Kelly McCullough's Blog, page 73
February 2, 2011
Free Words!
I'm deep in (attempted) word generation at the moment, but thought I'd come up long enough to let everyone know that there is an excerpt from "Among Thieves" up over at my website now. (The direct link, in case people want to share, is: http://bit.ly/evrnwA )
There are also links to the sole interview I have done so far (which I've mentioned here before), as well as an early review.
In related news, Roc is going to be doing a give-away of 30 ARCs (Advance Reader Copies) of the book over on GoodReads, from Feb. 7 through the 21st. I'll do a separate post when I get more info, or when it gets a wee bit closer, whichever comes first. (The GoodReads promo is U.S. only, I fear.)
Authorial Constructs
I finally got around to reading the Elizabeth Bear essay. It's not a problem I can remember having, I think because my writing doesn't lead people to fantasize about me.
Having said that, I think it's possible for any author to become an object of obsession for someone who has mental health problems. This is creepy. One does not want it to happen.
What Bear is talking about is having fans who are seriously emotionally engaged with one's work and (therefore) with one as a person. This is more likely to happen if one is famous, or if one writes fiction that pushes emotional buttons. Fame has its own charisma and its own drawbacks. If you write fiction that really digs into people -- rouses their emotions, fires their daydreams, you will get more passionate fans. The plus side is, you are likely to sell well. The minus side is, your fans may sometimes freak you out.
This is all theory. I can't remember ever meeting a reader who had an idea of me that was clearly wrong. What I get is people who know me saying, "You write exactly the way you talk, Eleanor. I can always hear your voice when I read you."
Of course, it's always possible that I have met people who misunderstand me, and I've forgotten, because it didn't seem important. What bugs me is when I find people who misunderstand my writing.
Having said that, I think it's possible for any author to become an object of obsession for someone who has mental health problems. This is creepy. One does not want it to happen.
What Bear is talking about is having fans who are seriously emotionally engaged with one's work and (therefore) with one as a person. This is more likely to happen if one is famous, or if one writes fiction that pushes emotional buttons. Fame has its own charisma and its own drawbacks. If you write fiction that really digs into people -- rouses their emotions, fires their daydreams, you will get more passionate fans. The plus side is, you are likely to sell well. The minus side is, your fans may sometimes freak you out.
This is all theory. I can't remember ever meeting a reader who had an idea of me that was clearly wrong. What I get is people who know me saying, "You write exactly the way you talk, Eleanor. I can always hear your voice when I read you."
Of course, it's always possible that I have met people who misunderstand me, and I've forgotten, because it didn't seem important. What bugs me is when I find people who misunderstand my writing.
February 1, 2011
My Bid for Fame
In my desperation to become more famous, I am posting some pre-prequel promo fiction vingnettes over on my LJ. This will be part of an on-going story that will lead into the beginning of RESURRECTION CODE, coming out March 15, 2011. It is my intention that you do not need to be a previous AngeLINK fan to read and enjoy these.
January 31, 2011
Yet more thoughts on Authorial Constructs
I suspect that one of the big disconnects some people are having with the discussion is in seeing this as the authors involved complaining about a problem.
I don't think the discussion is primarily about a huge problem anyone is having at all, so much as it about talking about cognitive tools for understanding a phenomena that is encountered in greater and greater degree the more broadly you are known of beyond the circle of people who simply know you.
For some people it certainly does become a problem. For some the idea of authorial construct is a handy tool that allows them to separate from their work. For some it's simply a fascinating cognitive phenomena. It's also important to note that it's not only or even mainly about a person's deliberate public persona.
In the case of authors at least people form opinions about who a writer is sometimes based entirely on what they've read in the writers books and without any clues other than that and name.
This is one reason why several of my readers have been quite startled to find out that I'm a burly bald man and not the bookish woman they built in their heads by working with my gender-ambiguous name and the stuff of mine that they've read.
I don't think the discussion is primarily about a huge problem anyone is having at all, so much as it about talking about cognitive tools for understanding a phenomena that is encountered in greater and greater degree the more broadly you are known of beyond the circle of people who simply know you.
