Thinking of Mom

This mother's day I should be thinking about the living mothers in my life: my wife, my daughter (who just blessed us with our third grandchild and first granddaughter), and my mother-in-law. But my thoughts are drifting to my mom, now dead for 48 years. Normally my strongest memories come forth on August 19, the anniversary of her death, or on September 30, which was her birthday. I posted a long story about her here, and a shorter remembrance here.

I don't think I have a whole lot more to add to those posts. I wanted to put a photo of Mom with this post, but I guess the few I had digitized are on the computer one table over, mostly dead. I don't think I'll try to retrieve them. I'll try to add one or two later, but I think I'll post this now.

A Failure to Communicate? Or to Understand?

When you only read a few blogs, and a controversy on one blog spills over to another, it makes for an exciting few days of blog reading.

That’s what happened Monday when Rachelle Gardner, a literary agent whose opinions I listen to, posted about restrictive non-compete clauses insisted upon by publishers that will prevent contracted authors from simultaneously self-publishing. You can read about it here. As you will see from the comments, many people objected to what she wrote, including her title, “Will My Publisher Let Me Self-Publish Too?”

Over at The Passive Voice blog, the Passive Guy chose to excerpt Rachelle’s post and follow it with some apt comments. You can see his post and the comments here. The discussion was lively, mostly negative to Rachelle’s position. TPV is generally favorable to self-publishing and negative to trade publishing, though I’ve found the blog owner to be more fair in his assessments than some other self-publishing gurus.

Now today, Rachelle felt the need to clarify what she wrote. You can see that here. Today she posted that her previous post was not a “this is what I believe” post but a “here’s how publishers think and behave” post. Understanding how publishers think and behave will make you a better negotiator of the author-publisher contract, she says. That was actually how I took her original post. While a few phrases in the original post could have been construed as favorable to the publishers’ position, e.g. “Publishers are rightfully concerned” (to the detriment of the author), those familiar with Rachelle’s larger body of posts would know that she is a faithful advocate for her writer clients.

But what is mostly missing from either of Rachelle’s posts but is mentioned in TPV comments is that the publishers are way out of touch with how readers find and buy content today. People find an author they like and stick with that person. If they could buy a book from an author every two months they would like to do that. Trade publishers would put out one book a year for the author. Readers will find someone else in the meantime. The days when an author published a book a year and her publisher had a mailing list of 75,000 who were fine waiting for the annual notice that a new volume was available are over.

One of the mantras of the self-publishing crowd is the best promotion for your book(s) is to write and publish another book. Rather than spend time on promoting already published books, write the next book and get it polished and published as quickly as you can. Six a year are better than four a year are better than three are better than two are better than one. So far this isn’t working for me, but my severe case of Genre Identity Disorder is most likely what’s causing that. Or maybe there just aren’t millions of people out there who like the same kind of books I like. But the anecdotal evidence that this method works is almost substantial enough to be statistical. So I’ll keep doing it and hope my GID works itself out over time.

If trade publishers were savvy about all this, and understood the changing nature of the book purchasing market, rather than restricting authors with non-compete clauses they would encourage their authors to also self-publish. They would say, “Because of production schedules and limitations, we can only publish one of your books a year. But because we know more books are better, feel free to publish a couple of other books in between the ones you publish with us. We will all profit more from you doing that.”

So why don’t the trade publishers do that? As I said, I think it’s because they don’t truly understand their market. But it’s also possible that they don’t want their authors learning just how easy self-publishing is and how much greater return there will be from it. That might lead some authors to say “Why do I even need a publisher?” If that’s what they’re thinking, it would be a scary scenario to them.

The divide in the writing-publishing community seems, in my observation, to be growing greater between trade publishing and self-publishing. I don’t really see it closing any time soon.

Still Dreaming

Of better times, when I have plenty of time to write, and not stealing time from other necessities just to get another 500 words down the road.

Of book sales. My dreams have changed. Once they were of numbers with many zeroes after them. Now they are in the range of double digits a month—for all books, not per book.

Of hoards of fans who are waiting for my next book, anxiously following blog posts and Facebook author page posts to know the progress of my work and when the next item will be available.

