As longtime blog readers know, I have a bit of a reality TV habit. I still watch Survivor (I know), I was a habitual The Hills watcher before our messy breakup, and I would very much like to be friends with Phil Keoghan from the Amazing Race, who seems like the type of person who would tell great stories at a cocktail party and then somehow convince everyone to join a contest to eat the most pretzels.
You might mistake this for idle time! No no no. I wasn’t frying my brain and/or wasting my time watching these shows. Not. At. All. I was learning precious writing techniques. I was studying. Learning!
Behold: The things I learned about writing while watching reality television…
1. Overconfidence is your greatest adversary
How do you know when someone is about to get themselves kicked off a reality TV show? When they stare into the camera with a smirk and talk about how they have it in the bag. Then they inevitably end up getting voted off Tribal Counsel faster than you can say “Jeff Probst.”
Overconfidence causes authors to just send out queries with a few dashed off words of explanation, trusting that the genius of their manuscript will shine through. Overconfidence blinds authors to the changes they need to make to their manuscript, and makes them deaf to good suggestions.
When overconfidence enters the picture authors can turn into their own worst enemies. It didn’t work for the Four Horsemen of Survivor Fiji, who entrusted their plans with someone who called himself Dreamz. By choice. It doesn’t work for writers either.
2. Don’t mess with the host.
Did it pay for Kenley to antagonize poor Tim Gunn on Project Runway? No, it did not.
Did it pay for Chima to antagonize the producers of Big Brother? No, it did not.
Did it pay for Tiffany to talk back to Tyra on America’s Next Top Model? No, it most definitely did not.
In the publishing game, agents and editors and publishers are your hosts. You may not like the rules of the game, but you won’t get anywhere making enemies with the people running the show.
3. Pay your taxes.
Read Kristin Nelson’s essential post on the things you should do when your book sells. Remember, your advance will come to you as untaxed income, just like winnings on Survivor. Get a good accountant, pay your taxes immediately, and invest your windfall wisely.
4. Be a student of the game.
The best contestants on reality TV shows are often the ones who have lived and breathed a show for its entire existence. This season, the otherwise contemptible Russell from Survivor Samoa knew enough about the show to keep hunting for hidden immunity idols even though he didn’t have any clues, simply because he knew that the show often places hidden immunity idols around camp. Sure enough, it worked! And anyone who has watched America’s Next Top Model knows that when in a tough spot the best strategy is to break down in tears and plead for Tyra’s mercy.
Study the publishing game. Learn it. Breathe it. There may not be any hidden immunity idols (at least, not until I’m in charge), but the name of the game is survival, and it pays to know everything you possibly can find out.
5. Play nice.
On reality television, a contestant will inevitably show up and wag their finger and shout, “I’m not here to make friends!”
And that person never wins.
T. Anne says
Great post. I guess I've learned from Real world, Road world challenge building an alliance is not a bad idea (is that akin to social networking?) Also, it can get pretty cutthroat, and in the end it's what and who you got to work with that can win the game.
Sierra says
I learn a lot by watching Gordon Ramsey, too. He's mean and sweary and shouts but if you break down and shout back and act tough, it's all over for you.
This is a lesson because even if things appear tough (like the way gordon speaks to you), it doesn't pay to get all defensive and angry.
Ink says
It's strange, I always find myself wondering why we writers are endlessly complaining about all the terrible "hoops" we have to jump through. But, I mean, what hoops? Really? We have to do almost nothing (outside write a great book).
I mean, writing a single, competent, one-page business letter introducing myself and my work… Oh my God! A whole page! It's too bad I'm not a writer… oh. Yeah.
And apparently it's helpful not to directly insult the people who I'm asking to invest significant amounts of time and money in my work. It's a tough one, I know. "Will you please invest $50,000 in my work, you son of a bitch? What? No?"
Oh, the hoops! The endless hoops!
I guess I just don't really see it. I mean, I'm a former teacher, and when I was entering that profession I had to do all sorts of things. I needed a BA, then a degree in Education, including a certain amount of hours of Practicum teaching. Plus many tests for certification, application and membership in different associations, I needed a license and police clearances and letters of recommendation, including one from a priest (for the Catholic Board). Fees and endless forms and teaching support requirements… I mean, there were all sorts of things.
