Random Freelance Woes
It’s been an interesting night, what with my friend ceasing her employment at my current freelance job due to some logical reasons that I generally agree with, my worrying about how to pay for graduate school because I don’t have rich parents to offload thousands of dollars onto me, and my considering the various ways in which I can earn money without having to work at Taco Bell, which results in my spending time searching for freelance jobs that don’t have to do with business or finance and other such things. With that in mind, I’ll see where it goes. I’m fiddling with a site called Blogvertise and some other sites. The interesting thing I’ve always found rather humorous about the whole hubbub regarding these sorts of places is that there seems to be a lot of assumption that one has to essentially turn into an advertising Muppet. “Here’s the website, it’s nifty cool, yippee pandering advertising nonsense.” I don’t understand that. I don’t intend to take things that have subjects completely uninteresting to my readers, nor do I intend to address Blogvertise subjects any different that I would anything else. If I get offered a slot for something I find repugnant, I’m going to say that. Why not? Technically speaking almost any kind of publicity is good publicity; it’s simply a matter of opinion, I suppose. So, this is the development around these parts. Don’t worry. Regular content will be, well, as always. I don’t even think this thing will go anywhere, as I suspect the majority of the stuff will be completely unrelated. And you’ll all know when something has been paid for by the evil man. And you’ll know when I’m being honest, because something you’d expect me to hate will be, well, hated. And of course, if a lot of you have a visceral reaction to all this, I’ll drop it like a diseased hat. But I promise you that WISB will always be WISB. Period. It’ll never cease it’s WISBiness, even if I have the occasional post that I happened to earn $5.00 on (and I do mean occasional; WISB is a personal venture, but I’d like to try some new things, just for the hell of it, and I see no reason why I can’t earn a little bit of money off this place if all I’m doing is being WISBy). And that is that.
The Interwebs and Interwebs Personae
There’s been a lot of talk about the Interwebs and the personae that people put on when they are online (often being different from who they are in real life); a lot of this discussion seems to be related to something being called RaceFail09, which, based on my limited knowledge, is essentially what happens when a lot of people get upset and irritated when people discuss issues of race (particularly in literature, and even more particularly in SF/F) and either do it correctly or incorrectly, or neither. I’m not particularly interested in getting into the discussion of race in literature or race in general. I think there are certainly plenty of problems and we should be talking about them, but this post isn’t about that. This post is about how people present themselves when they are online and how we, readers and other web personae, perceive such people, or should perceive them. It’s interesting what happens when a controversial–or potentially controversial–topic is brought up and subsequently thrust onto the public. Some people take it well, opening up civil debate and otherwise trying to get at the heart of the issue; others throw a fit or make it known that they are part of the problem (which, I think, is what happened with the whole RaceFail09 thing). Should such people be held accountable for what they say online in the same way we would hold them accountable if they said the same things in real life? Should we differentiate between who someone is in real life from who they are or pretend to be online? My opinion is “yes” on both questions. Look, the Interwebs is a wonderful place. It has forums for just about any topic you can possibly imagine and plenty of places for people to meet up, read, discuss, and otherwise share their passions with other folks. The online SF/F community is particularly strong, which I really appreciate. But the Interwebs is also a place where people can escape from their real lives. They can pretend to be wizards or Barbie Doll enthusiasts (or perhaps come out of the closet if they really are those things). For the most part, the Interwebs is a place where you can either be yourself or be someone else and not have to face the consequences of that in real life…except when the two cross over. By default, your online persona and your real life persona are the same person. How you act online is only an extension of how you are inside. This isn’t to say that someone who says something racist or sexist or simply screwed up is necessarily a racist or sexist, etc. Quite the opposite, actually. We have to understand that human beings are constantly battling with conflicts inside of them. You can attempt to claim that you hold no negative qualities, but it wouldn’t take long for someone to find something to poke at. Some people are conflicted by matters of race, even if they really aren’t racist people, per se–sort of how making a racist joke doesn’t necessarily make you a racist in the same sense as a Nazi or KKK member. We often rip on people for having these flaws, when the reality is that we should be talking about them. It doesn’t help anyone to tear into people who are conflicted inside by something, whether that be a racist thought or some negative ideal. But there is a line. There always is. It’s one thing to make a racist joke online; it’s entirely another to say something that is exceedingly racist and expect people to make the distinction between your online persona and your real life persona. As a real life example, I’m drawn to the story of the writer who called for the suicide of one of his critics. True, this is a story of extremes, but few are willing to make the distinction between who he is online and who he is in real life, because the two are blended. This fellow didn’t make a joke; he said those things with all seriousness, knowing full well how such words might influence people. And he should be held accountable online and offline for those words, just as we should hold people accountable who do things at a similar level in other subjects. How you act online will reflect on you as a person, even if you are only playing a part. Nothing is “just words” anymore. If I said I hate a certain people (say, of a certain race or something), that will reflect badly on me both here on my blog and in the real world, should anyone make the connection between this place and my real self. Unless you want people to see you as a racist bastard in the real world, you should be careful what role you play online. I’m generally against people pretending to be something they are not, particularly when such pretending means they play one sort of person online and another sort of person offline. It doesn’t matter what role you try to play anymore; online or offline, it’s all the same.
