« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »
April 29, 2007
Endless Hour results
I'm very excited that I won second place in Jason Evans' "Endless Hour" contest. There were a ton of great submissions--please do go to his site and check them all out.
Posted by sferrell at 8:32 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
April 27, 2007
Pop vs. Literary, Round 1
Stephen King's acceptance speech upon winning the 2003 Distinguished Contribution to American Letters Award from the National Book Foundation is a good read for a number of reasons. First, it's interesting to hear from him some details of his early writing career and the support he received from his wife. We should all be so lucky to have the strong, unwavering belief of someone close to us, to give us the gentle nudges we need and keep us turned toward our words rather than toward our grievances. I am that lucky, and I hope you are too.
Second, it's nice motivation. He had to write, a lot, and then write some more to get to the point that he is today. It's good to remember that the writers you read, the one whose book is in your hands right now, have their moments of doubt, of lack of faith in themselves or the world, and that they have to muscle through those doubts, just like you. I go through it. Years ago doubt washed over me to the point that I couldn't write. I've since learned that no one cares if I write or not (other than my wife) and that if I don't do it the only one to hurt is me. I've learned that putting my head down and doing the work is what matters, not accolades or publishing contracts. I've written a lot lately, much of it is, I think, very good and I'm pleased with it. One of those is the "Endless Hours" contest entry (see below) which started out as a fun exercise and now lurks in the back of my brain as a possible beginning to a longer piece, a rough sketch that I'd like to flesh out. I got that short piece done because I've been doing the work, not because of divine inspiration or luck. I put my pen to paper daily, and I feel it working and I'm happy for it. King's speech reminds me of that: put in the time.
Finally, I liked King's motive behind the speech which is to herald the talents of "popular" writers. The National Book Award, as so many awards, are given to "important", "serious", and "challenging" work. It's the reason that comedies don't win Oscars, leading Jack Black and Will Ferrell to do their anti-dramatic actor song and dance at the Academy Awards this year. King's speech is his version of that:
Now, there are lots of people who will tell you that anyone who writes genre fiction or any kind of fiction that tells a story is in it for the money and nothing else. It's a lie. The idea that all storytellers are in it for the money is untrue but it is still hurtful, it's infuriating and it's demeaning. I never in my life wrote a single word for money. As badly as we needed money, I never wrote for money. From those early days to this gala black tie night, I never once sat down at my desk thinking today I'm going to make a hundred grand. Or this story will make a great movie. If I had tried to write with those things in mind, I believe I would have sold my birthright for a plot of message, as the old pun has it. Either way, Tabby and I would still be living in a trailer or an equivalent, a boat. My wife knows the importance of this award isn't the recognition of being a great writer or even a good writer but the recognition of being an honest writer.
King goes on the ask that other popular writers be remembered, that they be honestly critiqued and considered. He's right, they should be. Without popular art most people would have no "in" to art at all, and to discount works of authors (or any artists) which sell well and are easily accessed and enjoyed is to discount all writing. In fact, it's a bit of a short-sighted argument, to say that (Insert Popular Author Here) is "simplistic," or "formulaic," or "derivative." If that's what they are, then might not your own writing be overly complex? Dense? Obfuscating?
There are so many words, and so many ways to order them, but there's only so much to time to read them and people make the choice to read that should be celebrated, not derided.
(Publisher's Disclaimer: Sean Ferrell has been known to read Stephen King and to enjoy him. He also enjoys the occassional Star Wars or Star Trek novel, and enjoys crude, pedestrian "poop joke" humor.)
Posted by sferrell at 10:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 25, 2007
"Endless Hour" entry
You've all waited long enough.
My "Endless Hour" entry is up at Jason Evans' wonderful blog, "Clarity of Night."
I'm number 35: "Talking Down the Flames."
Posted by sferrell at 1:13 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
April 24, 2007
That (sales) figures.
GalleyCat continues its coverage of the coverage of the Cussler trial. For those not following the case, the film producer of Sahara, based on Clive Cussler's book of the same name, claims that Cussler lied about his sales figures in order to get $10 million out of him for the rights to the book. When the film bombed the producers discovered that Cussler didn't have the 100 million sales he claimed. They are suing over that "lie."
