On May Day

This May Day
I reclaim my spirit
with music
(David Garrett’s gorgeous violin)
with birds singing outside my open window
with a day of rest
after physically tiring, mentally healing
days of working in the gardens
with writing
having recaptured
the spirit
of the writing
itself

May I hold it,
cherish it,
remember
why.

And May you.

”There are two things to aim at in life;
first to get what you want,
and after that to enjoy it.
Only the wisest of mankind
has achieved the second.”
Logan Pearsall Smith
(from my calendar for May)

~

Artificial Barriers

“There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.”
Ronald Reagan

Optimists are those who take the credit for things that go right and blame external forces for things that don’t.

Pessimists blame themselves for what goes wrong and credit external forces for things that go right.

Both are necessary to an extent. Sometimes things happen just because they do. It’s life. Good and bad both happen and whether something is good or bad depends on our personal viewpoint. We can’t control world events.

Or can we?

I’ve been reading Marilynne Robinson’s The Death of Adam. It’s a slow read, and I had to pull my dictionary to my side (now, I have a good vocabulary but hers is apparently better) and jot notes while I read. It’s a book of essays on modern thought. Very intriguing for those who wonder why we are where we are these days.

One thing in the first essay, Darwinism, that struck me was the very loud and clear fact of how deeply influential writers can be on their worlds, and not only their small worlds but on the whole larger world. She argues that Nietzsche and Darwin and Freud, in their insistence that man is base and aggressive in nature and that our main object is self-survival (or survival of the fittest) helped lead to Nazism. At that time, she says, Europeans were growing weary of the Christian ethic of having to take care of their poor brethren and so the idea of survival of the fittest, that basically told them the weak shouldn’t survive, grew in leaps and bounds as these three authors spread the thought.

Modern scientific thought spread, since it made the intelligentsia feel absolved of the fact that they owed it to others to help care for them, and started to try to negate the “truth” of religion. They didn’t want the guilt that came from not helping their neighbors and so latched onto this survival of the fittest attitude. University professors were among them, and they took it to their students. It’s much easier to absolve yourself of guilt if you believe it’s nature and therefore the real truth that we’re meant to put ourselves first.

Of course, while trying to disprove religion, which they were unable to do, they also were unable to prove their own theory.

That hardly mattered. Anything that gives people the easier way out will spread easily and heartily.

However, what they didn’t count on was the rigid fight of people who refused to believe they shouldn’t help their neighbors just because it felt like the right thing to do. They stubbornly held onto their “love thy neighbor” Christianity.

I read someone’s question this morning as to what eggs and bunnies have to do with Easter, and for that matter, what Santa has to do with Christmas. Although I knew the basics, I did do some minor research real quick to support my answer. Santa Claus came from Saint Nicholas. American colonists grasped onto the giving and generous Dutch Bishop Nicholas rather than the English Saint George and followed his example by giving gifts to others. American writer Washington Irving picked that up, used some creative imagination, and turned him into “Jolly Saint Nick” in a story to help spread the idea of giving with glee. From there came “The Night Before Christmas” furthering the idea of the “bowl full of jelly” and the red suit to match his red cheeks. And from there, artists picked up the image and ran with it. Santa Clause comes from “Sante Claus” meaning “giver to children.”

So this time, writers were spreading the idea of giving and sharing and joy.

The effect of both sets of writers are still with us. Although people in general may not be aware of the scientists’ actual philosophies and their words that said it’s in humanity’s best interest for the weaker among us to be extinguished, the idea is still in our general worldly psyche. The weaker are still being extinguished. Too many among us still think it’s okay to sit back and let it happen.

There is a point to survival of the fittest to some extent, but how do we define “fit”? By the ability to create weapons and technology? Or by the ability to still love through the hate? Which is the more fit, the stronger?