GRRM: Tired of Your Crap
…and for good reason. This was brought to my attention by a friend (whose blog I would mention here, except I’m not sure he or she would like me to for very complicated reasons):Apparently GRRM is pretty much sick and tired of all of you out there yelling at him about the lateness of his next book. In fact, what I thought were a few fan complaints here or there are actually massive whiny fits by people who a) don’t know what it’s like to be a writer, and b) are selfish, rude jackasses. In GRRM’s words: Some of you hate my other projects. You don’t want me co-editing WARRIORS or the Vance anthology or STAR-CROSSED LOVERS or any of the other projects I’m doing with my old friend Gardner Dozois, and you get angry when I post about them here. For reasons I don’t quite comprehend, the people who hate those projects seem to hate WILD CARDS even more. You really don’t want me working on that, “wasting time” on that, and posting about it here. Some of you don’t want me attending conventions, teaching workshops, touring and doing promo, or visiting places like Spain and Portugal (last year) or Finland (this year). More wasting time, when I should be home working on A DANCE WITH DRAGONS. There’s plenty more at the link I listed above, but these are good examples of the kinds of crap GRRM is dealing with in comments, at message boards, and in emails, the latter of which, to me, seems exceedingly rude. His response was basically a friendly way of saying “f*ck off,” showing us that GRRM loves his fans more than they seem to love him (or are those folks who are ripping on him really his fans?). My response to all this is somewhat less friendly: STFU. That stands for “shut the f*ck up,” in case you were unaware. I know this may be hard for all of you out there to understand, but GRRM does have a life. He is allowed to watch football and have friendly bets with friends. He’s allowed to travel, to visit his family, to hang out with his buddies, to have a few beers here or there, to go out for a smoke (or a nice waltz in the sun), and he’s allowed to have marital relations (assuming he’s married). And you know what? He doesn’t even reserve a lot of his time for that. He spends a lot of time teaching, going to conventions to visit YOU, the fans, editing books, and writing short stories, etc. The man has a career. He doesn’t owe you anything. I may not be a reader of his books, and I certainly have opinions on the whole wait thing, as outlined here, but I’m not going to get on this man’s case for trying to have a life and trying to maintain a career. Writing a book isn’t easy. It’s not something that takes a few months to churn out, especially not works like GRRM’s, which are complex and long. It took me almost a year to write WISB, and that book is in rough shape at best (plot holes, grammar and spelling errors, etc.). And it’s taken me a lot longer to get SoD written for probably the same reasons that GRRM is taking his time. Plots don’t get simpler as a series progresses: they get more complicated, especially because as the series closes you are forced to begin sealing up all the holes. An author like GRRM has a lot to think about in regards to his characters, his themes, and his world. And all authors are different. Some may be able to churn out a decent book in three months; others may take a year or two. A lot of authors start off having an entire series already written. GRRM is going into this somewhat cold, I presume (well, as cold as you can be several books into a series). And you know what? All this pressure, this pushing and prodding and bitching and fighting with him over how long it’s taken him to write it: it’s making it worse. He’s not going to write this book faster if all you, his supposed fans, can do is bitch and moan over it. Sending him emails telling him he sucks and should stop having a life probably makes him unwilling to want to continue writing. He’s already got editors breathing down his neck about this. They’re not there to support him so much as push him to give them a product they can sell (he may have a good relationship with his editor/s, but that doesn’t mean that the publisher isn’t pushing). The last thing he needs is for the people that he cares so much about, who have made his career what it is today, to start throwing temper tantrums over his desire to maintain his sanity. I hope this is one of those instances where karma comes into play. What goes around, comes around, right? To conclude this rant, I’d like to reiterate: STFU. Leave him alone if all you’re going to do is bitch. If you don’t like waiting, then read something else. He’s not the only one writing books. Jackasses.
