Friday Finds

A few cool writing finds from across the web:

• Language is a Virus: Some cool word scramblers and random word generators. Fun n' games for chronic procrastinators.
• Common Errrors in English Usage: Finally a quick, online reference to solve the that/which and who/whom questions.
• Booktrust: A U.K. charity that supports literacy, and gets books into the hands of kids. What writer wouldn't want to support a program that creates more readers?
• Absolute Write: Not a new find, but one that all writers should know about.
• Writerisms and Other Sins: On the SFWA site, a concise article about line-editing your prose.

Keep writing.

A Publisher from Hell

Authors for this small press:

Better Be Write

recently received this charming email from the publisher:

What the hell is wrong with some of you? First of all, those of you that have books out are acting like you are on a damn vacation. You came to me wanting a career in writing. Was it all a farce? You just wanted to see your one book in print and I, the sucker, fell for it? Everyone of you told me what you were going to do to promote your books, to push your books, how you were going to be on TV and radio, and how you wanted your books to be in the top ten. What happened to that?

I have to put our brochure out and some of you have not done your next book; some do not want to write any more books, using me as the excuse; some are just throwing crap at me for me to publish, as if you have no time to do it. If I, who is very ill, can keep going and trying to get you to the top, how dare you give up? How dare you put me to the background of your life? Do you not realize that you will be giving up your careers as I have to see anything that you want to publish so your careers can be shot to hell??? I want to know WHY YOU ARE BLOWING YOUR CAREERS AS AUTHORS!!!!! You owe me that! One of you wants to quit when their book has the highest ranking of all of you!!

I just do not understand. You do not want to be authors. You are G_damned liars! No guts! Did you think that this was going to be easy?? I might as well have taken that $100,000 and gone to Europe! If you are serious about being an author, then get your asses in gear NOW! If not, I will sell your contracts and your books to another publisher who will probably be a POD publisher and you will never be able to get that label off your back with any real publishers. If you think I am kidding, I am not! That was my savings account to open this company and I chose you people. What a freakin let down. You all have one month to do what you are supposed to be doing, and I want proof or so help me God I will recoup some of my money through a POD publisher.

Just makes you want to jump up and mail in your next submission to this company that claims to be very author-centric.

The person who aired this letter to friends, and the place in which it was aired, will remain anonymous.

"Anything you write may be held against you..."

Ah, poor Edwin Kane. On trial, accused of defrauding the government to the tune of about $700,000, Kane attempted to get himself off the hook by presenting as evidence 35 letters written by friends and family members, all saying what a swell guy he was.

But the power of the pen didn't help, as Kane's own pen was about to betray him. Along came the prosecution with some other writing as evidence. Kane's own published writing, as it turns out. A set of how-to manuals on -- guess what? -- how to commit fraud. Oh, and the tasty bit from a book titled "Mastering the Art of Male Supremacy: Training Techniques for the Home Front," which advocates disciplining your wife by spanking her with a rolled-up newspaper. Arf!

Kane and his allies called these books "humor," but the judge didn't see them that way. Kane then went for a First Amendment plea, stating that his self-expression should be protected under the Constitution and not be used against him (there's a bit of the 5th mixed up in that, but all right). The judge wasn't amused by that, either. While the spanking bit may not have been relevant to the case, the "how to commit fraud" bit was. It seems that mastering the "Art of Male Supremacy" includes such useful testosterone-enhancing techniques as faking financial records to qualify for subsidized housing and running a fraudulent mail order scheme that never delivers services paid for. Oh, and for real he-men, a section on how to display pictures of topless women in the office without getting slapped with a sexual harassment suit. Okay, that last probably wasn't relevant to the case, either. But it certainly didn't help Kane's case a bit, contrasting as it did with the character letters from his doting relatives.

Were Kane's books only humorous parody? Or were his how-to books a bit too practical? Kane and his supporters claim his books are old and don't reflect his character. But when you've got a guy who has defrauded the government out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the same bugger writes how-to fraud manuals, it's hard not to connect the two.

The Washington Post has more on the Kane case here: Court: 1st Amendment Doesn't Shield Author.

