there are free sample downloads that length. So while Lanyon is a skilled writer, this is really just a snippet and I'm not going to buy anymore stories this length because they are too short to satisfy me. Colin is a young artist, Thomas is significantly older and used to be his body guard, and they bump into each other in Paris...
There is nothing wrong with the writing or the ideas here, it's just too short to build any meaning for me.
Now, not everyone loves short stories. I do get that. But where did the idea that all short fiction should be free come from?
You don't get this attitude from those readers still buying print books. But maybe that's because they're under the (false) impression that the bulk of a book's price has to do with the physical end product?
I have to admit that review -- those comments -- floored me. Are a lot of ebook readers this far out of touch with publishing reality? Are they honestly this spoiled? Or is it simply that because so many readers in this genre come from a fan fiction background where all the stories are free, they don't grasp the fact that writing is a skill and a trade like any other, and the practitioners of that trade need to earn a living?
If skilled writers can't earn a living, then you won't have skilled writers penning your stories. You'll have fiction from people who have trouble giving their stuff away. Oh yes! On another Amazon forum they're debating that very thing. Debating whether Amazon ought to charge authors upload fees (one person suggested $500 - 1000. ) as means of weeding out all the dreck that is currently showing up at low, low prices and apparently making it too hard to find good stories.
Yeesh.
Come to think of it, maybe the bigger concern here is we might have a generation growing up that can't tell the difference between a snippet and a short story. There is a difference. It has to do with plot and point. I think most readers get that, right? Please tell me this woman is the exception and not the rule of our new book buying paradigm because there are writers who specialize in short fiction. They make a living at short fiction. The short story is a perfectly valid art form, and while print markets for individual stories are dwindling, the market for anthologies is growing. Magazines like Alfred Hitchcock and Ellery Queen still pay around 5 - 8 cents a word.
I happen to love writing short stories, but not so much that I would write them for free.
August 19, 2011
A Thankless Task
I've been relaxing between projects by watching old movies. A Woman Possessed got me thinking how sometimes the kind of story you want to tell necessitates the kind of characters you write.
Admittedly, most of my stories are character driven, but once in a while I've chosen to write a certain dynamic that necessitates one character being just not as likable as my usual cast members. A Vintage Affair, for example. Or Icecapade. Or the yet to be released Lone Star where part of the plot really depends on the protagonist's hot temper and tendency to fly off the handle. Not qualities I particularly admire, but interesting to explore (for me) in this context.
In A Woman Possessed, one of those 1950s English domestic dramas, a young doctor brings his new fiancée home to meet his neurotically possessive mother. The fiancée suffers from a heart ailment and darling Mummy is tempted to rid herself of her rival by aggravating the girl's condition. It's old school and uber-dramatic, of course, but it's notable for the fact that there's a great deal of everyone saying all the stuff you always wish characters would say in these situations but so rarely do. They talk. And they do ultimately work the situation out, although the ending sent the wrong message, I think.
Anyway, as far as characters, the American fiancée comes off the best in that she's spunky, frank, and gracious in the face of the cold and possibly murderous reception she gets. She's an orphan and she's been very ill--is still having heart attacks--so her reluctance to walk away from this relationship is psychologically sound. The mother, doesn't come off too badly because it's her job to be borderline nutso. She's elegant and charming and totally convincing, and as unreasonable as her wishes are, we sort of understand where she's coming from. The least likable character is the son. His role requires a staggering lack of sensitivity to both his fragile fiancée (especially startling since he's also her doctor) and his mother who he's sort of avoided for the past two years he trained to be a doctor because of mama's general over-bearingness.
The problem is, in order to get the dynamic of this story, he has to be dense as a block of cement. If he reacts like a normal bloke we won't get this awwwwkward situation of the three of them living on top of each other with the tension mounting as the poor fiancée attempts to assert herself and the mother and household servants watching her for weakness like hungry birds of prey.
The only way to avoid the son being a jerk is to tell a totally different story. But suppose the writer doesn't want to tell a different story? Suppose the writer simply wants to explore this dynamic and this situation and this plot?