io9: Worth Reading or Consumerist Fluff?
Mulluane recently suggested I should talk about this topic. I’ve been avoiding it under the assumption that nobody really wants to hear what I think about the enormous blog site io9 and whether I agree with some folks out there that think it’s largely a meaningless place for literature enthusiasts. SF Signal has already asked the general public what they think about io9 and I have already left a comment with a short answer. But I suppose longer, more elaborate discussions are in order. I don’t read io9…anymore. Why? I don’t follow io9 because they post too much content that isn’t of interest to me. My disinterest in io9 has nothing to do with the fact that they don’t cite sources or provide a little link love (although those things do irritate me a great deal), it has to do with simply finding their content to be largely uninteresting. I like the occasional post about upcoming movies and lost things rediscovered, but io9 is too much of a media outlet for me and focuses too much attention on these things. It became apparent to me at some point that I was skimming most, if not all of io9’s posts, and I made the decision to cut it from my RSS reader. Now, I’m not in any way saying that io9 is a “bad blog.” I suspect that many people find it interesting; on occasion I’ll find a post by them that actually does something for me, but because that doesn’t happen often I see no point having it clogging up my RSS reader. For what io9 covers, I think it does a good job. It succeeds in stirring up controversy, getting people to talk about things within the genre, and digs up old junk from the past to offload on an unsuspecting, but excited public. It has a purpose. With that in mind, I agree entirely with the Crotchedy Old Fan that io9 should be called out for its failure to credit its sources. It doesn’t take more than a few moments to link to someone, and if you’re going to take content from them, the least you can do is give some link love (it’s good for you, good for them, etc.). Besides, if you enjoyed someone else’s content so much as to want to use it for a post of your own (or, maybe you hated it enough to do the same thing), then it seems only logical that you would want to make sure that person keeps producing interesting content. Not linking to someone whose content you enjoyed is like me not linking to SF Signal’s post on this very subject (io9). At the end of the day, however, I don’t read io9 because it simply fails to provide me regular content in subjects I’m interested in. But, that’s the case with 99.9% of the blogosphere, hence why I only follow some blogs and not others. If every blog provided content we enjoy, then I suspect we’d never get out of the house. Anyone else have any opinions on the matter? If you liked this post, please stumble it, digg it, or buzz it.