For some people it certainly does become a problem. For some the idea of authorial construct is a handy tool that allows them to separate from their work. For some it's simply a fascinating cognitive phenomena. It's also important to note that it's not only or even mainly about a person's deliberate public persona.
In the case of authors at least people form opinions about who a writer is sometimes based entirely on what they've read in the writers books and without any clues other than that and name.
This is one reason why several of my readers have been quite startled to find out that I'm a burly bald man and not the bookish woman they built in their heads by working with my gender-ambiguous name and the stuff of mine that they've read.
A Further Exploration of Auctorial Constructs
This started out as a response to Lyda's post below, discussing Elizabeth Bear's post on auctorial constructs. It got big enough that I thought I would post it here.
Two explanations explorations of what I think Elizabeth Bear is talking about.
1. I have a picture of Tate Hallaway all dressed up and wearing great makeup, and I have met her at cons. If that was who I was expecting Lyda Morehouse to be in real life, I would be disappointed to discover that she is a totally different person. This is true whether or not you use a psuedonym, though I think in Lyda's case, she can dissociate the Tate persona a further degree because it's not the same name as she uses in day to day life.
But for many authors, it is the same name, and that sales pitch/con job/show they put on at conventions and readings and on the internet is who fans think they really are.
2. You may know details of my life. (Some of you know too many...) Most of those are completely different details, though, than the details the people who attend the synagogue I run would know. If you met someone from the synagogue and began discussing me, you would find out very soon that they have a completely different story of who I am in their head than you do in yours.
Yet, for many people, that story in their heads of who a person is is who the person is. This is completely understandable; we have to rely on the information we have learned about the world in order to make any decisions at all, or risk being paralyzed by constantly questioning absolutely everything. (Is the ground actually solid, or will I fall through it if I step ahead? Or behind me?! What if electricity can leap out of those wall sockets and burn me?) To be rational is to rationalize, to construct a mental definition of the world or some component of it, and then operate according to the definition we have determined. So we beleive that the things we know about someone, or things we think we know, are true things about that person. And we make judgements about people based on the things we think we know about them--what sort of person they are, whether or not they are reliable, flighty, serious, playful, etc.
With anyone you don't know personally, and especially anyone who has a public persona, this effect is magnified by a further remove. Not only do you have details that you beleive you have learned about them, but you also don't have the opportunity to verify those details in person. Yet by default we make determinations of value about details we think we know. Think of the game of Telephone and add in moral evaluations, and suddenly, you've got the internet and the gossip channels and auctorial constructs.
Two explanations explorations of what I think Elizabeth Bear is talking about.
1. I have a picture of Tate Hallaway all dressed up and wearing great makeup, and I have met her at cons. If that was who I was expecting Lyda Morehouse to be in real life, I would be disappointed to discover that she is a totally different person. This is true whether or not you use a psuedonym, though I think in Lyda's case, she can dissociate the Tate persona a further degree because it's not the same name as she uses in day to day life.
But for many authors, it is the same name, and that sales pitch/con job/show they put on at conventions and readings and on the internet is who fans think they really are.
2. You may know details of my life. (Some of you know too many...) Most of those are completely different details, though, than the details the people who attend the synagogue I run would know. If you met someone from the synagogue and began discussing me, you would find out very soon that they have a completely different story of who I am in their head than you do in yours.
Yet, for many people, that story in their heads of who a person is is who the person is. This is completely understandable; we have to rely on the information we have learned about the world in order to make any decisions at all, or risk being paralyzed by constantly questioning absolutely everything. (Is the ground actually solid, or will I fall through it if I step ahead? Or behind me?! What if electricity can leap out of those wall sockets and burn me?) To be rational is to rationalize, to construct a mental definition of the world or some component of it, and then operate according to the definition we have determined. So we beleive that the things we know about someone, or things we think we know, are true things about that person. And we make judgements about people based on the things we think we know about them--what sort of person they are, whether or not they are reliable, flighty, serious, playful, etc.
