Life doesn't always work out the way we want it to. It's hard to take the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune sometimes, but cultivating a professional mask can keep us from making our situations worse.
Whether it's dealing with critiques and comments from an editor or critique partner, facing dismissal or scorn from the public or other professionals, or coping with errors and slights, I feel it's important to avoid the temptation to strike back. Now, there is a balance between maintaining a professional attitude and having a backbone. Being professional doesn't mean simply ignoring what is unpleasant, but it does mean taking the time to decide on your course of action rather than reacting emotionally in the moment.
I have a series of questions which I usually make myself go through when I'm feeling angry or upset. Once I've gone through them, if I still feel the need to speak up, then I do. But they've kept me from digging myself deeper on a fair number of occasions.
Is there any truth to what the other person has said?
Sometimes people will give you useful information in a horrible way or they will share something which you didn't want to hear but needed to know. A bad review can highlight areas for improvement. A complaint or criticism about an event or behaviour can do the same. Even if I disagree with what someone has said, if there is some truth to what they've said, then I can't dismiss everything out of hand. I can dislike how they've chosen to share it, but their words deserve some consideration, no matter how much they might sting my pride.
Is this possibly a misunderstanding or misinterpretation?
If I had the psychic powers to always accurate predict someone's intentions, I would quit my job and start working for Psychic Friends. Even with the best intentions in the world, things get misspoken, misheard and misinterpreted. Maybe it's because I've done a lot of work with people on the autism spectrum, who have trouble picking up social signals and often unintentionally give messages of impatience and lack of caring to those around them, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I try not to assume a deliberate slur or attack, giving the other person a chance to clarify their intentions. Sometimes it is deliberate, and then I have to consider my last two questions.
Is this someone I need to deal with again?
Idiots are idiots and there are always people who take joy in being offensive bullies. It is not my job to educate or improve them, so if I don't need to deal with them again, then walking away with my dignity intact is the best outcome I can hope for. It's not always successful, but I try not to take random opinions seriously, particularly if they are hostile. Engaging with them will only prolong the hurt and give them the satisfaction of knowing they've struck.
If it is someone whom I'll need to interact with in the future (for example, a coworker, family member or business associate), then it's time to figure out the answer to my final question.
What is my goal in confronting this person?
What am I hoping to do? What outcome do I want? Am I hoping for an apology or do I want to enact a change? For business, I will usually begin by seeing if there is someone else I can work with. My experience is that if they are large enough, most organizations are willing to quietly make alternate arrangements to avoid a personality conflict. Sometimes there isn't an alternative person inside the organization, so I have to search for an alternate service.
If I want an apology or a change from the other person, I've learned to be cautious in my expectations. Bullies do not become bullies because they are accustomed to considering other people's feelings. I can say to someone: your behaviour was not acceptable. But they may not be ready to hear it and I need to be prepared for a backlash.
That's my process and while it seems simple, taking the time to go through each question allows the immediate emotional impact to cool.
Realizing that I can only control my own actions and not the reactions of others has helped me to develop a thicker skin when dealing with others. Some people might find my approach to be naive, but I don't find a lot of virtue in assuming hostility and insult in the world.
That doesn't mean that there aren't hostile people out there. Recently the Ottawa Romance Writers had an extremely unpleasant situation at Prose in the Park. A woman who was not an ORWA member bullied her way into our tent and then proceeded to block a number of our authors by preventing people from going down the narrow aisle. She actively harassed people who were looking at our books, dismissing them as poor quality. She was rude to our authors and then left abruptly before the event was finished, leaving her garbage for us to clean up.
That entire performance was the antithesis of professionalism. She actively insulted and alienated a number of people who frankly have the power to block her career.
Added to the mix has been the reaction of one of the organizers, who has been hostile to our concerns. Initially, I was prepared to go back to Prose in the Park next year but his vehemence and aggressiveness is making me think twice about it.
Unpleasant situations happen, but I believe that how they are handled shows the quality of someone's character. I'd rather not allow the bullies and petty people of the world to dictate my actions but I also will not subject myself to their venom if I don't need to.
My Books
Thursday, 16 June 2016
Monday, 13 June 2016
Weekly Update: June 5 to 11
Weekly word count: 5900
I'd been struggling for awhile and decided to go back two chapters. That was the last place I'd felt things were moving easily. I spent a day deciding how to rearrange things to still hit my critical plot points. After that, the words came much easier, so I think it was the right decision.
