As many of you know, I self-published my first book, Deader by the Lake. It was certainly an education for me. I found that many conventionally published authors are quite fearful of those who don't take the usual route to get their work before their readers and the fallout from that fear afflicts not only author "professional" groups but bookstore owners and reviewers.
Now comes the case of "Harlequin Horizons," an imprint of the respected romance publisher. Harlequin joined forces with Author Solutions, a self-publishing house, to create the new division but now, as reported in Publishers Weekly, has changed the name of the imprint after criticism from several author groups. "Harlequin Horizons" is no more...the name now being DellArt Press. According to PW, "There is no mention of Harlequin on DellArte’s Web site."
From the Romance Writers Association to the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers to the old-line Mystery Writers of America, author groups that were started by, and continue to have a majority membership of, conventionally published authors are fighting to make certain self-published authors are not given respect or the opportunity to join as full members or enter contests or take part in events which would help them sell their work.
Even the Sisters in Crime organization which claimed to have no prejudice against self-published authors when I was a member several years ago made certain I could not attend a Hollywood pitch session where I would have had the opportunity to network with producers and other studio officials.
MWA made certain I could not hold any office with the organization while I was self-published. Other writers groups and the officials of a number of writers workshops make it clear that only authors who have been conventionally published may speak or sit on panels for those workshops. Some groups, including MWA, have lists of "acceptable publishers" and if a writer was not handled by those houses, they are not considered for full membership in the group.
It is easy to self-publish a book. You write a check and, in a matter of weeks, you will have a bound volume of your work. Most self-publishing houses require no copy or line-editing. They don't even mandate that authors use spell check. There is no requirement for reasonable structure or plotting and no vetting for truth in non-fiction self-published books.
In point of fact, much of the work produced by self-published authors is crap.
Much, but not all. And there are ways writers groups could work with self-published authors to help and not hinder them.
More on that in my next post.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Absurdity of Hate
A well-educated Christian friend of mine, who also happens to be a conservative talk-show host, wrote this on his Facebook page yesterday: "I don't know if I like the idea of the President sending you to jail if you don't buy into his healthcare policy."
He likes to make thought-provoking statements so I laughed it off until I read the ABC News interview with President Obama that was apparently what sent my friend and many of his conservative colleagues into a tizzy.
ABC's Jake Tapper sat down for an exclusive chat with the President regarding the health care bill. During that session, the President discussed possible penalties that should be paid by people who choose not to buy health insurance. This is the comment the President made as noted on ABC's website:
"What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.”
Asked if that penalty should include jail time, ABC quotes the President as responding that he doesn't think the jail issue is the "biggest question" Congress is facing right now.
It was a three-second give and take during a much larger Q and A on the health care issue yet many commentators have seized on it the way my friend did, emphasizing what the President did not say. Obama didn't call for jail. He called for penalties. And he excepted those who are hardship cases. In fact, he very much sounded to me like someone unwilling to go to the jail time option.
Similarly, the President hasn't proposed one gun control measure, yet the NRA and other groups fired up the gun folks after his election to the point that gun prices exploded and demand for ammunition so far exceeded supply that there were shortages. He hasn't proposed any abortion bill, even emphasized to ABC that he doesn't want anyone trying to change the status quo of no public funding for abortions with the health care bill, yet people at my church have told me they hate him because he supports the murder of children. These are devout Christians using the word "hate."
And that, to me, is the bottom line. Those who hate this President hate him personally. They don't just hate his policies or proposals. They eagerly pounce on any morsel of a statement he makes and rip it apart like wild dogs in a feeding frenzy. Their fervor is a murderous obsession. They are terrified of him, everything he does and what he "might" do.
I disagreed with previous Administrations on a number of issues. I have never hated any President. I distrust politicians. I don't hate them. Rapists, pedophiles and those who manipulate the criminal justice system to escape punishment for capital crimes, deserve our venom. Hatred of an Administration's policies? If that's your passion, certainly. Hatred for the person of the President? Absolutely not. That's where many ultra-conservatives cross the line. Not only that, they fear-monger, hoping to whip others into the same frenzy.
Hating someone for having beliefs different from yours, and the obstructionist thinking that has resulted from that hate, is absurd.
Hatred breeds destruction. Is that where we're headed?
He likes to make thought-provoking statements so I laughed it off until I read the ABC News interview with President Obama that was apparently what sent my friend and many of his conservative colleagues into a tizzy.
