Monthly Archives: June 2006

The aliens have landed????

Posted on by

No joke!

As bizarre as it may seem, the sample jars brimming with cloudy, reddish rainwater in Godfrey Louis’s laboratory in southern India may hold, well, aliens. In April, Louis, a solid-state physicist at Mahatma Gandhi University, published a paper in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Astrophysics and Space Science in which he hypothesizes that the samples — water taken from the mysterious blood-colored showers that fell sporadically across Louisâ’s home state of Kerala in the summer of 2001 — contain microbes from outer space.

They don’t have any DNA, but they seem to reproduce. Wild stuff. Click to read the full article, written by Jebediah Reed in Popular Science.

When he said “evil” . . .

Posted on by

I thought Evil Editor was, maybe, a cutesy nickname for a kinda reckless guy who’d bumped his noggin too many times, ya know, like Evel Knievel, only instead of jumping a bike over a canyon he’d just never listened when his teachers told him not to rock on the back two legs of his desk chair.

Or maybe it a coolish reference to EE’s passing-ultra hipness, like, “wow, those new adverbs you backformed are really eeeeevil.”

But look at this. In a critique of a query letter describing a paranormal romance, Evil Editor posted a link to this painting of an incubus by Henry Fuseli.

I clicked on the link . . . I looked at the painting . . . I looked AGAIN. . . Am I the only one who noticed this?????

evil editor's true identity???

Yikes!!!!

Pitch slam AND pitch clinic!

Posted on by

It’s big bonus time for writers!

Starting Monday, July 12, literary agent Kristin Nelson will be the guest at TWLAuthorTalks.

Not only will you be able to ask her questions about the writing biz, but she will also be critiquing one-sentence pitches, like Jenny Bent did this last week.

Don’t have a pitch? Not to worry! With TWLAuthorTalk owner Dorothy Thompson’s blessing, I started a spin-off Yahoo Forum, PitchClinic. Join up by following the link, and you can send along your pitch and other members will give you feedback and help you refine it.

This is a wonderful opportunity even if your novel isn’t ready to shop. Think about it: you have a chance to run your premise/concept and main conflict/story arc past one of the industry’s top agents. What better way to find out if you’re on track? What better way to find out if you’ve got a gem or need to rethink your novel’s basic elements?

See you there!

More on literary vs. popular novels

Posted on by

From Michael at 2Blowhards, the transcription of a speech by novelist Richard Wheeler. Wheeler notes that the novels “we call classics . . . were largely written for ordinary people, not educated elites” and then offers this explanation for the creation of “literary fiction” as a category:

[T]he distinction between literary and popular fiction is quite recent, three or four decades old. When I was a youth it didn’t exist. Yet today it is a given: we assume that there have always been two branches of literature, and we writers need to make one or the other our own. Where did it come from? I had no idea how it evolved until my friend Win Blevins, who has an advanced degree in criticism from Columbia University, enlightened me. The distinction between literary and popular fiction arose, he told me, about the time when colleges began to offer workshop courses in creative writing, especially in the 1960s and 1970s.

Teachers used the term “literary” to describe what was to be taught in these workshops. These seminars would teach students the art of writing a “serious” novel, and not something light or transitory or appealing to popular tastes. This distinction gradually became the norm, and in modern times “literary fiction” has become a distinct branch of literature.

Wheeler also says this, but doesn’t elaborate further:

Until recently, authors who wrote popular fiction thought it provided a better income than literary fiction. Publishers threw their publicity resources behind blockbuster and midlist novels, and the result was real rewards for the commercial novelist. But times are changing and who can say what the future will bring? I suspect that just now, most literary novelists earn more.

I wonder if that’s true, and why it is . . . are there too many pop fiction writers out there eating from the same pot? Is pop fiction a commodity, whereas literary fiction is a luxury, and so able to command higher prices?

Interesting questions . . .

Posted about this subject as well here.

Update: and here.