There's three weeks left of school and then the disruptions of summer begin. Hopefully this change will continue to keep things moving quickly and Inquisition won't be further delayed.
It's been a bit of difficult week for me aside from the writing challenges. I've been disappointed in how one of the organizers for Prose in the Park has reacted to the difficulties from the event. It's making me reconsider going back to that event next year. I don't want to lose the opportunity to speak to local readers but at the same time, I don't want to subject myself to being the target for anyone's grudge.
But I'm not going to dwell on it. There is at least six months for things to die down and hopefully the situation will resolve.
Meanwhile, I know there's nothing I can do to change the situation and so I'm going to concentrate on the area I do have control over: my writing and making sure I can produce a quality book and series.
I'd been struggling for awhile and decided to go back two chapters. That was the last place I'd felt things were moving easily. I spent a day deciding how to rearrange things to still hit my critical plot points. After that, the words came much easier, so I think it was the right decision.
There's three weeks left of school and then the disruptions of summer begin. Hopefully this change will continue to keep things moving quickly and Inquisition won't be further delayed.
It's been a bit of difficult week for me aside from the writing challenges. I've been disappointed in how one of the organizers for Prose in the Park has reacted to the difficulties from the event. It's making me reconsider going back to that event next year. I don't want to lose the opportunity to speak to local readers but at the same time, I don't want to subject myself to being the target for anyone's grudge.
But I'm not going to dwell on it. There is at least six months for things to die down and hopefully the situation will resolve.
Meanwhile, I know there's nothing I can do to change the situation and so I'm going to concentrate on the area I do have control over: my writing and making sure I can produce a quality book and series.
Thursday, 9 June 2016
Heroine Fix: Supergirl: Women of Steel
This month's Heroine Fix is less about the version of the character I originally met, which would be Helen Slater in the 1984 movie Supergirl, and more about the latest one, who has inspired me in my writing.
To be fair, Supergirl has always felt a little bit like an after-thought in DC's character development. "Eh, we need a girl. Throw an S on her chest and call it a day."
I'm not sure if Superman's look of dismay is more because she's a girl, because he's never heard of her before or wondering if she's going to take over his comic run. I like the subtle emphasis that she has all his powers. Although I suspect it has it's roots in the need to quickly develop the character, it also implies that she is the absolute equal of the most powerful man in the universe.
I watched the 1984 movie so often that I wore out the VHS tape. Except, I have to admit that it wasn't for Helen Slater's title character. It was Faye Dunaway's world-altering magical abilities which captured my attention. She was one of the first female villains I'd seen who wasn't the least bit repentant or ashamed of her powers. She eagerly sought the opportunity to be more powerful and had no compunctions about using it to improve her life and status.
Dunaway's presence was so commanding that she stole the show (at least in my mind) from Supergirl. I did like how Helen Slater ended up coming to Earth because she inadvertently put what was left of the entire civilization of Krypton at risk because she was fooling around with something she wasn't supposed to. As a kid who frequently got caught messing around with stuff I wasn't supposed to, I could relate to that.
But that seemed to be her last human moment. After that, she had the same challenges as her male alter-ego: too much perfection to connect with.
I gave up on the House of El and headed on over to the Marvel side of the street, where characters are deeply, sometimes tragically flawed, giving me lots of depth for my writer's brain to play with.
When the new Supergirl TV series was announced, I had some mixed feelings. On the one hand, yay! Supporting Y-chromosome-challenged heroes! On the other, why did they have to pick Supergirl? Why not Wonder Woman or Catwoman or Huntress or... just about anyone else other than Supergirl?
Still, I watched. I told myself it couldn't possibly be as bad as I was afraid it was. When the pilot was horrible, I made myself give it another chance. And to my surprise, I found myself really enjoying it.
Some of that I put squarely on Melissa Benoist's shoulders. She brings a vulnerability to the role, regardless of whether she's playing Supergirl or Cara Danvers. She's not certain what she should be as a grown up or a superhero and she's struggling to figure it all out. (Learning she needs a cape for aerodynamic cornering was hilarious.) She's determined to get there, refusing to run to Superman for rescue even when she isn't sure she can defeat her enemies on her own. She wants to learn, even when it means getting it wrong. It's the exact opposite of the perfectionism which I hated in 1984.
