C h a z z W r i t e s . c o m

See all my books at AllThatChazz.com.

11/12/2010 • 11:42 AM 10

#Giller Prizewinner gets screwed: UPDATED

Scotiabank Giller Prize

Image via Wikipedia

Here’s the story from The Globe & Mail.

UPDATE: Gaspereau worked out a deal with one of my old publishers, Douglas & McIntyre.

And here’s my furious take:

Johanna Skibsrud won the Giller Prize and her publisher is holding her back. People pay attention to book prizes and make Christmas gift decisions based on that information. For any publisher and author, the Giller is an opportunity to sell more books and make more money for the author and for the publisher. Obvious stuff.

So, in the name of integrity, a small press that can’t handle a larger production run, isn’t working to put out more books to meet the demand. Are they trying to create more demand and get more publicity by enforcing scarcity? Maybe, although if that’s true, it won’t work.

First, it sends a message to your author and any future authors that they are expendable.

Second, if people can’t get the winning book, they won’t wait. They’ll just buy something else. There are plenty of books on the shelf.

Third, there’s Bobby Mcferrin. When Don’t Worry, Be Happy hit it big, it was a huge surprise and the record company only had 5,000 records out there. They worked furiously to get the record into store while it was still hot. Bobby did okay in the long ruin because that song went huge, but he still lost a truckload of money because of the long logistical lag in production. 

The publisher is “mulling.” And losing time and sales. Authors are paid pennies an hour as it is! How galling it must be to Skibsrud that her publisher isn’t capitalizing on the opportunity The Sentimentalists won. (And will this small press be her publisher next time? Doubtful.)

So far two large publishers have stepped up to help out the small Nova Scotian press. Instead, Gaspereau Press is worrying about the look of their medium. How quaint. And how utterly stodgy and old world in its thinking. No, the medium is not the message. The book is words on the page or words on a screen.

If they want to be a successful press that survives, they need to get the product out there before the market fades away. Successful books fund a list of less successful books (and the outright dogs, too.) Gaspereau prides itself on the look and feel of their books. Okay. If they want to be around long enough to make more precious books—birthing and blessing each one individually apparently—they need to step up for their author and for their own future. The story has it right. They have to decide whether they are printers or publishers.

If you’re thinking of submitting a manuscript to a small press, go ahead. They aren’t all this obtuse. After reading the Globe story, would you submit your baby to Gaspereau Press?

Related Articles

Filed under: Publicity & Promotion, publishing, Rant, , , ,

11/06/2010 • 9:23 PM 6

The Net is NOT Public Domain

By now you’ve heard about the Cooks Source controversy. Actually, it’s not much of a controversy. The editor of Cooks Source used a writer’s work without payment or attribution. She made things worse by telling the writer she should be grateful for the free edit and generally being ignorant and nasty about it. Then the weight of the world crashed down upon said editor as the internet descended upon her for her arrogant plagiarism. Now it’s been reported other stories were plagiarized from sources with deep pockets and lawyers (like Martha Stewart.) Things are getting worse for the editor, who seems to be socially tone deaf in her responses to the complaints. Through repetition, by every english-speaking writer on the planet, I’m sure it shall be clear to her eventually.

The thing about the web is, it’s dead easy to find out when someone takes your work. (I’ve caught a few people taking my work already. It’s not a compliment. Fortunately, when the offenders were contacted, they were apologetic (and more clueless than malicious so it worked out fine.)

I don’t have much to add to the outcry. (If you didn’t have wi-fi in your cave, there are plenty of links below the video to show you what you missed.) I found Nemspy’s video through the incomparable Neil Gaiman. Enjoy!

Related Articles

Filed under: Rant, Unintentionally hilarious, , , , ,

10/18/2010 • 9:45 AM 0

Contest #2 Winning Post: Don’t Fear the Reaper

A printing press in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Image via Wikipedia

 

Chazz here. Writer and aspiring scriptwriter PA Melo wrote an interesting article on the future of publishing. He won the book Time Was Soft There by Jeremy Mercer. Here’s his article:

The future of book publishing is grim right now. From what I see, it’s on a path to destruction. However, it will change from the path it’s on once publishers realize they can no longer hope to make the current model sustainable. (The term “current” is misleading in this context. The publishing model has changed very little in a very long time. What is current is debatable because the state of publishing is in flux.)