Of time to read that is measured in hours per day, not minutes.

Of acquiring the skills needed, artistic and graphic design, to be able to do my own covers, thus not having to beg and borrow them from people. Or, when I have enough money to just hire them done.

Of having poetry come to me again.

Of finding enough hours in the day, day after day, where I can see truth in Emerson's adage, "There is time enough for all that I must do."

She's Alive





E1

E2

We are officially on grand baby watch. My wife is in Oklahoma City, helping out with grandsons Ephraim and Ezra while waiting on E3 to be born. She will be our first granddaughter. Since Ezra (E2) was three weeks early, our daughter was hoping E3 would be too. Her official due date is May 18, so obviously she won't be three weeks early. We'll see. It was about 10 days ago that the baby dropped.


So here is E3 (who might be named Elise—not sure if the final decision has been made yet), calmly gestating in her amniotic fluid. Well, our daughter will say it's been anything but calm. This tomboy has been kicking and squirming from very early in the pregnancy. She's anxious to get out. We're anxious that she be to term and I know our daughter, despite of the tiredness of being very pregnant, wants her to be to term as well.

I'm heading to OKC this weekend, for E1's 5th birthday celebration. Possibly it could be for the birth as well. I'm kind of hoping it is. I'm kind of hoping I get the call today.



E3 (with Mommy) at 37 weeks

I'm thinking of what I said a couple of paragraphs ago. E3 is kicking and squirming. She's alive! She's a child who is even now doing all the functions a child is supposed to do except breathing and eating by mouth. She's probably sucking her thumb. She could see if all that fluid weren't in her eyes. I'm fairly sure she can hear what's going on outside her comfy berth. She's probably having times of sleep and dreaming, and her learning has already begun. Someday soon she'll add those three functions and take the world by storm. I'm sure she'll charm her two brothers into becoming gentlemen. I'm sure she'll have her two granddads wrapped around her little finger in no time.

She's in the world—not independently so, but she's here. And I love her already. I loved her the moment our daughter announced she was alive. I don't know that I could love her any more once she becomes a breathing girl, or later a talking, walking, running, jumping, rope-skipping, laughing, crying, reading, thinking girl.

Some of my Facebook friends, family and non-family, make posts about political and social causes. Two of these are abortion and abuse of animals, mainly dogs. The latter is a horrible scourge on our society. The uninformed breed dogs like crazy, they can't find homes, and are abused or abandoned. I'd like that to stop.

But the same people (sometimes the same, sometimes others), have no problem with killing a baby within the womb. I don't get it. I just don't get it. How can your heart ache for an abused dog but not for an aborted child? A million or more babies a year killed, most for convenience of the parents.

Yes, I suppose an expecting mother has a right of privacy and that translates into her being allowed to do what she wants with her body. But that helpless baby growing inside her, it seems he or she has rights too. When rights clash, should not a humane society say the rights of the weaker party supersede those of the stronger party? It seems we have it just the opposite.

Those of us who believe abortion is a moral evil do not have a war on women. We just believe in protecting the life of the weakest among us.

Amazon vs. Everyone Else

As I've mentioned before on this blog, in the publishing world of the moment, the battle lines are formed: Amazon against every other publisher in the world. At least that's how it seems, to listen to noise of the writing blogosphere.

The latest salvo from Everybody Else comes from James Patterson, mega bestselling author (reportedly made $94 million last year). He took out an ad in the New York Times recently with the headline "Who will save our books? Our bookstores? Our libraries?" Now, these are three of my favorite things in the world. If I have nothing to read I want to be at a bookstore or library to find a book to read. Of course, I have tons of books to read. Still I find myself in a bookstore or a library at least once a week. It's close to an addiction.

You can see the ad at Joe Konrath's blog. He also has an interesting take on it in his text. The gist of Patterson's argument is: e-books are killing off print books, e-retailing of books (e- and print) are killing off publishers, and the death of bookstore and publishers will be the death of the book. Which will mean the death of the library. At least I think that's Patterson's argument. His solution: The government should do something about it. What exactly I don't know. Make a law banning e-books? Or banning Amazon? Or at least put that upstart e-retailer in its rightful place as a bit player in the book business?