The part which really caught me was the play between the different female characters. They are all strongly developed with unique, three dimensional personalities. Cara's boss, Cat Grant (Calista Flockhart) initially comes off as a Devil Wears Prada clone, but didn't stay that way. She's demanding because she's constantly fighting for recognition and to improve her company. She's hard because she's had enough of being trampled on, which makes her rare moments of softness poignant and moving. Then there's Alex Danvers (Chyler Leigh), Cara's adoptive sister, who works for a secret government agency which monitors aliens on Earth (sadly, not the Men in Black). She's strong and smart, but has that niggling insecurity which has to happen when your adoptive sister can punch the fridge through the wall and down the street. The sisterly relationship between Cara and Alex is frought with rivalry and affection and is the highlight of the series.
Even the female villains have depth. I've never once gotten the impression that Supergirl is being given the runt of the evil litters. These are foes who could challenge any cape-wearer.
I've been inspired by the way that Supergirl has interwoven the challenges of being a woman and then challenges of being a superhero and the challenges of being adopted, an outsider and hiding a secret. There's a complexity and depth which I hadn't realized I was missing until I found it.
Cara and Supergirl have encouraged me to look at the female friendships and mentorships in my own stories and work on increasing the depth and complexity. They've shown me a new aspect of stories that I want to write and at this stage of the game, that's a rare thing for a comic book adaptation to do.
So I'll be back with my popcorn and cheering when Season 2 starts, notebook in hand and ready to fly.
To be fair, Supergirl has always felt a little bit like an after-thought in DC's character development. "Eh, we need a girl. Throw an S on her chest and call it a day."
I watched the 1984 movie so often that I wore out the VHS tape. Except, I have to admit that it wasn't for Helen Slater's title character. It was Faye Dunaway's world-altering magical abilities which captured my attention. She was one of the first female villains I'd seen who wasn't the least bit repentant or ashamed of her powers. She eagerly sought the opportunity to be more powerful and had no compunctions about using it to improve her life and status.
But that seemed to be her last human moment. After that, she had the same challenges as her male alter-ego: too much perfection to connect with.
When the new Supergirl TV series was announced, I had some mixed feelings. On the one hand, yay! Supporting Y-chromosome-challenged heroes! On the other, why did they have to pick Supergirl? Why not Wonder Woman or Catwoman or Huntress or... just about anyone else other than Supergirl?
Still, I watched. I told myself it couldn't possibly be as bad as I was afraid it was. When the pilot was horrible, I made myself give it another chance. And to my surprise, I found myself really enjoying it.
Some of that I put squarely on Melissa Benoist's shoulders. She brings a vulnerability to the role, regardless of whether she's playing Supergirl or Cara Danvers. She's not certain what she should be as a grown up or a superhero and she's struggling to figure it all out. (Learning she needs a cape for aerodynamic cornering was hilarious.) She's determined to get there, refusing to run to Superman for rescue even when she isn't sure she can defeat her enemies on her own. She wants to learn, even when it means getting it wrong. It's the exact opposite of the perfectionism which I hated in 1984.
The part which really caught me was the play between the different female characters. They are all strongly developed with unique, three dimensional personalities. Cara's boss, Cat Grant (Calista Flockhart) initially comes off as a Devil Wears Prada clone, but didn't stay that way. She's demanding because she's constantly fighting for recognition and to improve her company. She's hard because she's had enough of being trampled on, which makes her rare moments of softness poignant and moving. Then there's Alex Danvers (Chyler Leigh), Cara's adoptive sister, who works for a secret government agency which monitors aliens on Earth (sadly, not the Men in Black). She's strong and smart, but has that niggling insecurity which has to happen when your adoptive sister can punch the fridge through the wall and down the street. The sisterly relationship between Cara and Alex is frought with rivalry and affection and is the highlight of the series.
Even the female villains have depth. I've never once gotten the impression that Supergirl is being given the runt of the evil litters. These are foes who could challenge any cape-wearer.
I've been inspired by the way that Supergirl has interwoven the challenges of being a woman and then challenges of being a superhero and the challenges of being adopted, an outsider and hiding a secret. There's a complexity and depth which I hadn't realized I was missing until I found it.