There is still no proof they were correct in their theory, with too much of it left unexplained. And personally, I’d say there is plenty of proof they were not. If they had been, and if all through the centuries survival of the fittest was actually at work, then wouldn’t we stop making the mistakes of the past, stop fighting over theoretical differences, over religious differences? Wouldn’t we know by now which was the “best” way of building a society and wouldn’t more societies be so much kinder to their populations than they are? If the best, strongest, and brightest of us were the ones surviving, at this point, wouldn’t we be much smarter than we are? I don’t see that we are any smarter or more fit than humans ever were.

I do see that goodness and the innate love for each other has gone a long way in conquering the selfish “rid ourselves of the weak” attitude. I’d say it proves the “take care of yourself first” theory of man incorrect since we have whole nations of people fighting for the rights and safety of strangers and supporting that for no other reason except we are supposed to love our brothers, know them or not. And innately, we do. How else do you explain someone stopping to help a stranger on the sidewalk if he has a heart attack? Most of us would do what we could. Why? Survival of the fittest would tell us to leave him be, that he’s weak and deserves to die and there will be more resources for the rest of us. We don’t, though. We help. Whatever our religion, and even if we have no acknowledged religion, we would try to help.

The barriers to furthering the growth of love and kindness have been artificially made, in part by those spreading the defeatist attitude purposely. Their effect can be defeated. But to do so, we have to start by understanding the roots. We have to tear down the boundaries that we’ve created within ourselves and listen, pay attention, grow … instead of blocking out what we do not wish to hear and making things “easier” for ourselves which in turn makes things much harder for everyone.

Words do matter. What you spread matters. And it ripples. Using the excuse of “human nature” is a cop out. Identify the constraints within yourself, grab hold of them, and tear them down.

The simple fact that many of us have been able to break through boundaries and achieve is proof that all of us can. If we will. (paraphrased from Reagan)
---

Technorati Tags: Marilynne Robinson,Freud,Nietzsche,Darwin,Christianity,human nature,writers

Independence: Have we forgotten the meaning?

It happened again.

I was introduced to someone writing his first novel the other day as an author. He asked if I had books out. I answered that I have 5 novels and a children’s book available. He appeared duly impressed until he asked how I got into the industry, since what he found looks daunting. I told him I publish myself.

At that, he gives me that “Oh. Never mind, then.” look and changes the subject. I could have told him he was shooting himself in the foot for brushing me off as though I could no longer be helpful to him. I could have told him he should try to READ my work before dismissing me so easily. I didn’t bother. I have plenty to do. I get plenty of calls for advice or assistance. I’m not looking to handhold someone who brushes me off so easily. It is actually his loss, as I have been studying publishing issues since around 1999, while in process of my own first novels. I pay attention. Just because I don’t use a publisher, that doesn’t mean I don’t have valuable information.

More importantly, just because I publish myself, it doesn’t mean my books don’t stand up with traditionally published books.

In fact, I just picked up a clearance Danielle Steele a couple of days ago. I’ve never read her. I kept thinking I should since I’m so often asked if my books are like hers. Since I’ve heard she’s steamy, I’ve said I don’t think they are, but I like to be better informed than that. So, I’m 1/3 way through Jewels and … I’m skimming. I keep thinking: “This is the ‘great’ Danielle Steele?” Has anyone read several of her books? Is Jewels typical of her writing? To be honest, I find it rather sophomoric and horribly repetitive and much more telling than showing, not to mention she jumps POV right and left and up and down. Ugh! Now I understand why so many romance readers start thinking, “Hey I can do this.”

Yes, generally that’s a fair assumption if she’s the standard and since editors will help to tighten your work before they publish it. To be fair, I am still reading. I do like the hero and heroine well enough to keep following their story. And it won’t take long, since I’m skimming over the repetitious prattle-filler.

I once had a fellow author say she usually skims books and skips part of the narrative, but with mine, she has to read every word for fear she’ll miss something. A huge compliment and one I won’t forget. Why waste time writing scenes readers will skip over?

Anyway, I’m getting off track. The point was that I don’t understand the turn-off of independence these days.

The other day I read Nathan Bransford’s blog where he questioned who had the right to use the term “indie”: authors or small publishers. It seems no one understands what Indie means. Hm. It’s short for Independent and it is that simple.

