Because The World Needs One More Year-End Blog Post

Overall, I'd say this was a very good year. For those of you who have been with me for awhile now, you know what I mean. For those who are new to my ramblings, basically something done on a lark scored me a book deal. I said it before and I'll no doubt say it again -- it's one of those ironies of the publishing industry that after trying to sell four novels, a publisher approaches me about doing a book. So yes, I've been very fortunate. But I also realize I didn't do it all alone. A lot of people helped spread the word of Hint Fiction (even if it was negative), and I am indebted to each and every one of you.

Besides that, I launched my sf action novella The Silver Ring online as an experiment. And the experiment was semi-successful, I guess (the site is linked to enough places that it's getting hits every day). I wasn't really sure what I was expecting. But I'm not done with it yet. In the next month or so there will be some changes coming, all of which I will share here first.

What do I have to look forward to in the new year? First and foremost, the anthology will be published -- in November, it's looking. Yeah, a long ways off, but still. I haven't been writing much short fiction lately, trying to concentrate solely on a new novel (not to mention putting the final touches on the anthology; I don't envy editors who have to put 20 or 30 stories in order; finding the right order for the 125 stories in this anthology nearly drove me insane). But I do have a few stories forthcoming in some great publications that I'm looking forward to:

A hint fiction piece in The Los Angeles Review; an almost hint fiction piece in the premiere issue of Sententia; flash pieces from Monkeybicycle (an anti superhero story) and PANK (which was a runner-up for their first 1,001 Awesome Words Contest); and a ghost story from Postscripts.

Jess had asked me awhile back on how I choose publications to submit to, and while I don't know if she even reads this blog anymore, here's the simple answer: I submit to publications I really like and respect. I will admit (abashedly) that I used to submit to just about any publication (reviewing their guidelines first, of course), but now I make sure I'm familiar with the stuff that's published there, reading at least an issue or (if online) a couple of the stories. That's very important. This way you're not wasting everybody's time submitting a story that's not at all right. After that, it's always nice to submit to markets that pay something, even if it's a token payment. On the flip side, it's also nice to know that that particular publication is actually read. One of the big debates nowadays is the whole print versus online, and I have to say that while print is always nice, it can also be limiting. After all, as writers we strive to be read, and being published in a journal with only two or three hundred copies limits the amount of potential readers. Then again, just because a story is published online doesn't mean it will be read either, so there's that to take into account as well. And of course Duotrope is a great place to find new markets; looking at the What's New page gives you a great idea about response times, and I find myself submitting to those markets with more reasonable response times than those with insanely long response times.

I used to read a lot. My job at the time allowed me the added bonus of extra time to read. My job now ... not so much. So I don't read nearly as much as I'd like to, but I still read some. Last year I only managed to read 50 books. This year the number is, again, 50. Except that I'm halfway through Under the Dome, which I'm really enjoying so far, though from what I hear it, like most of King's work, peters out in the end. Plus, what exactly constitutes a book? Does a single 20-page comic book count as a book? What about a 15-page chapbook? What about a fiction journal or magazine (maybe I should start keeping track of those next year)? If that's the case, my year-end number would be higher, but right now I'm counting just regular novels and short story collections and graphic novels and audio books (I guess I should also count books by author friends read in manuscript form, but am not).

Anyway, for the past two years I've been tracking what I read. I'm on Goodreads, which is nice, but I also write down every book I read and highlight the ones I really liked (i.e., the ones I would, if given the time and chance, read again). Last year I made a startling discovery: very few of the books I'd read were by women. This was not something done deliberately, of course; it just happened, and I made it a point this year to spread out my reading.

So here are my favorite reads from this past year. They are not a "best of" list by any extent. Just books that I really enjoyed and would recommend to anyone. They are listed in the order in which they were read ... though, looking at the list now, my top two favorites were Bel Canto by Ann Patchett (amazing, amazing novel) and Everything Ravaged, Everything Burned by Wells Tower (amazing, amazing short story collection). Here ya go:

• THE MYSTIC ARTS OF ERASING ALL SIGNS OF DEATH by Charlie Huston
• THE KEEP by Jennifer Egan
• THE LATHE OF HEAVEN by Ursula K. Le Guin
• THE CRIME WRITER by Gregg Hurwitz
• EVERYTHING RAVAGED, EVERYTHING BURNED: STORIES by Wells Tower
• THE GIVEN DAY by Dennis Lehane
• THE INNOCENT by Harlan Coben
• LOWBOY by John Wray
• THE STRAIN by Guillermo Del Toro and Chuck Hogan
• THE DARK TOWER: THE GUNSLINGER BORN by Peter David, Robin Furth, Jae Lee, and Richard Isanove
• LIGHT BOXES by Shane Jones
• BEL CANTO by Ann Patchett

And if I were going to add chapbooks to the list (I might as well), I also really liked The Collectors by Matt Bell. This particular piece is long out of print, but you can view it here for free (which is how I read it, actually).