Only problem is, it seems that that "lie" is a how the industry works:
Interestingly, Cussler's real sales figure amount to roughly half of what he's claimed - a by-product, Cussler testified earlier in a deposition, of an edict handed down by his agent in the late 1990s never to say how many books he sold because the amount was not known. Instead, Cussler said, he was advised to use the phrase "books in print." So a word to the wise, especially new GalleyCat readers: anytime you see a "books in print" figure, downscale it by half, maybe even more, to get the real story...
I find this interesting and a little sad, especially in an era of POD, when a publisher could print only what was needed. How often have you picked up a book and seen "Over a million copies in print" on the cover? How many of those copies were actually read? Sales figures are an issue. They keep the relationship between authors and publishers working, but if no one really knows what those figures are, what does that say about the authors who are touting figures to sell books?
Posted by sferrell at 10:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 23, 2007
"Off the Wall"
In honor of International Pixel Stained Technopeasant Day, I present this .pdf of one of my short stories.
"Off the Wall" was published in 2004 in "WORDS." Enjoy.
Posted by sferrell at 5:28 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
April 20, 2007
Making art
The letter below, from Bob Ezrin, record producer extraordinaire (Pink Floyd's "The Wall", Jay-Z's "Fade to Black", among others) is about the music industry, and Trent Reznor. I found it here. But, even though it is about another industry I think a lot of his points about art and the need for a shift in our current business models, away from the bottom line and toward a concept of the value of art, has real merit. I found the letter inspiring and encouraging, and wanted to share it here:
Trent Reznor is a true visionary. He has broken and reinvented the rules of engagement on every level, from recording to touring to interacting with his fans.He's an intensely determined person—aware and on top of everything that happens in his name, from his music to his marketing. Trent controls all things Trent. Yes, he's had help along the way, but he's the captain of the Trent ship and his career is a product of his imagination and drive. He is not manufactured, homogenized, manipulated or packaged. He is Trent—and the rest of the folks get to react.
There's a clue in here to how to run one's life as an aspiring artist. I can't tell you how many times I've been in situations where aspiring artists (as you know, I hate the designation but will grant it to a few sublimely talented folks like Trent) have created something and have had a vision that has not resonated with their "handlers" from management to producers, to the record company to even sometimes their lawyer—and have succumbed to the pressure to conform to the taste and judgment of these people at the expense of their own intuition—and have failed either immedately or ultimately because, in the end, they simply weren't distinguished enough to connect to a large group of people in a lasting way. They may have produced a "hit song" but they typically did not create a career.
If Trent had done what everyone wanted him to, he would not have become a better selling act or bigger star as some of his advisors may have secretly thought. Instead, he would have disappeared long ago.
No one knows the heart or genius of true artists but the artists themselves. No one can predict them or imitate them or even steer them towards success. They are, by definition, single-minded people who cannot—and must not—see things the way the rest of us do. Once upon a time, we had a business built by passionate amateurs who revered the artists and who became their protectors, advocates and promoters. These folks didn't presume to tell their artists what to do. Oh, every once in a while, they might beg and plead for more or different to help them to do their job, but they never imposed their creative will on the people they most admired in all the world.
And so we had a landscape of determined individualists who made very individual music—lots of it. We all know who they were—and some still are. But now the biggest part of the business is run by cold-hearted professionals whose reverence is for the bottom line first and last—and who think nothing of imposing their ideas and will on the people they sign. And most of those signings are not because they are enthralled by genius or art but because they smell "a hit" or know that someone else does and that they'd better get in there first.
Now, when I say stuff like this, all the record company people get pissed off at me and say I'm an asshole and that they are there because of their love for music, etc. And I don't doubt that this is what propelled them at the start (though I suspect the notion of getting rich and hanging with rockstars may have had a bit to do with it too), but how many of the new leaders of our industry are able to resist the pressures of making their numbers in favor of supporting their artists? In fact, isn't their primary job to "increase shareholder value"? So, they really can't resist those pressures honestly and still be doing what they're being paid to do. The problem with this is that it takes more than a [business financial] quarter to build something of value and real art cannot be scheduled or projected—only commodities can. But if we're just a commodities business, then by definition we cannot build anything of real value—for the shareholders or the world.