Contracted authors have … well, contracts. They submit their work for possible publication and if accepted, that company formats, publishes, distributes (aka PAYS for) the book. In return, the author gets a set amount of royalties and gives up her rights to that book for some specified amount of time. Note that if a publisher buys the rights to your book and doesn’t bother to put it out, there’s not much you can do about it since you signed the contract. I had an author tell me it happened to her, years before, and she was still fighting to get her rights back. Ouch.

Independent authors don’t have contracts that give any rights away to their work. They do sign printing and distribution agreements, but if they’re smart enough to do that with the right company, they can revoke that right at ANY point just because. In short, they pay their own way for their book to be on the market. They don’t ask permission to be published. They can give the printing/distribution rights to twenty different sites/companies if they wish and pull them at any time. (Be aware that with ebooks, any copies sold cannot be retracted if you pull your book from the site! Readers have rights, too.) Independent. Paying their own way. Indie.

So, authors paying their own way are Indie Authors, regardless of who they pay to help them format and cover design and edit and distribute. It’s their money. It’s their own name (or their own company name), for better or worse. They aren’t relying on a publisher name to help them sell. They rely on the quality of their work and their ability to market themselves.

In the same vein, small publishers not affiliated with the big guys, who use their own funds to publish authors, are Indie Publishers. This is the same as independent bookstores owned by those who pay their own bills and run the store under their own name.

If you pay your own way and use your own name, you are indie. It is that simple. (Being published by an indie publisher does NOT make you an indie author. They are paying; you aren’t. You are contracted to them.) 

Why do we have such a grudge against independent-minded entrepreneurs? Because some big company started the idea that you must go through them to establish quality? Please. We all know that all big companies put out very “non quality” products often. Look at all of the recalls. Look at some of the books coming out by the “quality” big houses. Reality stars? Is that quality literature? No. But it is big money. That’s what they’re about. Don’t confuse the two.

Bigger doesn’t imply better. Or it shouldn’t.

I’m an Indie Author (which I’ve been saying since 2005, before I heard anyone else use the term) for the same reason my ancestors helped to fight for America’s independence. We are do-it-yourselfers not afraid to go it on our own and pay our own way and earn the right to keep the profit of our labor. I’m not asking anyone else to risk their funds on the hopes of making money from their risk. I’m not giving away my rights to my own work. I’m also not taking the easy way out. Trust me: being indie is the hard path, particularly when you’re trying to do it as well as you can and make a quality name for yourself.

I’m not afraid of hard work. I’m not asking for help or handouts. I’m a qualified DAR who still believes in the independent spirit of standing on your own two feet and working for what you want instead of asking for it.

I see nothing wrong with that. Give me liberty..

and don’t stand in my way.

~~

Technorati Tags: independence,indie author,indie publisher,writing,writers,books,publishing

Spring Decluttering

Vincent Van Gogh sold only one painting during his lifetime. (not this one – but it’s one of my favorites) Think about that one a moment. His paintings now go for millions of dollars each and yet, he got nothing for them, other than the love of the art. Does that make him crazy?

Well, he was indeed mentally ill. Just which affliction he had has been debated and cannot be proved. Still, along with some of the most beautiful, stirring artwork ever produced, he also left behind a huge series of letters to his beloved brother Theo. I’m reading Irving Stone’s edited version of the most important of those letters. He could have been a writer. His words are beautiful, as well.

”If one really loves nature, one can find beauty everywhere.”

Did you realize he started his young adult path studying to be a minister like his father? From his letters, it’s obvious he was trying hard to throw his heart into it, but it wasn’t. It was expected. Pushed, possibly. He didn’t like the constant book studying. He didn’t like being cooped within walls instead of out exploring beauty, which he did see everywhere. That’s what stands out so far about his letters: his descriptions.

It has me wishing he’d set the studies aside earlier and began focus on his true love earlier.

Of course, I often wish I’d done the same. I spent too many years not writing when I could have. Now, I’m finding myself pulled in many directions that yank away writing time.

