Today I found a call for submissions for a podcast where previously published work is considered. I liked this idea and looked for what I had that met the 800 word limit. (It did say longer might be considered.) Because I wasn’t sure if the copy of the two pieces I identified as ones to send matched what had been published, I checked online. While doing this, I realized I apparently hadn’t seen the final publications. To my surprise, on Tattoos Across the Universe there were three positive comments. This just reminds me of the potential benefits from online submissions. Someone may actually read them! And comment!!! People could read my stories in print publications, but I’m unlikely to ever know.
Unfortunately, the other piece, Trip to Oz in NonBinary Review, requires a special app. I downloaded it once but couldn’t get it to work. I’ll have to try again but don’t think I’m able to link it here. Maybe if it is accepted for the podcast….
Sometimes I forget that I published a piece in a journal. Sometimes I wonder if I’m remembering wrong, especially when I search the archives of said journal and nothing shows up. When that happened today I googled away and after about six attempts, I finally got the piece to show up.
Now I’m posting the link to the story so I don’t lose it again.
My friend Celia died young. She left two young daughters as well as a number of good friends. She had many varied interests in life. She was a wood carver/sculptor. I once said to her that she was lucky because with sculpting vs writing, she could leave her creations out and people would notice them. She laughed and said hardly anyone ever said anything about them.
Today is the 24th anniversary of her death, and in honor of her talent and lack of recognition I am posting two photos of wood she sculpted.
There are times in writing and in regular life when you need to make a choice and can’t decide. A friend recently posted a tribute to her mother, and the mechanism presented leads me to an idea for picking pseudonyms, book titles, characters’ names, etc. If you click on the link below, which is from something called The Book of Everyone, you can try your hand at seeing a visual representation of names/words of interest.
My observation is that the shorter and simpler, the prettier. You can easily and quickly play around with this feature yourself. It’s easy and fun!
I have a few ideas for science fiction stories and novels but need some help. Although I read a lot of science fiction in the past, I haven’t read much in the last ten or twenty years. I read one book with a spider as god, and Mary Doria Russel’s series. When I first thought about about getting back into the genre, I bought an anthology of story winners. Most of the stories seemed to me to be of a quality and type that they could have been labeled literary rather than science fiction. This makes me believe the writing in this genre has improved.
The terminology itself has shifted, though, and I’m not clear if I’m using the correct letters, etc. I believe the SF books that would be of interest to me are soft SF, more in the psychological, sociological, or cultural vein than in swords and laser guns. I’m thinking my stuff would be more similar to The Left Hand of Darkness than I, Robot or Dune.
Recently I also picked up two other SF books. I enjoyed James Gunn’s Transcendental, but I’ve lost interest in Rapture of the Nerds, which had an interesting premise on the back cover but is a bit too all over the place for me to want to finish it. Frenetic is how I’d describe it.
Anyone out there have a list of not-to-be-missed novels written in the last decade or so? I’d appreciate any suggestions.
Last week it was suggested to me that maybe I spend too much time working on my blog. It is true that one measly blog a week eats into my writing time, and I’m not getting much accomplished as far as creating new material. It is also true that I have at least temporarily abandoned the manuscript this blog was named for. So why do I continue? The readership for my blog is small, if not close to nonexistent, but so is the readership for my novels (manuscripts.) I like to think that the number of readers of my shorter work is a bit larger since there are all those readers and editors who reject the stories, as well as a few actual readers for those which have been accepted and published.
If the blog is eating into my time, what exactly am I losing if I continue it? I find the blog keeps me searching for new ideas, often through reading the Times and articles on line. I enjoy making connections and coming to conclusions I might not have realized if I wasn’t trying to produce and shape a piece weekly. And even if each post is short, and has taken longer than it should have to produce, it gives me a feeling of accomplishment and purpose. Occasionally someone responds to a post and a new friend, or someone to follow, appears. Who is to say where these new contacts might lead?
I suspect that I will continue to keep my self-imposed deadline. I will keep posting short pieces even if few people read. I welcome readers, and I love comments, especially those that present a different side to my thoughts. I relish the interchange of ideas and know that if I kept those ideas to myself as typed pieces on my computer or in a leather bound journal, the chances of exchanging thoughts with another are greatly reduced, probably approaching zero.