Cara and Supergirl have encouraged me to look at the female friendships and mentorships in my own stories and work on increasing the depth and complexity. They've shown me a new aspect of stories that I want to write and at this stage of the game, that's a rare thing for a comic book adaptation to do.
So I'll be back with my popcorn and cheering when Season 2 starts, notebook in hand and ready to fly.
Monday, 6 June 2016
Weekly Update: May 28 to June 4: the next 90 days
Weekly word count: 5100
This week marked the end of my first 90 days of goal setting so it's time to take a look and see how I did. As per Cynthia Boyko's advice, I set myself 3 concrete goals:
- write at least 4000 words per week
- have at least two weeks where I write each day, Monday to Friday
- do at least 2 tweets per day for my upcoming promotion (My March 99 cent sale and review tour)
There were a few weeks where I didn't make the 4000 per week goal, but I feel I did fairly well overall. I had 3 weeks where I wrote each day, Monday to Friday. And I overcame my promotion shyness.
Not bad for my first shot. Now I look at my next 90 day goals, which would take me to the end of August. As much as I want to keep my weekly word count up, I know it's not practical as the kids finish up school. Not to mention that once the draft for Inquisition is done, I'll be shifting into editing mode.
So here are my goals for the next 90 days:
- finish my draft for Inquisition and have it ready to send to my editor
- finish the editing for Rose on the Grave and get the cover commissioned
- finish transcribing my notes into Scrivener to use as a series Bible
Those feel like a do-able set of goals. I am still hoping to have my first draft done for early August, to have time for beta reading before it goes to the editor in September.
This weekend was also Prose in the Park. Those who follow me on Facebook already know that things didn't go entirely smoothly, but I still had a good time. I brought my camera to take pictures but forgot my memory card at home, so I don't have any pictures to share. Traffic was lighter than last year, but more people were prepared to buy, which was nice.
Prose was the last event in the flurry of April-May-June activity. Now it's relatively quiet until I head out to RWA Nationals in July. Time to buckle down and get back to work.
This week marked the end of my first 90 days of goal setting so it's time to take a look and see how I did. As per Cynthia Boyko's advice, I set myself 3 concrete goals:
- write at least 4000 words per week
- have at least two weeks where I write each day, Monday to Friday
- do at least 2 tweets per day for my upcoming promotion (My March 99 cent sale and review tour)
There were a few weeks where I didn't make the 4000 per week goal, but I feel I did fairly well overall. I had 3 weeks where I wrote each day, Monday to Friday. And I overcame my promotion shyness.
Not bad for my first shot. Now I look at my next 90 day goals, which would take me to the end of August. As much as I want to keep my weekly word count up, I know it's not practical as the kids finish up school. Not to mention that once the draft for Inquisition is done, I'll be shifting into editing mode.
So here are my goals for the next 90 days:
- finish my draft for Inquisition and have it ready to send to my editor
- finish the editing for Rose on the Grave and get the cover commissioned
- finish transcribing my notes into Scrivener to use as a series Bible
Those feel like a do-able set of goals. I am still hoping to have my first draft done for early August, to have time for beta reading before it goes to the editor in September.
This weekend was also Prose in the Park. Those who follow me on Facebook already know that things didn't go entirely smoothly, but I still had a good time. I brought my camera to take pictures but forgot my memory card at home, so I don't have any pictures to share. Traffic was lighter than last year, but more people were prepared to buy, which was nice.
Prose was the last event in the flurry of April-May-June activity. Now it's relatively quiet until I head out to RWA Nationals in July. Time to buckle down and get back to work.
Thursday, 2 June 2016
Ink Tips: How Far to Promote?
Last week, I talked about the "race to the bottom" for media attention, when the splash of sensationalism is more important than accuracy. There are plenty of sites which still focus on delivering quality, but the reality is that the more people are shouting, the harder it is to get anyone to pay attention to any one individual. Or author.
A friend forwarded a rather harsh article which blamed self-published authors for the fall in revenue for digital books sales, claiming they had glutted the market with crap. His solution was that all self-published books should be segregated until they reach a certain sales level, thus "proving" their quality.
Both of these things have gotten me thinking about the difficulties authors have in getting attention for their books. I started wondering: if Amazon or Kobo or Apple began segregating self-published authors, what would I do to haul myself out of that particular dungeon?