”If one had no sense of duty, who would be able to collect his thoughts at all? The feeling of duty sanctifies everything and binds things together, making one large duty out of the many little ones.”

I’m starting to clear out some of those extras. It’s spring, a natural time to restart, de-clutter, renew. I have tons of little herb seedlings coming up and more seeds to plant while spring is still attempting to push away the last remnants of winter (winter does appear to be resisting well, too well). I’m doing my filing (ugh) and disposing of a lot of old paperwork I no longer need to make room for the new. And I’m clearing things out online, as well. I’m handing over and bowing out, refurbishing what I still want and letting go of what I don’t need.

I need more time and more focus for my art. Even if I don’t get more out of it than Van Gogh did during my lifetime, at least it’ll be out there. Maybe some day someone will wish I’d started earlier. Since I can’t do that, I can at least make better use of the time to come, whatever that may be.

I’m also quite grateful to live in a time where people can get mental help if they need it – just in case, you know – and wish they could have helped him at the time.  

It’s also comforting to know he had constant doubts about his art. Most artists do, whether or not they are selling. It’s part of an artist’s curse: subjectiveness. There is no way to determine actual quality of art. Some people will detest the same piece others love. I suppose as long as some love it and enjoy it, that needs to be good enough. But a real artist will never accept that. What can you do?

”It is certainly true that it is better to be high-spirited, even though one makes more mistakes, than to be narrow-minded and all too prudent. It is good to love many things, for therein lies the true strength, and whosoever loves much performs much, and can accomplish much, and what is done in love is well done!”

The farther I read into Dear Theo, the more I feel justified in narrowing my focus to what I love, to what I most love. What will the extras matter in the long run? It’s the passion that survives. The art. And the heart.

~~
All quotes taken from Dear Theo: The Autobiography of Vincent van Gogh, Edited by Irving Stone, Plume, 1995.
~~

Technorati Tags: Van Gogh,artists,art,writers,books,authors,Dear Theo,Irving Stone

Book Review: The Princes of Ireland

Maeve Binchy calls it “A giant, sprawling, easy-to-read story told in James Michener fashion.”

I’ve yet to read Michener (*blush*) but if he fills his books with as much history as Rutherfurd, I look forward to doing so.

I’m enamored of Ireland. Maybe it’s my more-than-a-quarter Irish blood. But I like to think it’s because of the spirit of the Irish: hardy, humorous, independent-minded, rebellious. Of course, as becomes apparent in The Princes of Ireland, that applies more to western and southern Ireland than to eastern Ireland (Dublin and thereabout). We were there in 2008, in both Dublin and out along the west coast (Galway, the Burren, Cliffs of Moher, Kilfenara), and although I enjoyed certain things in Dublin, such as seeing the Book of Kells, in general, I was much more comfortable in the west. It felt more … Irish, so to speak. Maybe that doesn’t seem to make sense, but once you read Edward Rutherfurd’s sweeping saga of Irish history, it does.

When the novel began, I felt a true excitement of being “there” at the Pagan beginnings of the “western island” with the hardy souls inhabiting the cold, wet, rocky land. It is cold, wet, and rocky. Even in June, it was hard to stay warm. As is pertinent in any story of Ireland, mythology was pulled in, the mysticism of the ancient Irish mixed with the reality of animal and human sacrifice and a connection with a greater power.

As it went along, I began to have the feeling that it was more non-fiction than fiction, with hints of Story tying the events together and connecting them through the centuries. It does read largely as non-fiction. There are a plethora of details, names, ruling families that can be hard to keep all together from beginning to end. In fact, this one would be a good candidate for multiple reads (although I’ve yet to do that, either).  It’s a very long novel. Expect to spend plenty of time with it.