Ignore what you read

Posted on by

A few days ago I blogged about Newsweek‘s lame-acre retraction of a story they published 20 years ago. The story claimed unmarried women over 40 were more likely to die by a terrorist attack than find a husband. The claim was bogus; Newsweek‘s attitude contemptible.

Now comes this article by Philip E. Tetlock at Project Syndicate,  “How Accurate Are Your Pet Pundits?”

Tetlock has written a book (Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?) that looks at pundit predictions, reported in the media, and whether they’ve come to pass.

This guy deserves a medal for calling attention to this. A big flashy platinum medal with a huge cash prize attached:

[W]hen hordes of pundits are jostling for the limelight, many are tempted to claim that they know more than they do. Boom and doom pundits are the most reliable over-claimers.

Between 1985 and 2005, boomsters made 10-year forecasts that exaggerated the chances of big positive changes in both financial markets (e.g., a Dow Jones Industrial Average of 36,000) and world politics (e.g., tranquility in the Middle East and dynamic growth in sub-Saharan Africa). They assigned probabilities of 65% to rosy scenarios that materialized only 15% of the time.

In the same period, doomsters performed even more poorly, exaggerating the chances of negative changes in all the same places where boomsters accentuated the positive, plus several more (I still await the impending disintegration of Canada, Nigeria, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Belgium, and Sudan). They assigned probabilities of 70% to bleak scenarios that materialized only 12% of the time.

Tetlock calls for tracking pundits’ records publicly, so that media consumers have a way of judging their credibility.

I say, we should also hold the media to account. After all, if false pundits weren’t hugged and kissed and led out into the spotlight, “here’s your microphone, dear,” their silly pronouncements could do no harm . . .

Pitch madness

Posted on by

I’m on a handful of Yahoo forums for writers. One of them is TWLAuthorTalks, owned by Dorothy Thompson.

I joined the list not long ago when I read on another list that she’d invited an agent, Jessica Faust of BookEnds, to join as a guest and answer member questions.

As it happens, Jessica read and rejected my very first completed novel, an inspirational genre romance that I wrote about 7 years ago.

Then last week, Dorothy announced that her next agent-guest would be Jenny Bent of Trident [update: Jenny now has her own agency] — who, coincidentally read and rejected my second completed novel last winter.

That has to mean something! just don’t know what, lol

Anyway, first Jenny was only going to be on for one day. Then she agreed to stick around for a second day, and then (much to her later regret no doubt!) yesterday morning she agreed to critique one-sentence elevator pitches submitted between 4:00 and 5:30.

Just to be clear, this all happened yesterday so it’s too late to send a pitch. However, if you join the group, you can read the pitches and critiques in the message archives. I highly recommend it — you’ll find it’s quite an education.

Seeing this happen in real time was an incredible experience as well. The group had 18 members when I joined a few weeks ago. Now there are over 200. The pitches were FLYING.

Here’s the pitch I sent, for my current WIP:

As word spreads that divorced biologist Libby Samson has seen real live “little folk” on her property, she must decide whether a sexy neighbor’s subsequent betrayal was in reality an act of love, intended to save her dreams of organic farming from being destroyed by unwanted celebrity and the crazy demands of her self-proclaimed devotees.

I was thrilled by Jenny’s critique, because what she liked was the set-up, and what she didn’t care for was the conflict (“she must decide . . .”) — which is a flaw of the pitch, not the novel. I put my poor protag through a lot in this book! But when I was writing the pitch I was trying to figure out how to work in that the book includes a romance — and with only one sentence to work with . . . well. That’s the challenge. What to put in? What to leave out?

Anyway, I have some great feedback to use for when I start querying — which may be pretty soon. I am deep into my second draft of this piece, plus I really have to get it wrapped up this month. I’m in another Yahoo group, Deanna Carlyle’s 52Days, the purpose of which is to write a novel in 52 days — and the kick-off is July 1 . . . tick tock tick tock tick tock

lol

[tags] writing, literary agents, querying [/tags]

The golden fallacy

Posted on by

I know that some people who follow “dangerous wild animals” stories are committed animal rights activists who think it’s principled to oppose killing these animals, even when they’ve threatened humans.