Most professions have extensive requirements for working in that field. Even McJobs require a resume and cover letter, with interviews and often a survey or two to follow.
Is the query letter hoop really that bad? You write one letter and send your work and you can get an agent and a deal. The process is hugely simple, even if the odds are long. But that's a matter of quality and competition, not a function of the nature of the process.
I'll shut up now.
fatcaster says
Ink —
Good post: funny and too true.
We writers (you, me, others) aren't complaining about hoops. Ed Gordon is.
Mira says
Ink – it is more complicated than that.
It's not just about jumping through hoops. It's about being silent and supporting a system that is unfair and oppressive to writers.
Also, not all of us are in this for a profession. I think that's where the confusion partly lies. I never expect writing to be my job. In fact, I do not want writing to be my job. Writing and survival money – I never want those two things to get within shouting distance of each other. So, this is not a professional issue for me.
Alot of what Nathan is saying makes terrific sense in a business environment. But writing is not, and never will be, about business for me.
Now whether I'm willing to play the business 'game' in order to get my voice out there – that's what I'm grappling with.
Nathan Bransford says
mira-
I don't get what you mean by "oppressive" to writers?
Mira says
Nathan, thanks for asking.
I'm working on a response. I feel like I need to be careful…..which is tricky when I'm trying to answer that question.
brb
bryngreenwood says
I've learned a lot about personal interaction from Survivor, but count on Nathan to help me apply those lessons to the publishing industry.
Ink says
Mira,
Publishing is a business. Writing is not. But Publishing is. It's full of people who are making their living within the industry, from writers, to agents, to printers, to editors, to publishers. It's a business. And even if you don't want to make a living at it, I think you have to respect those in the industry who do – if you want to be professionally published you have to operate professionally within that industry.
Now, a writer doesn't have to pursue this option. Writing can be an artistic pursuit and nothing more. Self-publishing and the blooming digital world are offering new avenues for reaching an audience, if an audience is all a writer wants.
But… professional publication is, well, professional. It's a business. I don't see why a writer should be excused from the most basic business practices that everyone else has to adhere to.
If, say, I was a lawyer, and ran a lucrative law practice in the morning, but decided I wanted, for the sheer joy of it, to teach at a gradeschool in the afternoon… well, they wouldn't just let me walk in and do that just because it wasn't my profession. I'd still have to attain the qualifications of a teacher.
A single business letter, for a writer, seems a fairly minor request. Or an online form or whatever. Same difference. It's a remarkably minimal request, really. Certainly one of the least hoopish things I've ever pursued. I won't even impinge on everyyone the required horrors of the corporate tax code that are visited on my little shop…
Anonymous says
I think the question here is it it any more oppressive than any other field. Art? Music? But even say law. I think the difference is that there are more writers–you don't *need* a degree to write, "anyone can do it" and "everyone has a book in him" etc, so you end up with a glut.
But as a lawyer, I had to compete to get into college and then law school and then for a job, where initially I worked long hours, like around the clock sometimes hours, like I haven't been home in 46 hours long hours, and made a small percent of what my bosses made. That's capitalism. You work you're way up, you compete, you try to be the best. If you'd prefer a different system you can try a different political/econ model but you're probably going to be told what to write and what you absolutely can't write about lest you be "detained."
So I don't get the oppression here. Was the dean of admissions at my law school oppressing the thousands of people who didn't get in, because everyone has a SCOTUS brief in him?
Focus, people.
Mira says
Nathan –
I can't fully answer that question on the net without resolving some of the issues I'm grappling with….
But here's a few things I could say….I think….