Kozlowski has a valid point in his article: the number of poorly-written books out there is huge. It does get overwhelming trying to pick out the few good seeds from the mass of garbage. And unfortunately, the majority of those books are self-published (although I have seen a number which come from small presses and even the Big 6, so a publisher isn't a guarantee of quality).
Authors have to promote. There's no question about it. Either we pay someone to do it for us or we do it ourselves or a combination of both. But even if one is willing to dedicate a substantial chunk of money each month to promotional services, there is still a limit to the number of purchasable opportunities (at least, if we stick to the effective ones).
But looking at the other options available, we quickly find people who will tell us either not to bother or that a particular tactic will backfire. So I'm going to take a look at two of the most controversial options, the pros and cons and my own view on the matter.
Posting reviews: People who read reviews are looking for books to read. By creating those reviews, an author can get their name (and sometimes cover) in front of potential readers. Since most authors are also readers, this seems like an easy solution. We're going to read anyway, and we're going to judge what we read, so why not post that judgement?
I've had a number of authors tell me that I should never post reviews, particularly not within my genre and with my author name (the two things I have to do if I want to use reviews as a promotion tool). They point out new authors who have gone down in flames for having dared to criticize someone popular. The popular author's fans began a campaign to bury the reviewing author's work in one star reviews and fill their social media with hateful comments. Even being complimentary can backfire, as those who dislike the books can launch similar campaigns. Or an author can find themselves losing credit as they give "good" reviews to horrible stories.
Personally, I take a middle ground. I post reviews of romance novels in a local arts blog and sometimes on Goodreads. I try to be fair, but I also focus on what I enjoyed about a book rather than on nitpicking. If I can't find anything complimentary (which is rare), I let the editor know and I simply don't do a review. Thus far, I haven't had to handle any flame wars, but I'm aware of the possibility. I take the view that those sorts of actions are more reflective of those posting than of me but it's a risk I have to take if I want the opportunity.
An "Open" and interactive Facebook page: This applies to all social media, but Facebook is still the most popular option. By allowing people to friend you and like your page, an author can gain followers in an organic way. By interacting with them, your name and books stay in their minds, making them more likely to pick up the next installment once its ready.
This is one of those tricky balancing acts. How friendly and interactive should an author be on social media? How much should they reveal? There is a risk of attracting the wrong kind of attention: someone obsessive who won't respect the author/real life boundaries. There is also the challenge of having people use your openness for their own purposes. Scammers will 'friend' romance novelists to gain access to their readers, who are assumed to be vulnerable to love scams,
I've had a number of new authors say they won't accept a friend request from a man, since they assume he is a scammer. I find that sad. I know I have a number of male readers and I don't want to pre-judge anyone. That said, I don't respond to private messages from those I don't know personally and if any of my followers tell me that one of my "friends" is harassing them, I will remove that friend immediately. I keep strict boundaries on my personal vs my author life, particularly when it comes to protecting my children's privacy. But I will share information about my life, without identifying details. It's not terribly interesting, but has the advantage of being genuine and thus easy to keep track of.
There are always going to be risks in promoting. When you shout for attention, it's not possible to control the kind of attention you'll receive. Some will be good and some will be bad.
I respect those who stay courteous, who offer balanced opinions without vilifying their opponents, who offer insight and who are open-minded. They may not attract as much attention as those trolling for scandals and shock, but I'd rather take a slower approach and still respect who I am than find myself caught up in a whirlwind.
A friend forwarded a rather harsh article which blamed self-published authors for the fall in revenue for digital books sales, claiming they had glutted the market with crap. His solution was that all self-published books should be segregated until they reach a certain sales level, thus "proving" their quality.
Both of these things have gotten me thinking about the difficulties authors have in getting attention for their books. I started wondering: if Amazon or Kobo or Apple began segregating self-published authors, what would I do to haul myself out of that particular dungeon?
Kozlowski has a valid point in his article: the number of poorly-written books out there is huge. It does get overwhelming trying to pick out the few good seeds from the mass of garbage. And unfortunately, the majority of those books are self-published (although I have seen a number which come from small presses and even the Big 6, so a publisher isn't a guarantee of quality).
Authors have to promote. There's no question about it. Either we pay someone to do it for us or we do it ourselves or a combination of both. But even if one is willing to dedicate a substantial chunk of money each month to promotional services, there is still a limit to the number of purchasable opportunities (at least, if we stick to the effective ones).
