A couple of weeks ago, I trashed a book. Don't worry - it was my own. It had a long life in draft form, spanning several years, but it had a fatal flaw that I was never able to fix. I knew it and editors knew it and then a respected agent pointed it out and I decided to trash it. For now, anyhow. I'm generally good at throwing things away, but I rarely actually toss a manuscript. Sometimes, years later, you reach an insight that breathes life into the dead.
After pouring yourself into a manuscript over a period of months and years, you lose perspective, which is why we have gatekeepers - editors and agents who size up our writing critically and more or less objectively in terms of what will resonate with the market. Though they love discovering new talent, gatekeepers are particularly tough on amateurs.
These days, writers can circumvent the gatekeepers and opt for self-publishing, online or in hard copy. For some niche projects and folks who lose patience with the slow and sometimes illogical wheels of conventional publishing, these options work best.
Is it simply tradition that keeps us from ditching gatekeepers altogether? Will electronic publishing lead us to full democratization of the publishing process, equalizing all voices? We're hearing a lot about elitism from our own Sarah Palin. Ridding ourselves of editors and agents would banish elitism from publishing.
Recently I wrote a review for Bookforum, a print publication. Had I been reviewing the same book on Amazon or on this blog, I would have drafted and revised once, maybe twice. But because I was being paid for my work, I wrote to a higher standard, revising several times. A fine editor suggested more rounds of changes. A fact-checker asked me to elaborate on one of my statements.
The result: a well-crafted review. Readers are a discerning bunch. Serious readers and writers welcome a certain reach of elitism in publishing, even though it means some manuscripts will never see the light of day. Some books - my own included - need to be trashed.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
IS THE INTERNET BAD FOR WRITERS?
In a recent LA Times blog post, Carolyn Kennedy quotes two writers who say they physically remove themselves from internet temptations in order to get down to the serious, concentrated effort required to write their novels.
One of my theories about Alaskan authors is that we are, in general, folks who are happy being several degrees removed from the mainstream. We enjoy a certain degree of isolation. One downside was not feeling connected with the literary mainstream and, to a certain extent, with our audience. Another was geographic distance that made book promotion difficult, especially for children's writers who depend on school visits to get the word out. My writer friend Claire Rudolf Murphy left Alaska several years ago partly for these reasons, and she is still much missed.
I've noted the downsides of Alaskan isolation in the past tense. Though the internet hasn't erased them, it has definitely blunted their effects.
The internet is just one of hundreds of potential distractions for writers to drift away from the hard work of developing characters or unsticking themselves from the tough middle of a novel. At the fingertips that should be busy penning a saleable book is one of our powerful distraction.
Perhaps more important is the effect of the internet on language and thought. Collectively, our minds are shifting to texted sound bites. In twenty years, who will have the patience to read - or write - a complete sentence, let alone novel? Since the advent of television, we've had doomsday predictions about the slow slide toward illiteracy. In many ways, the writer's best research friend may also be her worst enemy.
One of my theories about Alaskan authors is that we are, in general, folks who are happy being several degrees removed from the mainstream. We enjoy a certain degree of isolation. One downside was not feeling connected with the literary mainstream and, to a certain extent, with our audience. Another was geographic distance that made book promotion difficult, especially for children's writers who depend on school visits to get the word out. My writer friend Claire Rudolf Murphy left Alaska several years ago partly for these reasons, and she is still much missed.
I've noted the downsides of Alaskan isolation in the past tense. Though the internet hasn't erased them, it has definitely blunted their effects.
The internet is just one of hundreds of potential distractions for writers to drift away from the hard work of developing characters or unsticking themselves from the tough middle of a novel. At the fingertips that should be busy penning a saleable book is one of our powerful distraction.
Perhaps more important is the effect of the internet on language and thought. Collectively, our minds are shifting to texted sound bites. In twenty years, who will have the patience to read - or write - a complete sentence, let alone novel? Since the advent of television, we've had doomsday predictions about the slow slide toward illiteracy. In many ways, the writer's best research friend may also be her worst enemy.