With anyone you don't know personally, and especially anyone who has a public persona, this effect is magnified by a further remove. Not only do you have details that you beleive you have learned about them, but you also don't have the opportunity to verify those details in person. Yet by default we make determinations of value about details we think we know. Think of the game of Telephone and add in moral evaluations, and suddenly, you've got the internet and the gossip channels and auctorial constructs.
Thoughts on Fame/Authorial Constructs
I spent a long time on Friday trying to digest Elizabeth Bear's comments on authorial constructs, and I don't think I really understand what she's talking about.
Over the weekend, I had an interaction with some people who happened to be readers of my work, and that made me understand her comments even less. I tried to talk about it here on my livejournal, but as I said in my comment to Kelly's post on Friday. I think I'm laboring under a misunderstanding about what this thing is -- authorial construct, because if I have one, I've never properly used it.
I mean, I understand that one ought to be professional-looking/acting at a con. I also understand that, to some extent, my life on "the Internets" is a kind of a lie. I, in point of fact, HAVE a pseudonym. But, I don't really understand how any of this is something that is going to confuse a reader of mine when I meet them in person. Perhaps this has to do with my position in the strata of famousness. I get squeed at, sure. But, I think my writing is pretty awesome too. So my experience tends to be a mutual squee. Then we talk about LotRs or Battlestar Galactica or Latin clubs and life goes on....
But I will admit to bouncing off her post initially. I'm absolutely certain there's some key component I'm not getting.
Over the weekend, I had an interaction with some people who happened to be readers of my work, and that made me understand her comments even less. I tried to talk about it here on my livejournal, but as I said in my comment to Kelly's post on Friday. I think I'm laboring under a misunderstanding about what this thing is -- authorial construct, because if I have one, I've never properly used it.
I mean, I understand that one ought to be professional-looking/acting at a con. I also understand that, to some extent, my life on "the Internets" is a kind of a lie. I, in point of fact, HAVE a pseudonym. But, I don't really understand how any of this is something that is going to confuse a reader of mine when I meet them in person. Perhaps this has to do with my position in the strata of famousness. I get squeed at, sure. But, I think my writing is pretty awesome too. So my experience tends to be a mutual squee. Then we talk about LotRs or Battlestar Galactica or Latin clubs and life goes on....
But I will admit to bouncing off her post initially. I'm absolutely certain there's some key component I'm not getting.
January 28, 2011
Smart Things
Elizabeth Bear saying very smart things about the way that a public figure's image becomes a separate entity from the actual person. It's a really useful tool for thinking about authorial image and for dealing with the places where what people expect you to be and what you are diverge.
Friday Cat Blogging
Mug shots are such a pain. I need to get arrested less often.
Sometimes lazer eyez need kickstart
Not paranoid, the aliens really are out to get me.
Told ya I could see over my belly, now help me outta here!
Marge, pass me the remote, wouldja.
Sometimes lazer eyez need kickstart
Not paranoid, the aliens really are out to get me.
Told ya I could see over my belly, now help me outta here!
Marge, pass me the remote, wouldja.
NanoSail!
Featured in this artist's illustration, NASA's NanoSail-D finally unfurled a very thin, 10 square meter reflective sail on January 20th, becoming the first solar sail spacecraft in low Earth orbit. Often considered the stuff of science fiction, sailing through space was suggested 400 years ago by astronomer Johannes Kepler who observed comet tails blown by the solar wind. Modern solar sail spacecraft designs, like NanoSail-D or the Japanese interplanetary spacecraft IKAROS, rely on the small but continuous pressure from sunlight itself for thrust. Glinting in the sunlight as it circles planet Earth, the NanoSail-D solar sail will periodically be bright and easily visible to the eye. In fact, skygazers are urged to participate in an ongoing contest to capture images of NanoSail-D. The images will help NASA monitor the satellite before it reenters the atmosphere in April or May.
January 25, 2011
5 Things
K.M. Walton has this to say about 5 Things I Wish I Knew Before I Queried. Not sure all of it applies to genre writing, but I like what s/he has to say about the power of a good critique group.
Kelly McCullough's Blog
- Kelly McCullough's profile
- 369 followers
Kelly McCullough isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