Examples of oppression:
a. Writers need to post anonymously if they wish to express their honest (but controversial) opinions on blogs.
b. Writers risk being blacklisted if they do or say something that really hits the wrong cord. Blacklisted. Blacklisted, Nathan.
c. Writers can not make a living in their field, yet others make a living off of their work.
d. If writers assert themselves, they can be labeled as 'difficult' and, once again, blacklisted.
e. Writers are devalued in the field. Despite the fact that without them, the field would not exist, they are expected to do all sorts of grunt work, including spell checking. And they are now expected to market their own work, another form of devaluation of their contribution. Subtle, but powerful.
f. Writers are being held accountable for every word that they say on any blog anywhere. This is designed to discourage….well, it's oppression.
Please understand, I see this as a culture and system problem. Not individuals within the system. It's a system issue.
I also understand this is just my viewpoint. You, and others, may see it differently.
Anonymous says
work your way up. Sorry.
John says
I wouldn't call it oppressive. I love creating new worlds, characters, and having it all come to life in my head. I make a great living in IT already, so I don't need income from writing.
I honestly think if anyone REALLY wanted to devote tons of time and money to marketing their own books could completely bypass traditional publishers and go with e-books/PoD.
But there's the caveat. To get your name out there, etc. you'd have to build a platform of your own through a blog, tweets, facebook, word of mouth and any other creative methods.
Supposedly, publishers do market, and they also get shelf space for you. But if you go into a Borders, what chance in hell does your book have to be perchance found by a shopper? Very little.
Anyway, the system exists, and like it or not, that's the Matrix by which you need to abide.
Nathan Bransford says
mira-
There's really no such thing as an industry blacklist. That's apocryphal. And I don't see how people watching what they say or commenting anonymously so as not to offend potential business partners is any different than any business anywhere. Would you go on a blog and start railing against your real live coworkers in a personal fashion and then expect that no one would think less of you? I doubt it. Decorum is universal, not unique to the industry.
And yeah – not many writers earn a living, but I have a job. At the same time, I've seen this from both sides, and let me tell you: I work way way way way way way way more as an agent than I do as a writer. Let me add some ways: way way way way. If you want to look at it as a by-the-hour type of thing, a publishing career blows writing out of the water.
And sure, some writers do make lots of money – but they do that by writing books that sell a lot of copies. No one is getting rich off of books that don't sell – not the publisher, agent or author. While there are some imbalances, I don't know how you could argue that the system is inherently unfair.
Again, as Ink pointed out, writers don't have to do anything. You don't have to spell-check, promote your work, jump through hoops… anything. If you want to sell your books to a large audience you're probably going to jump through hoops. That's not oppressive, that's life.
stacy says
It's not the opinion, but the way in which it's expressed, I think. And for writers who gain bad reps online, it's usually a pattern of lousy behavior.
Ink says
Mira,
I'm not sure about that… I think writers are pretty free to say whatever they want. Sometimes there are ramifications for what they say, but that's basic society – we're responsible for our actions. If I say crazy things to my customers I'll lose business. If I flame editors their might be ramifications. Certainly, if I stepped over the line as a teacher there would be serious repercussions. It's my choice to say or not say things. And real controversy usually comes less from the substance of a comment and more from the tone and attitude. I haven't found many people in publishing who are unwilling to discuss contrary views if presented respectfully and politely. I believe very strongly in freedom of speech – it's our right. But I also believe strongly in responsibility. We should be held accountable for what we say.
And writers do making a living off books. Some of them, anyhow. The industry people are tied to their particular company, and the growth or loss of that company determines their individual success. That is, they live off the accumulated gross of many products – writers, on the other hand, are tied to a single product. Their own. Some of them will be successful, some will not. Unless someone sets up a sort of socialist publishing commune where the writers all share in each other's success (that is, the writers will individually earn an equal share of the writerly gross) then this is just basic capitalism. You do as well as your product does.
As for grunt work… well, for things like spell checking, I think the writer should share in that responsibility. It's their words. And as for the marketing stuff… well, it's not like writers have to do that. That's a choice… do you want to do these extra things to support the success of your writing? Or not? I don't think publishing resources being stretched thin in a poor economic climate is exactly oppression. It's unfortunate, surely.
Anyway, those are my ponderings on the subject.
Anaquana says
Mira,
I'm not bashing you, but I can't imagine anyone who takes pride in their writing not wanting to do the "grunt" work.