Also expect to come away with a new understanding of Ireland and its mix of people and cultures, from Druids to Vikings to Scottish warriors to St. Patrick’s Christians to English slaves, and later to English Catholic colonizers. And expect to have questions raised in your thoughts about what Christianity, and then Catholicism, actually did to Ireland (and beyond). This is a straight-forward account of how religion has always mixed with politics and how it’s impossible to separate one from the other. It’s non-judgmental, well researched, and as straight forward as the ancient Irish themselves.

The Princes of Ireland is very highly recommended for Ireland enthusiasts, religion enthusiasts, as well as history enthusiasts in general.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

By the way, St. Patrick’s Cathedral (shown above) is a protestant church and corned beef and cabbage is not a traditional Irish food. It’s Americanized Irish created by Irish immigrants who had to cure their meat well enough to transport it. In my view, that makes it the perfect American Irish way to celebrate the day!

~~~

Technorati Tags: The Princes of Ireland,Edward Rutherfurd,Ireland,St. Patrick,books,authors,reviews

Grammar pt. 2

I didn’t intend to continue the grammar lesson, but my daughter reminded me last night of something else that drives me crazy: 

Double Superlatives and Double Negatives. No, you don’t have the most prettiest flowers in the garden. You have the most pretty flowers or the prettiest flowers (and prettiest is preferred to most pretty). Most prettiest is a double superlative. On the same token, if you say you don’t want no flowers in your yard (and I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t), you’re actually saying you do want flowers in your yard. The double negative (don’t & no) cancel each other out the way –3 x –3 = +9. Don’t ask me to explain that one; I had to learn math rules whether or not I understood them. And I realize English is the same for many.

By the way, “I could care less” means you really can care less than you do already. If you can’t, say, “I couldn’t care less.”

While I’m here: I saw, NOT I seen. I have seen this done so often it’s becoming common usage. Yikes! Please don’t.

A lot are two words, not one.

Literally means it actually did. For instance, if your head literally exploded, you wouldn’t still be around to tell us it did. (Well, maybe in a sci fi book you could be.)
Figuratively means it felt like it did, and then you could tell us about it.

A favorite of politicians and newscasters these days: No, you did not up the bar. You raised the bar.

I have to point this one out, and my crit partner for Off The Moon will laugh if she reads it: Ryan felt nauseated. He should not have felt nauseous. I left it as nauseous on purpose and she probably cringed when she read the final copy. But, I write closely from the POV character’s thoughts, and Ryan, as smart as he is, would have thought “nauseous” instead. Why? It’s common use. If I’d changed it to “nauseated” it would have made him sound more uppity than he is (and yes, I have been thought of as uppity simply because I tend to use proper English – Ha! You should have seen me struggle through science classes!). If I wrote as a narrator instead of AS the character, I would have used nauseated instead. Was that a bad idea? Maybe, except your dialogue must reflect your character, and since my narratives are all inner dialogue, I felt it was the right choice. I’m sure someone will slam me for it. *shrug* I also use fragments on purpose, for effect. We novelists can break rules, as long as we know the rules first and break them for a particular purpose. I wouldn’t use them in formal writing.

There is a difference between writing fiction and non-fiction, just as there is a difference in formatting a bibliography for MLA style or APA style. If you’re writing non-fiction, stick with the rules.

Can I also mention that soldiers do not drive Hummers on duty? They may drive them off-duty if they can afford to buy them, but the Army uses Humvees, not Hummers. Yes, there is a difference. [Official name: HMMWV for High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle]

Okay, so I also have to highlight a news story a fellow author shared this morning. Have to love the ingenuity, but with an excerpt like this, I’d have to pass on the book to come:

"A woman walks from the bathroom, whom I still have no memory of, in this bedroom that I have no memory of, and out to some other room that I have no memory of... 'Headache. Terrible headache,' I say through my teeth. 'Killing me. I think something's wrong...'"