In a recent Quill & Quire article, for instance, the Canadian publishing journal reported that book sales reps are becoming obsolete. One veteran sales person advised anyone who thought about getting into the sales side of publishing to “go learn how to build a website.” That’s good advice. And it’s also good news for the planet. Sending book salespeople all over with paper catalogues and then shipping tons of books all over the place isn’t an earth-friendly strategy. What made the article even more poignant was another reason book sales representatives were less useful: There are far fewer independent bookstores upon which they could even make sales calls.

When I talk to older relatives, they all say how resistant they are to reading books on screens. Most of those same relatives have never attempted to read a book on a screen. I sang a little “Don’t dear the Reaper,” to them in reply. No, dead tree books won’t disappear entirely, but if my family wants to buy them, they will have to pay a premium for them. Already I pay for audiobooks from iTunes at $9.99. I used to have to pay up between $60 – $70 for that privilege when I bought audiobooks on CDs. Now it’s on my MP3 or iPod and it’s cheap.

Right now, as the industry goes through its transition, there are still naysayers, but their voices are getting smaller and less sure of themselves. I’m convinced writers will be paid less and will have to write more. However, they will also have new opportunities to reach new markets and to market themselves. Publishers are in flux because they aren’t sure of their role anymore. Before they could point to their distribution networks. However, in a world where I can put up my own website and sell my own stuff, build my own fanbase and (some day) deliver my books to my readers immediately, I don’t need no stinkin’ publisher! (Or maybe I do. But the terms for my ebooks better get a whole lot more fair than what I’ve been hearing lately!)

I’m a novice writer. I’ll grow into this profession of writing and me and my peers think no more about reading onscreen than you do about putting on your seatbelt. I wish publishers were changing faster, but I’m sure that those who cling to old contracts and old business models won’t be around in a few years. Their role is being redefined. If they aren’t very careful, it will be redefined for them.

Our roles as writers is also being redefined. We’ll have to take less money up front just like musicians have had to do. (Now I hardly ever buy a whole album. It’s only the songs I absolutely want or nothing.) And we’ll have to take more responsibility for our own careers. I’m looking forward to the challenge!

 (Chazz again. As I posted this editorial, I noticed one of the links below. E-book Sales Up 193% So Far This Year (mashable.com) seems to gel with Mr. Melo’s remarks.)

Related Articles

Filed under: publishing, Rant, , , ,

10/06/2010 • 7:34 PM 2

10 Reasons We Aren’t Writing Faster

Starbucks Shinjuku Tokyo Japan, with NTT DoCoM...

Image via Wikipedia

1. We are hooked up to the Internet. (Did you know they have porn and wrestling kittens–or both!) on the web? Why would you make your dreams come true when there are distractions like that?

2. We don’t outline and we got fifty pages in before we hit a dead-end. Now what? Back up and go again? What if I hit another roadblock?

3. Coffeemaker broke and can’t afford Starbucks. We could afford one Starbucks flavored coffee…if we get that barista job.

4. We chose the wrong point of view from the start. We did not realize this until we hit the climax on page 326.

5. Kids, job, sleep…minor, dispensable obstacles en route to glory.

6. Best friend got published. Instead of writing, it is necessary to run in circles around the house cursing god, fate, Random House…not necessarily in that order.

7. Writer’s Block. Urk! It is now necessary for us to attempt a bank robbery for new content. Could also solve #3 if our getaway works out.

8. Depression. Cold, paralyzing depression. “Why haven’t I won a Giller by now? Or at least published?”

9. False starts. Your agent tried a few publishers and dumped you. The acquiring editor took you on with glee (and then immediately switched over to educational publishing.) The journal that was going to feature you went under. Close calls are part of the writing deal.

10. Laziness. Yeah, I said it. Laziness.

Related Articles

Filed under: getting it done, publishing, Rant, Rejection, , ,

10/04/2010 • 3:49 PM 0

All About MFAs: Read these links before applying for an MFA.

The MFA meme struck this morning in a big way. I tweeted a few great links about Master of Fine Arts programs. Here they are in one aggregation formemes-danger your edification and enjoyment. There’s some heavy points among the fun stuff.

The Rumpus on MFAs.

Bark on How to be an MFA student.

Writers Digest’s MFA Confidential, Surviving the MFA

Related Articles

Filed under: MFAs, publishing, Rant, , , , , , ,

09/23/2010 • 6:00 PM 1

Are You a Consumer or a Creator?

To cleanse the palate of all the publishing links I’m sharing this week, a brief original post to tide you over if that’s what you crave:

You love books. You buy books from bookstores. You whip out your credit card for books from Amazon and  Chapters. You poke about the used bookstore down the street that has that ugly mixture of the aromas of old book glue, yellowed pages and desperation.

And if you read this blog, you’re want to write books as well. Tell me, are you a creator or just a consumer. There’s nothing wrong with being a consumer, but if you have dreams of writing a novel, you really have to sit and get your hands on a keyboard.

There are so many things I love. All things Kevin Smith does amuse me, for instance. The director of many films, small and large, has developed quite a cult and at this moment is leading a podcast revolution and redefining what it is to have a comedy show. The jokes come not from stand-up comics, but a bunch of his friends have become sit-down comics who deliver fun and interest not by thought-out routines, but by arguing with each other and asking a lot fo what-if questions. The comedy can be uneven, but he’s developed a following who may or may not love his movies. Simultaneously, Kevin Smith has taken a low-tech medium—podcasting—and redefines its use for large numbers of people who have, ironically, abandoned radio. He has also resurrected a form that has hovered near death for a long time: he’d brought back the milieu of the raconteur.

In short, Kevin Smith is a creator and still retains his title of indie film legend, though he hasn’t made an “indie” in quite some time. That’s not a criticism, but a tribute to his success. His movies are getting bigger and bigger budgets because all his movies make money (even the perceived flops.) In podcasting (or smodcasting as he and Scott Mosier have name it when they do it) he gives much away free. Obviously he has a lot of fun doing it. He travels the world building his brand (and the continent by his own tour bus.) He recently bought a small theatre for his podcast home and he’s behind six smodcasts in total. He’s busy and productive, continuing his schedule despite having a new film, Red State, in the works.

 As much as I admire Mr. Smith and his quick wit and filthy sense of humour, my idolatry reminds me that I, too, have to get off my ass. Or, more accurately, get on my ass, and write. I am a dedicated consumer. Recently, after beginning a diet, I resolved that I needed to get out of the house so I wouldn’t eat something I shouldn’t. The problem was, if I was going to go somewhere and not eat…where would I go? I settled on the library and the closest bookstore. The experience made clear to me that, as much as I consume books, I must allot time for my novel (and other income-generating products.)

I reconsidered my priorities. A friend’s example on Twitter reminded me how productive I am the earlier I start the day. Good health makes me more energetic so I plotted time for the gym on a regular basis. I must commit to a schedule at regular times (daily) to ensure that progress on my own work continues. I enjoy reading helpful publishing information (and today’s writer must be more aware of the market much more than writers from just a few years ago.) Instead of medicating myself with delicious sugar and carbohydrates, I’m writing more. I’m being proactive in my reading so I don’t use the sly anaesthetic of more and more reading as an unconscious tool of procrastination.

In short, I’m more aware. I’m watching how I spend my time and marrying up those activities with my goals. If you’re stuck as a writer, perhaps you should reevaluate how you’re spending your time, too.

Today’s Book Recommendation: The Other 8 Hours by Robert Pagliarini will help you focus your energies to your greater success in managing your time and becoming a creator, not just a consumer. Money flows to creators (among many other less tangible, but no less important, rewards.)

Related Articles

Filed under: getting it done, My fiction, publishing, Rant, writing tips, , , ,

09/02/2010 • 8:19 AM 3

Writers: Rejection does not build character

manuscript by Saint Andrzej Bobola, Polish Jes...

Image via Wikipedia

 

Some say rejection is part of “paying your dues” in the writing business. That’s over-analysis. Rejection is just someone saying no. When your query is rejected, do not read too much into it. 

Rejection is not useful on its own. It doesn’t thicken your skin for when you become a “real” writer. After you are published, you will get angry with critical reviews just as you are angry with rejections now. And why not? Your book is your child and an extension of you. If you are bent toward getting pissed off, you still will be. Rejection is not part of your training. Writing is your training. Learning your craft is a different proposition from receiving a form rejection slip. 

Rejection can be useful if you get specific feedback on why your story was rejected. Standard reply forms that say “not for us” tell you nothing except you must resubmit elsewhere. A manuscript evaluation (whether done by an editor you pay–ahem, like me) or by the people you submit to, can be useful. However, even then, it may be a question of taste in some regard. Agents and editors do sometimes take the time to tell you what they found wrong with a near miss. (Even if you disagree with their feedback, send a thank you note.) 

Understand this:

1. An agent or editor may give you a critique, but after you “fix” it, they are under no obligation to accept the manuscript. Many writers report great frustration over doing what they were told (perhaps even compromising their vision for the faint hope of publication) and still find themselves on the wrong side of the gate. No with details is still no. Doing everything you are told without running it through the filter of your own sensibility is no guarantee you’re on the right track. It also leaves you spineless and soulless. 

2. Publishers, editors and agents are extremely busy people. (Sometimes they wear that like a badge that they feel makes them special. However, I don’t know anybody who is at all cool who isn’t extremely busy, do you?) The point is, no one owes you a critique unless you paid them for said critique (ahem–like me.) Agents and editors typically say yes or no (mostly no.) They aren’t in the business of teaching you the craft. If they do send you a personal rejection and not a form rejection, it does mean you’re making progress. Handwritten notes of encouragement can make your day even though it’s a rejection doused with a little sweet perfume. 

3. If you send out a bunch of manuscripts and you receive no personal rejections, it means you have to tweak your manuscript or revisit your target selection process or both. Only you can decide how many rejections you suffer before you undertake further revision. Some say don’t tweak after you’re dome with revisions because by the time you’re finsally finsihed with revisions, you should be a little sick of it and ready to send your baby off to college. Fresh enthusiasm is what the new baby is for. Even as you edit the last book, your fickle nature should be pulling you toward the next book’s greatness.  

4. The rejection might not be about you. There are many variables that go into editorial decisions. Maybe the subject matter or execution is too foreign to the publisher or too much like one of the books they already have which failed. Maybe the editor loved it but it got shot down for budgetary reasons. Don’t get hung up on each rejection. Resubmit and move on to people who get you as quickly as possible. 

5. Don’t worry about rejection. It will occur. Expect it. It’s more important to do the writing and trust that good things are coming. Optimists are the only ones who succeed in this business. Pessimists, realists and the meek have the good sense not to try. They never succeed at much, but they’re cozy. Writers aren’t cozy with their place in the world. If they were, they wouldn’t be writers. 

6. Once you are published, you’ll realize the journey was more important than the destination. It’s the writing that matters, which is good because you’ll spend much more time writing than you will receiving prizes and getting drunk on fancy publicity junkets.  

BONUS:

When I was a kid, seeing my name in the paper was a big deal. By the time I was seventeen I had a regular byline in my local newspaper. By the time I was twenty, there was still a small thrill to see my byline on the front page of a provincial and city newspaper. My back page column in a magazine tickles. Recognition is still cool, but it’s not the same thrill and if a byline is all you write for, that’s not enough gas for the trip.  

The thrill is in the writing. The fun was finding just the right turn of phrase. It was always really about the writing. It always should be. 

Related Articles

Filed under: agents, Editors, manuscript evaluation, Rant, Rejection, writing tips, , , , , , , ,

08/31/2010 • 8:09 AM 0

Agents and (Non)Acquiring Editors: A Word on Gatekeeper’s Remorse (Some don’t have any!)

J. K. Rowling, after receiving an honorary deg...

Image via Wikipedia

 

When a book is a great success, the rumors eventually emerge. JK Rowling was rejected six times. Meyer of Twilight fame? Fifteen times. All authors have stories of deals that almost went through. Many tell stories of cruel writing groups, insensitive english professors or critics that were hypercritical. When one writer triumphs and rises above these obstacles, all us of share a little of that. In German, it’s called Schadenfreude. In English it’s called “Nyaa-nyaa, nya-nya-naaaaaah!”       

Editors who reject books that go on to great success interest me. First question: Do they still have their jobs? Answer: Yes, of course they do.       

In Hollywood, you fail up. (Getting any movie made is such an accomplishment, you can have a string of failures and be a working director like M. Night Shyamalan.) If the rumoured stats are trues (85%-95% of books not earning their advances) publishing surely has the  highest tolerance for failure of any industry. There is no product research. “Product research is the first print run,” as they say. (Due to technology and Seth Godin forces, that’s changing. That’s another post.)       

Agents who pass up gold and editors who turn their noses up at diamonds answer predictably: “It’s a subjective business.” Yes. It is.    

Second Question: “But if these people are the experts who are supposed to know better, why do so many of their books tank?” Should we put so much stock in the opinion of people who are so often wrong? Dick Cheney doesn’t get to make credible predictions on foreign policy anymore. Why are we held in such thrall by agents and editors who have similar track records?      

The other common reply is, “I can’t represent it if I don’t love it.”       

I call bullshit. I’ve slogged through the slush pile. I worked as a sales rep for several publishing companies. I represented, and sold,  many books I never even got to read. (There were too many–especially when I worked at Cannon Books which listed hundreds and hundreds of books each year.) I even sold some books I actively loathed.       

The key question is not, “Do I love it?”        

The key questions are, “Can I sell it? Will lots of other people love it?”       

The idea that you can’t represent something unless you “love” it can set a ridiculously high bar for manuscript acceptance. You’ve read lots of books you liked and were glad to have read. How many were so good you really “loved” them? No wonder it’s so hard to get an agent if love is the accepted standard. (Love is not a standard criterion in business practice. You may think art is exempt from standard business practice. That’s one of the reasons this industry is in so much trouble. Artists worry their art is compromised, but without the business side? No art.)      

CORE ISSUE:       

Writers, particularly those yet-to-be published, are expected to have a thick skin.      

That is useful, though any really successful author will tell you the harsh critics hurt just as much as ever. They feel the pain, but aren’t supposed to complain.     

Some editors and agents     

 (PLEASE NOTE: NOT ALL EDITORS AND AGENTS!)     

act as if their mistakes aren’t mistakes.      

Therefore, their mistakes will be repeated.     

When ego gets in a writer’s way, he or she can’t learn and improve. That same principle should apply to gatekeepers. However, when gatekeepers make mistakes, some seem to say, “Not my fault. That’s just the way it is. I didn’t love it enough.” I say, “The new economy is making million-dollar companies, often out of billion-dollar companies. The coffee’s brewing and it’s a quarter past Massive Industry Fail. Wake up! And open up!”      

When you see an agent blog wherein the agent rips new queries, keep in mind that of all the many queries they analyse, they may accept only a handful (some perhaps two a year…or less.) Also, don’t work with snarky people because mean people suck and eventually they’ll be mean to you.     

This post was critical, not snarky. If I were snarky, I would have named names.      