It's my name on the book and, ultimately, I'm the one with the most to lose. I want it to be the absolute best it can be, not because an editor was able to polish it, but because I took the time and effort to do it myself.
Marketing? Again, it's my book. Who better to pimp it out to the world than the person who knows it best? I personally can't wait until I get a book deal so I can do book signings, blog tours, and fantasy conventions.
And I say this as a very introverted person. Some days even going to the grocery store is a panic attack waiting to happen.
I just don't understand this idea of a writer writing the book and then wanting nothing more to do with it after it's been sold.
Nathan Bransford says
anon@12:13-
I'm deleting your comment – had you posted it under your real name I would have left it, but I thought it was a bit harsh/confrontational for an anonymous comment per my "stricter on anonymous comments" policy.
Anonymous says
Life is harsh, Nathan. we are all just collections of cellular material withstanding exposure to the elements until we die.
One could argue that it is harsher to deny Mira the wisdom of the comment than it is to expose her to the pain of its truth.
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
Just as you could come out into the sunlight and stand behind your words.
Anonymous says
I can't, I'm at work and don't want to leave a trail.
AM says
Mira,
I want to directly participate in the marketing of my novels.
Otherwise, wouldn't the success of our novels will be far too dependent on some unknown, unnamed employees of some, as of yet, unnamed publishing house?
Right?
Christine H says
Two things:
1. I know I'm coming late to the discussion, and probably being very dense, but could someone please explain why some people think traditional publishing is evil? I don't get it.
2. I agree with everyone else that writing has no more hoops to jump through than any other business.
However, I do think there is an inherent conflict – which seems very oppressive – for some writers, caused by the fact that they are sensitive and introverted, expressing themselves best in stories and symbols, in the privacy of their little nooks.
But in order to get published, they have to somehow become a salesperson, a self-promoter, putting themselves and their work forward all the time, in any way they can. Which is extremely uncomfortable, makes them feel awkward, embarrassed, stupid, etc.
Many conclude that they can't do it, and give up, which is really sad.
I must say, that having tried for several months to come up with a competent query letter and a pitch, that type of "sales writing" is totally, totally, totally different than writing a book. Totally.
Mira says
Anon, feel free to e-mail me your comment, if you think I would benefit from your wisdom.
I'm sorry. First of all, I realized I just started a big argument on the web, something I'm trying not to do. Then I did it at a time when I'm super busy at work, so I'm delayed in responding. I'm sorry.
Bryan, I'm addressing this to Nathan – but I'd say the same thing to you….
Nathan, when agents and industry people can rail against writers; make fun of their ideas; make fun of their queries; lecture them about how lazy they are; etc., etc. and not suffer any consequences – but when writers who even speak up about that type of treatment, much less engage in it themselves jeopardize their entire writing career – that is not a partnership. That is abuse of power.
When industry professionals force writers to be: submissive, cooperative, obedient, silent and agree with every word they say, that is abuse of power.
If your boss is treating you that way, that is also abuse of power, by the way. Not everything that happens in a business environment is healthy. Business is a dictatorship. If you are lucky, it's benevolent. If you're not lucky, you can be a victim of abuse and discrimination.
If workers had not stood up for their rights we would not have holidays, the weekend, a mimimum wage, 40 hour work weeks, overtime, FEMLA, pregnancy leave, lunch hours, and so much more.
Business is not, automatically, an ethical system.
Abuse of power is abuse of power.
This industry exists because of writers. It should respect what they have to offer and celebrate them, not use them as second-class citizens without a voice or input.
Ink says
Christine,
Nice comments. I'd agree that many introverted writers don't like that aspect… but there are introverted teachers, too, and lawyers, etc. They have to step out and overcome the same things if they want to succeed. Some will, some won't.
And I'm not sure that writing a query is really all that different from writing a story. I mean, there's three parts to a query:
1) The intro. Easy, usually. My book is called blah, it's a blah genre story, and is blah words long.
2) The bio. Pretty easy, too. My name is blah, I do blah, I've been published at blah and blah, thank you for your time, sincerely blah.