And now can we get back to real issues, congress?

It's over, for the moment, at least until the would-be theocrats bring it up again in a pathetic effort to get their fellow theocrats to the polls by whipping hatred up to a furious lather.

Iraq is a mess. Afghanistan is a mess. Osama bin Laden, the fellow who was really in charge of the 9/11 attacks, is still at large. Military personnel are stretched to the breaking point in every sense. Gasoline prices are skyrocketing, with no end in sight. Bird flu is looming on the horizon. Katrina victims are still homeless, hurricane season is back, and the New Orleans levees still aren't sound. The NSA is listening in on only the gods know what, and the crimes of the current administration continue to mount. Millions of Americans are struggling along without insurance, which often means they're getting by without health care at all.

But heavens to Betsy, let all that fall aside for the only issue worthy of debate in Congress, it seems. Ooh, icky poo, icky poo, those GAYS wanna get married! Ew, ew, ew! Who cares about homeless Katrina victims. Who cares about Marine meltdowns? Who cares about wiretapping, torture, or anything else when there are GAYS running around actually wanting to commit to a lifetime of mutual caring? Ew!

Hmph. With all the wives some of the right-wing leaders and pundits have used and discarded, you'd think someone might be happy that anyone at all is still interested in a lifetime committment.

You'd also think that our national leaders, our elected representatives, would be familiar enough with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to understand that the Bill of Rights is about rights, rights for all citizens, not thou-shalt-nots. The last time that Congress attempted to use the Bill of Rights to limit the rights of the people (it was called "Prohibition," for those of you who don't remember U.S. History class), it failed miserably. Use of the Constitution to impose one groups religious beliefs on another just doesn't work, and that's precisely what the gay marriage amendment attempts to do.

Congress, hands off our rights. We're still using them.

Read more at the Washington Post: Gay Amendment Fails in Senate

Publishing through Vanities is Not Self-Publishing, Says Kansas Court

It's official now. A vanity publisher that stamps its name on someone's book is the publisher of record. Authors who use the services of vanities and "POD publishers" (note: POD is a technology that many publishers use, not just the vanities) are not legally self-publishing, in spite of advertising claims.

Publishers themselves have known this for a long time. He who buys the ISBN number directly from Bowker, and whose imprint the book is published under, is indeed the publisher. When authors self-publish, they buy their own ISBN number, file for copyright on their own behalf, and publish under their own imprint, using a book printer (not a company calling itself a publisher) to bring the book into being.

Writers, however, aren't always cognizant of these finer legal points. And no wonder -- look at the colorful, exclamation-point-laden advertisements of the vanity presses. The majority of them refer to the process as "self-publishing." Or they'll confound a printing process with the act of publishing and call themselves "POD publishers," trying to avoid the stink of the "vanity" label, but they will still market themselves as a service to help authors self-publish.

A court in Kansas, however, ruled otherwise. In a libel case against AuthorHouse, the jury ruled that AuthorHouse was, indeed, the publisher of a book that libeled the author's ex-wife, and held the company responsible for damages. AuthorHouse, and not the author himself, was determined by the jury to be the publisher of the book. So much for claims of "self-publishing."

More on the story is available from Publisher's Weekly: AuthorHouse Loses Libel Case

Want Your Book to Be a Bestseller? Fork Over £50,000

Or in American dollars, that's $94,137.

That's how much it will cost in the U.K. for your publisher to get your books placed prominently in the large chain stores, according to an article by The Times Online, and prices in the U.S. are in the same ballpark. Think those tables of books sitting out in plain view when you walk into Borders were chosen by the staff? Or that the face-out books on the shelves were just to fill space or look aesthetically pleasing, or even to help the customer find books? Or that the staff picks are really, truly staff picks in every case?

Think again.

Most shoppers probably figure that the large cardboard display cases holding the latest Harry Potter installment were the work of a publisher, but few suspect that merely placing a stack of books out on a table where the customers walk it is a privilege bought and sold in huge, costly packages that put the major publishers in the best position to get a shopper's attention.