Friday, October 3, 2008
ALASKAN AUTHORS WEEKLY ROUND-UP
What do book bloggers do all day? Former Alaskan (but still with Alaskan connections) book blogger and reviewer Colleen Mondor posts an enlightening explanation at Chasing Ray . Don't get any ideas - my day is not at all like hers.
When I posted yesterday on style vs. substance, I pointed to Sarah Palin's convoluted response concerning Supreme Court decisions (other than Roe v. Wade) with which she disagreed. While you're at Chasing Ray, check out Colleen's post on how Sarah missed the obvious as she stumbled over herself to not answer: the recent Supreme Court decision concerned the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
In June, Sarah made a rather eloquent official response deriding the court's Exxon Valdez decision, yet now she can't even recall she disagreed with it. More evidence that, sadly, the Alaskan leader most of us used to sort of like is just the propped-up, say-whatever-they-tell-me-to gal we saw last night. And don't even get me started on how she can't name one single publication she actually read to enlighten herself while all you rich kids were out there seeing the world.
I do appreciate that Sarah occasionally makes us think. As part of her non-response to the question of what she read, she also said that "Alaska is like a microcosm of America." A longtime Alaskan told me after last night's debate that Alaska is a northern version of the American South. I've never thought of us in either way, but I'm interested in what the rest of you think.
Finally, don't miss Andromeda Romano-Lax's interview with the author who opted out of writing Palin's biography.
When I posted yesterday on style vs. substance, I pointed to Sarah Palin's convoluted response concerning Supreme Court decisions (other than Roe v. Wade) with which she disagreed. While you're at Chasing Ray, check out Colleen's post on how Sarah missed the obvious as she stumbled over herself to not answer: the recent Supreme Court decision concerned the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
In June, Sarah made a rather eloquent official response deriding the court's Exxon Valdez decision, yet now she can't even recall she disagreed with it. More evidence that, sadly, the Alaskan leader most of us used to sort of like is just the propped-up, say-whatever-they-tell-me-to gal we saw last night. And don't even get me started on how she can't name one single publication she actually read to enlighten herself while all you rich kids were out there seeing the world.
I do appreciate that Sarah occasionally makes us think. As part of her non-response to the question of what she read, she also said that "Alaska is like a microcosm of America." A longtime Alaskan told me after last night's debate that Alaska is a northern version of the American South. I've never thought of us in either way, but I'm interested in what the rest of you think.
Finally, don't miss Andromeda Romano-Lax's interview with the author who opted out of writing Palin's biography.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
WHY ELOQUENCE MATTERS
Tonight millions of viewers will watch the highly anticipated debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, and we'll explore another facet of the cult of the amateur - whether eloquence matters.
Sarah says we need an American in the White House who represents "Joe Six-Pack." But can't a vice president represent Joe Six-Pack and also speak in complete, coherent sentences? Take a look at "Sarah's Grammar," posted by my fellow blogger Andromeda Romano-Lax. Then consider Sarah's response when asked by Katie Couric whether she disagreed with Supreme Court decisions other than Roe v. Wade:
"I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that...I would think of any, again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level, maybe I would take issue with."
This isn't a random sentence plucked out of context to make her look bad. Her entire response had the same woeful construction. Joe Biden had it easy because he had an actual answer to the question: he disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision on the Violence Against Women Act.
It's not just the pressure of the national stage that reduces Palin to gibberish. Consider her response, reported in today's ADN, when asked during a gubernatorial debate to explain how she would pay for new health programs:
"Proper role of government is providing the tools that those in the private sector aren't able to gather themselves, and critical health care will be a priority. I will cover that as your governor, I will make sure that we are fulfilling our constitutional, mandated provisions there, that are laid out for us. Again, education, basic solid infrastructure, public safety - in public safety is health care, so it's a matter of priorities."
Confused? Me too. Her thoughts aren't clear, complete, or coherent. They're a far cry from eloquent. Any English teacher can tell you why. When people don't know what they're talking about, they speak and write in circles. To cure this kind of doublespeak, you have to go back to the drawing board, think through your ideas, and make sure you have something to say.