3) The blurb/summary/synopsis thing. Okay, this is the tricky part. But this is the part that I think is actually like story writing. It's not necessarily easy, but I think writers often fail to use the skills they have (and need) for this. This part is a little story, in a sense. It's your novel in miniature. It needs a hook, a character, a conflict, rising action, climax and conclusion. Now the latter two might just be hinted at, seeing as this is a query. But they should be set up, at least. Hook, character, conflict, action. This is your novel and this is your query. It's a little story. Now, littl stories can be tricky, particularly if you've been writing a long, meaty novel. But a lot of the skills are the same. Good, vivid writing, revelation of conflict and story/character arc…
Okay, that's my theory, anyway. Everyone can call me an idiot now.
AM says
Christine H. – I think some call the traditional publishing industry evil because of the subjective nature of the selection process and the perceived commercialism that inherently drives that subjectivity.
And yes, while we can write for ourselves, publishing is public. Novels are products and the author’s name is the brand. We have to sell ourselves, or some persona of ourselves, just like our novels’ have to sell the story.
Nathan Bransford says
mira-
While I don't intend to absolve agents who act badly and two wrongs don't make a right, I'd actually say that agents rail against authors far, far, far less than authors rail against agents.
What I think you're getting at is the initial (emphasis on initial) power disparity between agents and aspiring authors, which I think is kind of inevitable. There are a heck of a lot fewer of us than there are writers, and so to a certain extent agents have their pick. That creates an imbalance. I agree that the imbalance leads some people to act carelessly, but I don't think it happens as a general rule.
Authors are free to say what they want. The only way someone would hold something against them is if they act in a way that's unbecoming. Again, that's just life, not something inherently evil about publishing.
Anaquana says
Mira,
This isn't an argument, it's a discussion, and discussion is almost always beneficial. Especially when its purpose is to educate others.
"When industry professionals force writers to be: submissive, cooperative, obedient, silent and agree with every word they say, that is abuse of power."
Who are these "submissive, cooperative, obedient, silent" writers? Are you basing these accusations on verifiable facts or second-hand accounts?
I follow quite a few published authors and none of them fit any of those descriptors. And most of them are mid-list authors, so they don't have clout in the industry backing them.
Several of them have even spoken out about their former agents who didn't live up to their end of the contract and none of them have been blacklisted for their words.
Marsha Sigman says
Where is the joy, people? I write because I love it. I love the words. I want to be responsible for everything I say/write because hey…why should someone else get the credit?
I think a query letter is just one more opportunity to talk about something I have written, and I can do that all day.
I wouldn't mind promoting what I have written because again, just one chance to talk about me…I mean my novel.
If you don't want writing to be your full time job or your life, then why do you people care so much?
Less time bitching
+more time writing
=Agent/Publishing Contract.
Ink says
Mira,
This isn't an argument! Good, friendly discussion. 🙂
And I sort of agree with your point… I mean, yes, there's occasionally abuse of power. But I think that's the reverse of what you said before. It's not systemic, it's personal and individual. This is certain people and certain instances. And real abuses seem pretty rare. Most of what I see, on both sides, is little more than venting of frustrations. Agents, say, will get annoyed by the habits of certain writers and make a comment. Writers will do the same. That seems more like poor communicaion than oppression.
And that very much goes both ways. I just don't see silenced and submissive writers everywhere. I see writers arguing and complaining and dialoguing and disagreeing all over the place. And I don't see much risk, usually. Obviously, anons are safe. And I really don't see an agent e-mailing every other agent and editor they know to say "So and so left a terrible comment on my blog, so don't work with them." Yes, if you say something, an agent or editor who's considering you might google your name and find it (and thus maybe change their mind). But a writer can do the same thing and google the agent – and thus choose someone else for their project if they don't like what they see. And I see this a lot, where writers are turned off particular agents based on such evaluations. That's perfectly legit. And so I don't see why an agent or editor wouldn't be equally free not to work with someone based on their perception of certain comments.
There are ramifications for what we say and do. If don't want to accept those ramifications, I shouldn't make the comment. I'm responsible for my words, and I should be held accountable for them.