But looking at the other options available, we quickly find people who will tell us either not to bother or that a particular tactic will backfire. So I'm going to take a look at two of the most controversial options, the pros and cons and my own view on the matter.
Posting reviews: People who read reviews are looking for books to read. By creating those reviews, an author can get their name (and sometimes cover) in front of potential readers. Since most authors are also readers, this seems like an easy solution. We're going to read anyway, and we're going to judge what we read, so why not post that judgement?
I've had a number of authors tell me that I should never post reviews, particularly not within my genre and with my author name (the two things I have to do if I want to use reviews as a promotion tool). They point out new authors who have gone down in flames for having dared to criticize someone popular. The popular author's fans began a campaign to bury the reviewing author's work in one star reviews and fill their social media with hateful comments. Even being complimentary can backfire, as those who dislike the books can launch similar campaigns. Or an author can find themselves losing credit as they give "good" reviews to horrible stories.
Personally, I take a middle ground. I post reviews of romance novels in a local arts blog and sometimes on Goodreads. I try to be fair, but I also focus on what I enjoyed about a book rather than on nitpicking. If I can't find anything complimentary (which is rare), I let the editor know and I simply don't do a review. Thus far, I haven't had to handle any flame wars, but I'm aware of the possibility. I take the view that those sorts of actions are more reflective of those posting than of me but it's a risk I have to take if I want the opportunity.
An "Open" and interactive Facebook page: This applies to all social media, but Facebook is still the most popular option. By allowing people to friend you and like your page, an author can gain followers in an organic way. By interacting with them, your name and books stay in their minds, making them more likely to pick up the next installment once its ready.
This is one of those tricky balancing acts. How friendly and interactive should an author be on social media? How much should they reveal? There is a risk of attracting the wrong kind of attention: someone obsessive who won't respect the author/real life boundaries. There is also the challenge of having people use your openness for their own purposes. Scammers will 'friend' romance novelists to gain access to their readers, who are assumed to be vulnerable to love scams,
I've had a number of new authors say they won't accept a friend request from a man, since they assume he is a scammer. I find that sad. I know I have a number of male readers and I don't want to pre-judge anyone. That said, I don't respond to private messages from those I don't know personally and if any of my followers tell me that one of my "friends" is harassing them, I will remove that friend immediately. I keep strict boundaries on my personal vs my author life, particularly when it comes to protecting my children's privacy. But I will share information about my life, without identifying details. It's not terribly interesting, but has the advantage of being genuine and thus easy to keep track of.
There are always going to be risks in promoting. When you shout for attention, it's not possible to control the kind of attention you'll receive. Some will be good and some will be bad.
I respect those who stay courteous, who offer balanced opinions without vilifying their opponents, who offer insight and who are open-minded. They may not attract as much attention as those trolling for scandals and shock, but I'd rather take a slower approach and still respect who I am than find myself caught up in a whirlwind.
Monday, 30 May 2016
Weekly Update: May 22 to 28
Weekly word count: 4600
I got myself a new toy, the program Scrivener. It basically allows me to create a digital copy of my notebooks and cue cards, as well as a word processing program. Although I still prefer Word for writing, I think Scrivener will be useful for creating detailed outlines of my previous books and a database for characters and locations. As a compulsive organizer, I've had to resist the impulse to spend all my time transcribing information into Scrivener. Instead I'm taking it slow, saving my writing time for actual writing.
The end of the school year is fast approaching, which makes me nervous. It's always harder to write during the summer. And unfortunately, Inquisition isn't going as smoothly as I'd hoped. If I don't have the draft ready for editing by August 1, then I won't be able to make my February deadline for publication. I'll just have to buckle down and try to punch out some more work before school lets out.
Prose in the Park is next week and I"m looking forward to it. Both because it was fun last year but also because it's the last in my spring events. I'm going to be in tent five this year, for anyone who wants to drop by.
I got myself a new toy, the program Scrivener. It basically allows me to create a digital copy of my notebooks and cue cards, as well as a word processing program. Although I still prefer Word for writing, I think Scrivener will be useful for creating detailed outlines of my previous books and a database for characters and locations. As a compulsive organizer, I've had to resist the impulse to spend all my time transcribing information into Scrivener. Instead I'm taking it slow, saving my writing time for actual writing.
