When it comes to social networking, I far prefer LinkedIn to Facebook. I find LinkedIn's interface far more intuitive—actually, whenever I try to use Facebook or add something to my own page, I feel like I'm lost and blindfolded, trying to find my way around by feel.
Amanda Rooker's review of a novel by Richard Sanders shows the intersection and mutual reinforcement of LinkedIn and the e-book phenomenon. She describes how she found out about the book not through Amazon or any book promotion vehicle, but through other links that she found interesting on LinkedIn.
On its own merits, Amanda's review is one of the best book reviews I have ever read. Without revealing much of the plot, I really got an understanding of her reaction to the story. I am also intrigued enough to actually buy the book.
And that says a lot about how the e-book publishing phenomenon is working. Read it over. And Amanda, if you're reading this, please add to your blog with more reviews!
Friday, July 08, 2011
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Getting closer to publishing
I've been receiving some excellent feedback from professional writers, editors and publishers who have looked at my manuscript, The Bones of the Earth. It's very encouraging.
I thought that my book was good, but it's heartening to hear that comment from others.
I have to admit, I did get discouraged earlier this year when I sent sample chapters to agents and publishers. I got turned down flat—not an uncommon experience for new authors. (Although I have been published many times over the last two decades, as a journalist, though, not an author of fiction.)
But it seemed that publishers and agents turned down the manuscript without even looking at it. Maybe I undersold it, or mis-sold it, or just failed in the description. And the book is not like others on the shelves today. Maybe the concept is just too difficult for most publishers today.
I actually had one publisher balk at the names of the characters—he just did not like the sound of them! The names are all historical, by the way. People had those names, and today, there are still people with names like "Hrech" and "Vorona."
All that to say, I'm getting closer to just biting the bullet and publishing this book as an independent writer. Watch this space for updates.
I thought that my book was good, but it's heartening to hear that comment from others.
I have to admit, I did get discouraged earlier this year when I sent sample chapters to agents and publishers. I got turned down flat—not an uncommon experience for new authors. (Although I have been published many times over the last two decades, as a journalist, though, not an author of fiction.)
But it seemed that publishers and agents turned down the manuscript without even looking at it. Maybe I undersold it, or mis-sold it, or just failed in the description. And the book is not like others on the shelves today. Maybe the concept is just too difficult for most publishers today.
I actually had one publisher balk at the names of the characters—he just did not like the sound of them! The names are all historical, by the way. People had those names, and today, there are still people with names like "Hrech" and "Vorona."
All that to say, I'm getting closer to just biting the bullet and publishing this book as an independent writer. Watch this space for updates.
Friday, June 03, 2011
Does this drive you crazy?
Adam Mansbach’s newest book has reached number four on Amazon’s bestseller list even before it’s published, according to a report in last weekend's newspaper.
How did he achieve this? With a lot of f-bombs. It’s a book for adults, but written satirically as a children’s book, called Go the Fuck to Sleep. The verse is accompanied by illustrations by Ricardo Cortés. It evokes earlier children’s “go to sleep” books like Goodnight Moon.
How did he achieve this? With a lot of f-bombs. It’s a book for adults, but written satirically as a children’s book, called Go the Fuck to Sleep. The verse is accompanied by illustrations by Ricardo Cortés. It evokes earlier children’s “go to sleep” books like Goodnight Moon.
Mansbach is an author of several books, the latest entitled The End of the Jews. He has been acclaimed through his writing career, winning a number of awards, at least according to his own website.
What bothers me about this is that this is an established writer. He began as an editor of Elementary, a journal about hip-hop, and has parlayed that exposure into a book career. One of his novels, Angry Black White Boy, was performed as a play for three months in San Francisco. Mansbach was also 2009-2010 New Voices Professor of Fiction at Rutgers University.
In other words, he is established and successful. So what does he do? He uses “fuck” juxtaposed with children to sell a lot of books.
It’s cheap, cheaper than Cee Lo Green’s “Fuck You” song, which gets airplay as “Forget You” only because we all know that’s just the radio, prime-time version, and what he really means.
Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but I always think that cussing is a cheap shot, an easy way out. While there are definitely places for swearing, particularly in dialogue, a good writer shouldn’t have to resort to this to get his or her point across.
Mansbach has been published by Doubleday and Bloomsbury, as well as a lot of very small presses.
What drives me crazy about this is that, cheap and easy and low as it is, it works. Maybe I should add some cussing to my books. Or just write a book of nothing but cussing.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
My first e-book review: Anabar's Run by Will Grainger
Anabar’s Run by Will Grainger
This is my first review of an e-book. I was guided to it by the author, whom I met on LinkedIn. That points to the need for independent writers to promote their work.
I liked Anabar’s Run: it has a simple, very clear style well suited to younger readers, particularly boys. It evokes the style of grade-school readers: simple words, mostly short sentences and a straightforwardness that paints vivid pictures.
This rite-of-passage story is a metaphor for the journey every boy has to make into manhood. That in itself is refreshing—the majority of new commercial fiction seems to be aimed solely at preteen girls. Is the publishing industry now so sexist that it believes young men do not read?
What I liked:
Anabar’s Run opens like a fairy tale, with a description of Anabar’s home: a beautiful, fertile valley, isolated and therefore protected from the rest of the world. It’s simultaneously familiar and foreign—character names like Tom and Ralph make it seem homey, while the fantasy element is brought in with names like Pompor and the names of the two countries on whose border the valley is set: Semdela and Ricamerath. The time is pre-industrial: weapons are swords and knives, travel is done on horse.
Anabar is sixteen, on the brink of manhood, an orphan raised by his two neighbours, the pompous Pompor and the simple Tom. These two are deftly drawn. With little description, the author has created believable characters.