So, what's the biggest lesson here? It is that, if we can all agree to do as Ahmet [Ertegün, co-founder of Atlantic Records] recommended and surround ourselves with brilliant people and help those people to develop their craft, their own voice, and become artists making things of real value, we might see our way into the next golden age of popular music.
Thank God for Trent—and for all the others like him who will not compromise and will fight to realize their vision. In the end, they might save us all.
Bob
Posted by sferrell at 1:40 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
April 19, 2007
I made the right career choice...
...now if I could only get it to pay the bills.
I bet a lot of you writers out there have been saying, "You know, all the time spent writing and editing, second guessing, listening to crappy advice and ignoring same, the angst about submissions, not getting paid for my work, and possibly writing for no one's pleasure but mine and my mother's, it's all been totally worth it!"
Well, now you know that you're not alone. According to YahooNews a survey has placed "author" in the ranking as one of the most satisfying jobs:
Job satisfactionAcross all occupations, on average 47 percent of those surveyed said they were satisfied with their jobs and 33 percent reported being very happy.
Here are the Top 10 most gratifying jobs and the percentage of subjects who said they were very satisfied with the job:
* Clergy—87 percent percent
* Firefighters—80 percent percent
* Physical therapists—78 percent percent
* Authors—74 percent
* Special education teachers—70 percent
* Teachers—69 percent
* Education administrators—68 percent
* Painters and sculptors—67 percent
* Psychologists—67 percent
* Security and financial services salespersons—65 percent
* Operating engineers—64 percent
* Office supervisors—61 percent
Yep, there we are, stuck between Physical Therapists and Special Education Teachers. That just about says it all, doesn't it?
Posted by sferrell at 9:43 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
April 18, 2007
VTech shooting victims
MSNBC has a retrospective of the Virginia Tech massacre victims, pictures and details of the students and teachers. It puts a lot of things in perspective.
These were babies that were killed. Even the professors. They were talented and beautiful and many of them died trying to help others.
Posted by sferrell at 10:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"New" Tolkein book, The Children of Hurin
CNN's review of the new J.R.R. Tolkein book, edited by his son Christopher Tolkein, makes "The Children of Hurin" sound not only like a compelling read and nice addition to the Middle Earth saga, but like a wonderful labor of love.
"It is the fruit of 30 years labor by Christopher Tolkien, the author's son, who has devoted much of his life to editing and publishing the work his father left behind. By meticulously combining and editing the many published and unpublished versions of the tale, he has produced at last a coherent, vivid and readable narrative."...
"Christopher Tolkien says that in reconciling the various versions of his father's story, he added no new material, save for an occasional transition. The words, he says, are virtually all his father's."
Given the number of false starts and unfinished pieces which I have laying about, I hope my son is ready to spend a good portion of his adulthood getting them into publishable form.
Posted by sferrell at 9:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 17, 2007
Giving it away has critics
This is pretty astounding. An outgoing SWFA VP, sci-fi writer and apparent luddite Dr. Howard Hendrix wrote an essay in which he blasted writers who give away their writing for free online. He called them "web-scabs," a poor use of the idea of a strike breaking worker, arguing that they undermine not only their own writing but that of other writers and the genre as a whole. We'll just ignore that scabs are people who break a strike, not people who offer their services for less money.
GalleyCat has followed the whole affair really well, both with this original post here
and a follow-up here.
Dr. Hendrix's obvious dislike of paradigm shifts and new technology is one thing. It's ironic (he writes sci-fi, which, you would think, involves a certain amout of "looking forward") and it's short-sighted (the web isn't going anywhere, and mainstream publishing's inability to figure out how to harness it in a way that makes them money is a problem for everyone; writers suffer now, publishers will suffer tomorrow). What makes his reactionary claims even harder to digest is his complete lack of understanding about how publishing, or any marketplace, works. There are more producers of content than there are outlets. Therefore, those who control the outlets can name their price, and the content producers usually have little choice but to fall in line. I have had several stories published. I have received no money for most of them, and what money I have seen bought me a coffee and donut at Starbucks. According to Dr. Hendrix I have undermined the noble profession of writing by giving it away for free. Does it matter that my writing was selected by editors who don't know me personally, who were professional and courteous and who chose my work over others? Probably not. My work was out there, for nothing, and damn me for trying.