It seems to me the basis for this is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you believe animals deserve to be treated humanely — human-ly– you are are extending the Golden Rule to animals, right? Seems like a reasonable thing to do. I do it myself. I’ve been involved in two dog training books (one, Outwitting Dogs, that I co-wrote, new one, 101 Dog Training Tips, I did solo) that advocate rewards-based training. I’d like to see every dog owner embrace this approach because I don’t think we’re doing right by our dogs when we train them by frightening or hurting them.

But let’s apply this principle to a scenario in which a mountain lion is stalking people. Golden Rule. Put yourself in the lion’s paws. His habitat has been invaded by humans. All he’s doing is responding according to his nature.

But the Golden Rule has two clauses. Look at part 2: “as you’d have them do unto you.”

Part 2 assumes that you naturally look out for your own self-interest. It assumes you value yourself and are willing to protect yourself from harm.

To put it bluntly: the Golden Rule requires as its basis a healthy foundation of pure self-interest.

Take away self-interest, and the Golden Rule is de facto perverted.

It becomes a kind of one-way suicide pact: kill me first, so that I don’t have to kill you. Do harm to me because that absolves me of the consequences of doing harm to you.

In purely practical terms, when we assume this stance, we give full rein to predators — human as well as animal. That’s not an application of the Golden Rule.

Okay, so is that a bad thing (says the animal rights activist)? Is suicide, in the context of environmental principles, somehow redemptive? Is Shaffer Warner a better man because he doesn’t want authorities to kill the lion that’s stalking him and his family?

I guess there are people who would answer yes. I don’t see how it’s clear thinking, though. I don’t see how it shows respect for life . . .

Poor widdle puddy tat? No!

Posted on by

Okay, this is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. Glenn Reynolds has been adding links to his post about human/wild animal contact. One of them is this horrifying article in the Denver Post about a mountain lion that is stalking a family in Evergreen, Col.

The lion has perched outside their 7-year-old son’s bedroom window, looking in at the boy. It has jumped onto the top of their van. It walks around on their roof. They’ve seen it hanging out in trees on the edge of their lawn. It’s killed their cat right in front of them.

The mountain lion with a black snout had her pet in its jaws in an instant. Carrie picked up firewood and threw it at the lion.

“I whacked him dead center in the head,” she said.

The animal disappeared with Indigo in its mouth.

Since then, the lion has returned “nearly every night.”

A week after the first encounter, Carrie and Shaffer were smoking outside when they heard the lion screech.

Carrie made it inside the front door first. The lion crossed a 60-foot dirt road in a few seconds. Carrie Warner slammed the door just as her husband got through. The lion’s head was caught in the door. She slammed the door on its head again and it backed out.

This is horrifying.

But look at the last paragraph in the article:

The Warners don’t want the animal killed. Shaffer Warner said he wishes the animal to be tranquilized and relocated.

They don’t want it killed.

This boggles my mind. It’s a dangerous animal. It’s stalking human beings. It’s lost its fear of people.

A little boy — someone’s son — is in danger. And dad puts Love of Nature first.

An abstraction trumps the fundamental instinct to protect one’s child.

The man literally cannot see the mountain lion. He sees a cartoon character, a Misunderstood Misfit, a poor widdle puddy tat.

It boggles my mind.

(My previous post on problem wildlife and how we’re Bambi-izing nature — was linked by Instapundit — is here.)

Writing in the digital era

Posted on by

Booksquare, blogging about how Google might play in the publishing industry, has some advice for writers, starting with those who have “midlist, backlist and deadlist” books out there:

[A]uthors who are not actively acquiring their rights should be hiring lawyers. Rights are power. We’ve said this before and we will say this again: get your damn rights back as soon as possible. There is no money in sitting on the out-of-print shelf. Next book? Time limits. Open-ended “in print”  clauses are dangerous and expensive. Negotiate specific time periods with specific deadlines and sell-offs. They want to keep your book? Let them pay more.

Pretty savvy advice, I’d say.