One quick note about my list: notice how almost all of them fall into different genres. I find it's important, especially as a writer, to branch out in your reading. Just the other week I had lunch with an author friend and it was mentioned how many horror writers seem to only read horror and nothing else. This is true, just as it's true with mystery writers or romance writers or literary writers. Obviously, writing in a certain genre means we should know what's being published in that genre, but it's also beneficial to dip into other genres. Believe it or not, there are gems everywhere; you just need to find them.

Which brings me to my last request of the year (and, I guess, decade) -- as we're starting a new year and I'll be looking for new books to read, what was your favorite book you read this past year?

Talent: Overrated Or Underrated?

A couple weeks back I saw this piece on GalleyCat asking whether writers are born or made. Geoff Colvin -- senior editor-at-large (as opposed to editor-at-small) for Fortune magazine -- has a book out called Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers From Everybody Else. Basically, he thinks we "overvalue talent in our culture, arguing that writers are shaped by teachers and practice -- not innate talent." This is one of those things where I agree but disagree. Yes, writers (just like all artists) learn their craft after much instruction and practice. We learn to write and, if we're lucky, we learn to write well. But some writers just have a gift. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what that gift is, but when we read a book by a certain writer who is no doubt talented we feel something in the words.

Now I haven't read Mr. Colvin's book, so I have no idea what it's really about, but my assumption is he thinks talent is overrated in terms of commercial success. And I think he's right. Look at writers like James Patterson and Dan Brown. They are hugely successful. But are they talented? I don't want to be a hater and say neither man has no talent whatsoever, but I can think of countless other writers who have more talent but who are, unfortunately, not as successful.

Personally, I think talent is underrated in our culture.

Major publishing houses nowadays don't seem to care much about a writer's talent. They care about whether or not they can market that particular writer, and how much commercial appeal that writer's book has. If that writer happens to be talented too, well, that's just an added bonus.

A talented writer is someone who understands the need for teachers and practice; they use those to their benefit, and while commercial success may never come, their talent still shines through in their work.

Other writers may not have the same level of talent but can still succeed as long as they work hard enough at it ... not to mention get lucky here and there.

Ultimately, what does this mean? Nothing really. Writers shouldn't worry about whether or not they have an innate talent for words. They should just worry about writing.

So what do you think -- are some writers born naturally talented or not?

Midlist, Schmidlist

So there's this essay that was published at Salon.com back in 2004 that has reemerged on the Internets. It first came to my attention on Facebook, but then I saw others retweeting it on Twitter. It's definitely worth looking at if you're serious about becoming a writer (and by that I mean a writer who dreams of one day quitting the day job and writing for a living). It is ... eye-opening. Honestly, I've been hearing the same thing for years now that this particular writer's story seems to be almost every writer's story. It's like American Idol -- everyone dreams of making it big, but only a few actually get there (but because of those few, everyone thinks they can make it). And how does one do so? By talent? By determination? By luck? That, of course, is up for debate, and I'd like to use the comment section of this post for that very thing. So read the essay and tell me your thoughts. But don't expect the essay to cheer you up. This excerpt gives you an idea what you're getting into:

As Promised: The Unexpurgated, Possibly Unfinished History of One Midlist Author's Life

Book 1: Contract signed 1994. Book published 1996. Advance: $150,000.

Book takes one year, no research, pure joy to write.

I love my editor; my editor loves me.

Several publishers vying to buy book means book sells at auction for big advance. Big advance means big publicity budget. Big publicity budget means promotion handled by publicity director, which means reviews in top newspapers, excerpts in top magazines, TV and radio appearances, four weeks on two bestseller lists, seven-city tour. Publisher (Mr. Big) sends handwritten note, thanking me for "writing the great book we all knew you had it in you to write."

Question to agent: "Is there a downside to an unknown author getting such a big advance for a first book?"

Agent's answer: "What are you gonna do, turn it down?"

Pitch line: "Welcome a fresh new voice!"

Sales: I don't ask. No one seems to care. Final tally: Hardcover/paperback sales combined are 10,000 copies.

Current status: Out of print. Small but loyal cult following; 10 years later adoring fans still show up at readings, clutching well-worn copies, eager to tell me how book changed their lives.

Conclusion drawn then: Being an author, working with the best editor and the best publisher on earth is a dream come true.

Conclusion drawn now: There is a downside to getting a big advance for a first book.