Author Conduct: A Slippery Slope to Insanity (Part Two)
Now to part two of my Author Conduct deal. The Cole A. Adams/Kevin W. Reardon/Steve Berman FiascoAlright, so basically here is what happened:Steve Berman is an editor who said of Kevin W. Reardon’s story “The Portico Angel” that “a bad opening crippled this story for me plus the various relationships felt off.” Shortly after Reardon sent a rather unprofessional and rude email to Berman, to which Berman replied as any professional should and let it go. Then, Berman, who is also a writer, made some comments about his writer’s block and depression over writing (such an unusual thing for us writers, I know) only to receive a strange comment from someone calling themselves Cole saying the following: You should really just kill yourself. Obviously, that’d be no great loss to literature. Just do us all a favor and take down your blog first. Of course, this didn’t sit too well with folks, for obvious reasons. But, it didn’t end here (of course, why would it?). No, this Cole person (now calling himself Cole A. Adams) on a different, but related post, took matters to a different level by saying: There–you said it yourself. It is all futile. You write for attention, and while you are getting attention here, it will never be enough. It will never satisfy. Writers who are in it for attention or money usually burn out at middle age, as you are doing now. You have accomplished nothing. You will accomplish nothing. You mentioned, in one of your posts, that you live in an apartment with windows. Is it a high floor? If it is, you should go now to the window, and look out. Twilight, of the day, of your life. Open the window and feel the wind. If Dault will come to you, take your cat in your arms and jump. Jump, Steve. Don’t fear the reaper. You can make this sense of emptiness end. The pain can be over. Life is futile, but for the desperation. You have the power to bring a stop to that, Steve. Give in. Give up now. You know I understand. And that’s shortly before Berman broke the news that it was Kevin W. Reardon all along (I’ll direct you to the full post and Reardon’s responding comment because it’s too much text to re-post here: the short version is that Berman caught on, Reardon pretended like he never meant to be anonymous or some crap and made it seem like the whole thing was about getting the review removed and some other nonsense that defies logic). What do I make of all this? Well, as everyone has pretty much already said, if Kevin W. Reardon has any sort of successful writing career after this it will be a miracle, maybe an act of charity out of pity for the pathetic state this man has put himself in. SteveBerman isn’t just some random guy who sprung up yesterday. He knows quite a few people, and so does Elizabeth Bear and many of the others who have spoken. Add in the fact that the blogosphere has latched on to this story, spreading it, as it should, like wildfire, and you really have a writing career that has just been stomped to dust and by no fault of any publisher, editor, reader, etc. Berman’s review didn’t kill Reardon’s career. In fact, Berman’s review likely only helped Reardon’s career by driving new readers to Reardon to see what Berman was really talking about. Reardon killed this all on his own. What surprises me most about this whole thing is the manner in which this career was killed. Reardon didn’t kill it by accidentally misspeaking, nor by failing to publicize or get reviews. Reardon killed it by telling someone else that they should commit suicide and then claiming that Berman isn’t really a writer because Reardon, being the oh so literary, in-it-for-the-art/love (bullshi*t), wouldn’t want to live if he couldn’t write. Let’s not ignore the fact that Reardon called Bermans’ anthology a “competing anthology,” which goes counter to Reardon’s claim that he’s not “in it for the money.” If he wasn’t he wouldn’t give a sh*t what Berman had to say or whether there are supposed “competing” works out there (which is another pile of b.s., by the way, which is for another post). People who do this for the love aren’t going to be concerned about competing anthologies. In fact, if you really write “for the love,” then you’re not submitting at all. As soon as you submit, you’re not doing it for the love anymore. You’re doing it for entirely selfish reasons. For the love goes right out the frakking door. This is the same for people who post their fiction online. You may think “oh, yeah, I’m just doing this for the love,” but the reality is that you’re doing it so people will see it and perhaps enjoy it, otherwise you wouldn’t do it and keep it all to yourself (like certain poets that Reardon mentions). This is what a writer does: reach out to an audience, no matter how small. But Reardon, of course, is supposedly the “high and mighty” one, telling us that he would kill himself if he couldn’t write. If anyone honestly believes that they should die if they are unable to write (even for a short while), then they should immediately seek psychological help. It’s clear to me that Reardon is actually mentally unstable. There is nothing normal about telling someone to commit suicide or believing that death is the only solution to most of our problems. This is a sign of a pathological behavior. Reardon is insane and if any of his family, who I pray have not abandoned him for the same reasons that the writing community has, will try to get him help. If Reardon were to pay attention to any of this, or any of the stuff going on about him out there, I would ask him: Why? What
Author Conduct: A Slippery Slope to Insanity (Part One)