This is the dilemma we sometimes face as writers. Readers of literary fiction tend to be a little more flexible on the issue of liability in main characters. In romance, many readers have a difficult time accepting a genuinely flawed hero. Jerks are easier to love in real life than fiction!
Admittedly, most of my stories are character driven, but once in a while I've chosen to write a certain dynamic that necessitates one character being just not as likable as my usual cast members. A Vintage Affair, for example. Or Icecapade. Or the yet to be released Lone Star where part of the plot really depends on the protagonist's hot temper and tendency to fly off the handle. Not qualities I particularly admire, but interesting to explore (for me) in this context. In A Woman Possessed, one of those 1950s English domestic dramas, a young doctor brings his new fiancée home to meet his neurotically possessive mother. The fiancée suffers from a heart ailment and darling Mummy is tempted to rid herself of her rival by aggravating the girl's condition. It's old school and uber-dramatic, of course, but it's notable for the fact that there's a great deal of everyone saying all the stuff you always wish characters would say in these situations but so rarely do. They talk. And they do ultimately work the situation out, although the ending sent the wrong message, I think.
Anyway, as far as characters, the American fiancée comes off the best in that she's spunky, frank, and gracious in the face of the cold and possibly murderous reception she gets. She's an orphan and she's been very ill--is still having heart attacks--so her reluctance to walk away from this relationship is psychologically sound. The mother, doesn't come off too badly because it's her job to be borderline nutso. She's elegant and charming and totally convincing, and as unreasonable as her wishes are, we sort of understand where she's coming from. The least likable character is the son. His role requires a staggering lack of sensitivity to both his fragile fiancée (especially startling since he's also her doctor) and his mother who he's sort of avoided for the past two years he trained to be a doctor because of mama's general over-bearingness.
The problem is, in order to get the dynamic of this story, he has to be dense as a block of cement. If he reacts like a normal bloke we won't get this awwwwkward situation of the three of them living on top of each other with the tension mounting as the poor fiancée attempts to assert herself and the mother and household servants watching her for weakness like hungry birds of prey.
The only way to avoid the son being a jerk is to tell a totally different story. But suppose the writer doesn't want to tell a different story? Suppose the writer simply wants to explore this dynamic and this situation and this plot?
This is the dilemma we sometimes face as writers. Readers of literary fiction tend to be a little more flexible on the issue of liability in main characters. In romance, many readers have a difficult time accepting a genuinely flawed hero. Jerks are easier to love in real life than fiction!
June 1, 2011
Cyber Launch Party for Come Unto These Yellow Sands
Thank you to the Fanyons for organizing a countdown to the release of Come Unto These Yellow Sands.
In fact, it's a lot more than a simple countdown; it's a cyber launch party with real prizes and games and...well, I'm astonished and moved at the effort they've gone to for this.
Anyway, the book releases June 14th from Samhain Publishing. It can be preordered through Amazon, etc.
It's definitely a different kind of story for me. In fact, it's a little nod to those readers who claim they love my stuff but wish I would write something besides mysteries. So here's a mystery from the perspective of someone who doesn't give a damn about mysteries and has no desire to solve one, but finds himself in the middle of one nonetheless.
Anyway, I'm currently in the midst of unpacking and catching up on email and all the other stuff that piles up no matter what else is going on in your life. More on that later -- meanwhile, have fun and don't forget to "like" my Fan Page if you're so inclined.
In fact, it's a lot more than a simple countdown; it's a cyber launch party with real prizes and games and...well, I'm astonished and moved at the effort they've gone to for this. Anyway, the book releases June 14th from Samhain Publishing. It can be preordered through Amazon, etc.
It's definitely a different kind of story for me. In fact, it's a little nod to those readers who claim they love my stuff but wish I would write something besides mysteries. So here's a mystery from the perspective of someone who doesn't give a damn about mysteries and has no desire to solve one, but finds himself in the middle of one nonetheless.
Anyway, I'm currently in the midst of unpacking and catching up on email and all the other stuff that piles up no matter what else is going on in your life. More on that later -- meanwhile, have fun and don't forget to "like" my Fan Page if you're so inclined.