I took logic in college, though I'm no expert at it, but it seems to me the only way Patterson's argument can make sense is that e-books aren't books. Because right now more books are being bought than ever. Print book sales have flat lined, maybe even slightly declined, but e-book sales continue to grow. As said in this discussion over at the Absolute Write forums (in which I'm taking part), Patterson seems confused and unhappy about how the world of books/publishing is changing, and he doesn't like it. So let the all-wise government figure out how to stop progress and keep his world the same.

As I said in the Absolute Write thread, Amazon has produced a better mousetrap, and the world is beating a door to it. Consumers like their prices. They like not having to spend gas to buy a book. They like that they can buy their books, running shoes, and coffee filters all at the same store without hoofing it from section to section. As far as e-books are concerned, they like having organization and wall space available to hand stuff, not to rest bookcases against.

Technology drives everything, I believe. Well, almost everything. I few things are driven by something else. If they don't embrace and exploit technology—they meaning the publishing industry and bookselling industry and the best-selling authors who have made their money using those industries for production and distribution—they will go the way of the milkman and buggy whip manufacturer.

But what he says about the book needing saving is poppycock. The book as a means of transferring information or providing entertainment is alive and well. More are being produced than ever before. Many of these lack the curation function that the publishing industry has provided, but they are available to consumers along side the curated ones. Prices are coming down. Ease of purchase is going up. Organization of personal libraries is easier than ever.

Technology marches on. Sorry, Mr. Patterson, that you don't like it. I'm kind of glad I've never provided you with any revenue.

Hanging Out with the Beautiful People

So I was at my desk last Friday, just after lunch. Four or five more hours of work for the day, then a day off Saturday, then work a few hours Sunday to try to get ahead of a deadline. Saturday evening was to be spent with our church Life Group, hearing the report of a couple who recently returned from a missions trip to Cambodia, where they worked with those who are combating the human sex trafficking business. All this in temporary bachelorhood, as my lovely wife is back in Oklahoma City, helping with grandchildren. Not quite yet on baby watch for our granddaughter due May 15 or so.

One of the women who works with us came to my office, saying my boss, the CEO, said I needed to go to the social event on Saturday evening. It was a fundraising evening for a children's museum the plan to build in Bentonville, built around a Dancing With The Stars theme. A silent auction and regular auction were to be part of it. The company had bought a table of tickets and needed some butts in the chairs. But the bossman was flying out the next day and thus couldn't attend, and the under-bossman was flying out the day of and couldn't attend. So they were dragging the bottom of the barrel and I got dragged up. "Cocktail dress" the tickets said. I said I would go but that I was charging mileage.

So Saturday after my chores, my weekly Wal-Mart run, and a little writing time, I showered, shaved, put on my one suit that fits, and drove the 19.1 miles to the Hammond Center, parked, walked in. Immediately I ran into the Beautiful People. You know who I mean: the ones who are always photographed for inclusion in the society magazines. Women in tight, low-cut dresses, their hair done up big and with loads of make-up. Their men photographed for balance. I worked my way through the crowd, appreciative for the view.

The prices for soda pop at the cash bar were way too high, the starting bid on the silent auction items were way too high, and I didn't really want or need either one. So I went inside the grand ballroom and found our company table. Already sitting were the under-bossman's wife and a female friend of hers. I sat next to the female friend and was introduced and we began the small talk. Eventually our CFO came in, without his wife, and he sat next to the under-bossman's wife. With the two women in the middle and the men at the ends, these four married singles probably looked like two couples (though I was way too old for the woman I was sitting next to). We were shortly joined by Mr. & Mrs. Bachelor. He's a young engineer with our company. No one else from the company showed up to claim the other four seats at the table. So the four married singles and Mr. & Mrs. Bachelor settled in for the mass banquet style meal and the show.