The practice is nothing new, but it has grown so expensive in recent years that the smaller, independent publishers are feeling the pinch, both in the costs of promotion, and lost sales if they don't promote. Bookstores know that shoppers are attracted to interesting book covers, and are more likely to buy books from table displays and face-out books than they are to choose any particular book that is displayed spine-out. Staff recommendations may make a book more attractive, and in some cases even these are purchased as part of a promotional package. But small publishers are hard-pressed to afford the fees required for prominent placement, 3 for 2 deals, or similar promotions. Publishers belonging to larger media conglomerates often have far more cash for promotion, and the very size of their war chests may be a factor in driving up the price.

The practice, in turn, can limit a shopper's perception of choice. It's easier to find books that are dipsplayed with their covers showing. If you come in looking for a certain book on writing, but spot a different one that is displayed more prominently, the book that was on display may be the book you walk out with.

So what does the average book buyer do about this? Most shoppers are completely unaware that areas of the bookstore carry price tags, so most shoppers will do next to nothing to alter the practice. And since most people buy books by their title or author and care little about who publishes it -- the name of the publisher doesn't carry the same brand name clout as the name of, say, a soft drink -- most shoppers probably don't care. But as an aware shopper, you can make it a habit to seek out the unusual. Bypass the prominent displays and search among the spine-out books for lesser-known publishers to see what they have to offer. Find independent booksellers in your town, who often carry more books from smaller publishers. And if you hear of a good book by a small publisher and your bookseller doesn't carry it, ask them to order it for you.

It's a small gesture, but it means so much to artistic freedom.

See: Bye-Bye, Barbara--The Play!

Another entry into the "Wish Barbara Bauer luck with some other career" internet extravaganza:

Bye-Bye, Barbara--The Play!

This is, by the way, satire, which is protected by U.S. laws.

It Had to Happen: 20worstagents.com

Scam agent Barbara Bauer has been making trouble. A shrieking rant over the phone got the fabulous site, Absolute Write, shut down in less than an hour, without time for the web owners to retrieve their data, as reported by Teresa Hayden on Making Light. All this for posting a list of the 20 worst agents, of which Bauer was one. Absolute Write, however, is back in business with a newer and less nervous web hosting service. Bauer snarked Making Light itself, and has badgered other sites that have dared to call a fee-charging agent without any legitimate sales to her credit a "scam." But ya know, if it looks like a scam and it quacks like a scam, it's a scam.

As much as she'd like to shut down writers and their sites who have posted the Stinking Twenty on their own sites, Bauer seems to have forgotten that writers are creative sorts, and usually independent sorts who don't like to be pushed around. Someone out there in cyberspace took the obvious step and registered the domain name of http://20worstagents.com for the sole purpose of posting the 20 Worst Agents list -- along with an unflattering animation of The Bauer herself, with her bit yap flapping.

Give them a visit. Let the traffic pour in.

The Unfortunate Mr. Handler

Young readers who thrive on dreariness and gobble up the "Series of Unfortunate Events" books may wonder what a person upon whom the name Lemony Snickett was inflicted might look like. If you haven't combed the web for photos of the elusive author already, a full-face portrait of one Daniel Handler, accused of bearing the nom de plume of Lemony Snickett, can be seen in the Washington Post, accompanied by an article about the Barnes & Noble Summer Reading Program, which Mr. Snickett a.k.a. Mr. Handler is kicking off. And before we commit any of the usual stale "unfortunate" references, let's commend to Barnes & Noble for giving books away to young readers as a reward for filling their summers with literature.

For Sale: "Free" Expression

If you haven't heard about the current attacks on net neutrality, maybe your computer has been in at the shop -- and the neighborhood dogs ran off with your newspaper and the television died.

The issue rests on current regulations that prevent big internet providers from deciding what sites you will visit, based on how much those sites can pay. The big providers want to change that, and allow those who pay them more to get their site noticed more. Sounds on the surface like the way in which advertising, or commerce in general, works. But what does it mean for us ordinary mortals of the blogosphere, for small net business owners, for political websites, charity websites, or for informational websites?