Anabar begins to explore beyond the boundaries of his world, but on his first foray outside the valley, he meets two dangerous men and barely escapes—again, something that every man can identify with. He returns home with a few injuries, but the outside world in the form of a mysterious scout named Omalof has noticed him. Omalof follows Anabar home and presents him an opportunity: become a Scout like him. However, it will require tough training and several tests.
The plot proceeds quickly with increasingly difficult challenges. Anabar meets more people and enters a town for the first him in his life. His reactions and inner dialogue are very clear and believable, and he shows himself to be an admirable person.
Drawbacks:
It’s really only half a story. The author explains that he wrote a long novel and decided to break it at a logical point into two shortish novels. This makes each book seem less daunting, but it feels like there should be more. Yes, it’s smart for a writer to make the reader want the sequel, but it feels a little like I’ve been short-changed.
The only other problem is that it needs a good, independent copy-edit and proofread. There are a number of typos, missing words and punctuation—nothing that interferes with reading the story, but it does show that every writer needs an editor. (On May 25, author Will Grainger posted on his blog that he is correcting the novel as much as he can.)
So, I’m giving this story 4 out of 5, and I’m going to read the sequel, Anabar Rises.
This is my first review of an e-book. I was guided to it by the author, whom I met on LinkedIn. That points to the need for independent writers to promote their work.
I liked Anabar’s Run: it has a simple, very clear style well suited to younger readers, particularly boys. It evokes the style of grade-school readers: simple words, mostly short sentences and a straightforwardness that paints vivid pictures.
This rite-of-passage story is a metaphor for the journey every boy has to make into manhood. That in itself is refreshing—the majority of new commercial fiction seems to be aimed solely at preteen girls. Is the publishing industry now so sexist that it believes young men do not read?
What I liked:
Anabar’s Run opens like a fairy tale, with a description of Anabar’s home: a beautiful, fertile valley, isolated and therefore protected from the rest of the world. It’s simultaneously familiar and foreign—character names like Tom and Ralph make it seem homey, while the fantasy element is brought in with names like Pompor and the names of the two countries on whose border the valley is set: Semdela and Ricamerath. The time is pre-industrial: weapons are swords and knives, travel is done on horse.
Anabar is sixteen, on the brink of manhood, an orphan raised by his two neighbours, the pompous Pompor and the simple Tom. These two are deftly drawn. With little description, the author has created believable characters.
Anabar begins to explore beyond the boundaries of his world, but on his first foray outside the valley, he meets two dangerous men and barely escapes—again, something that every man can identify with. He returns home with a few injuries, but the outside world in the form of a mysterious scout named Omalof has noticed him. Omalof follows Anabar home and presents him an opportunity: become a Scout like him. However, it will require tough training and several tests.
The plot proceeds quickly with increasingly difficult challenges. Anabar meets more people and enters a town for the first him in his life. His reactions and inner dialogue are very clear and believable, and he shows himself to be an admirable person.
Drawbacks:
It’s really only half a story. The author explains that he wrote a long novel and decided to break it at a logical point into two shortish novels. This makes each book seem less daunting, but it feels like there should be more. Yes, it’s smart for a writer to make the reader want the sequel, but it feels a little like I’ve been short-changed.
The only other problem is that it needs a good, independent copy-edit and proofread. There are a number of typos, missing words and punctuation—nothing that interferes with reading the story, but it does show that every writer needs an editor. (On May 25, author Will Grainger posted on his blog that he is correcting the novel as much as he can.)
So, I’m giving this story 4 out of 5, and I’m going to read the sequel, Anabar Rises.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Keeping up with the Web
I’ve been exploring the world of e-book publishing sites, and while there is a lot of interesting information, one question keeps coming to me: where do these people find the time to write?
There are people who participate regularly in online authors’ forums and discussions on networking sites like LinkedIn and Facebook. They also write blogs, and update their own Facebook, Twitter and Web pages. They also review books and interview the authors.
Apparently, if you want to be a successful writer, self-published or published by a major company, you need to do all this to promote awareness and sales of your work.
At the same time, they manage to write and publish their work. So, where do they find the time for all this?
There are people who participate regularly in online authors’ forums and discussions on networking sites like LinkedIn and Facebook. They also write blogs, and update their own Facebook, Twitter and Web pages. They also review books and interview the authors.
Apparently, if you want to be a successful writer, self-published or published by a major company, you need to do all this to promote awareness and sales of your work.
At the same time, they manage to write and publish their work. So, where do they find the time for all this?
Thursday, May 19, 2011
An interesting word: Fuliginous
Yesterday, a client used a word that I had never seen before—and that does not happen often: “fuliginous.”
She was using the word to describe a successful conference, as in “a raging success.”
To be fair, English was not the author’s first language, although she speaks fluently. And it was a challenging assignment: she was trying to write a wrap-up press release for an even that hasn’t happened, yet. As a Scouting leader, I cannot fault her for trying to be prepared.
In case your dictionary is beyond your fingertips right now, the Canadian Oxford defines “fuliginous” as “sooty, dusky,” derived from the Latin word for soot, “fuligo.”
How did the client get from “raging” to “sooty”? It turns out she was using an online translation tool. She wanted to describe something as “a raging success,” and the software gave her “fuliginous.”
There’s really no automating the editor, is there?
She was using the word to describe a successful conference, as in “a raging success.”
To be fair, English was not the author’s first language, although she speaks fluently. And it was a challenging assignment: she was trying to write a wrap-up press release for an even that hasn’t happened, yet. As a Scouting leader, I cannot fault her for trying to be prepared.
In case your dictionary is beyond your fingertips right now, the Canadian Oxford defines “fuliginous” as “sooty, dusky,” derived from the Latin word for soot, “fuligo.”
How did the client get from “raging” to “sooty”? It turns out she was using an online translation tool. She wanted to describe something as “a raging success,” and the software gave her “fuliginous.”
There’s really no automating the editor, is there?