This is, unfortunate as it is, a competition. I work as hard as I can on my writing because I know that there are so many great writers trying to storm the gates with me that if I sit by and just watch I'll never get in. And one of the ways I have to get in is to share my work, and one of the ways I share my work is online. Blogging is part of it, the non-fiction part. The other part, for me is going to be sharing fiction online in any way I can. I have had some stories published at other sites. Most of them are gone. One isn't (you can find the link to that story here). As a result I have stories which have been published online and are therefore unwanted by journals and other sites. That leaves me. If I'm going to show people what I write I have to put it up here. I'll be doing that on 4/23, Jo Walton's wonderfully named International Pixel-Stained Technopeasant Day. On that day I'll have one of my older stories up here for people to download under a creative commons license, and maybe I'll even have an audio version for download for people who want to hear it as they drive their car. I hope to share other stories in similar fashion. In any event, I am the only one who is going to do this marketing for me.
I don't know who Dr. Hendrix thought would do it for me, or him for that matter.
Posted by sferrell at 10:06 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 16, 2007
A good opportunity
The Emerging Writers Network has announced the 2nd Annual EWN Short Fiction Contest.
Update: As you can see from the comments below, Dan Wickett of Emerging Writers has clarified for us that genre is not limited as he is looking for "great stories that are
well written." Thanks, Dan!
Posted by sferrell at 11:24 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
April 13, 2007
Monument or room?
A few weeks ago GalleyCat had an interesting article up discussing politics in fiction. It wasn't about that directly. The point of the post is actually a rant against the science fiction reviewer at the New York Times Book Review. The complaint is that reviewer Dave Itzkoff is not up to the task of intelligent analysis of sci-fi works. John Scalzi's works are the material in question, and GalleyCat takes issue with how Mr. Itzkoff compares them with Heinlein. The argument is that Mr. Itzkoff is unable to handle nuance. For the purposes of this post that argument is irrelevant. What caught my eye was the response that Mr. Scalzi gave on his website, a quote of which GalleyCat provided:
John Scalzi has his own response to the review, and while he's largely thrilled at having been deemed worthy of notice in so high-profile a venue, he strongly disagrees with Itzkoff's claim that his work "plays both sides of the fence" in terms of its politics. Instead, Scalzi suggests that putting political content into a novel can either be like building a monument or building a room:
"If you build a monument, what you're doing is putting your politics and polemics in the center of your reader's attention and basically making him or her deal with them on your terms. The politics aren't accessible and aren't debatable; as a reader you deal with them or you don't... If you build a room, what you're doing is inviting people in—with all their baggage, political or otherwise—and inviting them to unpack and stay awhile... As a writer, you make the points you want to make, and because you've let your readers bring something into the book as well, I think you've got a better chance of them being receptive to your points."
This struck me as a useful and important idea. I am currently working on a novel which involves political elements (note: I believe that all writing includes political elements, I studied too much Derrida and Foucault to think otherwise, but that's a bigger issue which would require a bigger post, and would probably shrink my audience in reverse proportion to the length of my argument, so... whatever), and have wrestled with how to keep political ideas in the book without it becoming a screed or polemic. I'm still trying pin down how to do so, but this metaphor of the room and monument is helpful in my attempts. For instance, rather than make direct attacks on political ideas or politicians I am creating proxies, stand-ins who need not be the real world target of my ideals. Also, I'm not naming specific parties, or ideologies. I am creating a scenario which the protagonist is caught in, one which is a recognizable one that we all see in the papers everyday, but it is not a carbon copy of it. I have no real-world actions or events portrayed. It is, even though it's a "real world" setting and deals with "real world" problems, as if I'm writing something otherworldly. I'm looking at it in the same way that Bram Stoker's Dracula can be viewed as a statement about sexuality, women and immigration in England during the late 19th century. I'm trying to make statements which invite discussion without seeming to shout down the reader's own politics. This also allows me to raise the stakes--by not tying myself to real world people and places, by not being tied to specific instances of fact I'm finding that I'm allowing myself to follow my own arguments to their conclusions, and am raising questions against them myself.