And if no one reads any of my words? Is it that different than taking photographs? Not many see the ones we take, yet most of us keep taking them, if only for our own learning process, to see what we can produce, or more succinctly, for our own enjoyment.
If you blog, why? And is it worth it?
When I was a kid, we bought the New York Times after church and then spent the rest of the day reading it. As an adult we had The Denver Post delivered, and I read The Atlantic and other magazines, but I missed the BookReview. We’ve subscribed to the Sunday Times now for a number of years. Although I usually at least scan the book review, I more regularly read other sections indepth. Styles Magazine is a leaf-through section, with an occasional article read. Today, though, I started with Andrew O’Hagan’s piece on the past and modern innovations. He asks what has society/the individual lost by the use of the iPhone and its attendant apps. He contends that life is better with technology.
In many respects, I agree. At a reunion recently my classmates commented about the superiority of “our music.” While I’d agree some of that music is pretty special and some songs are masterpieces, overall I prefer contemporary music. A steady diet of “classic rock” makes me gag. O’Hagan mentions the ease of research using the Internet. That is a plus,although I still look for books or articles beyond what I can easily (and cheaply) find online. He also mentions the availability of friendship, or at least camaraderie, via social media, and talks about the advantages of the world at your fingertips when you live in the middle of nowhere.
Yes, I agree with all those improvements, yet it still seems that something is lost by the use of phones and computers where before we had card catalogs, meetings in person, books, and had to wait to view movies, hear music, etc. Why is instant gratification better than a wait, or having to work a bit to accomplish something? What is wrong with watching Downton Abbey at the regularly scheduled time in the US instead of watching episodes in advance through some Internet service? Yes, I love streaming movies, but I also enjoy watching certain of the special features included on DVDs. I give up some positives for ease and instant gratification.
I know if it weren’t for computers, writing would be real work for me and would test my patience. I started writing on a typewriter and never quite got the knack of using the back correction. Even liquid paper was a mess. I could never get the paper to line up properly if I removed it from the typewriter. So yes, the advent of word processing programs with spell check and an easy way to make corrections and changes was a boon for me as well as thousands of other writers.
The ease of typing up stories has to be one of the factors in the rise in the number of writers. Not only is it easier to produce manuscripts, it’s easier to get them out in the world. Self publishing on the Internet doesn’t bother me too much since it seems to be akin to the self-publishing/vanity press of old. I do believe, though, that journals and agents and editors are swimming in print due to the ease of submitting online. In the past, not only did you have to write and type a story, but you had to figure out where to send it without the information being at your fingertips. Sure, you could buy a writers’ guidebook, but it likely was out of date before it saw print. More than once I sent off a story the same day I purchased the brand new book and received it back in the mail with a “return to sender” stamp due to an outdated address.
After you figured out your submission strategy, you had to buy and address envelopes, weigh the manuscript for return, possibly make a trip to the post office, and wait. Most journals back then didn’t allow simultaneous submissions, and stupidly, some of us obeyed that. Now, all you have to do is spend a few minutes looking around on the Internet, click and send, very often directly from the correct journal/agent/editor site.
The work involved in submission in the past helped weed out those who weren’t serious, those who were dabbling. It is possible that some great writers were left undiscovered in the process who are now found due to the ease of submitting, but is the overall good of the writing world served by this? Would Emily Dickinson have been published sooner and more prolifically if she merely had to click a button to send her poems? Maybe. But possibly her work would have been lost in the jumble of more fashionable submissions.
Would I go back to the day of the typewriter? No. Computers made writing much easier for me. The Internet makes submitting work and research less difficult, too. For those things I am thankful. I suppose another byproduct of the Internet is an increase in the number of places to publish. It would be interesting to know the ratio of writers to the number of journals over time. Has this changed? Of course there are other factors at play in the book publishing world. If, though, the ease of getting information and then submitting is at least in part due to the Internet, it is likely that the deluge of manuscripts to editors was at least one factor in the Agent as Gateway method to publication. As it seems that editors like my work more than agents, I’m not sure this is a positive for me and my writing career.
Andrew O’Hagan admits that technology changed his character, but the innovations in her lifetime did not change his mother’s. I do not know if the Internet has in any way changed my character. At the same time, I do wonder if it has in some way modified my life course?
How has the ease of technology shaped you and your writing career, if at all?