It means that if you want your page noticed, you'll no longer have to go through all the trouble of designing a compelling and aesthetically pleasing website, working hard on search engine optimization, writing good content, and providing a good experience for your reader.

You'll just have to pay great, big, humongous bucks.

Why should a writer care? Let's think about it.

• Suppose I want some music to listen to as I write. I could click on iTunes, which is currently my online music supplier of choice. But if Comcast, my cable company, opens up its own (and, with pressure from the music industry, more expensive) music company, they could, under the new law, control my access to iTunes and steer me toward their own service. That may sound like only a minor inconvenience, but it is entirely unfair.
  
• Suppose I want to continue my blog. In spite of the Google ads at the top, a blog like this makes only a nominal income, certainly far short of the kind of income stream that the big internet bagmen are interested in charging bloggers. Most bloggers would be forced to give up -- and therefore shut up. Now we're seriously treading on First Amendment rights.
  
• Suppose I publish with a small company, or I choose to create my own imprint and self-publish. What chance do I have of getting my site and my book noticed? Very little, if I have only a tiny budget and can't shell out the bucks to the internet bagmen. Again, it's put up (with extortion) or shut up.
  

These aren't just idle suppositions. There are already cases on the books where internet providers have attempted to block access to rival companies and services to promote their own services, and have interfered with their subscribers' rights to hold dissenting opinions. Let's not forget AOL's anti-First-Amendment attempt to block emails having to do with a website that opposed their pay-to-email plan.

The only people who seem to be in favor of scuttling net neutrality are the would-be bagmen: internet providers such as AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and AOL Time-Warner. They want to apply their own system of taxation for providing internet content. Read their justifications and you can practically hear the "ka-ching!" as the dollar signs light up in their eyes. Service to customers? Pah! That's so old-fashioned. So reality-based.

If you're concerned -- and any website owner ought to be -- please visit the Save the Internet site. Moby just joined the forces, bringing on board Artists and Musicians for Internet Freedom. How about you?

Do people hate self-published authors? Um...

... it depends on how you define "self-published."

Technically, if you self-publish, you ARE the publisher. You hire your own printing service, you buy the ISBN number, you file for copyright, and you deal with all business part of publishing, including marketing and distribution.

Vanity publishing is a bit different. Vanity publishers will tell you that you're self-publishing through them, but if the vanity owns the ISBN number (and they do), then in the eyes of the industry, the vanity is the publisher, not you. A small distinction, but it can make a big difference if you try to get a distributor to pick up your books so that you can get them into a real bricks-and-mortar bookstore, where something like 90% of books are sold.

That said, the folks over at SlushPile.Net have a well-written rant about Why People Hate Self-Published Authors. There are some good points here to think about regardless of whether you publish via a traditional publisher, a vanity press, or your own small company. It's not so much about how you are published as how you present yourself to the world.

Pete Doherty's Novel Plans

So... Babyshambles' baby-faced Pete Doherty says he wants to write a novel, according to the folks at Aversion.

That thin, heart-rending sound you hear is made up of the screams of thousands of talented, hard-working, dedicated novelists who have yet to make a living at what they love best.

Says the young music sensation, best known currently for injecting drugs into an unconscious female companion (a testimony to talent if I ever heard one, snark, snark), said in an interview to a London newspaper, "Every day I think about it; writing and music thrive off each other, they goad each other along, they make something complete."

Oh, that's deep. Gives me goosebumps, that does.

Well, who doesn't think about writing a novel when they're young? Petey, however, has the advantage of being a celebrity. Even now, some publisher may be on the phone, calling young Petey, saying, "Were you serious about that? Do you have an idea? We could help you with that... we know some excellent ghostwriters..."

It's enough to make a writer want to do drugs and kick reporters, or become a White House intern and diddle the president. Whatever it takes to get published, right?

And Another Constitutional Attack

Parents rip school over gay storybook - The Boston Globe

The Patriots, the Family Values people, and other so-called moralists all seem to be violently anti-Constitutional these days, calling for bans on That Which We Do Not Want To Hear.