Friday, April 29, 2011
Royal, shmoyal—there are other things going on
It's not a new thing. But for crying out loud, does EVERY media outlet in the world have to let itself be dominated by the Royal Wedding?
Record-breaking storms across North America, elections around the world, the Arab Spring, Apple tracking its users, Apple actually not providing tracking information to third parties, the erosion of Canadian democracy and the way we consumers continue to be ripped off by oil companies. These are just a few of the stories that are more important than two obscenely rich young people getting married.
Sure, they're beautiful. And it's nice when young people in love get married. Hooray.
But enough on the royal wedding. Royalty is an evil that has long outlived its usefulness.
Kudos to Gian Gomeshi for trying to ban royal wedding information from today's Q.
And for the republican who let the Royal Wedding change his political ideology—wake up, man! It's two young people getting married! It happens every single day! It does not change the world, nor make anyone's life better, except for the privileged contractors who supplied the event.
Let me know what you think.
Record-breaking storms across North America, elections around the world, the Arab Spring, Apple tracking its users, Apple actually not providing tracking information to third parties, the erosion of Canadian democracy and the way we consumers continue to be ripped off by oil companies. These are just a few of the stories that are more important than two obscenely rich young people getting married.
Sure, they're beautiful. And it's nice when young people in love get married. Hooray.
But enough on the royal wedding. Royalty is an evil that has long outlived its usefulness.
Kudos to Gian Gomeshi for trying to ban royal wedding information from today's Q.
And for the republican who let the Royal Wedding change his political ideology—wake up, man! It's two young people getting married! It happens every single day! It does not change the world, nor make anyone's life better, except for the privileged contractors who supplied the event.
Let me know what you think.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
On negativity
The Liberal Party’s message in this Canadian federal election has become very negative. It started last week, with their aborted, misquoted attack against Stephen Harper. Now, they’re attacking the NDP.
There are many things wrong with this approach. First, it shows desperation. The Liberals began with one message, and then with two weeks left in the campaign, changed it. A week later, they changed focus again. They know they’re losing and are trying everything to change their fortunes.
Second, it shows they don’t know what their strategy should be. They began fighting against the former government, the leader in the polls and therefore the biggest target. Now, they’re targeting the party that was in third place going into the campaign. So, what is the Liberals’ goal: to become the government or the official opposition?
Finally, I don’t like negative messages in any competitive situation. Don’t tell me what’s wrong with the other guy. Tell me what’s good about you. The Conservatives have had a completely negative campaign, which really has put me off. The overall impression I get from Harper’s ads and speeches is that all will be right with the universe, or at least Canada, if Stephen Harper is Prime Minister, and therefore we voters will be in the wrong if we do not ensure his party wins a majority of seats in the House of Commons. I react against the admonishing tone.
Likewise, the Liberals’ attack ads are not convincing me. I can think of many messages they could have said that I do not hear from them.
Yes, the other parties and leaders should point out their opponents’ shortcomings and misspeakings. But the loudest, strongest message should be what they themselves are good at and what their plans are.
I know that negative ads have worked in the past, but I have never liked them. US elections are full of negative ads, and to me, they’re a weakness of their political culture. Now, I see them used increasingly in Canada. It’s a development I do not like.
What do you think?
There are many things wrong with this approach. First, it shows desperation. The Liberals began with one message, and then with two weeks left in the campaign, changed it. A week later, they changed focus again. They know they’re losing and are trying everything to change their fortunes.
Second, it shows they don’t know what their strategy should be. They began fighting against the former government, the leader in the polls and therefore the biggest target. Now, they’re targeting the party that was in third place going into the campaign. So, what is the Liberals’ goal: to become the government or the official opposition?
Finally, I don’t like negative messages in any competitive situation. Don’t tell me what’s wrong with the other guy. Tell me what’s good about you. The Conservatives have had a completely negative campaign, which really has put me off. The overall impression I get from Harper’s ads and speeches is that all will be right with the universe, or at least Canada, if Stephen Harper is Prime Minister, and therefore we voters will be in the wrong if we do not ensure his party wins a majority of seats in the House of Commons. I react against the admonishing tone.
Likewise, the Liberals’ attack ads are not convincing me. I can think of many messages they could have said that I do not hear from them.
Yes, the other parties and leaders should point out their opponents’ shortcomings and misspeakings. But the loudest, strongest message should be what they themselves are good at and what their plans are.
I know that negative ads have worked in the past, but I have never liked them. US elections are full of negative ads, and to me, they’re a weakness of their political culture. Now, I see them used increasingly in Canada. It’s a development I do not like.
What do you think?
Monday, April 25, 2011
Independent writers deserve respect
I've been having a lot of conversations in person and online lately about independent writers—also known as "self-publishers." The field is growing quickly. Last year, Amazon sold more e-books than paper books. And Joe Konrath and Barry Eisler, two established writers, reportedly both turned down six-figure advances from conventional publishers in favour of self-publishing.
But I keep reading the ideas that the editors at the major "New York publishers"—the Big Six publishing conglomerates—provide a level of professional editing and quality control that is missing in self-published books.
I admit, there are a lot of poor self-published books out there. But there are a lot of poor books from the major publishers, too. And as for books that really need editing, just look at Stieg Larsson's Millenium Trilogy.
The Big Six have no monopoly on the English language, or on the ability to edit.
Commercial publishing is getting increasingly risk-averse. And it's a business. Writing, however, is a craft and an art, as well as a commercial venture, and most writers do not write just to make money.
We need to start talking about independent writers, those who control the publishing function themselves, in the same we we do about independent filmmakers and independent musicians. "Indie" group Arcade Fire, after all, won a Grammy.
Which means that book reviewers need to stop excluding independent publishers from their in boxes and review those works.
No matter how much the conventional, established publishing industry resists, independent publishing is growing fast and strong. It has already changed the publishing industry and will continue to do so.