Tonight's debate will be style versus substance. Sarah's style is limited to poise, looks, confidence, and sarcasm. I suspect Sarah would say eloquence is for elitists.
The public will have to decide if they want leaders who actually know what they're saying. The best way to tell if they do will be to examine how they say it.
Sarah says we need an American in the White House who represents "Joe Six-Pack." But can't a vice president represent Joe Six-Pack and also speak in complete, coherent sentences? Take a look at "Sarah's Grammar," posted by my fellow blogger Andromeda Romano-Lax. Then consider Sarah's response when asked by Katie Couric whether she disagreed with Supreme Court decisions other than Roe v. Wade:
"I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in in an issue like that...I would think of any, again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level, maybe I would take issue with."
This isn't a random sentence plucked out of context to make her look bad. Her entire response had the same woeful construction. Joe Biden had it easy because he had an actual answer to the question: he disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision on the Violence Against Women Act.
It's not just the pressure of the national stage that reduces Palin to gibberish. Consider her response, reported in today's ADN, when asked during a gubernatorial debate to explain how she would pay for new health programs:
"Proper role of government is providing the tools that those in the private sector aren't able to gather themselves, and critical health care will be a priority. I will cover that as your governor, I will make sure that we are fulfilling our constitutional, mandated provisions there, that are laid out for us. Again, education, basic solid infrastructure, public safety - in public safety is health care, so it's a matter of priorities."
Confused? Me too. Her thoughts aren't clear, complete, or coherent. They're a far cry from eloquent. Any English teacher can tell you why. When people don't know what they're talking about, they speak and write in circles. To cure this kind of doublespeak, you have to go back to the drawing board, think through your ideas, and make sure you have something to say.
Tonight's debate will be style versus substance. Sarah's style is limited to poise, looks, confidence, and sarcasm. I suspect Sarah would say eloquence is for elitists.
The public will have to decide if they want leaders who actually know what they're saying. The best way to tell if they do will be to examine how they say it.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
CULT OF THE AMATEUR
As I mentioned last week, I've been reading Andrew Keen's The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture. Keen proposes that blogs are part of the problem - a big problem - so perhaps a blog is an odd forum for discussing his observations. But there's a lot to ponder in what he says, especially for Alaska.
The most obvious connection - with apologies to those of you who don't want to hear another word about Sarah Palin - is McCain's selection of an amateur for his running mate. It's not the first, it won't be the last, and yes, some make a case for Obama being, if not an amateur, not exactly an expert either.
This isn't the Alaskan spirit of doing the best you can with what you've got because it's all you've got. What's unfolding in the Palin candidacy is the notion that amateur status isn't something for which you must apologize, compensate, or explain. With a big boost from the internet, Keen proffers, we've thrust ourselves into a frightening extension of populism, the celebration of the amateur.
That's why some scoff at qualifications and education and judgment and say they wish Sarah Palin could be President because she's just like them. That's why her Truth Squad has the audacity to conduct daily bashings of "partisan politics" and "the media elite" as if they're some sort of plague from which we must be quarantined. It's why, if we're not paying attention, we could get confused and believe something is Truth just because a Squad says it's so.
The cult of the amateur calls for a ditching of the experts, those with the facts. Get your news from the man on the street, the blogger with all the answers, the smart guys that call in to radio talk shows.
Here's what I like about Alaska. It stretches you beyond your perceived limits, and it also puts you in your place. But in the cult of the amateur, you're neither stretched nor corrected. You can blather on and think it means something. And maybe it does, if enough people believe it.
Our current economic crisis is another proving ground for the strength of the cult. Will Congress listen to economists or amateurs? So far, the amateurs have prevailed. In a climate of distrust and a cacophony of voices, the question is how far they can go, and what damage will be done along the way.
There's more to be said about what the cult of the amateur means for both Alaskans and authors. We'll use this forum - the forum of amateurs - to explore those ideas later this week.