ABC's Jake Tapper sat down for an exclusive chat with the President regarding the health care bill. During that session, the President discussed possible penalties that should be paid by people who choose not to buy health insurance. This is the comment the President made as noted on ABC's website:
"What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.”
Asked if that penalty should include jail time, ABC quotes the President as responding that he doesn't think the jail issue is the "biggest question" Congress is facing right now.
It was a three-second give and take during a much larger Q and A on the health care issue yet many commentators have seized on it the way my friend did, emphasizing what the President did not say. Obama didn't call for jail. He called for penalties. And he excepted those who are hardship cases. In fact, he very much sounded to me like someone unwilling to go to the jail time option.
Similarly, the President hasn't proposed one gun control measure, yet the NRA and other groups fired up the gun folks after his election to the point that gun prices exploded and demand for ammunition so far exceeded supply that there were shortages. He hasn't proposed any abortion bill, even emphasized to ABC that he doesn't want anyone trying to change the status quo of no public funding for abortions with the health care bill, yet people at my church have told me they hate him because he supports the murder of children. These are devout Christians using the word "hate."
And that, to me, is the bottom line. Those who hate this President hate him personally. They don't just hate his policies or proposals. They eagerly pounce on any morsel of a statement he makes and rip it apart like wild dogs in a feeding frenzy. Their fervor is a murderous obsession. They are terrified of him, everything he does and what he "might" do.
I disagreed with previous Administrations on a number of issues. I have never hated any President. I distrust politicians. I don't hate them. Rapists, pedophiles and those who manipulate the criminal justice system to escape punishment for capital crimes, deserve our venom. Hatred of an Administration's policies? If that's your passion, certainly. Hatred for the person of the President? Absolutely not. That's where many ultra-conservatives cross the line. Not only that, they fear-monger, hoping to whip others into the same frenzy.
Hating someone for having beliefs different from yours, and the obstructionist thinking that has resulted from that hate, is absurd.
Hatred breeds destruction. Is that where we're headed?
Friday, November 6, 2009
Fort Hood: Were There Warning Signs?
It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, isn't it?
There are plenty of indications that this shooter had prior interactions that would suggest to a reasonable person that he was, at the very least, unstable.
You don't "just snap" and kill 13 people.
That being said, who was responsible for tracking him? Were people who heard his alledged rants (including those coming forward now) willing to report what they heard and follow through at the risk of being ostracized as a whistlebower? Anybody can talk to the media after the fact. I used to deal with "witnesses" like that frequently. How many spoke up when it should have counted?
Did the Army receive and ignore complaints about him?
Most importantly, are there others out there simmering, perhaps waiting to do the same thing if they get the opportunity? You can bet the answer is yes.
On another point, why is the government allowing one of the officers who was involved in taking down the shooter talk to the media? I'm listening to Sergeant Mark Todd speaking to Anderson Cooper on CNN. Very inappropriate, as far as I'm concerned, and I imagine the FBI and US Attorney's office would agree. You never want key witnesses in a murder investigation, particularly a mass murder like this one, talking publicly before the case is adjudicated. Yes, in this case there are plenty of witnesses to testify against the shooter but why give his defense lawyers ANY ammunition?
Lots more questions to consider...
There are plenty of indications that this shooter had prior interactions that would suggest to a reasonable person that he was, at the very least, unstable.
You don't "just snap" and kill 13 people.
That being said, who was responsible for tracking him? Were people who heard his alledged rants (including those coming forward now) willing to report what they heard and follow through at the risk of being ostracized as a whistlebower? Anybody can talk to the media after the fact. I used to deal with "witnesses" like that frequently. How many spoke up when it should have counted?
Did the Army receive and ignore complaints about him?
Most importantly, are there others out there simmering, perhaps waiting to do the same thing if they get the opportunity? You can bet the answer is yes.
On another point, why is the government allowing one of the officers who was involved in taking down the shooter talk to the media? I'm listening to Sergeant Mark Todd speaking to Anderson Cooper on CNN. Very inappropriate, as far as I'm concerned, and I imagine the FBI and US Attorney's office would agree. You never want key witnesses in a murder investigation, particularly a mass murder like this one, talking publicly before the case is adjudicated. Yes, in this case there are plenty of witnesses to testify against the shooter but why give his defense lawyers ANY ammunition?
Lots more questions to consider...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)