But I keep reading the ideas that the editors at the major "New York publishers"—the Big Six publishing conglomerates—provide a level of professional editing and quality control that is missing in self-published books.
I admit, there are a lot of poor self-published books out there. But there are a lot of poor books from the major publishers, too. And as for books that really need editing, just look at Stieg Larsson's Millenium Trilogy.
The Big Six have no monopoly on the English language, or on the ability to edit.
Commercial publishing is getting increasingly risk-averse. And it's a business. Writing, however, is a craft and an art, as well as a commercial venture, and most writers do not write just to make money.
We need to start talking about independent writers, those who control the publishing function themselves, in the same we we do about independent filmmakers and independent musicians. "Indie" group Arcade Fire, after all, won a Grammy.
Which means that book reviewers need to stop excluding independent publishers from their in boxes and review those works.
No matter how much the conventional, established publishing industry resists, independent publishing is growing fast and strong. It has already changed the publishing industry and will continue to do so.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Spoken words reveal unspoken ideas
“The other parties 'are saying that even if we receive a mandate from the people they will defeat us on our budget if they can. They will get together and form another alternative, of some other kind of government'” said Stephen Harper, according to the Globe and Mail.
Let's deconstruct this statement. First, the “mandate from the people.” Harper implies here that an election that results in more seats for the Conservatives than for any other party equals a mandate.
This is not so in the Canadian parliamentary system. Calling a plurality vote a “mandate” is invoking the kind of electoral system in the U.S., or other countries (the U.S. Electoral college system is actually more complex than that).
In the Canadian system, we vote for local members of parliament. The government is formed at the confidence of Parliament.
In so many of his statements, Harper implies that he has some kind of right to govern the country, and any method anyone else uses to form a different government is somehow illegitimate.
Canadians will not fall for this argument. We decide who has the right to form a government. And let's remember, we decide. The government works for us, not the other way around.
Let's deconstruct this statement. First, the “mandate from the people.” Harper implies here that an election that results in more seats for the Conservatives than for any other party equals a mandate.
This is not so in the Canadian parliamentary system. Calling a plurality vote a “mandate” is invoking the kind of electoral system in the U.S., or other countries (the U.S. Electoral college system is actually more complex than that).
In the Canadian system, we vote for local members of parliament. The government is formed at the confidence of Parliament.
In so many of his statements, Harper implies that he has some kind of right to govern the country, and any method anyone else uses to form a different government is somehow illegitimate.
Canadians will not fall for this argument. We decide who has the right to form a government. And let's remember, we decide. The government works for us, not the other way around.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Leaking words
Sheila Fraser, Canada's Auditor General, found some things worth questioning about the federal government's (the Harper Government, as it likes to call itself) spending on the G-20 and G-8 conferences, and it is reasonable to conclude (I'm not the only one) that Tony Clement and his cronies had a lot of say in what was spent around Muskoka last year—and it did not always meet government criteria for appropriate spending. Millions to refurbish a very high-end resort? And the guy who decides whether, and how much federal government money goes to that project is the resort owner, and a long-time Conservative?
There is a lot to complain about.
The Conservatives find a quote by the AG that praises the government's spending—but they had to did down through 10 years or more of quotes to find one positive statement, and it turns out that it was about a previous government.
Then Stockwell Day tries to say it was an error.
Written words, recorded words, spoken words. We know when they're believable, and when they're not.
There is a lot to complain about.
The Conservatives find a quote by the AG that praises the government's spending—but they had to did down through 10 years or more of quotes to find one positive statement, and it turns out that it was about a previous government.
Then Stockwell Day tries to say it was an error.
Written words, recorded words, spoken words. We know when they're believable, and when they're not.
Friday, April 08, 2011
What’s getting printed?
I’ve been looking into the growing e-book phenomenon. And obviously, I’m not the first, so I’ve got some catching up to do.
There have been several reports published on paper and all over the Web about how e-books are outselling print books, staring last year. In July 2010, Wired reported that Amazon’s e-books outsold print books. And the margin is accelerating.
And there are many more sources than Amazon for an e-book: Chapters/Indigo in Canada sells books for the Kobo e-reader that it sells; Barnes & Noble sells its new Nook, now available with some colour, and sells e-books formatted for it.
And don’t forget that the Borders bookstore chain has filed for bankruptcy and closed a lot of stores.
Print will never die completely. TV didn’t wipe out radio, right? US print shipments are up 4.4 percent in February 2011 compared to February 2010. Granted, 2010 was a tough year in printing, so this is regaining ground that was lost, but there is still a lot of printing going on. KBA, the second-largest manufacturer of printing presses in the world, reports a “printing boom” in the developing markets of China, Brazil, India and Turkey, and strong growth in the Middle East and Latin America.
So, what’s getting printed? I think it’s probably flyers. The volume on my doorstep keeps getting bigger.
And then there are books by celebrities—anyone who’s done anything flamboyantly egregious gets a book out there pretty quickly.
Whatever’s getting printed, it ain’t literature.
There have been several reports published on paper and all over the Web about how e-books are outselling print books, staring last year. In July 2010, Wired reported that Amazon’s e-books outsold print books. And the margin is accelerating.
And there are many more sources than Amazon for an e-book: Chapters/Indigo in Canada sells books for the Kobo e-reader that it sells; Barnes & Noble sells its new Nook, now available with some colour, and sells e-books formatted for it.
And don’t forget that the Borders bookstore chain has filed for bankruptcy and closed a lot of stores.
Print will never die completely. TV didn’t wipe out radio, right? US print shipments are up 4.4 percent in February 2011 compared to February 2010. Granted, 2010 was a tough year in printing, so this is regaining ground that was lost, but there is still a lot of printing going on. KBA, the second-largest manufacturer of printing presses in the world, reports a “printing boom” in the developing markets of China, Brazil, India and Turkey, and strong growth in the Middle East and Latin America.