The most obvious connection - with apologies to those of you who don't want to hear another word about Sarah Palin - is McCain's selection of an amateur for his running mate. It's not the first, it won't be the last, and yes, some make a case for Obama being, if not an amateur, not exactly an expert either.
This isn't the Alaskan spirit of doing the best you can with what you've got because it's all you've got. What's unfolding in the Palin candidacy is the notion that amateur status isn't something for which you must apologize, compensate, or explain. With a big boost from the internet, Keen proffers, we've thrust ourselves into a frightening extension of populism, the celebration of the amateur.
That's why some scoff at qualifications and education and judgment and say they wish Sarah Palin could be President because she's just like them. That's why her Truth Squad has the audacity to conduct daily bashings of "partisan politics" and "the media elite" as if they're some sort of plague from which we must be quarantined. It's why, if we're not paying attention, we could get confused and believe something is Truth just because a Squad says it's so.
The cult of the amateur calls for a ditching of the experts, those with the facts. Get your news from the man on the street, the blogger with all the answers, the smart guys that call in to radio talk shows.
Here's what I like about Alaska. It stretches you beyond your perceived limits, and it also puts you in your place. But in the cult of the amateur, you're neither stretched nor corrected. You can blather on and think it means something. And maybe it does, if enough people believe it.
Our current economic crisis is another proving ground for the strength of the cult. Will Congress listen to economists or amateurs? So far, the amateurs have prevailed. In a climate of distrust and a cacophony of voices, the question is how far they can go, and what damage will be done along the way.
There's more to be said about what the cult of the amateur means for both Alaskans and authors. We'll use this forum - the forum of amateurs - to explore those ideas later this week.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
WHY I LOVE TO PICK BERRIES
Thanks to our celebrity governor, it might seem Alaskans are all about bagging moose and shooting wolves from planes. Truth is, most of us revel in simpler and less controversial pursuits like picking berries.
This hasn't been an especially good year for berries. They arrived late and are hanging on late. But I spent two glorious days surrounded by mountains, gathering blueberries from leaf-swept bushes and plucking clusters of cranberries hanging low to the ground, marveling at the bounty undeserved and the seemingly limitless supply. Kneeling in lichen and prickly crowberry leaves and spongy moss and minty labrador tea, you see layers of goodness that mostly just get stepped on.
Picking berries requires little. You decide whether this berry is big enough or that berry is ripe enough. You swoop on size and quantity, and you toss aside obsessions with picking them all. There's a satisfaction to filling your pail, but mostly you love the smell of smoke wafting from the chimney, the rattle of leaves fluttering to the ground, the explosion of colors on the fall tundra, the flutter of little white moths indifferent to the brevity of their lives.
Things you've felt in your gut gather in ways that make sense. Picking berries on the wide-sweeping tundra, I realized something bigger than me was in charge of the world, and that was very good. Picking berries in the shadow of mountains, I finally figured out that when who you are and what you want are overshadowed by what someone else wants you to be and what someone else wants you to want, that really is an irreconcilable difference.
When you pick berries, there's always hope. Antioxidants are a nice plus, but I love berries because I love to pick them.
This hasn't been an especially good year for berries. They arrived late and are hanging on late. But I spent two glorious days surrounded by mountains, gathering blueberries from leaf-swept bushes and plucking clusters of cranberries hanging low to the ground, marveling at the bounty undeserved and the seemingly limitless supply. Kneeling in lichen and prickly crowberry leaves and spongy moss and minty labrador tea, you see layers of goodness that mostly just get stepped on.
Picking berries requires little. You decide whether this berry is big enough or that berry is ripe enough. You swoop on size and quantity, and you toss aside obsessions with picking them all. There's a satisfaction to filling your pail, but mostly you love the smell of smoke wafting from the chimney, the rattle of leaves fluttering to the ground, the explosion of colors on the fall tundra, the flutter of little white moths indifferent to the brevity of their lives.