Now it's a fairy tale which involves a handsome prince marrying -- no, not a beautiful princess, but another handsome prince.

Lordy, Lordy, and spare my tender sensibilities.

The tale was read aloud in a primary classroom, and the parents went on a rampage. Said one:

My son is only 7 years old. By presenting this kind of issue at such a young age, they're trying to indoctrinate our children. They're intentionally presenting this as a norm, and it's not a value that our family supports.

Well, you know what, hon? My family values tolerance and doesn't support bigotry. Can I demand that you shut up and keep your "values" at home? Would that be okay?

Or can we please understand that this is a wide world with all sorts of people living in it who have all sorts of opinions, religions, and challenges in life, and so long as they aren't breaking the law or getting in your face -- ahem, ahem, Ms. My-Family-Values-Are-Better-Than-Your-Family-Values -- and just all try to get along?

Did Someone Repeal the First Amendment and Not Tell Me?

Read Roger: Threats, we get threats

I can't decide if our society has become too thin-skinned, or too in-your-face. Or both at once. It's a strange world when we feel we should be able to say whatever we want about anything we want and use any foul language we want, but we expect to be sheltered from the opinions and language of others.

What brought on that rant? Roger Sutton, Horn Book editor, is getting threats from a publisher -- a publisher, mind you -- about his negative review of one of their books.

Well, for pity's sake, that's the chance you take when you publish a book. Someone will like it, and someone else will not.

The publisher claims that Sutton should have asked permission before writing the review. So now free speech is limited to that which is pre-approved? When was that alteration made to the Constitution?

Granted, there's a lot out there I don't want to hear or see. I don't care for porn, so I don't go into "adult" shops or wander into some parts of the Internet.

There's also such a thing as appropriateness. It would be totally inappropriate to post erotic material on a discussion board frequented by children, for example.

Sutton's review may have offended the tender sensibilities of the publisher, but as it was printed in a magazine dedicated to reviewing children's books, and that publishes both positive and negative reviews it was entirely appropriate.

Of course... (gulp)... I rather hope it wasn't one of my books.

Editing by Committee, Redux

A short while back, I wrote about the hazards of editing by committee. I thought I'd seen the end of that manuscript, but just a couple of days ago, when the book is about to go into galleys, I get a few last questions. The book is a nonfiction children's book on -- let's tread as anonymously as possible here -- a type of transportation. Within the book was an exciting story about a fire aboard one of these forms of transportation, and a quick-thinking young man who first used a fire extinguisher to no effect, then a bucket of water that was handy, and put out the fire.

On the first round of editing, the editors asked me not to mention the fire extinguisher. They said librarians would get upset. Okay, I don't understand that remark either, but out came the reference, and in went a vaguer phrase about firefighting equipment. Ever since then, the editors have been obsessing one at a time about that bucket of water. Was it really there? (Yes.) Why was it there? (I don't know.) Is it standard equipment? (I couldn't tell you. I only know it was there.) On this last set of comments, just before the book goes to press, someone still wants to know about it, and asks, "Didn't they have any other firefighting equipment?"

Yes, dears, they did, but you asked me to edit it out.

Please, oh, please let this be the last bit of editing. Please, let me see this book with covers on really soon. This tight, polite, civil, professional smile is starting to hurt.

Now I must get on with the last book in a series of human body topics. This one is on -- gulp -- reproduction. Joyous. Now, I say to myself, stop blogging and get back to your writing. (Um... but the cat box needs cleaning... yeah, that's it...)

Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Plagiarism

Making Light posted the story of fanfic gone awry. It seems that one Lori Jareo, editor of a vanity publisher, wrote a not-so-wonderful fanfic of the Star Wars saga, titled Another Hope.

Nothing unusual in that. Fanfic is all over the web, and while use of other people's characters is a violation of copyright laws, most authors (with the notable exception of Anne Rice) are not only tollerant of fanfic, but encourage it. What better way to spread the word of your characters and your world than to have fans so enthused about it that they want to go play in your world? And then bring their friends along?