So, what’s getting printed? I think it’s probably flyers. The volume on my doorstep keeps getting bigger.
And then there are books by celebrities—anyone who’s done anything flamboyantly egregious gets a book out there pretty quickly.
Whatever’s getting printed, it ain’t literature.
Monday, April 04, 2011
Scary: a coalition?
Is "coalition" the scariest word that Harper's Conservatives can think of?
Since before the election started (and how long Harper's Conservatives have been campaigning is a subject for much more than a blog post), Harper and his mouthpieces have been warning us against a "coalition." They tell us it is necessary unstable, and indefinably bad for the country.
Let's think about this. In a coalition, parties that on their own do not have enough seats to form a majority in the House of Commons agree to come together to form that majority. Their relationship requires compromise on all side, so that the overall tone of the government they form has elements of each party's platform and philosophy.
In the Canadian parliamentary system, this seems to be a lot more stable than a minority government that can only survive confidence votes by making sure it has as many sitting members for each vote as possible and making deals with parties on each motion on an ad-hoc basis. At least with a coalition, there is some kind of relationship or understanding for some period in the future.
Doesn't a coalition seem very Canadian? Different groups agreeing to work together, compromise for the greater good and accomplish something that may not be ideologically pure, but is at least workable?
So, no, I'm not scared of a coalition. And I don't think that many Canadians are. The poll published on the front pages last weekend shows that most Canadians actually would favour a Liberal-NDP poll over a Conservative government. (Put the Bloc in, and that changes everything, of course.) And I found an interesting Facebook group called "I'm not scared of a Canadian coalition. See the link above.
No, we're not buying the logic that a coalition is a terrifying prospect. That's not keeping the Conservatives from trying it, though. So the question is: how stupid do they think we really are?
Since before the election started (and how long Harper's Conservatives have been campaigning is a subject for much more than a blog post), Harper and his mouthpieces have been warning us against a "coalition." They tell us it is necessary unstable, and indefinably bad for the country.
Let's think about this. In a coalition, parties that on their own do not have enough seats to form a majority in the House of Commons agree to come together to form that majority. Their relationship requires compromise on all side, so that the overall tone of the government they form has elements of each party's platform and philosophy.
In the Canadian parliamentary system, this seems to be a lot more stable than a minority government that can only survive confidence votes by making sure it has as many sitting members for each vote as possible and making deals with parties on each motion on an ad-hoc basis. At least with a coalition, there is some kind of relationship or understanding for some period in the future.
Doesn't a coalition seem very Canadian? Different groups agreeing to work together, compromise for the greater good and accomplish something that may not be ideologically pure, but is at least workable?
So, no, I'm not scared of a coalition. And I don't think that many Canadians are. The poll published on the front pages last weekend shows that most Canadians actually would favour a Liberal-NDP poll over a Conservative government. (Put the Bloc in, and that changes everything, of course.) And I found an interesting Facebook group called "I'm not scared of a Canadian coalition. See the link above.
No, we're not buying the logic that a coalition is a terrifying prospect. That's not keeping the Conservatives from trying it, though. So the question is: how stupid do they think we really are?
Saturday, April 02, 2011
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Stieg Larsson and writing
How many of you have ready The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo?
Probably quite a few—I have read its series is the fastest selling book in history.
I read the first book, and I'm now working my way through the sequel, The Girl Who Played with Fire. I can't say I'm enjoying the reading, the way I enjoy reading authors like John Updike or Mark Helprin or Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
Larsson's writing is sloppy and wordy. His work reads, even in translation, as if it's a first draft, never edited. It breaks almost every rule of good writing. The dialogue is unbelievable. Larsson wastes pages describing daily routines, like the exact contents of the groceries a character buys. Who cares how many Billy's Pan Pizzas a character eats? The descriptions of the particular model of PowerBook and Ikea furniture seem more like product placement than anything else.
So why did the books sell so well? In The Larsson Scandal: The unauthorized guerilla critique of Stieg Larsson, author Andre Jute says that it's got a lot to do with Larsson's feminist pronouncements. However, most readers of the trilogy don't follow, or care about the arguments between self-described and -promoting feminists and the literary establishment.
I think the reason that people read this series and stick with Larsson's bad writing through thousands of pages is the Girl herself, Lisbeth Salander. I don't know about you, but I've never found a character like her before in anything that I've ever read. We all know people like her, but never in fiction before. She is not likeable, not admirable—she does some very questionable things, despite Larsson's description of her as having her own rules. Still, Lisbeth Salander is a compelling character, and it's she that makes these books interesting.
I don't believe in any of the other characters:
- Blomkvist, the character who is supposed to the hero and is obviously the proxy of the author, is far too cool to be believed. Irresistible to women, athletic, the most admirable journalist in Sweden who makes a mistake that every reader sees coming from the beginning of the first book.
- Erica, his companion with her open marriage. Do you think this situation exists anywhere in reality: Erica has a long-time relationship with Mikael Blomqvist, which ends after a few years because Mikael does not want to get married. However, Erica and Mikael have started a magazine together and continue their professional relationship. Erica marries another man. However, she can't keep her hands off of Mikael. So she confesses her affair to her husband, who accepts it. All she has to do, when she wants to sleep with Mikael, is phone her husband and explain why she won't be home that night. The husband goes along with it "because he loves Erica." He doesn't come after Mikael with a baseball bat, doesn't divorce his wife, doesn't change the locks. And I haven't read anything about him sleeping around, either, in misguided revenge. Any of these things would be believable, but not "Okay, honey, have fun!"
Andre Jute exposes all the plot holes as well, and I recommend you download and read his e-book.
Now, I do not accept Larsson's diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome. Larsson is not qualified to make that diagnosis. It may be true, but then, this is a fictional character, so making psychiatric evaluations is ridiculous. And Larsson is not a good enough writer to provide the richness of detail and characterization to describe a real Asperger's patient.