Feel free to egg me now. 🙂 Accountability! I accept whatever your catapult dumps upon me.
Mira says
Nathan, if authors could say what they wanted, they wouldn't need to use the anonymous function.
And I could compile a pages long list for you of industry posts that were disrespectful of the writer. Pages and pages. Not yours, of course. Never. Which is why I come here.
But we could go back and forth on this because we have a different perspective on life:
You're pragmatic, I'm not so much. Where you say: "That's life, I'll work within the system," I say: "That sucks, I'm going to speak up and change that."
My method is not always very effective, and has got me into huge trouble over time, while your method is likely to make you highly successful at a young age. I think I do have something to learn from you.
On the other hand, you can't say: 'that's life' for all things. There are times to stand up and say 'this needs to change.'
And whether 'it's life' or not, it's still important to call a spade a spade. The fact that the system is oppressive may just be a fact of life, but the bottom line is: the system is oppressive and unfair.
Anaquana says
Ink,
And that happens not only in the publishing industry. Employers in ALL industries are now Googling prospective (and current) employees. How many times do we hear about such and such a company firing somebody because of something they've posted on FaceBook, MySpace, or Twitter?
Ink says
Mira,
Because some Anons don't want to take responsibility for their words does not make them oppressed.
I guess my problem is that I just don't see or feel this oppression you're talking about. Where? How? I've never felt anything but free to offer my honest opinion. And I've certainly been willing to do so. *cough cough*
Anyway, I just have trouble in moving past the abstract conception of oppression to something real and particular. What is this oppression? What is it I'm being prevented from doing? What rights of mine are being obstructed? I can't really think of anything, can't see it around me.
AM says
Avoiding unruly writers is not blacklisting. I think the perceived blacklisting is due to authors who have made it clear that they are rude and difficult to work with and/or are already damaging their 'image'.
Mira – if you act professionally, which I think you do, and an agent does not want to represent you because of something you've said on line, then good for you. You will have avoided a difficult working relationship.
However, IMHO, all writers should act professionally in every public arena, and they should carefully consider whether their public persona should reflect their personal feelings or opinions.
Mira says
Bryan,
I'm sorry. I realize that I've haven't responded to you, A.M. and Anaquana while I've been having a friendly discussion with Nathan.
I don't want to totally co-opt this thread. I really, really, really have been trying not to do that!
So, I think Nathan might be finished with our conversation – which I really appreciated – so, can I take a breather? It's a shame, because I love having friendly discussions with you and others, but well, frankly, I'm just so tired I can barely see straight. I really should not have started this one. Let's pick this up in another thread, okay? 🙂
Ink says
Mira,
It's okay! I'll just argue with myself. Surely it will be entertaining for all.
Mira says
Bryan, I'm sorry.
I love arguing with you. 🙂 Let's pick this up again.
I wanted to say one more thing. I realized that Nathan could misinterpret something I said.
Nathan: on no level do am I implying that you 'sell out.' Did you think I was implying that? I was not implying that.
You are highly, highly ethical; it's one of the things I admire most about you.
And I get that you don't agree about the oppression thing. That's cool. I'll continue to feel oppressed, and you can continue to not oppress me. That can work, too. 🙂
Christine H says
"However, IMHO, all writers should act professionally in every public arena, and they should carefully consider whether their public persona should reflect their personal feelings or opinions."
I just want to say that I started coming to this blog (and others) with absolutely NO expectation of EVER getting published or becoming even slightly famous. NONE.
So I was a little freer in my comments and opinions, because, hey, it's the Internet and I happen to be an extrovert and (like Mira) tend to speak my mind just because I'm getting into the discussion, not thinking about what someone might think 5, 10 or more years in the future when an asteroid falls out of the publishing sky and somebody actually wants to buy my book.
Now I'm scurrying around searching for and deleting anything I think could possibly be twisted and used against me, because I have this faint little hope my story might actually be publishable after all.