Unfortunately, Ms. Jareo stepped over the line of tollerance and into the realm of blatant copyright violation when she published the book via her own vanity press and put it up for sale on Amazon.com.

Ms Jareo, interestingly, has her own twisted idea of what copyright is. In an author interview, when asked if she had any concerns about copyright, she replied,

No, because I wrote this book for myself. This is a self-published story and is not a commercial book. Yes, it is for sale on Amazon, but only my family, friends and acquaintances know it’s there.

Let's see -- how many contradictions can we count here? It's self-published -- that is, published -- but not commercial? For sale at Amazon, but not commercial? Available on Amazon, the world's largest online bookseller, but she only expects family, friends, and acquaintances to know it's there?

Perhaps Ms. Lareo has a lot of family, friends, and acquaintances. Perhaps she considers all Amazon customers to be her acquaintances.

Astonishing that Ms. Lareo, as a purported publisher, is unfamiliar with the information at this site: United States Copyright Office.

Earth Day, Every Day: Free Ebook

To writers falls the responsibility of recording and transmitting their culture's values in tangible form that can be passed on to future generations. One may not think so looking at the offerings in the magazine racks at the average grocery store checkout counter. Yet so long as people buy them, companies will print them. Hence they're valued by someone, and thus are part of our culture's values. Alas.

Today, being Earth Day, I'd like to help transmit something with a bit more value than the latest news on Brad or Jen or whatever blonde young thing is on the covers of the gossip rags these days. Not that I can ever tell any of them apart any more. No, let's have something with a deeper impact. To wit, from the Earth Day Network website, I found a link to this free ebook: The LIME Guide: Make it Earth Day, Every Day.

While you're on the site, take the time to try the Ecological Footprint Quiz. I discovered that as frugal as I thought I was, if everyone on earth lived as I do, it would take 4 1/2 Earths to support us all. High time I re-implemented the frugal practices I learned from my grandmother. In our culture of entitlement, we seldom think of frugality, but in my grandmother's day, frugality was a necessity -- yet also a source of pride.

The 20 Worst Literary Agents

The Making Light blog is spreading the word about a list compiled by Victoria Strauss of Writer Beware (on the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America website). These are the 20 Worst Literary Agents about whom Writer Beware has received complaints. Before signing on with any agency, check out this list, or look up your potential agent on the Preditors and Editors website (yes, it's spelled that way, for alliterative purposes). "Preditors" is also a terrific resource for checking out publishers, contests, and any other venue where the scammers attempt to mingle with the legitimate businesses.

Be aware, be informed, and don't be too hasty to respond to those five wonderful words that the scammers use to lure the unsuspecting: "We want to publish you!"

The Voiceless Speak through Writing

Article Link: Writing for - a change

In Pakistan, where women's literacy rates in rural areas run between 3 and 8%, a group of women is busy with something that some among their people would consider radical: they're writing.

In a free journalism course, a subject formerly reserved only for men, women write of their fears, their hopes, of "honor" killings that have taken the lives of friends and family members, of poverty, powerlesness, and childhood marriages that entrap young women before they have the chance for a life of their own.

In developing nations, education is often the path out of poverty, but education is limited for poor men and almost non-existent for women. In this patriarchal society, women write of the fear and anger that men display when confronted by the possibility that "their" women might become educated, might have a mind, a voice, a will, an opinion. It's a direct threat to the way of life. But so long as any group is marginalized to the point of silence and near non-human status, how can there be true freedom?

How NOT to be a famous writer

Article Link: United Press International - NewsTrack - Student convicted in letter-writing hoax

There are two ways to become famous for your writing. First is to write something great that gets published and starts such a buzz that everyone talks about your work. Second is to write something really dumb that gets you in trouble.

A former student at Chicago's Trinity college did the latter. Because she was unhappy at the school and wanted her parents to let her leave, she wrote a series of threatening letters -- against herself. The letters caused a huge stir on campus and prompted the evacuation of Hispanic and African-American students.

The student must attend counseling, pay a large fine, and perform many hours of public service. Perhaps some assertiveness training and character building should have been part of the sentence.