Some Clarification

To follow up on yesterday's post, it should be noted that most magazine and journal editors do it more as a hobby than anything else. Very few editors actually get paid for their time, and if they do get paid, it's very little. (Granted, there are some major magazines whose editors work there full-time, but that's rare.) Still, despite all this, that doesn't make it okay to sit on stories for months and months and then, after a year, send a form rejection.

Back when I helped edit Flesh & Blood, we stayed on top of our slush pretty well. Usually responded to subs within a day or two. Those were just electronic submissions though, not print. The print ones piled up into a mountain and weren't even looked at until the next convention when, with about a half dozen of us sitting around a hotel room, we did a marathon reading and breezed through the stories in a couple hours. So response times varied greatly, as those who submitted by e-mail received responses within a few days, while those who submitted by postal mail received responses within a few months, if not longer.

Also keep in mind that many journals have "readers," whose job it is to "read" the slush, but these people are usually not being paid anything, so their every day life comes first, and the submissions get set aside, and while Reader A might stay on top of his or her subs and respond in a timely fashion, Reader B might let that pile of stories build and build ... so in that case, it's all based on luck who ends up with your submission.

Of course, we writers can help our chances greatly in terms of the submission game. I've said it before and I'll say it again: always make sure you study the market you're submitting to. Like, you know, actually read the stuff that market is publishing.

Dan Chaon has some pretty great stuff to say at The Review Review (thanks to Matt Bell for pointing it out on Facebook; in fact, I'm stealing the exact quote Matt posted because it's so damned accurate):

The writing community is full of lame-o people who want to be published in journals even though they don’t read the magazines that they want to be published in. These people deserve the rejections that they will undoubtedly receive, and no one should feel sorry for them when they cry about how they can’t get anyone to accept their stories.

I'll admit (shamefully, yes), in the past I've submitted to markets without actually reading them. These days, though, I try not to do that. In fact, I haven't written much short fiction anyway, so it's a moot point right now, but when I do start writing it again, I'll be sure to carefully study the markets I think would be a good fit for my stories. Because if I don't, I'm just not wasting the editors' time, but my own.

And for online magazines, there's really no excuse -- the stories are there, so why don't writers read them before they submit? After all, don't we as writers only want to be published in magazines and journals that we really like and respect? Because if we do then, um, why aren't we reading them to begin with?

Me On CellStories

Today my story "Incomplete" -- which originally appeared at Every Day Fiction (and which will kindly be reprinted in The Best of Every Day Fiction Two) -- has gone live at CellStories. You can click on the link, but if you're using a desktop computer all you will see is the main site. The only way to view the stories published is to upload them on a cellphone, but not just any cellphone will work. As noted on the website you should be able to view stories with "any mobile device with a WebKit-based browser; we've specifically checked iPhone, iPod Touch, and Android-based phones." This whole thing is the brainchild of Daniel Sinker, who I believe is doing something great here -- using a unique platform to publish stories. One issue people may have is that the platform is not available to all readers. This is true. Awhile back Jess had asked how I go about choosing markets to submit to, and while I'll go more in-depth at some point, the basic answer is for online markets, I want to try to reach as many readers as possible. That's why I submitted "Incomplete" (note that they do accept reprints) -- it was a story that had already been published on one platform, so it would be nice to have the story appear on another platform.

Everybody nowadays is talking about the death of publishing. I've been pretty quiet about it, watching how things play out. The conclusion I've come to though is that the more ways to get people to read, the better. Remember my last post, the question I asked? Even if you're using your cellphone to read a text, it's still reading. Publishing ... it's just going through a transitional period right now. No reason to freak out. In fact, look at cellphones. Did they do away with the normal telephone? No, those are still around, but these days almost every person has a cellphone. Telecommunication has flourished.

I'd like to think it's the same way with eReaders. Once the prices become more reasonable and more and more people have them, reading will flourish too. Now you don't have to worry about something being out of print, or your local bookstore not having a particular book. You can download it immediately and enjoy.

I've switched cellphones recently, saying goodbye to my BlackBerry Curve and hello to my HTC Hero, which is an Android-based phone. Just tonight I installed the Aldiko eBook Reader. Two books it came with already were The Art of War by Sun Tzu and The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells. I also downloaded The Bishop and Other Stories by Anton Chekhov, Stranger Things Happen and Magic For Beginners by Kelly Link, and Little Brother by Cory Doctorow. Those four books were free to download, now available to read anytime I want on my phone. Eventually I'll try it out, and if I find I like reading novels on my phone, I can always download more, even if I have to pay a couple bucks.

Basically, technology is here to stay, and it's just getting better and better. Don't be afraid. Embrace it.