And, Ink, if you think writing a query is so easy then I'm going to email you mine and you can give me suggestions, because I'm having a horrible time trying to figure out which 100 or so of my 100,000 words should go into it. Where do you even start, for God's Sake, in describing something that took a whole novel to tell? And still make it sound original, fantastic, never been done before but yet appealing to a wide audience and not at all like those books that inspired you but aimed for the same readership?
Anaquana says
As someone who found that query writing was simple after I stopped stressing about it, I have to ask you, Christine H, what's your book about?
Can you give us a short description of it? If you can do that, you've got the hardest part of the query down.
I would be more than willing to give you some help you would like. 🙂
Anaquana says
*headdesk*
That should have been I would be more than willing to give you some help *if* you would like. 🙂
Christine H says
ROFL!!! I would like some help I would like… not help I wouldn't like… thank you very much!!!
(Gasp! Can't breathe, I'm laughing so hard. I needed that!)
It's actually up right now on one of the query feedback sites but I don't want to hijack this thread, so I won't post the link. I made three attempts, and the blog host finally said, "Don't send me any more! Stop!"
It was that bad.
It's a fantasy, so there's world-explaining stuff that has to go into it… or doesn't have to go into it, depending on whom you're talking to.
Again, I really don't want to hijack so if anyone wants to see it, email me. Thanks!
Matthew R. Loney says
My family and friends still don't buy my/your excuse that reality tv offers an educational way to turn off your brain.
Great post that validates my obsession.
Steve says
Ever since I heard described the preimse of the newly inaugurated show "Survivor", the genre that has come tyo be known as "reality TV" has been a source of sadness and disgust. These shows glorify the idea of lying, cheating, backstabbing and looking out for "number 1". They are designed to encourage that behavior and are marketed to those who find such spectacles enjoyable.
The fact that occationally an otherwise decent individual may be a fan of such stuff just goes to show that life will always have its surprises.
By drawing the comparison between such "entertainment" and the publishing, you have, perhaps unintentionally, issued a scathing indictment of that industry. I can only hope the parallels you have detected are incidental and spurious.
If speaking my mind in this manner lessens my chances of someday being published, then I suppose that would be evidence to support the parallel. But I think I would rather not come out on top in such an arena in that case. It's important to me to like the person I see in the mirror each morning.
-Steve
Nathan Bransford says
Ah, Steve. You're missing out on one of the great pleasures in life.
Anonymous says
Clearly the most important comment made on this blog today:
c. Writers can not make a living in their field, yet others make a living off of their work.
Thank you, M.
GhostFolk.com says
" …if you think writing a query is so easy then I'm going to email you mine and you can give me suggestions, because I'm having a horrible time trying to figure out which 100 or so of my 100,000 words should go into it. Where do you even start, for God's Sake, in describing something that took a whole novel to tell? And still make it sound original, fantastic, never been done before but yet appealing to a wide audience and not at all like those books that inspired you but aimed for the same readership?"
Christine H., write the query first then hold the book to it. 🙂
GhostFolk.com says
"Either way. I'm going to speak my mind as I see fit to do, because how can I call myself a writer if I don't?"
Gordon, have a character do it for you. Dickens created Scrooge for a reason. And they're still making movies from/of that one.
stacy says
Nathan, if authors could say what they wanted, they wouldn't need to use the anonymous function.
I guess I'm confused as to why this is oppression. While people comment anonymously for various reasons, many do so because they're spewing vitriol. We've seen that over and over on this very blog. I guess I just don't see how it's oppressive to ask writers to develop a few people skills and treat others with respect.
It's not the opinions themselves, Mira. Honest. It's the way in which they're expressed. A case in point: you stated an opinion that several people have disagreed with, yet you did it with the utmost respect for others' feelings and you stood by what you said by commenting under your name. What is wrong with asking people to do that?
I guess I just don't buy this argument that writers are watched by the Publishing Police. I think we're perfectly free to say what we want as long as we act professionally. And you know, that's not unique to the publishing industry. You'll find that anywhere.
Linguista says
Nice post Nathan!
You can find lessons about life in anything… and art imitates life, so there are writing lessons all around us.
liznwyrk says
I heart Nathan Bransford.