I’m not the first one to discuss this issue and most certainly not the most prominent to do so. In recent days/weeks/months there has been an (sort of) out pour of stupid authors/artists doing stupid, if not psychotic, things to other folks in similar fields. Both instances have floored me, in a way, not because I’m at all surprised (after the “entertaining” William Sanders fiasco I can’t say I will ever be surprised in this field unless I find out that some of my favorite authors are actually white supremacists who eat non-white babies for breakfast), but because it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. But, since this post is about two entirely different incidences, I’ll separate my arguments/rants/discussions into two separate posts. Here goes: The Sciborg Sam/Erik Secker FiascoI’m about sick and tired of this sue-happy culture we live in. I get the need to sue people who cross the line and to punish them, but more often than not people cross the line, suing people for millions of dollars when a hundred thousand would do just fine. We’ve gotten to the point where lawsuits are done for profit on the side of the plaintiff, which to mean screams of an ethical problem, if not a moral one. And yes, free speech is often squashed in these suits (almost every time, actually), and yet the people who do the suing have absolutely no issue with that, usually stating that free speech is still alive and well as a way of navigating responsibility away from themselves (don’t look at me, I’m the good guy–no, you’re not). Sciborg Sam is the latest in this attempt to silence free speech. Apparently Erik Secker recently posted a “review” (for lack of a better word) of this Sciborg Sam character’s attempts at music (or whatever it is that this person thinks he or she is doing). The following horrible video was posted (which I will post here in hopes that I will get a similar treatment as Secker): Then, Secker received a cease and desist letter telling him: This letter is to inform you that your website is in violation of United States copyright laws. And: There is an image of my artwork posted on it and a music video produced by my band and also text copied from my website. These were posted without permission or contract. Your website portrays my work in a negative way, which I believe may be libelous. I’m sorry, what? Now, first off, this is just idiotic at best. For someone to claim that you are violating copyright laws and yet be so oblivious to them is like a racist who gets banned from the local pub for trying to kill black people claiming that everyone else is discriminating. Now, Secker has done a good job laying out all the legal mumbo jumbo (that copyright does not protect you from negative or positive review, that one may use small portions of material for reviews or criticism with proper attribution, etc.), so if you want all that, go read the post. I’d like to chime in that Sciborg Sam clearly wasn’t paying attention to Youtube, because allowing for his video to be embedded constitutes a willingness to have it used elsewhere (otherwise that option would be deleted). The same can be said about the ability to comment on the videos. What stands out in all this is the fact that Sciborg Sam is threatening a lawsuit over something you can’t technically sue somebody for. Secker’s only crime is…wait, he didn’t commit any crime. He posted a “review” or “criticism,” using small snippets of text, embedding a video from a public video site, and using a picture from the same location for the same purposes. This is not illegal. If it was, then there would be no book reviews, no movie reviews, no nothing, because if you could legally sue people for criticizing your work, then nobody would be criticizing at all. We’d all have to figure out whether a movie is good on our own and then be careful about what we say in public, lest we be sued for imaginary libel. This is a clear case of attempting to stifle free speech. Seckler never did anything other than speak his mind. His review was somewhat negative, which is perfectly acceptable. But Sciborg Sam doesn’t seem to understand that. Libel is intentionally lying, to say something not true about someone else in a public forum. If the local newspaper wrote that I murdered children for fun, that would be libel. I have not, to my knowledge, murdered any children, and I doubt if I did that I did it for fun. If a local newspaper wrote that I have a habit of procrastinating, then that wouldn’t be all that untrue. In fact, that would be 100% true, as I am procrastinating while writing this. I’d probably be pissed off about the comment, but there’s nothing I can really do about it short of writing an nasty letter-to-the-editor. This all leads to my discussion of Author Conduct (or Artist Conduct). Where do we draw the line in protecting one’s intellectual property? Where do we draw the line on hurt feelings? Sciborg Sam may have been upset by those supposed mean words, but if he wanted nothing but positive comments, he wouldn’t have put his stuff online in the first place. No artist should ever expect positive words on everything. Tobias S. Buckell has received a mixture of comments on his work (good, bad, and neutral) and yet I have not seen him run around throwing a tantrum (he apparently likes driving off of icy roads into ditches, though–kidding Mr. Buckell!). But, you see, Buckell is a professional, as most people in the writing and artistic worlds are. He knows he’s going to get criticism from people. He knows that not everyone will love his work or him. And in knowing this, he doesn’t get upset when someone gives