What’s wrong with this? Oh, so many things. First, “whom” is modifying the bathroom, so if she means she has no memory of the bathroom, she should say which instead. If she means the woman, she needs to move the whom phrase behind the woman so it modifies her: “A woman, whom I still have no memory of…” Also, it should be who, not whom. And it should be “into this bedroom” not in. On top of that, it's repetitive without saying much, and it’s vague, and it sounds like distant third person POV with “a woman walks” and yet it’s using first person POV.

Posting sections of your still-to-come novel on posts around NYC might get attention (although it also might be littering), and it might be creative, but before you get creative and get attention … please, learn your craft.

~~

Technorati Tags: grammar,writing,craft,tips

It’s Grammar Day; Have To Do It!

In honor of National Grammar Day (yes, there is such a thing!), I can’t resist posting a bunch of grammar rule breakages that drive us grammar nerds totally bonkers. Some are my own. Others came from either Writer Beware’s Facebook page (Mar 4, 2011) or from Writing.com’s For Authors newsletter (Feb 23, 2011). Since I torture my nearest and dearest often enough by correcting grammar, I thought it was only fair to spread the favor.


It’s and its – not really that hard: it’s means it is, a contraction while its is possessive as in, “Virtue is its own reward.” (so is correct grammar, by the way)

They’re, their, there – They’re means they are, again a contraction (the apostrophe means you’re leaving something out). Their is a pronoun meaning it belongs to them: Their boots are muddy from the rain. If you don’t mean they’re or their, then use there, as in “over there” or “there is” or “put it there.”

Take and Bring – My grandma drummed this into my head when I was young: you take something there but you bring it here. “Take the cake next door but be sure to bring the plate home with you.”

Irregardless – Yikes! Please don’t say that. The word is “regardless” even if some will let you get away with it because it’s become common usage.

These ones or those ones. – No! These or those or that one or this one. No other options.

Affect and Effect – affect is a verb, effect is a noun: The effect of the bill is that it will affect the environment. (There are less obvious uses of these words, but in general, this is good enough to remember.)

Further and Farther – This one might be tricky, as it will tell you in some dictionaries that they are interchangeable in common usage. I’ve done the same because I simply like the sound of further better than the sound of farther. However, I no longer do so. Farther is a measurable distance. Further is figurative. As in, “The farther you go down the road the further into trouble you’ll get.”

Less and Fewer – Fewer is a counting word, as in you have fewer books on your Ereader than on your shelf. If you can’t count the object, you can’t have fewer, you can only have less. You have less time to read the fewer books you have. And be sure to tell your local grocery store that their signs should read: 5 items or fewer, NOT 5 items or less. If you can count the items, you can’t have less. Of course, you could have fewer minutes. You still only have less time, though.

Should have, NOT should of!

To and Too: To is a preposition (I want to go there.) Too is an adverb (I want too much. Are you going, too?)

And, please don’t use a contraction when you mean a plural: Murphy’s Bar is correct since the bar belongs to Murphy (possessive). However, your Christmas card should say “The Murphys” as in there is more than one of you Murphys in the picture. (If there is only one of you in the picture, then The Murphy would work but it might sound pretentious.)

I’m not even going into lie and lay, other than basically a person can lie himself down but he must lay something else down. “I need to lie down now; my head is spinning. Lay the grammar book down and grab a drink.” I admit I tend to avoid other confusion with lie and lay by preferring to say, “He let the book remain where she set it.” Set is easier. Okay, I’m not claiming to be a grammar expert.

I do have to point out the difference between that and who: a person is a who (no matter how small), while that is a thing or a critter. “A person who yells on a regular basis is less likely to be heard than he who only yells when it’s truly necessary.” Or, “It’s a smart little grasshopper that keeps its singing muted while a toad is looking for its dinner.”

Ah, your and you’re: again, the contraction vs. the possessive – “You’re likely tired of the grammar lesson and would rather be reading your new book!”

And so, I’ll stop here and see if anyone else would like to add to the list in the comments.

Don’t you feel sorry now for my loved ones who have to put up with this on a regular basis?

Technorati Tags: grammar,writing,tips

To celebrate or not to celebrate