Larsson deserves his fame and sales simply for creating Lisbeth Salander. Too bad he's such a lousy writer.
Probably quite a few—I have read its series is the fastest selling book in history.
I read the first book, and I'm now working my way through the sequel, The Girl Who Played with Fire. I can't say I'm enjoying the reading, the way I enjoy reading authors like John Updike or Mark Helprin or Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
Larsson's writing is sloppy and wordy. His work reads, even in translation, as if it's a first draft, never edited. It breaks almost every rule of good writing. The dialogue is unbelievable. Larsson wastes pages describing daily routines, like the exact contents of the groceries a character buys. Who cares how many Billy's Pan Pizzas a character eats? The descriptions of the particular model of PowerBook and Ikea furniture seem more like product placement than anything else.
So why did the books sell so well? In The Larsson Scandal: The unauthorized guerilla critique of Stieg Larsson, author Andre Jute says that it's got a lot to do with Larsson's feminist pronouncements. However, most readers of the trilogy don't follow, or care about the arguments between self-described and -promoting feminists and the literary establishment.
I think the reason that people read this series and stick with Larsson's bad writing through thousands of pages is the Girl herself, Lisbeth Salander. I don't know about you, but I've never found a character like her before in anything that I've ever read. We all know people like her, but never in fiction before. She is not likeable, not admirable—she does some very questionable things, despite Larsson's description of her as having her own rules. Still, Lisbeth Salander is a compelling character, and it's she that makes these books interesting.
I don't believe in any of the other characters:
- Blomkvist, the character who is supposed to the hero and is obviously the proxy of the author, is far too cool to be believed. Irresistible to women, athletic, the most admirable journalist in Sweden who makes a mistake that every reader sees coming from the beginning of the first book.
- Erica, his companion with her open marriage. Do you think this situation exists anywhere in reality: Erica has a long-time relationship with Mikael Blomqvist, which ends after a few years because Mikael does not want to get married. However, Erica and Mikael have started a magazine together and continue their professional relationship. Erica marries another man. However, she can't keep her hands off of Mikael. So she confesses her affair to her husband, who accepts it. All she has to do, when she wants to sleep with Mikael, is phone her husband and explain why she won't be home that night. The husband goes along with it "because he loves Erica." He doesn't come after Mikael with a baseball bat, doesn't divorce his wife, doesn't change the locks. And I haven't read anything about him sleeping around, either, in misguided revenge. Any of these things would be believable, but not "Okay, honey, have fun!"
Andre Jute exposes all the plot holes as well, and I recommend you download and read his e-book.
Now, I do not accept Larsson's diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome. Larsson is not qualified to make that diagnosis. It may be true, but then, this is a fictional character, so making psychiatric evaluations is ridiculous. And Larsson is not a good enough writer to provide the richness of detail and characterization to describe a real Asperger's patient.
Larsson deserves his fame and sales simply for creating Lisbeth Salander. Too bad he's such a lousy writer.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Novel update
I know I've said it before, but I really mean it this time: I'm going to start posting regularly on this blog.
This is supposed to be about written words, and I'm going to start writing words more regularly.
My last post was about how I had finished my novel. I'm still working on it, actually, trying to cut down the length about 25 percent. It's a tough process. I might write some posts about the work it takes to do that.
Also, I have been investigating two ways to publish the work—I know I'm not pioneering in this topic, but I'll give you my point of view. The two ways that I mean are:
- traditional publishing: finding an agent (not easy), soliciting publishers in Canada and worldwide, dealing with rejection slips, negotiating a contract (assuming I get an offer to publish), working with an editor, waiting and waiting for the thing to come out, then dealing with whatever promotion the publisher organizes—if any
- independent publishing: this is the term I prefer. Musicians like Arcade Fire as hailed as "indie" musicians; why aren't self-published writers? I have been doing a fair bit of research into this idea, and, as usual, technology has made it much easier and cheaper to publish a book in electronic form. So I'll look into this, and write about my experience here.
Another avenue of writing that I have not written about on this site is social media. Again, I know I'm late to the party, but I'm going to look at how to use LinkedIn, Facebook and other such tools to help with my writing, publishing and marketing of my book.
So, if any of this interests you, read on, come back, post comments, let me know what you think!
Scott Bury
This is supposed to be about written words, and I'm going to start writing words more regularly.
My last post was about how I had finished my novel. I'm still working on it, actually, trying to cut down the length about 25 percent. It's a tough process. I might write some posts about the work it takes to do that.
Also, I have been investigating two ways to publish the work—I know I'm not pioneering in this topic, but I'll give you my point of view. The two ways that I mean are:
- traditional publishing: finding an agent (not easy), soliciting publishers in Canada and worldwide, dealing with rejection slips, negotiating a contract (assuming I get an offer to publish), working with an editor, waiting and waiting for the thing to come out, then dealing with whatever promotion the publisher organizes—if any
- independent publishing: this is the term I prefer. Musicians like Arcade Fire as hailed as "indie" musicians; why aren't self-published writers? I have been doing a fair bit of research into this idea, and, as usual, technology has made it much easier and cheaper to publish a book in electronic form. So I'll look into this, and write about my experience here.
Another avenue of writing that I have not written about on this site is social media. Again, I know I'm late to the party, but I'm going to look at how to use LinkedIn, Facebook and other such tools to help with my writing, publishing and marketing of my book.
So, if any of this interests you, read on, come back, post comments, let me know what you think!
Scott Bury
Sunday, April 11, 2010
I have finished my novel!
I have finished my novel, finally.
It's called The Bones of the Earth, and I'd like to describe it as "magic realism."
I consider this a fairly significant personal milestone. While I have started a number of novels and made a lot of progress on them — and while I still consider finishing them at some time — this is the first one that I have finished.
So, the next step is, of course, to try to publish it. And to tell the truth, I find the prospect a little imtimidating.