May 15, 2011
The New and Improved Schedule
Well, whether you consider this an improved schedule or not is probably a matter of opinion. I don't even know if I consider it improved, I just know I needed to give myself a little more breathing room.
So without further fuss, here's what's lined up for the rest of the year.
DG4: Double Down (we had a title change on that one) releases September 13th from Loose Id.
The XO Files: Mummy Dearest releases September 30th from Samhain
My final Petit Mort story also releases sometime in September.
Lone Star part of a Christmas anthology with Harper Fox and KA Mitchell releases in December from Carina Press.
A Shot in the Dark 2: Blue Moon releases December 20th from Loose Id.
And that's pretty much it for this year. I know that's significantly reduced from what I'd hoped to do but it turns out that case of burn-out was a little worse than I thought. And while, ironically, I think I'm turning out some of my best work right now, it's a lot harder than it should be. Not that I subscribe to the idea that writing should be easy (U r doin' it rong!) but it shouldn't be painful. As in I think I sprained my brain.
So that's where we are. That's still six stories to come this year, so it's still a busy year for me -- and hopefully a reasonably satisfying year for you.
releases June 14th from Samhain.
So without further fuss, here's what's lined up for the rest of the year.
DG4: Double Down (we had a title change on that one) releases September 13th from Loose Id.
The XO Files: Mummy Dearest releases September 30th from Samhain
My final Petit Mort story also releases sometime in September.
Lone Star part of a Christmas anthology with Harper Fox and KA Mitchell releases in December from Carina Press.
A Shot in the Dark 2: Blue Moon releases December 20th from Loose Id.
And that's pretty much it for this year. I know that's significantly reduced from what I'd hoped to do but it turns out that case of burn-out was a little worse than I thought. And while, ironically, I think I'm turning out some of my best work right now, it's a lot harder than it should be. Not that I subscribe to the idea that writing should be easy (U r doin' it rong!) but it shouldn't be painful. As in I think I sprained my brain.
So that's where we are. That's still six stories to come this year, so it's still a busy year for me -- and hopefully a reasonably satisfying year for you.
releases June 14th from Samhain.
April 27, 2011
Now available: This Rough Magic
Well, heck. My handy dandy cross-posting from my blog to my LiveJournal seems to have failed suddenly, and I don't have time to figure out what happened to all my settings. So briefly, This Rough Magic, the first book in the Shot in the Dark series (exclusive to Loose Id) is now available.
ISBN: 978-1-61118-402-0
Genre: LGBT 1930's Suspense
Length: Short Novel
Price: $5.00 Info
BLURB:
Wealthy San Francisco playboy Brett Sheridan thinks he knows the score when he hires tough guy private eye Neil Patrick Rafferty to find a priceless stolen folio of Shakespeare’s The Tempest. Brett’s convinced his partner-in-crime sister is behind the theft -- a theft that’s liable to bring more scandal to their eccentric family, and cost Brett his marriage to society heiress Juliet Lennox. What Brett doesn’t count on is the instant and powerful attraction that flares between him and Rafferty.
Once before, Brett took a chance on loving a man, only to find himself betrayed and broken. This time around there’s too much at risk.
But as the Bard himself would say, Journey’s end in lovers meeting.
To buy the book click here
Basically it's a gay riff on the old Thin Man films -- falling somewhere between madcap and noir.
Speaking of riffs. Is anyone reading Ginn Hale's Rifter serial? Restraining myself to one word: wow.
This Rough Magic now available
First in a new and exclusive series from Loose Id Publishing.
ISBN: 978-1-61118-402-0
Genre: LGBT 1930's Suspense Length: Short Novel Price: $5.00 Info
BLURB:Wealthy San Francisco playboy Brett Sheridan thinks he knows the score when he hires tough guy private eye Neil Patrick Rafferty to find a priceless stolen folio of Shakespeare's The Tempest. Brett's convinced his partner-in-crime sister is behind the theft -- a theft that's liable to bring more scandal to their eccentric family, and cost Brett his marriage to society heiress Juliet Lennox. What Brett doesn't count on is the instant and powerful attraction that flares between him and Rafferty. Once before, Brett took a chance on loving a man, only to find himself betrayed and broken. This time around there's too much at risk. But as the Bard himself would say, Journey's end in lovers meeting.