In the end, I'm trying to build a room. Enough people are building monuments every day, on both sides of the political spectrum. We don't need another one muddying up our pop culture.
Posted by sferrell at 2:20 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 12, 2007
Kurt Vonnegut, 1922 - 2007
I had three different topics I was prepared to write about today. Politics in fiction. Good ways to provide information without dumping on the reader. Ways to keep your writing interesting and energetic for you. As I said, I was prepared to write about any of those today. I was not prepared to write about this.
Kurt Vonnegut passed away at the age of 84.
Damn.
I don't rank my favorite writers. It's like ranking flavors. Is chocolate really better than a fresh strawberry? Can you compare a really good wine to a great cup of coffee and say it's "higher" on your list. They are unrankable, each unique and individual, and authors are even more so because they shift and change through their careers. The first and last books from a long writing career may only have the author's name in common, but one cannot invalidate or validate their career, they are a part of that author's flavor. For these reasons I don't rank my favorites. But still, I have favorites.
Vonnegut is a favorite. He makes me want to write, and write well. He makes me want to write better. He makes me want to write something that matters and that entertains. He makes me think, and makes me want to keep thinking about the hard things that we go through. He makes me question what an author is and what an author can do. He makes jokes when in pain and evokes the cherished hurt of every emotion that makes life worth paying attention to. He was a writer that makes me want to do so much with my writing, to join in his conversation, to recognize what I think and feel and make them something that goes beyond words and into a deeper place, a place where language pushes against experience and for just a moment, almost actually IS the thing it's trying to describe. He was important.
I passed him on the street, twice. Once in New York. Once in Boston. I was to scared to say anything.
The world is not a better place without him.
I will miss him. I will reread his books, and will miss him more.
Posted by sferrell at 9:38 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
April 10, 2007
Thinking Blogger Award
The talented and funny Jaye Wells has awarded me with the Thinking Bloggers Award, for which I'm thankful. She was kind in her comments and made me blush. I blog mainly for myself, to find out what I think about what I think about, and to provide other writers with a window into my process and open a dialog which might benefit them, others and myself. It's a conversation, I hope, and I enjoy it. This award means that at least part of that conversation has been appreciated by someone other than me, and that makes me very happy. Best of all, the award is not simply a cool image to add to my site (see above). It also grants the responsibility to pass the award on, to share those five sites which tickle my brain and make the internet more than simply a series of tubes.
The rules, from The Thinking Blog site:
1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think,
2. link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote (here is an alternative silver version if gold doesn't fit your blog).
So there it is. The rules which I pass on to the following sites, none of which needed my help in being heavily trafficked, none of which will probably even care that I've noticed them, but which nonetheless get me thinking and which call for me to drop by, every day, by being interesting...
The thinking blog awards go to:
Anne Mini A writer's site with a far too prolific author, Anne Mini. For anyone who tries to put pen to paper, hers is a site to be checked out.
John Scalzi Another author, another must visit. His blog is like sitting in his livingroom and having a bull session. Pretty cool stuff.
Miss Snark For those done putting the pen to paper and ready to query query query, let me summarize Miss Snark for you: Follow the rules. If you don't know them, check her out (and wear a cup).
Wil Wheaton More than just an actor. More than just a writer. More than just a guy who thinks he's a geek. King of the Geeks. I kneel before him.
Toyman Smart, funny, talented. Also, possibly related to me.
Posted by sferrell at 11:30 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 6, 2007
eBooks.