Which is strange, in some ways. I have been published many, many times before, on paper and online; I've written articles and reports, but I have never published a work of fiction before.
I hope that my experience as a published writer will give me an advantage when it comes to publishing a novel, but I don't think it will make much difference: fiction and journalism are such different worlds, really.
So, any advice? Any thoughts? I'd love to hear from anyone who has anything to offer.
Scott
It's called The Bones of the Earth, and I'd like to describe it as "magic realism."
I consider this a fairly significant personal milestone. While I have started a number of novels and made a lot of progress on them — and while I still consider finishing them at some time — this is the first one that I have finished.
So, the next step is, of course, to try to publish it. And to tell the truth, I find the prospect a little imtimidating.
Which is strange, in some ways. I have been published many, many times before, on paper and online; I've written articles and reports, but I have never published a work of fiction before.
I hope that my experience as a published writer will give me an advantage when it comes to publishing a novel, but I don't think it will make much difference: fiction and journalism are such different worlds, really.
So, any advice? Any thoughts? I'd love to hear from anyone who has anything to offer.
Scott
Friday, March 27, 2009
Word of the month: "bonus"
Multi-million dollar bonuses paid to executives in banks, insurance and other financial corporations and automobile companies in the U.S., the U.K. and Europe has raised a lot of buzz in the news media and the comedy circuits. Any number of worthy pundits have opined about the immorality of bonuses paid to executives of failing firms, when the money came from the taxpayers and the average workers, whose salaries are tiny fractions of the executives’ earnings, get nothing—sometimes, not even severance payments after being laid off.
What I would like to point out is how the organizations that have paid these bonuses have twisted the meaning of the word. Webster’s dictionary defines a bonus as “extra payment over and above salary given to an employee as an incentive or reward.”
What are, for example, the executives of AIG being rewarded for? Multi-billion dollar losses for their shareholders?
Some might argue that the current downturn and losses to AIG are not those executives’ fault. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says that AIG’s failure would pose a “grave danger” to the U.S. financial system and, presumably, the economy of the whole world. But he has also requested that the US Congress give him more regulatory power over such private companies.
The executives at AIG were part of a financial corporate culture that encouraged the “sub-prime” lending practices that triggered the current economic meltdown and have contributed to its depth. That attitude—as exemplified by pushing the definitions of risk past accepted levels—is also shown in their bonus practices.
If you feel outraged by these bonuses, you’re justified for several reasons:
- the sheer size of the payments—hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases, far, far more than anyone needs to live on—are flagrant exhibitions of greed
- the executives at AIG, the Bank of Scotland and US car manufacturers pay themselves the bonuses, without any reference to anyone who might balk at them
- these payments are not a portion of the profits the corporation earned, or tied in any way to jobs well done; they’re simply what the recipients who pay themselves bonuses figure they can pull out and get away with
In other words, these aren’t bonuses at all. They’re just what people with access to the funds can stuff into their own pockets. And when the money comes from the taxpayers, as it has with recipients of bailouts in the US, outrage has led to action such as sit-ins.
Maybe, just maybe, we need to re-think the workings of our economy and the controls society in general puts upon private actions, like businesses. But that’s a discussion for political blogs.
For this communications blog about words, I’d just like to say: let’s stop calling payments made by executives to themselves “bonuses.” Let’s call them “drawings,” like we used to. Let’s leave bonuses to people who have done more than expected.
What I would like to point out is how the organizations that have paid these bonuses have twisted the meaning of the word. Webster’s dictionary defines a bonus as “extra payment over and above salary given to an employee as an incentive or reward.”
What are, for example, the executives of AIG being rewarded for? Multi-billion dollar losses for their shareholders?
Some might argue that the current downturn and losses to AIG are not those executives’ fault. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says that AIG’s failure would pose a “grave danger” to the U.S. financial system and, presumably, the economy of the whole world. But he has also requested that the US Congress give him more regulatory power over such private companies.
The executives at AIG were part of a financial corporate culture that encouraged the “sub-prime” lending practices that triggered the current economic meltdown and have contributed to its depth. That attitude—as exemplified by pushing the definitions of risk past accepted levels—is also shown in their bonus practices.
If you feel outraged by these bonuses, you’re justified for several reasons:
- the sheer size of the payments—hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases, far, far more than anyone needs to live on—are flagrant exhibitions of greed
- the executives at AIG, the Bank of Scotland and US car manufacturers pay themselves the bonuses, without any reference to anyone who might balk at them
- these payments are not a portion of the profits the corporation earned, or tied in any way to jobs well done; they’re simply what the recipients who pay themselves bonuses figure they can pull out and get away with
In other words, these aren’t bonuses at all. They’re just what people with access to the funds can stuff into their own pockets. And when the money comes from the taxpayers, as it has with recipients of bailouts in the US, outrage has led to action such as sit-ins.
Maybe, just maybe, we need to re-think the workings of our economy and the controls society in general puts upon private actions, like businesses. But that’s a discussion for political blogs.
For this communications blog about words, I’d just like to say: let’s stop calling payments made by executives to themselves “bonuses.” Let’s call them “drawings,” like we used to. Let’s leave bonuses to people who have done more than expected.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Word of the month: “Communication"
Barack Obama’s recent visit to Canada, on top of sending most of the media into a schoolgirlish tizzy, pointed out many differences between the new President of the United States and Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Yes, there’s charisma (Obama radiates it, Harper radiates the opposite), but the brief public appearances also showed their diametrically opposed approaches to communication. Obama is open, he listens—these are essential to his effort to find new solutions, to successfully change the way the U.S. operates and is perceived in the world, and to turn around the economy. (Many have criticized the economic stimulus program for many good reasons—like the way it gives the money to the people who brought the economy into the abyss in the first place, but I’ll let more qualified people address that question.)