Loose Id
Geary Street. Watched the automobiles flashing by. The fog had lifted, and it was turning into a bright, sunny day. Still cold for June. Juliet worried a lot about the weather, theirs being a June wedding."Sherry, darling, I don't think you're listening," Juliet said suddenly.He quoted back, "'The Nukraft feature of the Sealy Airlite mattress is made of patented hair and latex cushioning that prevents bunching and promotes circulation of air.'"The thought of that mattress made his mouth dry. But it would be all right. For all her frank ways, Juliet was essentially naïve.Juliet smiled affectionately. "I'm going to make you a wonderful wife, darling. You'll see.""I know, darling," Brett replied.Loose Id
ISBN: 978-1-61118-402-0
Genre: LGBT 1930's Suspense Length: Short Novel Price: $5.00 InfoBLURB:Wealthy San Francisco playboy Brett Sheridan thinks he knows the score when he hires tough guy private eye Neil Patrick Rafferty to find a priceless stolen folio of Shakespeare's The Tempest. Brett's convinced his partner-in-crime sister is behind the theft -- a theft that's liable to bring more scandal to their eccentric family, and cost Brett his marriage to society heiress Juliet Lennox. What Brett doesn't count on is the instant and powerful attraction that flares between him and Rafferty. Once before, Brett took a chance on loving a man, only to find himself betrayed and broken. This time around there's too much at risk. But as the Bard himself would say, Journey's end in lovers meeting.
Loose Id
Geary Street. Watched the automobiles flashing by. The fog had lifted, and it was turning into a bright, sunny day. Still cold for June. Juliet worried a lot about the weather, theirs being a June wedding."Sherry, darling, I don't think you're listening," Juliet said suddenly.He quoted back, "'The Nukraft feature of the Sealy Airlite mattress is made of patented hair and latex cushioning that prevents bunching and promotes circulation of air.'"The thought of that mattress made his mouth dry. But it would be all right. For all her frank ways, Juliet was essentially naïve.Juliet smiled affectionately. "I'm going to make you a wonderful wife, darling. You'll see.""I know, darling," Brett replied.Loose Id
April 14, 2011
[Just Joshin] Moving Target: Who are Book Reviews Really For?
I did my column for Jessewave this week, and the topic was the new --
and not always healthy -- changing relationship between reviewers and
authors.
Now the purpose of the column was not to hurt anyone's feelings --
these columns are never intended to hurt feelings, but merely to
introduce a topic of discussion that I think needs...discussing.
Anyway, it quickly became clear that many reviewers were
hurt/resentful/indignant -- or just plain surprised -- at the idea that
authors might not read their own reviews.
And in a way this gets right to the heart of the conflict. Reviewers
say that they write reviews for readers, not authors. When authors
unwisely respond to reviews that seem unfair or inaccurate or malicious
or whatever, the authors are generally slammed with the Crazy stamp,
reminded that reviews are for readers and not authors, and sent away to
bed without supper.
You see what I'm getting at?
You can't justify writing anything you like, no matter how unfair or
offensive, based on reviews-are-for-readers-not-authors but then be
upset at the idea authors might choose not to read those reviews. You
can't insist that you don't need any qualifications or credentials or
standards or anything but your personal opinion, but then be outraged
if authors dare to suggest they aren't going to listen to you.
We've got this nutty conflict where we want authors to regard our
reviews as they would regard a review in the New Yorker, but we don't
want to be restrained or inhibited in anything we say -- nor is the
author allowed to respond. Any response is considered a flagrant
violation of the reviewer/author rules of conduct.
But those rules of conduct are changing because reviewing itself is
changing.
And you can't have it both ways. You can't insist that you're free to
write anything you want without any restriction because you're "writing
for readers not authors" but then be angry or hurt if authors choose
not to read and interact with you. Or if we do interact in a way you
don't like, throw the, er, book at us for violating the Code of Conduct.