The great ebook debate continues. I have yet to see a viable model for ebooks which didn't look either amateurish or like no one would find the books, and it seems that there may be a reason for it. Charlie Stross has a good analysis of why the ebook market is broken. Like music piracy, a lot of the problem is that the industry is unwilling to allow for a change in how it wants consumers to consume. Charlie's essay is long, but worth checking out.
Posted by sferrell at 10:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 5, 2007
Miranda July
Miranda July has a brilliant website up promoting her new fiction collection.
She is the filmmaker of "You and Me and Everyone We Know," and she's brilliant and daring and brave. In other words, she's an artist. I wouldn't mind hanging out with Ms. July, even just once over a cup of coffee.
Posted by sferrell at 2:02 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
YouWrite?
This article from Galley Cat, which starts out about the new Harry Potter book, ends on a note about the publisher Nigel Newton's interest in creating a new method of marketing fiction: A YouTube for writers.
Now, I'm not against use of new media at all. In fact I'm planning on recording some of my short stories as podcasts and releasing them here, for free, for readers to take and listen to and share (anyone intersted in that sort of thing? Anyone? Hello?). What I do wonder about is the methodology. Creating a new marketplace and means of distributing books doesn't solve the issue that publishers aren't promoting books in a way that finds readers. Creating a huge online bazaar may or may not be the answer. I suppose if it is categorized in a sufficient way it may work, but how often do you go to YouTube, or any other video site, and browse through their categories. Isn't it usually the case that someone sends you a link, or you do a search on a specific name or phrase and find that "will ferrell oscars song" or the "thomas pynchon simpsons" clip. How often have you found those by saying, "Hmmm... which category would that be in?" That being the case, what chance does an online bazaar of fiction have? Won't it end up looking just like Amazon, and rely on just the same low cost word of mouth that Amazon and traditional bookstores rely on?
Posted by sferrell at 10:42 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 4, 2007
It's not a race
I recently read a post from a young writer who complained she was unable to maintain the energy necessary to finish a novel. She used the word "bored" a lot in the post, and wondered if she was doomed to be a short story writer instead of a novelist (her tone, not mine... I love short stories, I write them, read them, hang them on my wall, give them to people as gifts, so please... no hate mail).
What surprised me most about her post was that she complained that on a recent Saturday she had written for about four hours and wasn't pleased with any of what she'd written.
Four hours.
If I had four uninterrupted hours I would assume that either I was dead or my family had deserted me. Hell, I'd worry if I had twenty uninterrupted minutes.
I was thinking about this writer's post as I finished up my morning writing on the train into Manhattan. I've been under the weather for about two weeks now and it's thrown my entire life into disarray, so getting back into my habit and getting a good hour(+) of work in felt good. I put my journal away as we reached 42nd Street and the young woman's concern about her boredom, lack of energy, and inability to finish popped into my head and I couldn't help but feel I might know what the problem is:
This is not a dash, it's a marathon.
As I mention this old cliche the fable of the tortoise and the hare may pop into your head, but I think a more appropriate fable is the ant and grasshopper. Some may think "gathering food ain't like writing," but tell that to a writer. Put in the work every day and when winter comes you'll have your novel. It's not about finishing it in a weekend, or a week or even during November. It's the daily chore you long to do. It's the habit, like a drug.
"Oh, I can quit any time."
"Really? Then put down the pen. Put it down..."
"O-okay... see? I put it down..."
"All right, now... step away from the keyboard."
"No."
I used to think that if I didn't have three or four uninterrupted hours I couldn't get any work done. "It takes me a while to warm up," I said. Yeah, right. Now I warm up in about half-a-sentence, and I realize that if I don't warm up in that half-sentence or even a half-page or two or four pages it doesn't matter. Revision is where the work takes place. The writer who is concerned about "not having the drive" to finish, or who becomes bored with her own story may simply be looking for a work ethic that doesn't exist. She may be buring herself out by doing four hour marathon writing sessions that are like chiseling words into granite because it's not fun. A little work every day, fun sessions where you leave on a high note and want to keep going but leave it for the next day as a great starting point, that's how you build your novel.
I hope she doesn't stop trying. And I hope she doesn't beat herself up for having to learn the hard way how to do it.
Posted by sferrell at 9:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack