by SB Sarah • Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 03:47 AM
So here is a six dollar question:
On one hand, you have me musing that poor and unprofessional behavior on the part of some authors could in fact drag down the entire genre, and such behavior ought to be discussed because if I have one WTF question about the community of romance, it’s “Why on earth do so many people act as if writing romance is akin to joining a social club? It’s a business, for fuck’s sake.”
And on the other hand, or the other side of my arse, depending on your point of view, there’s Karen, and Jane, and me, all asking at varying times, “Wait, why can’t authors criticize their publisher? If the ground is supposedly saturated with the crazy sauce, and a publisher or publishers are acting in a manner that can only be described as unprofessional, why can’t an author speak up and say so?”
The question is this: where is the middle ground? Is there one? Where does professionalism end and self-preservation as a small business owner begin? Or vice versa?
Take us for example. We’re an LLC, so we’re a small business. One particular small press has asked to buy two advertisement spaces from us, and asked that we design those ads. I’ve done so, both times, and received neither confirmation that the proof was accepted, nor response as to when they would like the ad to run. My requests for payment were left unanswered, and my email requesting a response, any response, hello...Bueller? Bueller? have gained me nothing except time wasted and fees lost.
Since it was small potatoes in more than one sense, my elected option was and is to not do business with them from this point forward. But should I announce to all and sundry (sundry, for the record, is such a tart) that this press seems to have screwed me over? Maybe it’s a miscommunication, or maybe the URL in my email landed me in the SPAM filter, or maybe they took the ad that I designed and used it elsewhere. How the crap do I know? I don’t. So I sit and wonder.
So where does professional behavior begin and end? Is it professional of me to gripe about this press by name and say “authors beware!” since I think my experience speaks volumes as to the professional behavior of this press? Many writers will probably comment and say, “YES WE NEED TO KNOW! Our livelihoods depend on accurate information in a rumor-laden industry!”
And others will say, “That’s your business and it reflects poorly on you to make it public in this manner.”
Every time certain presses are discussed online, and it happens often with a few of them, authors email me and confirm the rumors being reported, revealing their own problems while begging that I not reveal their names, as they fear retribution from those publishers that would damage their careers. And then, on the flip side, there’s author behavior that is so breathtakingly bizarre, and not in a good way, that one wonders if anyone in the publishing end of things notices, if it has any career-based effect in the long term, or if it even should. Somewhere in the middle there are authors who speak out on their blogs about how upset they are regarding some publishing decisions. Sometimes that plays out to their benefit; sometimes it makes them look like they regularly aim firearms at their own toes.
How does one criticize one’s publisher and do so in a professional manner? Is that even possible? And on the flip side, is it ever ok to say, “Holy shit, your behavior as an author makes us look bad, and I so wish you’d shut the hell up?” Where is that line?
by SB Sarah • Saturday, April 26, 2008 at 05:47 AM
This week’s Time Magazine features an article about the Stephanie Meyer novels, and the phenomenon surrounding her books, Rowling’s, and the other fantastical YA novels that seem to have spawned entire societies of fans.
The article, written by Lev Grossman, made one point that jumped out of the web page and smacked me on the nose:
“There’s no literary term for the quality Twilight and Harry Potter (and The Lord of the Rings) share, but you know it when you see it: their worlds have a freestanding internal integrity that makes you feel as if you should be able to buy real estate there.”
True that, double true. But it’s happening repeatedly, this desire to immerse oneself in a world created in a book, be it urban fantasy, science fiction, or paranormal romance, and it fascinates me. There are books I think about often (damn you Black Ships, quit following me around) and books I enjoy over and over just to visit the characters and their world, but I don’t know that I’ve personally read a book, that had such deft worldbuilding that I wanted to set up a yurt and move in for awhile.
However, and I’ve had to recognize this strong preference on my part recently, I’m a historical romance girl all the way. I like urban fantasy, I like paranormals, contemporaries, a mix of the three, science fiction, fantasy, whatever you name it. I dabble in everything but I love me a straight up historical romance. Considering my personal preference within the context of world building makes me wonder, though - can establishment of a historical setting be considered “world building,” or is it more “world reconstructing?” And do I prefer the historical because the same “world” is accessed by so many different authors using the same researched elements of long-past societies and countries? I must ponder this one further.
So who builds great worlds for you? What world from a book would you want to camp out in for awhile?
by SB Sarah • Thursday, April 03, 2008 at 03:46 AM
We’ve been talking a bit about critique partners here at Smart Bitches, and last Friday I had a chance to see CPs in action. I was invited to a dinner after the Novelists Inc. conference concluded with Kate Duffy from Kensington, whom I call the Julia Child of romance because it makes her roll her eyes at me, Karen who is mistress of PR and publicity at Kensington, and LaToya from Grand Central whose purse was so awesome I thought about stealing it, except I couldn’t because (a) that would be so not legal and (b) Law & Order SVU was filming outside the restaurant so there were plenty of real and faux cops who would have busted my ass for purse-theft. Her purse is still awesome and I covet it like whoa and gee whiz.
In addition, I got to meet Barbara Vey of the PW Beyond Her Book blog, who got a great picture of me having a bad hair moment in my giant puffy coat, and critique partners and happy authors Mary Stella and Beth Ciotta, who provided me with the answer to my question: “What does your critique partner say about you when you go to the ladies’ room?”
Beth got up from the table, and Mary Stella leaned over across the table at us like she was about to reveal Beth’s deepest darkest secrets, and said:
She’s the most talented person I have ever met. I so admire her writing. I think everyone has this mental fear of writing, but my critique partner has faith when I don’t. We started out as friends and now were friends who read stuff - and lucky us, we don’t have our writing insecurity moments at the same time.
Dude. I can see why people are looking for critique partners - that’s the kind of support you can’t get easily, and a trust that takes a good bit to build. How awesome. I don’t think Beth knows that I wrote down what Mary Stella said, either.
So, on that note, let’s talk CP.
A few people have emailed me, before and after the SB Crit LJ group was set up (which was awesome, by the way, so thank you) looking to find like-minded Bitches with whom to try critiquing. Some folks are excited about the Live Journal option, but others are not, because they aren’t LJ members, and, as one woman said, because many workplaces ban access to LJ. A few people have asked if I’d be willing to host personal-type ads from writers looking to try out Critique partners, with an established format of rules on how to test-drive a CP.
Is that something people would be interested in? I’d be more than happy to set up a page and let people post/respond to ads individually, but I wanted to ask the readership at large: does this interest you? Or would you prefer to go through other venues that have been mentioned already?
by SB Sarah • Monday, March 31, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Jane wrote a absolutely marvelous post about Amazon’s decision to no longer stock books that do not use Booksurge, Amazon’s print-on-demand service. According to Writer’s Weekly, tomorrow (1 April - April Fools?!) is the deadline by which “some POD publishers to sign the contract with Amazon/Booksurge, or risk having their buy buttons removed from Amazon.com.” (Thanks to Cheryl for the link).
Some publishers who use other POD services, such as Whiskey Creek Press, have noticed that already, prior to that signing deadline, their books are only available through resellers, or via the Kindle edition - a file type which is owned entirely by Amazon.
We here at Bitch HQ use Amazon as referral customers, and we earn about 6.5-7% of all purchases made through our Amazon referral account. We use that money (and money from our advertisers) to cover hosting, prizes, postage, and my regular stalker letter to Fabio, but you didn’t hear me say that. Amazon makes it hideously easy to build a store, build a link, host any number of popup or mouseover windows for additional information about a book, and offers a badrillion different linking options to anyone, like us nefarious bloggers, to use.
Personally? I use Amazon all the damn time. While being a bitch is a full time unofficial job, I have a rarely-spoken-of job which cuts into my shopping for diapers time, and I use Amazon’s subscription service and Prime membership with its two-day shipping to have big ass boxes of diapers arrive on my doorstep on a regular basis. I order computer equipment, toys, supplies, and gifts from Amazon, and stores who operate through Amazon. I’ve discovered some really great stores that way, too. For Hanukkah last year, I ordered Hubby a flight of dark chocolate from a business in Portland which sells through Amazon that specializes in salt, chocolate, and spices. OMG. LOVE.
I’m not sure how Amazon’s decision to force usage of their own POD company will ultimately shake out in the publishing world, or the legal one, and I’m not sure how that decision, which smacks of big beefy bullying, will affect how I personally view Amazon as a vendor. I don’t shop at Wal Mart if I can avoid it, for example, but I also recognize that there are some communities where the Wally World is the best and only option for budget-minded shopping. So I can vote with my wallet where the Mart is concerned, but doing so is a luxury, and I can’t - and don’t want to - tell other people where to shop.
But since this site is powered by mantitty but fueled by your interest, I want to ask your opinion. What’s your position on Amazon?
I’ve come to find out that Powells in Portland offers a partnership program similar to Amazon’s. If I offered a buy option that linked to Powells as opposed to Amazon, would you prefer one over the other? Does Amazon’s decision to force vendors to use their POD service in order to use their bookstore affect your desire to shop at Amazon?
42 comments •
Categories: Random Musings •
The Link-O-Lator
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
by Candy • Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 01:56 AM
Heads up: This is a news item followed by decently lengthy musings on American legal, political and cultural attitudes towards sex. If you’re interested in the news, and only the news, don’t bother expanding the text.
Thanks to many readers who alerted us to the fact that many booksellers in Indiana got their dudgeons in high gear after the Governor signed HEA 1042 into law.
The bill requires that any person (i.e., any ”human being, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, unincorporated association, or governmental entity”) intending to sell “sexually explicit materials” pay a $250 filing fee with the Secretary of State, who then registers that person as a vendor of sexually explicit material and informs the appropriate county officials (usually the local zoning board). The law kicks in July 1, 2008; businesses in existence June 30 and prior do not need to register themselves unless they move.
Of especial interest are some of the definitions used by the legislation:
Chapter 16.4. Sexually Explicit Materials
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, “person” has the meaning set forth in IC 35-41-1-22.
Sec. 2. (a) As used in this chapter, “sexually explicit materials” means a product or service:
(1) that is harmful to minors (as described in IC 35-49-2-2), even if the product or service is not intended to be used by or offered to a minor; or
(2) that is designed for use in, marketed primarily for, or provides for:
(A) the stimulation of the human genital organs; or
(B) masochism or a masochistic experience, sadism or a sadistic experience, sexual bondage, or sexual domination.
(b) The term does not include:
(1) birth control or contraceptive devices; or
(2) services, programs, products, or materials provided by a:
(A) communications service provider (as defined in IC 8-1-32.6-3);
(B) physician; or
(C) public or nonpublic school.
“Wait a second,” I hear you cry; “Harmful to minors? Even if not intended to be used by or offered to a minor? What, pray tell, does IC 35-59-2-2 define?”
Wonder no longer, gentle reader. Here’s the skinny:
IC 35-49-2-2
Matter or performance harmful to minors
Sec. 2. A matter or performance is harmful to minors for purposes of this article if:
(1) it describes or represents, in any form, nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse;
(2) considered as a whole, it appeals to the prurient interest in sex of minors;
(3) it is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable matter for or performance before minors; and
(4) considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
(The S&M provision made me snort hard as well, but I’ll handle that in the commentary.)
The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression is gearing up to issue a legal challenge; many booksellers seem to agree that it’s overbroad and unconstitutional.
You know what? I blame the founding fathers. If only they’d penned an amendment to the Constitution that said “A well satisfied Populace, being necessary to the happiness of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Items to Assist in Orgasms, shall not be infringed,” we wouldn’t have to fight so goddamn hard all the goddamn time for access to our toys and books.
Second Amendment fangirls and boys: Simmer down. I haven’t formed a strong leaning one way or another on gun control. It’s my smart-ass way to make a point. It’s one that’s been made frequently, and one that’s repeated so often, I’m a bit tired of hearing it, even though it’s true: America doesn’t have too much of a problem with guns and dealing death, but bring out the dildoes and OH MY GOD SOCIETY IS OBVIOUSLY FALLING APART BECAUSE OH MY STARS AND GARTERS PEOPLE WANT TO TOUCH THEMSELVES THAT’S JUST DISGUSTING. This time, however, I want to tackle it from another standpoint; instead of focusing on the apparent ease that mainstream America has in accepting the destruction of the body vs. its equally strong discomfort with accepting that people crave sexual pleasure (including minors and kinky freaks--to the surprise and dismay of the Indiana Legislature, is the feeling I get from reading the bill), I want to examine why sexually-oriented material is targeted so persistently and parse some of its ramifications.
Also keep in mind that it’s well past 2 a.m., and I’ve been fighting off the Mongolian Death Flu for the past week. Coherency is going to be a bonus, not something to be expected.
As far as I know, no other types of speech are as persistently and successfully targeted for legislation as obscenity. Passing off creationist bunkum as legitimate science? Sure, why not. Publishing thinly-veiled racist propaganda? Indeed, why the hell not. Books with instructions on how to make bombs--unsound instructions that could blow off a limb or two, even? Hell yes. Hey, people are assholes, and we have minimal interest in legislating assholishness by infringing on free speech rights.
Once we start literally getting into assholes, however--that, apparently, is a silicon toy of another nature entirely. Once there’s talk about “arousing prurient interest” and “protecting the interest of minors,” politicians are gung-ho about policing neighborhood stores for Justine, stroke books and Rabbit Habits.
The traditional argument goes that it’s the community’s right to create an environment that they want, and that it’s only fair for members to adhere to community standards. This, however, doesn’t fly for many other things. I have not heard of community standards being invoked for other things that would presumably affect other people’s health and life choices, like, say, gun ownership (which is Constitutionally protected), or body weight (which isn’t), much less community standards regarding speech in other regards. Thing is, we don’t see serious attempts to come up with laws that define when a book is too violent, or too racist, or too misogynistic to be acceptable--not even using the flimsy “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” guideline. We do see these attempts for sexually-related matters.
I can understand legislating sexual misconduct, but why have governments tried so hard to legislate consensual sexual activity? Does it make sense? Is it effective? Is it even Constitutional, especially if you believe in privacy rights? Starting with Griswold v. Connecticut (a case involving the outlawing of contraceptives), in which the court inferred privacy rights from the “penumbras” of the First, Third, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, stretching to Lawrence v. Texas (this will forever remain The Buttsecks Case in my mind and heart), which invoked the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, the highest levels of the courts have ruled that too much of a hands-on approach to people’s hands-on approaches isn’t kosher. Most recently, in Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided to overturn the Texas sex toy ban, citing Lawrence v. Texas:
Just as in Lawrence, the State here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct. The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the State is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence.
It follows that the Texas statute cannot define sexual devices themselves as obscene and prohibit their sale.41 Nothing here said or held protects the public display of material that is obscene as defined by the Supreme Court--i.e., the language in Section 43.21(a)(1) of this statute, excluding the words in the provision defining as obscene any device designed or marketed for sexual stimulation. Whatever one might think or believe about the use of these devices, government interference with their personal and private use violates the Constitution.
41 See State v. Brenan, 772 So.2d 64, 74 (La.2000) (holding that “[t]he legislature cannot make a device automatically obscene merely through the use of labels”); State v. Hughes, 246 Kan. 607, 792 P.2d 1023, 1031 (Kan.1990) (“The legislature may not declare a device obscene merely because it relates to human sexual activity.”)
That’s why HEA 1042 came as a surprise to me. The two parts that raised my eyebrows the hardest were the provisions to protect minors, and the specific focus on S&M paraphernalia.
Where have these people been? Dear lord. Prurient sexual interest of minors? Sadism and masochism? I can imagine the headlines now:
TEENAGERS LOVE BEATING OFF. NEWS AT 11!
PEOPLE APPARENTLY ENJOY SEXUALIZED PAIN, BONDAGE AND RITUALIZED EXERCISES OF SEXUAL POWER. IN OTHER NEWS, THE MARQUIS DE SADE, VENUS IN FURS AND STORY OF O TOTALLY DO NOT EXIST IN THIS UNIVERSE.
I’m big into not reading too much into intentionality, but it’s hard for me to read this piece of legislation and not see a governing body scrabbling hard for an excuse--any excuse--to legislate sexual mores. I mean, shit, Lawrence v. Texas said buttsex between men was OK, and if that doesn’t spell doom in a hairy donut, I don’t know what does. What angles are left? I doubt the legislature is nearly hip enough to know about furries, so they turned to the two that still manage to get a rise from people: kids and S&M. Keep in mind that this is all rampant speculation on my part--I haven’t checked the legislative history or debates surrounding this particular bill--but I can’t help but think those are the only reasons these two specific provisions were included.
Ultimately, what strikes me about this bill--as it does all the other bills that attempt to legislate consensual sexual conduct--is its futility. Its definition of “sexually explicit material” is so broad that it easily runs afoul of First Amendment concerns, and the folderol regarding minors and S&M? You can attempt to legislate kids masturbating furiously to their parents’ porn, or adults masturbating furiously to porn by pretending you’re attempting to legislate kids masturbating furiously to their parents’ porn, or people whipping each other to get off. You can try all you want, but not only are these sorts of measures ineffective and well-nigh impossible to enforce effectively, it’s really not the place of the government to do so--and the tide of judicial opinion seems to be in agreement with me on this.