Okay, so I forgot to tell my husband Happy Valentine’s Day this morning. Guess I’ll remember tonight. To be fair, he didn’t remember, either.

Does that mean the passion in our marriage has faded? No. I don’t think it has, other than that natural tendency for a couple’s dating and newlywed time to be spark-filled before it settles into something more comfortable, more real. The sparks time is nice. It’s necessary to have that in order to get through the get-to-know-each-other phase that would likely never last, otherwise. Let’s face it: learning to deal with someone’s eccentricities and annoying habits needs something to help balance that. Would anyone be married otherwise?

Sure, we get fizzles. We’ve had the “do I really want to spend the rest of what feels like a VERY long life with you???” phases. Ah well, that’s part of the deal.

I watched Eat, Pray, Love a couple of nights ago, and while I rolled my eyes at the thought that she couldn’t even wait for her divorce to go through before hooking up again, and that most of her thoughts of how she would be happy revolved around being in a relationship, still, it’s a little hard to deny the truth of it.

We are built to need a relationship, an Other who helps fulfill and balance us. Maybe that’s why romance is always the best-selling book genre. And why, even in horrors, mysteries, and thrillers, there is always a love story in there somewhere, and often a main plot point of the story.

When do you last read a book or watch a movie that didn’t involve some type of romance? (No, I do not mean sex. That is not the same thing.) That illusive and invisible bond is undeniable. We want it. We need it. Why not celebrate it?

Of course, forgetting Valentine’s Day is just a thing. Maybe it means we’re comfortable enough after twenty-three years to realize we don’t need the flowers, chocolates, and platitudes. We’re both still here. Together. Fighting through the fizzles and celebrating getting through them and still being here.

I will tell him Happy Valentine’s Day tonight, though. After all, the little fun things matter, too.

--
Oh, another thought that kept returning while watching Eat, Pray, Love is that it felt much like my first novel, Finishing Touches (from 2003). That I’ve been hurt and not sure I can try again, especially when I don’t know who I am thing. Yep, same kind of story. Different characters. Different settings (mine never travels farther than Peoria to Chicago). Same idea. Less marketing power. *sigh*

Interested in seeing if I’m right?  Finishing Touches is at Smashwords for only $2.45. If you have a bit of patience and want to wait for the newly loaded (in process) story that’s set several years before Finishing Touches, called Growing Season, there’s a coupon to get the novel for $1.45 instead, through the end of February. The short story is a free read, very short. And sweet. (Formerly published at LASR, June 2009)

Finishing Touches is also in print. Find more info on my website, under My Books (original, isn’t it?). And don’t forget to check out my new consolidated Reviews page! I have more to add, but it’s a start.

PLUS, go see how this blogger compared me to Nicholas Sparks! 
--

Happy Valentine’s Day!
(and don’t tell my husband I said it to you first)

Technorati Tags: Valentine's Day,romance,fiction,Eat Pray Love

Adding Color to Shades of Gray

Pretty, isn’t it? Any guess as to what it is? Could be lots of things.

That’s the thing about shades of gray: it can be awfully hard to clarify just what “is” without adding more definition of some sort.

Ever hear the song “In Color” by Jamey Johnson? I’ve heard it a couple of times in the morning when my radio alarm is trying to gently coerce me out of bed. The gist: a man is showing his grandchildren photos of his life in black and white and mentions they should have seen it in color, meaning well beyond what those printed shades of gray can reveal. Pictures may be worth a thousand words, but still, there is much beyond what a still photo can say.

I’m wandering, though.

This morning I read a guest blog by an author who talked about being self-published. So, being a curious bird, I went to his “website” which turned out to be one page with only a description of his books. I clicked on the Home link to find more and was taken to a publisher site. Hm. There were quite a few authors listed on it, and he was among them. That’s fine. I figured it must be a company that prints your books for you while you cover the cost. Except.. they had submissions and part of the process was that they’d ask to see your book if they thought your book’s premise was good enough.

Um, that’s not self-publishing. That’s small press publishing. I find it interesting that an author would call himself self-published when he’s actually submitted his work and had it accepted. Is self-pub becoming that well recognized? A mark of triumph of some sort?

