The Sheep Effect

This post is apt to piss some people off, which I guess is a good thing, considering that the people who do get pissed off are those I'm directly addressing. Then again, there's the chance that what I'm talking about doesn't even exist, in which case nobody will get pissed off.

What am I talking about?

Why, the Sheep Effect, of course.

(Yes, yes, I'm attempting to coin a term again.)

You know what it is, though. It's pretty obvious. Simple peer pressure. It's not just a grade school or high school thing. Peer pressure stays with us throughout life. And, wouldn't you believe it, it even happens in writing communities.

Quite recently I read a book that I'd heard so many good things about. Everyone, it seemed, loved it. Everyone but me. I just didn't get what was so great and special about it. Someone I know found out I wasn't completely knocked over by the book and asked what my problem was.

"How can you not like that book?" this person asked. "It's amazing!"

"What's so amazing about it?"

"It's just so good!"

"What's so good about it?"

"Aw, man" -- this person waving a dismissive hand -- "you just don't know."

I decided it best not to pursue the point. Maybe I just didn't know. Maybe sometimes we just love a story or book or movie or a piece of music for no other reason than because we do. There doesn't have to be a reason for it. Right?

Now I don't consider myself a member of any real writing community. I try to keep a toe in as many different ponds as possible to know what's going on in any particular water. But in every writing community it always seems to be the same thing: people fawning over a particular book or story or writer that I just don't understand. Sure, the book or story or writer isn't bad, per se, but I can't see what the big fuss is about. My theory, of course, is that a lot of other people don't find them great either, but they don't want to be left out and made to look like an idiot so they go along with the flow.

Yes, just like sheep.

A more prominent example of this is Oprah's book club. Now for the record I like Oprah very much. I like how she tries to raise awareness of books to her vast audience. But what I'm not thrilled about is how her vast audience gobbles down any book she gives them and immediately claims it's a "masterpiece." Because I've read some of Oprah's picks. Some, I thought, were great. Others, I thought, were ... not so great. But of course that could just be me. We all have different tastes. Or at least we should.

I could keep going with different examples of this ongoing phenomenon (like where the majority doesn't like something and so everyone else doesn't like it either, even though there's nothing wrong with it at all), but I'm sure you get the point. Keep in mind I'm not saying it's not all right to like something without knowing why you like it. There are books and movies that I love without really knowing why I do. But I know in my heart that I really do love them and not just say I do because everyone else does and I don't want to look foolish. Or that I don't like a book or movie or story when everyone else does.

I could end here with a challenge to everyone who reads this to take more of a stand in what you like and dislike. But then if the majority did that, we would all be sheep. Wouldn't we?

Posthumous Release

I was talking to a friend of mine tonight and J. D. Salinger was brought up and the different rumors about just how many manuscripts are stored away in a safe, and it made me think about all these people who are somewhat happy now that the man is dead, because there's a chance that those unpublished novels will finally see the light of day. And my simple question is: why should they, those unpublished novels, be forced into the light of day to begin with?

It happens all the time, though. An author dies and leaves behind completed manuscripts, partial manuscripts, whatever, and nine times out of the those manuscripts (if written by a well enough known author) are published. Most recently it happened to Michael Crichton. A few months back HarperCollins published his novel Pirate Latitudes, which was a novel found on his computer after his death. I don't know much about the book, haven't really seen any reviews, and as I haven't read any Crichton in years, I doubt I'll be reading it any time soon.

But still ... it just seems wrong in a way, to have an author's work published after they are dead. Or maybe not. I don't know. Guess I'm just thinking about me in that (dead) position. Right now I have a few first drafts of novels on my computer, as well as a number of short stories, all ranging from those that I'm happy with (i.e., I have been submitting places), those I'm not completely happy with (i.e., I am still revising), and those that I wrote but don't think they have any real value and have no intention of ever submitting them anywhere (i.e., they suck).

If I were to die tomorrow, would I really want those unpublished works published? (For argument's sake, let's assume journals and publishers would actually want to publish that work in the first place.) Some would argue that the readers deserve to read those works. Like those people happy now that Salinger is dead because there's the possibility his unpublished novels will be published. They somehow feel invested in the author and his work and are under the disillusioned idea that they are owed something by that author.

Personally, I don't think the readers are owed anything, but that's just me. That, actually, gets into the topic of who really owns the story or book or whatever -- the author, the publisher, the reader?

What do you think?

*

Last week I had my great Twitter Giveaway Contest thingy. It went okay, I guess. Did not get close at all to 30 retweets, but that's all right. In fact, I only got about 10. Why? Who knows. A lot of different variables are involved. Maybe nobody cared to win the prize. Maybe when I first posted the contest tweet, nobody was watching Twitter at that moment (you have to figure not everybody checks Twitter every day, and when they do there is just so much in their Twitter stream that they can't sort through it all). Or maybe, maybe, maybe. Regardless, it was an interesting experiment and I'm sure I'll try it again. Somewhere down the line. Oh, and the winner was @jointhebirdies. Congrats, Jeremy.

*

Lastly, Laura Ellen Scott is the March guest editor of Everyday Genius. Go send her something, why dontcha?

Only Resolutions & Freaky Friday Fun

So my New Year's post is a bit late, but as you saw from the previous entry, I had a good excuse. Anyway, my thoughts on New Year's resolutions should be no shock to anyone who's familiar with this blog: What's the point? Why wait an entire year to make resolutions that won't last more than a month or two? If you fail in your resolution, start again next week, or next month. Don't use it as an excuse to be lazy and just say to yourself: I'll try again next year. I'm being a bit hardheaded about it, yes, but the truth is New Year's resolutions are nothing more than goals. We all should have goals. Without goals, there would be no reason to live. But, as Joe Konrath constantly points out, it's important to have realistic goals. Meaning I won't make one of my goals I'm going to sell a novel this year, because I have no control over whether or not that happens. I've come close a couple of times to selling a novel, but as they always say, close does not win the race. So yes, an eventual goal is to sell a novel, but how does that happen? Why, by writing one! That is, after all, within my control. I'm finishing up a new novel now (on the home stretch), so my realistic goal for this year is to at least write another novel. That's easy enough. Could I shoot for two? Maybe, but I have some other projects in mind right now that I don't want to overburden myself with wishful thinking.

So ... yeah, that's about that. If you haven't seen it yet, Barry Graham posted a slew of resolutions over at the Dogzplot blog. You'll find my little entry at the very end.

Finally, a number of writers do a Friday Flash Fiction kind of thing on their blogs. I applaud them for their consistency and dedication. Me, I'm just too lazy to do that, so every Friday this year I think I'll post some bizarre video from the week (or a bizarre video that I've come across). Call it Freaky Friday Fun ... or not. I'll post a new video every Friday until either I become bored with it or ... well, until I become bored with it. Because let's face it -- there will always be some bizarro news happening in the world. Here's the first one in case you haven't seen it yet. A woman goes berserko at McDonald's. Apparently she had an issue with a bad burger. At least that's the official word. Personally, I think she got a crappy toy in her Happy Meal and wanted to switch it and they said no. (Don't adjust your volume; there is no sound.) Enjoy.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mse98l9iBMo

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?