It was very clear from the comments to the post that many reviewers do
write partially for the writer, and that they hope their reviews will
have some effect for good on the writer. So I suspect that we all need
to stop pretending that reviews are only for readers because in this
new reviewer/author paradigm, some reviewers are most certainly hoping
to influence authors. Why are we pretending otherwise?
Now what does that ultimately mean for all of us? I have no idea. It's
the starting point of the discussion, not the answer. I think it means
we all need to be a little more self-aware of how we're interacting and
what our real expectations are.
and not always healthy -- changing relationship between reviewers and
authors.
Now the purpose of the column was not to hurt anyone's feelings --
these columns are never intended to hurt feelings, but merely to
introduce a topic of discussion that I think needs...discussing.
Anyway, it quickly became clear that many reviewers were
hurt/resentful/indignant -- or just plain surprised -- at the idea that
authors might not read their own reviews.
And in a way this gets right to the heart of the conflict. Reviewers
say that they write reviews for readers, not authors. When authors
unwisely respond to reviews that seem unfair or inaccurate or malicious
or whatever, the authors are generally slammed with the Crazy stamp,
reminded that reviews are for readers and not authors, and sent away to
bed without supper.
You see what I'm getting at?
You can't justify writing anything you like, no matter how unfair or
offensive, based on reviews-are-for-readers-not-authors but then be
upset at the idea authors might choose not to read those reviews. You
can't insist that you don't need any qualifications or credentials or
standards or anything but your personal opinion, but then be outraged
if authors dare to suggest they aren't going to listen to you.
We've got this nutty conflict where we want authors to regard our
reviews as they would regard a review in the New Yorker, but we don't
want to be restrained or inhibited in anything we say -- nor is the
author allowed to respond. Any response is considered a flagrant
violation of the reviewer/author rules of conduct.
But those rules of conduct are changing because reviewing itself is
changing.
And you can't have it both ways. You can't insist that you're free to
write anything you want without any restriction because you're "writing
for readers not authors" but then be angry or hurt if authors choose
not to read and interact with you. Or if we do interact in a way you
don't like, throw the, er, book at us for violating the Code of Conduct.
It was very clear from the comments to the post that many reviewers do
write partially for the writer, and that they hope their reviews will
have some effect for good on the writer. So I suspect that we all need
to stop pretending that reviews are only for readers because in this
new reviewer/author paradigm, some reviewers are most certainly hoping
to influence authors. Why are we pretending otherwise?
Now what does that ultimately mean for all of us? I have no idea. It's
the starting point of the discussion, not the answer. I think it means
we all need to be a little more self-aware of how we're interacting and
what our real expectations are.
Moving Target: Who are Book Reviews Really For?
I did my column for Jessewave this week, and the topic was the new -- and not always healthy -- changing relationship between reviewers and authors.
Now the purpose of the column was not to hurt anyone's feelings -- these columns are never intended to hurt feelings, but merely to introduce a topic of discussion that I think needs...discussing.
And in a way this gets right to the heart of the conflict. Reviewers say that they write reviews for readers, not authors. When authors unwisely respond to reviews that seem unfair or inaccurate or malicious or whatever, the authors are generally slammed with the Crazy stamp, reminded that reviews are for readers and not authors, and sent away to bed without supper.
You see what I'm getting at?
You can't justify writing anything you like, no matter how unfair or offensive, based on reviews-are-for-readers-not-authors but then be upset at the idea authors might choose not to read those reviews. You can't insist that you don't need any qualifications or credentials or standards or anything but your personal opinion, but then be outraged if authors dare to suggest they aren't going to listen to you.
We've got this nutty conflict where we want authors to regard our reviews as they would regard a review in the New Yorker, but we don't want to be restrained or inhibited in anything we say -- nor is the author allowed to respond. Any response is considered a flagrant violation of the reviewer/author rules of conduct.
But those rules of conduct are changing because reviewing itself is changing.
And you can't have it both ways. You can't insist that you're free to write anything you want without any restriction because you're "writing for readers not authors" but then be angry or hurt if authors choose not to read and interact with you. Or if we do interact in a way you don't like, throw the, er, book at us for violating the Code of Conduct.