I’m not sure. I know it’s better accepted. Still, authors MUST get their terms straight and not call themselves what they aren’t.

I’ve also recently seen an author describe the same book as both erotic and non-erotic. Which is it? I’m sure she’s trying to hit both audiences to increase sales, but that’s unfair to readers and they will protest if they get what they don’t want. It also makes it harder on the rest of us who try very hard to be honest about what we write, for the benefit of the reader.

Are the above only shades of gray that might be okay depending on your point of view? No. They’re dishonest. Plain and simple. Or unaware, which looks like dishonesty.

Other things that are not gray and which I’ve seen too often:

-- Images on the web are copyrighted. They cannot be grabbed and used without the owner’s permission, even if you leave a link as to where you got them. It’s illegal. That goes for celeb photos and place photos used in blogs, newsletters, websites, and anywhere else you are marketing your work.

-- Posting someone’s words from a private list anywhere else is not okay. Actually, reposting someone’s words from anywhere, other than brief attributed quotes for educational purposes, is not okay. 

-- Posting full reviews about your book without the reviewer’s permission is also a copyright violation. Use a sentence or two along with a link to the actual review, and the reviewer’s name, of course. And DON’T change the wording of the review! Leave some out with ellipses in you want, in order to shorten it, but I actually had an author post my whole review of her work, leaving out only my small criticism, and changing the wording around it to compensate. It made it sound very off. If I decided to, I could file a complaint against the author. Maybe I still will.

-- Music for book trailers: Be careful with this one! Many of the “free use” music clips are only free for non-profit uses, such as school presentations or home videos. When you’re using it to sell your book, that’s commercial and a whole different ball game. Read carefully.

What is it?

Christmas Tinsel!

Bet I didn’t have to tell you now that the color is re-added.

Technorati Tags: copyright,writing,images,reviews,book trailers

Give It A Chance

“When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it.”

Henry Ford

Believe in coincidences? Or is there a reason for everything that seems to be a coincidence?

I’m not sure which I believe. I do think a lot of things happen for a reason, yes. There are things we need to learn and struggles are often the only way we can learn them. But when I found a friend’s blog post today, posted a few days ago, that coincided so well with a conversation I had with my family a few days ago, I had to laugh. As he mentions, I can cook. I don’t necessarily like to cook, but I can. Unlike him, I do it often because … well, I’m the one who will. It’s one of those things moms often just get stuck with just because.

Anyway, we were talking about some celeb’s new cookbook (which I will gladly ignore) and I mentioned I should write a cookbook for those who don’t like to cook and don’t want to spend more time doing so than absolutely necessary, but still want healthy meals. One pot is always good, also, for less clean up time. I’ve become a near expert (well, expert might be too strong a word) on this cooking method. I rarely use convenience foods. As my family says, I’m … well, thrifty. I use actual ingredients (ground turkey, pasta, potatoes, veggies…) not pre-made reheat bags and boxes and cans (well, not often). If you’re buying all that stuff, don’t complain to me about your grocery bill! It’s bad enough buying the actual ingredients.

Moving along and jumping back off my soapbox, as Paul’s blog post about cooking eggs that didn’t turn out as expected rolled along, I figured I knew where he was going with it. A writing analogy of course, as in, just because your story veers into a direction you didn’t intend or if your writing career takes a path you didn’t plan, it doesn’t mean it’s wrong; maybe it’ll turn out even better.

I was wrong. He didn’t go there. So I did.

His eggs turned out well enough he shared his recipe. What seemed a failure, wasn’t.

On a similar note, we’ve had company the past week. Honestly, I was dreading it because it was taking me way out of my comfort zone. Turns out it wasn’t so bad. Actually (and I’m eating crow here – not blackbird! that would be a bit scary right now), it turned out well. I guess I’ll stop fighting this particular cause.

Sometimes you just have to take a bite of the chocolate mint wax and give it a try.

Apparently, it does at least taste like chocolate mint, even if it isn’t.
--

Technorati Tags: cooking,writing,metaphor,opinions,coincidence