Harper, on the other hand, speaks. He hands down opinions from on high. He already has the answers, because they derive directly from his economic philosophy. He doesn’t listen—in fact, he dictates what all his subordinates and cabinet ministers will say.
This difference explains much of the different appeal the two men have. Obama is seen as a beacon of hope, as a symbol of genuine change. He is seen as genuine. Harper’s image is, at best, one of a stiff, distant, cold man.
Perhaps we, as voters and members of society, should more carefully weigh the willingness to listen when making decisions about leaders.
Yes, there’s charisma (Obama radiates it, Harper radiates the opposite), but the brief public appearances also showed their diametrically opposed approaches to communication. Obama is open, he listens—these are essential to his effort to find new solutions, to successfully change the way the U.S. operates and is perceived in the world, and to turn around the economy. (Many have criticized the economic stimulus program for many good reasons—like the way it gives the money to the people who brought the economy into the abyss in the first place, but I’ll let more qualified people address that question.)
Harper, on the other hand, speaks. He hands down opinions from on high. He already has the answers, because they derive directly from his economic philosophy. He doesn’t listen—in fact, he dictates what all his subordinates and cabinet ministers will say.
This difference explains much of the different appeal the two men have. Obama is seen as a beacon of hope, as a symbol of genuine change. He is seen as genuine. Harper’s image is, at best, one of a stiff, distant, cold man.
Perhaps we, as voters and members of society, should more carefully weigh the willingness to listen when making decisions about leaders.
Friday, December 19, 2008
The war on Christmas is over. Christmas won.
Last year, comedians and commentators rattled about the “war on Christmas,” saying that it was no longer considered politically correct to say “Merry Christmas” or to put up Nativity scenes in public spaces. We were all supposed to say “Happy Holidays” instead.
To look at the malls and airports, there was some evidence of this. But I’ve come full circle. I’m comfortable with saying “Merry Christmas.” From a religious as well as secular point of view, December 25 is Christmas, after all. For me, it’s Christmas, and I don’t feel awkward or embarrassed to say so.
By the same token, I welcome a “Happy Hanukkah” or “Happy Eid” (even though it’s over) or “Happy Yule.” Or any other good wishes. This is a special season for many religions and cultures.
From me at least, “Merry Christmas” isn’t meant to be exclusive. Welcome to all, have a happy season, whatever it is, and a very good new year.
Scott Bury
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Word of the month: crisis
What crisis?
The news media keep referring to the current storm in Parliament, where a Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc Québecois, are trying to replace the Conservative government, as as a “crisis.” Peter Mansbridge, CBC TV’s news anchor, CBC Radio news, the front page of the Globe and Mail, and more all use the word “crisis.
But is it really a crisis? Or is this just the way the Canadian parliamentary system is supposed to work?
According to some dictionaries, a crisis is “a time of great difficulty or danger.” How much danger does the country face right now, at least from a possible centre-left coalition government? Or even from the change of government without an election?
From the civics classes I took, I understand the system is supposed to work like this. The party that has the largest number of members elected to the House of Commons normally gets to form the government, and remains the government until the next election, or until it loses the confidence of the House. When that happens, either there’s another election, or another party or group of parties that can maintain the confidence of the house—which may be confirmed with a vote of confidence—can form a new government.
So the Liberal-NDP proposal is not a crisis in this sense. It may be a crisis for the government they seek to replace, in this case the Conservatives’, led by Stephen Harper, but the country’s democracy itself isn’t in any danger.
MP Bob Rae said as much today (December 3): "It's not a crisis. In a minority government, things can be more lively than otherwise ..."
Parliament is certainly lively these days. It's inspiring to see Stephan Dion get as excited as he seemed to be in the past few days. If he had acted like that during the past election campaign, we may not be in this situation today.
There is another meaning to the word “crisis”: it can also be a turning point, or the peak of trouble which determines what the future course will be. The question now before Parliament is certainly a turning point. How significant it is will remain to be seen if the coalition does come to power, and then by its actions in government.
Communications professionals should ask themselves: how do we define “crisis.” And if that definition doesn’t fit the current situation in the House of Commons, what is the right descriptor? Then let Peter Mansbridge know.
The news media keep referring to the current storm in Parliament, where a Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc Québecois, are trying to replace the Conservative government, as as a “crisis.” Peter Mansbridge, CBC TV’s news anchor, CBC Radio news, the front page of the Globe and Mail, and more all use the word “crisis.
But is it really a crisis? Or is this just the way the Canadian parliamentary system is supposed to work?
According to some dictionaries, a crisis is “a time of great difficulty or danger.” How much danger does the country face right now, at least from a possible centre-left coalition government? Or even from the change of government without an election?
From the civics classes I took, I understand the system is supposed to work like this. The party that has the largest number of members elected to the House of Commons normally gets to form the government, and remains the government until the next election, or until it loses the confidence of the House. When that happens, either there’s another election, or another party or group of parties that can maintain the confidence of the house—which may be confirmed with a vote of confidence—can form a new government.
So the Liberal-NDP proposal is not a crisis in this sense. It may be a crisis for the government they seek to replace, in this case the Conservatives’, led by Stephen Harper, but the country’s democracy itself isn’t in any danger.
MP Bob Rae said as much today (December 3): "It's not a crisis. In a minority government, things can be more lively than otherwise ..."
Parliament is certainly lively these days. It's inspiring to see Stephan Dion get as excited as he seemed to be in the past few days. If he had acted like that during the past election campaign, we may not be in this situation today.
There is another meaning to the word “crisis”: it can also be a turning point, or the peak of trouble which determines what the future course will be. The question now before Parliament is certainly a turning point. How significant it is will remain to be seen if the coalition does come to power, and then by its actions in government.
Communications professionals should ask themselves: how do we define “crisis.” And if that definition doesn’t fit the current situation in the House of Commons, what is the right descriptor? Then let Peter Mansbridge know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)