The end of the school year is fast approaching, which makes me nervous. It's always harder to write during the summer. And unfortunately, Inquisition isn't going as smoothly as I'd hoped. If I don't have the draft ready for editing by August 1, then I won't be able to make my February deadline for publication. I'll just have to buckle down and try to punch out some more work before school lets out.
Prose in the Park is next week and I"m looking forward to it. Both because it was fun last year but also because it's the last in my spring events. I'm going to be in tent five this year, for anyone who wants to drop by.
Thursday, 26 May 2016
Media Manipulation and the Glut of Mediocrity
I've been reading Ryan Holiday's Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator about how he used to use bloggers to get free promotion by falsely "leaking" information, creating controversy and protest movements and starting rumor and whisper campaigns. Using fake email addresses, he would get the blogs interested, knowing that if he could get the right ones involved, the story would move up the media chain with little to no verification.
One of the most interesting and depressing points that Holiday raises is that the modern Internet model of news is set up to discourage balanced and accurate information. Since it measures success by clicks, pageviews and shares, the most controversial and distorted information is more likely to be seen as "successful" than more accurate stories. Deliberately misleading and inflammatory headlines and shortening articles into soundbytes and Tweets make it much harder to have a balanced conversation. And the pressure to produce "scoops" on a daily or hourly basis discourages research and checking sources, making it more likely for inaccurate information to be circulated.
I want to believe that quality has its place, that there are those who see the circus for what it is and will seek out accurate and balanced accounts. But I see how that can't compete with the ease of sharing something which generates outrage and shock value.
This has been a long running issue in the publishing world, particularly with self-publishing. Amazon has traditionally rewarded rapid and frequent releases, promoting authors who can release multiple works within a 90 day period. There has always been a backlash from those who point out the difficulty of producing quality stories in such a limited time, but the business model was created to reward "new" over "good".
Which led to the same challenge in both news-blogging and books: more and more people tried to cash in on the market, flooding it with more and more poorly written material, making it harder for consumers to find something of quality. Ultimately, consumers give up in disgust, unwilling to waste their money, which threatens to collapse the entire system.
Amazon is fighting back, saying they will remove books which deliver an unsatisfactory customer experience and offering to promote books with positive customer reviews. But the system is still weighted towards frequent contributions.
Perhaps history will record me as a fool, a dinosaur unable to adapt to the new conditions of reality, but I'm going to stick with quality, even though it means a lot of my work gets swept under by the currents of constantly churning new material. But I believe that quality has anchors that other material doesn't, letting it survive the tides.
One of the most interesting and depressing points that Holiday raises is that the modern Internet model of news is set up to discourage balanced and accurate information. Since it measures success by clicks, pageviews and shares, the most controversial and distorted information is more likely to be seen as "successful" than more accurate stories. Deliberately misleading and inflammatory headlines and shortening articles into soundbytes and Tweets make it much harder to have a balanced conversation. And the pressure to produce "scoops" on a daily or hourly basis discourages research and checking sources, making it more likely for inaccurate information to be circulated.
I want to believe that quality has its place, that there are those who see the circus for what it is and will seek out accurate and balanced accounts. But I see how that can't compete with the ease of sharing something which generates outrage and shock value.
This has been a long running issue in the publishing world, particularly with self-publishing. Amazon has traditionally rewarded rapid and frequent releases, promoting authors who can release multiple works within a 90 day period. There has always been a backlash from those who point out the difficulty of producing quality stories in such a limited time, but the business model was created to reward "new" over "good".
Which led to the same challenge in both news-blogging and books: more and more people tried to cash in on the market, flooding it with more and more poorly written material, making it harder for consumers to find something of quality. Ultimately, consumers give up in disgust, unwilling to waste their money, which threatens to collapse the entire system.
Amazon is fighting back, saying they will remove books which deliver an unsatisfactory customer experience and offering to promote books with positive customer reviews. But the system is still weighted towards frequent contributions.
Perhaps history will record me as a fool, a dinosaur unable to adapt to the new conditions of reality, but I'm going to stick with quality, even though it means a lot of my work gets swept under by the currents of constantly churning new material. But I believe that quality has anchors that other material doesn't, letting it survive the tides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)