The food was typical banquet fair: good but probably loaded with MSG and other equally unhealthy things designed to pass as savory taste. Celebrity waitresses dressed up like the Beautiful People filled our water glasses when needed. The dancing was quite good. There were six local "celebrities": a woman VP with Wal-Mart, someone high up in Arvest Bank, someone from Tyson's Food, the Benton County sheriff, one older man who serves as a good will ambassador for the region, and one other whose position escapes me right now. They had obviously practiced, and the routines were great. The sheriff's partner had a pair of handcuffs tucked in her back belt line. When their routine was over she handcuffed him behind his back and led him over to the emcees. When they got their score, two uniformed officers came up and led him away, still handcuffed. It was all good fun. And I have to say the "stars" did very well. Their pro partners did well too.

And always, swirling all around, were the Beautiful People. Photographers went from table to table, putting groups of four to eight people together and snapping the pics. Two tables had Bentonville City Council members at them, and they were snapped. Another table was filled with 30-something couples, the women showing lots of skin and curves, and they were snapped. Our table was ignored, as well it should have been, with the four married singles looking like couples and the Bachelors being a couple.

In addition to the six celebrities were some dancing exhibitions, including performances by a couple of previous year winners.  By the time it got to 9:00 p.m, with the judges retired to calculate who won and the auction just about to start, I decided it was time to leave, find my pick-up among the cars of the Beautiful People, and leave those Beautiful People and drove the 19.4 miles home (different interstate ramp configuration). I'm glad I went. I wasn't as edified as I would have been at the Life Group gathering, and I'd have rather been there with Lynda than appearing to be the date of the woman friend of the under-bossman's wife, but all in all it was a nice diversion.

I just hope they don't ask me again next year.

Assigning Blame for the Boston Bombing

It happened yesterday, apparently a terrorist bombing at the Boston Marathon. Two explosions, a fire in the JFK library, some uncertain number of other bombs found and isolated or detonated. People dead and injured, patients still in area hospitals with critical injuries.

Like for almost every major news event of the last 35 years (Reagan shooting, Waco fire, 9-11) I was at work. Instead of learning about it via a call from my wife, who was driving to Oklahoma City at the time, I learned it when I got out of a staff meeting and looked at Facebook. I had to make a quick dash to my mother-in-law's place then to the P.O., and programming on the radio filled me in on the facts.

Except the only facts, at that time, were: multiple explosions happened at the finish line of the Boston Marathon; people were injured; and rest of the race was halted. Oh, that's not all the radio announcers and commentators said. The told of the library fire and at least one person said it came from a bomb. The number of people dead was 2, 3, or 12 in various reports. The number injured ranged from 20 to 100. One of the dead was an 8 year old child, said in some reports to be a boy and in others to be a girl. ATF officials had found anywhere from 1 to 5 non-exploded devices.

For me this was all eerily similar to September 11, 2001. The news reports, both television and radio, gave us all kinds of rumors. That the twin towers were hit was undisputed, supported by multiple video feeds. That the Pentagon was hit was undisputed for the same reason. But I heard reports, on TV and radio, that the White House had been hit, the Capitol had been hit, that anywhere from 1 to 3 commercial jets were down elsewhere. Rumors were passed off as news, sometimes with "confirmation," sometimes without.

I wanted news yesterday, and there wasn't much news being reported. I suppose the radio thinks that they have to fill the air time, and filling it with speculation is as good as filling it with news. At home after work, turning into the television, it was pretty much the same. Lots of speculation, a smidgen of news. The speculation was mainly about who would do such a thing, and for what purpose. The possibility of these explosions being unrelated to terrorism, e.g. a gas line explosion, were immediately dismissed. That was an assumption that appears to have been correct, one of the few assumptions that was.

Just stating my opinion here, I'd rather news organizations just state what they know, and what they are trying to learn. Don't speculate. If commentators are filling the role of anchormen due to the news, put on their reporter's hat and don't speculate. Just give us the facts. How well I remember Dan Rather solemnly intoning, "James Brady is dead" on that March 1981 day. He was wrong, and I haven't listened to CBS news since (except during times I wanted to be abused).

So, all you news organizations who read my blog, cut out the speculation! Just give us the facts as you know them.