Things you've felt in your gut gather in ways that make sense. Picking berries on the wide-sweeping tundra, I realized something bigger than me was in charge of the world, and that was very good. Picking berries in the shadow of mountains, I finally figured out that when who you are and what you want are overshadowed by what someone else wants you to be and what someone else wants you to want, that really is an irreconcilable difference.
When you pick berries, there's always hope. Antioxidants are a nice plus, but I love berries because I love to pick them.
Friday, September 26, 2008
ALASKAN AUTHORS WEEKLY ROUND-UP
The Alaska Sisters in Crime have much to celebrate. On Monday, October 13, the group will receive the 2007 Alaska Contributions to Literacy Award for the outstanding work they've done promoting literacy in our state. Also on hand will be Scottish author Donna Moore, AKSinC's 2008 Author to the Bush, who'll do a short presentation on her work with students in Aniak. AKSinC invites you to join them for refreshments, door prizes, live music, and special guests, starting at 6 p.m. at the BP Energy Center. Be sure to RSVP by Friday, October 10, to info@aksinc.org.
Another Palin book is crashing to market. Assembled in a week by the folks at Collins (don't we all wish we could produce a book that fast?), Terminatrix: The Sarah Palin Chronicles will feature satire and digitally altered photographs ostensibly gathered by the Wasilla Iron Dog Gazette. They say even negative publicity is good publicity, but is anyone else doubting the rhetoric that the Palin candidacy is good for Alaska?
Google Previews, coming soon to your favorite websites, will allow readers to preview up to 20 percent of a book. I've been reading Andrew Keen's Cult of the Amateur, a timely analysis of the effect of the internet on our culture, and will have more to say on that next week.
Seems we may have to clone Mr. Whitekeys. No sooner had my friend invited me to his political show built around next Thursday's VP debates, and we learn the Whitekeys event is sold out. Stay tuned. After McCain proposed canceling his debate with Obama tonight and conveniently bumping the VP debate to reschedule it, anything could happen. Joe Biden could be left standing on an empty stage like Obama almost was, and we'd have to send Mr. Whitekeys as a Sarah stand-in.
Given our governor's stellar performance with Katie Couric this week (answer to why Alaska's proximity to Russia counts as foreign policy experience: "it's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to...charac...you know...reporters"), McCain must want to cancel her debate out of fear she'll upstage him. I'm sure glad I heard the Couric interview, because I discovered I've been asleep at the wheel these last 29 years. Turns out - according to Sarah - Russia has been buzzing all over our airspace and none of us knew it. Dang Russkies. But rest easy - "we've" been keeping a watchful eye on them.
Another Palin book is crashing to market. Assembled in a week by the folks at Collins (don't we all wish we could produce a book that fast?), Terminatrix: The Sarah Palin Chronicles will feature satire and digitally altered photographs ostensibly gathered by the Wasilla Iron Dog Gazette. They say even negative publicity is good publicity, but is anyone else doubting the rhetoric that the Palin candidacy is good for Alaska?
Google Previews, coming soon to your favorite websites, will allow readers to preview up to 20 percent of a book. I've been reading Andrew Keen's Cult of the Amateur, a timely analysis of the effect of the internet on our culture, and will have more to say on that next week.
Seems we may have to clone Mr. Whitekeys. No sooner had my friend invited me to his political show built around next Thursday's VP debates, and we learn the Whitekeys event is sold out. Stay tuned. After McCain proposed canceling his debate with Obama tonight and conveniently bumping the VP debate to reschedule it, anything could happen. Joe Biden could be left standing on an empty stage like Obama almost was, and we'd have to send Mr. Whitekeys as a Sarah stand-in.
Given our governor's stellar performance with Katie Couric this week (answer to why Alaska's proximity to Russia counts as foreign policy experience: "it's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to...charac...you know...reporters"), McCain must want to cancel her debate out of fear she'll upstage him. I'm sure glad I heard the Couric interview, because I discovered I've been asleep at the wheel these last 29 years. Turns out - according to Sarah - Russia has been buzzing all over our airspace and none of us knew it. Dang Russkies. But rest easy - "we've" been keeping a watchful eye on them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