Related Articles

Filed under: agents, Editors, manuscript evaluation, publishing, Rant, Rejection, Writers, , , , , , , , , , ,

08/26/2010 • 6:38 PM 4

Bad Writing, Jim Belushi and Charlie’s Angels

Last night I watched TV as I puffed along on a treadmill at the gym. Jim Belushi’s sitcom was on. I was listening to a podcast on my headphones but the

Big Bang Theory writing is flashy, fast and funny. Good writing there.

 onscreen captions caught my eye. It was an According to Jim episode with all the predictable elements: a hot wife, Jim, a wacky neighbor who is fatter than Jim so the “star” looks smaller. There were a couple of cute kids running around.

David Cross tells a story about Jim Belushi (in Cross’s excellent book I Drink for a Reason) that is pretty awful. I won’t repeat it here. Go get Mr. Cross’s book for the full chewy goodness. Anyway, Jim is no John. But that wasn’t why I disliked the show. Yes, there was a tone of he-man homophobia which was distasteful and seemed dated to me, but it was the writing that was most egregious.

Perhaps it was the captions that alerted me to what was going on in the episode. I don’t mean the story per se. I mean the subtext of bad writing. Jim was there to crank out the stale and predictable jokes. The neighbor was there to make Jim seem more normal. The part of the wife could have been played by a whiteboard. She may, in fact, be a terrific actress. We’ll never know. No one on the staff was writing for her.

As I ran on the treadmill I wished I’d seen it from the beginning so I could keep a tally of how many times the wife’s lines were:

“What?”

“Yeah?”

“Okay. Okay? Okay.”

And then back to “What?!”

Wouldn’t it be great if everybody in the show got great lines? It’s either a power/insecurity thing* or the actress really couldn’t remember words longer than a few at a time. Maybe some day she’ll get to be a mindless exposition device. On this show, she may as well have been a cue card.

Watch The Big Bang Theory. Everybody gets great lines, not just Sheldon. Watch King of Queens reruns. Kevin James was consistently funny and you never once thought, “I bet that guy’s a real prick.” King of Queens was an underrated show, but it’s exactly what According to Jim would have been if it were any good.

Good luck to Mr. Belushi in his new fall show, The Defenders. I sure hope he got a whole new bunch of writers. I don’t want to see Jerry O’Connell going through entire shows saying “What? What? What?” so Jim can throw out another pithy line. It won’t matter too much. From now on, at the gym I’m sticking to Writing Excuses podcasts on my iPod.

BONUS:

*William Goldman relates a great story about the tense set of Charlie’s Angels. The actresses grew to hate each other and counted all the lines and words to make sure no one was getting more lines than they were. The writers ended up calling it Huey, Dooey and Louie dialogue because the angels would each have a line of equal length at all times.

Cheryl-LaddAngel 1: “I think we should…”

Angel 2: “Get to the beach!”

Angel 3: “…and find our Charlie!”

Quack!

Quack!

Quack!

A producer was asked the secret to Charlie’s Angels success. He didn’t laud his writing staff or the acting. He said one word: “Nipples.”

Filed under: Media, Rant, writing tips, , , , ,

08/25/2010 • 8:02 AM 0

On the Other Hand…Why Not be a Writer?

Filed under: publishing, Rant, Writers, , ,

Bestseller with over 1,000 reviews!
Winner of the North Street Book Prize, Reader's Favorite, the
Literary Titan Award, the Hollywood Book Festival, and the
New York Book Festival.

http://mybook.to/OurZombieHours
A NEW ZOMBIE ANTHOLOGY

Winner of Writer's Digest's 2014 Honorable Mention in Self-published Ebook Awards in Genre

The first 81 lessons to get your Buffy on

More lessons to help you survive Armageddon

"You will laugh your ass off!" ~ Maxwell Cynn, author of Cybergrrl

Available now!

Fast-paced terror, new threats, more twists.

An autistic boy versus our world in free fall

Suspense to melt your face and play with your brain.

Action like a Guy Ritchie film. Funny like Woody Allen when he was funny.

Jesus: Sexier and even more addicted to love.

You can pick this ebook up for free today at this link: http://bit.ly/TheNightMan

Join my inner circle at AllThatChazz.com

See my books, blogs, links and podcasts.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,063 other subscribers