It was very clear from the comments to the post that many reviewers do write partially for the writer, and that they hope their reviews will have some effect for good on the writer. So I suspect that we all need to stop pretending that reviews are only for readers because in this new reviewer/author paradigm, some reviewers are most certainly hoping to influence authors. Why are we pretending otherwise?
Now what does that ultimately mean for all of us? I have no idea. It's the starting point of the discussion, not the answer. I think it means we all need to be a little more self-aware of how we're interacting and what our real expectations are.
Now the purpose of the column was not to hurt anyone's feelings -- these columns are never intended to hurt feelings, but merely to introduce a topic of discussion that I think needs...discussing.
And in a way this gets right to the heart of the conflict. Reviewers say that they write reviews for readers, not authors. When authors unwisely respond to reviews that seem unfair or inaccurate or malicious or whatever, the authors are generally slammed with the Crazy stamp, reminded that reviews are for readers and not authors, and sent away to bed without supper.
You see what I'm getting at?
You can't justify writing anything you like, no matter how unfair or offensive, based on reviews-are-for-readers-not-authors but then be upset at the idea authors might choose not to read those reviews. You can't insist that you don't need any qualifications or credentials or standards or anything but your personal opinion, but then be outraged if authors dare to suggest they aren't going to listen to you.
We've got this nutty conflict where we want authors to regard our reviews as they would regard a review in the New Yorker, but we don't want to be restrained or inhibited in anything we say -- nor is the author allowed to respond. Any response is considered a flagrant violation of the reviewer/author rules of conduct.
But those rules of conduct are changing because reviewing itself is changing.
And you can't have it both ways. You can't insist that you're free to write anything you want without any restriction because you're "writing for readers not authors" but then be angry or hurt if authors choose not to read and interact with you. Or if we do interact in a way you don't like, throw the, er, book at us for violating the Code of Conduct.
It was very clear from the comments to the post that many reviewers do write partially for the writer, and that they hope their reviews will have some effect for good on the writer. So I suspect that we all need to stop pretending that reviews are only for readers because in this new reviewer/author paradigm, some reviewers are most certainly hoping to influence authors. Why are we pretending otherwise?
Now what does that ultimately mean for all of us? I have no idea. It's the starting point of the discussion, not the answer. I think it means we all need to be a little more self-aware of how we're interacting and what our real expectations are.
April 5, 2011
[Just Joshin] Snowball in Hell re-release
Yesterday saw the re-release Snowball in Hell. Snowball is a noirish
novella set around Christmas time in 1943. It's one of my personal
favorites as far as my work goes, and I'm delighted to see it get a
second lease on life with Carina Press not least, because this enables
me to write the series I was longing to write for these two.
Look for more Doyle and Spain stories starting in 2012.
To celebrate, I'm blogging in a couple of places, and giving some cool
stuff away in contests. The first place to stop and help me celebrate
is over at Not The Usual Suspects. We're playing match the author to
the first line of a classic piece of crime fiction.
And the second stop is over at the Carina Press blog. The game there is
simply name two romantic pairings from my stories EXCLUDING Jake and
Adrien, Chris and JX, and Elliot and Tucker. (Well, and it can't
include Matt and Nathan either, for obvious reasons!
And if you've already bought the book, thanks so much!
novella set around Christmas time in 1943. It's one of my personal
favorites as far as my work goes, and I'm delighted to see it get a
second lease on life with Carina Press not least, because this enables
me to write the series I was longing to write for these two.
Look for more Doyle and Spain stories starting in 2012.
To celebrate, I'm blogging in a couple of places, and giving some cool
stuff away in contests. The first place to stop and help me celebrate
is over at Not The Usual Suspects. We're playing match the author to
the first line of a classic piece of crime fiction.
And the second stop is over at the Carina Press blog. The game there is
simply name two romantic pairings from my stories EXCLUDING Jake and
Adrien, Chris and JX, and Elliot and Tucker. (Well, and it can't
include Matt and Nathan either, for obvious reasons!
And if you've already bought the book, thanks so much!
