CreateNet, Skynet’s Awkard Cousin, is Upon Us

So …

AI. Artificial Intelligence. Long a staple of science fiction, it’s also long been something of a holy grail for the science community. The depictions have run the gamut but I would say that for the most part, said depictions are rather ominous, and have been since the idea existed. Isaac Asimov writing in I, Robot tackled the morality of the artificial life with his Three Laws of Robotics. After that, it started to evolve (or devolve) into more sinister concepts such as H.A.L. in 2000: A Space Odyssey, or even more sinister ideas shown in The Terminator, or the sinister-est (my blog, I say it’s a word here) concept of humanity’s enemies in The Matrix. There’s a common element in almost every conceptualization of an AI that runs amok, and that’s there was always a pivot point in the story where people (read, scientists) should have left well enough alone, invoking Ian Malcom’s line, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

With this in mind, I’m rolling into AI as related to writing novels.

Muse: Wait. Are you suggesting that AI writing novels and such is going to lead to the end of humanity?

You never know.

Okay, not really.

But to me, it is interesting watching this evolve. It’s not just for writing but spreading across more creative outlets—into procedurally-generated art, for example. Sites such as Midjourney can take a set of criteria and, using a bunch of images on the net, kluge together something … “original.” I would say that a lot of them were, at first, pretty crude, but the programs have made surprising strides in a short period of time. Some of the best ones I’ve seen look like honest-to-God original art. The algorithms are getting better, the refinement is improving.

Except …

The ingestors for these programs (the mechanisms used to obtain the base pieces that are modified and combined) have been pretty indiscriminate and sucked up a lot of copyrighted images. That’s an issue.

It’s come up on author forums and Discord a few times, with some authors looking at this art which may look pretty good and asking about the legality—or wisdom—of using it on their own projects, such as book covers. My stance, for myself and everyone else, has been, “stay the hell away from it,” for several reasons. For one, the legality/copyright of such art is very ill-defined and up in the air right now. Using it could land someone in copyright unpleasantness, leading to weeks or months trying to clean it up, and that’s all time and money taken away from doing something more productive. Some of it is good enough to show up on stock art sites and there was even a flap about a Christopher Paolini (Eragon series) book using an artificially-generated element. But not every author is going have Tor—or, rather, the heft of Tor’s legal department—backing them up. So exercise caution, friends.

On a moral level, using such art is also (highly likely) using someone’s copyrighted work without compensation. Maybe the art generators have the option to only use images marked open for any use under Creative Commons, but I imagine such a limitation would be so restrictive as to be useless. And if it did, would such art itself be copyrighted? It’s a tangle I think best avoided for now. Besides, as an author, do you want someone plagiarizing your work and reselling it under a different name? Do unto others.

Then we have AI writing programs, like ChatGPT, which, in theory, will eventually be able to carry on a conversation (say, on a tech support site) with someone that will be indistinguishable from having a human on the other end. I’ve seen some samples of the conversations and they are … not as bad as I hoped they would be. I’ve also seen some attempts by GPT-3 (kind of the progenitor of ChatGPT) to write fiction novels. I’d qualify the examples I’ve seen as more of summaries or plot outlines. They were coherent, in the sense that they had a fully-developed story arc that incorporated story tropes and cliches. Each example lacked good characterization, descriptive language, or anything I’d call emotional relatablity.

But that’s now. Where will it be in ten years, or even five?

Lest other creatives—say actors and musicians—be sitting over there laughing at creators in print media, the handwriting is on the wall for you too. Music has already been digitized and blended to the point that one can develop completely new instrumental tunes without picking up the first instrument. Just in the last few weeks, there have been several articles about “deep-fake voice apps,” that can render a person’s speech pattern to the point that it is indistinguishable to the casual ear. How much of a leap would it be for someone to record a song without a human in the loop? Just blend Beyonce and Rhainna’s voice patterns to get a new one, right? Deep-fake/photoshopped images have been a thing for a while but it’s moving into film and recordings now. They’re not at all perfect but again, the algorithms are getting better, and where will it be in five years? We’re going to reach a point where someone can be inserted seamlessly into a video where they never were before, and it’s going to be undetectable to the naked eye—and in time, perhaps even to digital inspection.

I’ll date myself by saying this, but Gen-Xers and older may remember a commercial tagline that went, “Is it live, or is it Memorex?” The idea was that the tape quality was so high that the listener wouldn’t be able to tell if it was live or a recording. Ironic, that we’ve actually reached the point that the listener/viewer may not be able to tell if the art was created by a human or a computer.

This technology is barreling ahead at breakneck speed and it makes me nervous. The implications are staggering. I have no doubt it’s going to be used for nefarious purposes, whether for scams, blackmail (“I’ve got this tape of you cheating on your spouse and they won’t be able to tell the difference.”), government control, or a half a dozen other bad things. That’s a hell of a rabbit hole to go down so for now, I am just going to stick to the evolution of CreateNet.

Creative, artistic endeavors—be it in film, music, art, writing, or what have you—have, through human history, depended on two things: the passion and flare of their creators, and the patronage of their supporters. The first is under threat. While the bulk of AI-generated art have seen has been relatively soulless without a human in the loop, that’s just now. It’s come leaps in just a few years, and will continue to do so. Unless you think it is inherently impossible for algorithms to mimic human expression and creativity, we’re looking at a possible future where creative outlets will be, as a matter of course, farmed out to the computers.

Writers have been there before. Long before the terms Pulp Fiction and Grindhouse were associated with Quentin Tarentino, they were terms that applied to cheap, rapidly-produced books and movies, designed to get on the market quickly, and just as quickly be replaced by the next one. Both were criticized for lack of literary or artistic merit, and maybe with just cause. Writers and crew on these projects often labored for pennies, where the idea was just maxing out volume, not quality. Almost feels like we’re back in that mode.

Except this time, the quality might be better. In time, it might be superior.

Muse: I bet that hurt to say.

It did.

The other half of this is the patronage aspect and that, dear reader, is where you come in. While there is no way to know if your favorite authors are generating their work without automated help, I advise you to get out there and support your favorites. Buy their books. Go meet them at live events, shake their hand, and talk to them about their books. It doesn’t have to be financial; post about the ones you like and talk them up. Support them in their endeavors outside the mainstream of entertainment (self-publishing, indy music scene, etc) or make them too invaluable to be replaced.

Don’t kid yourself. The mega-corporations that run everything else, as well entertainment media, would love to cut the creatives out of the loop, assign everything to algorithms, and pocket the net difference. CreateNet is here and I don’t see it going away. In the long run, only the consumer applying their dollar will avoid it swamping the creators.

I know it’s incredibly easy to get books, art, films, media, et al, through other means: used, or even … ahem, sailing the high seas. Times are tight, and everyone’s crunched. But if your favorite artists aren’t supported, they may cease to exist and if that happens, you’ll have one option left: the soulless, bland entertainment of the machine.

So find a way to support your human artists.

Down with CreateNet.

Muse: Don’t worry. I’ll be here with you, whispering ideas and criticisms in your ear, until the very end.

I know … thanks.

Book Giveaways — How Not to be an Idiot

So ….

I’ve been on both sides of the book-giveaway, as a writer and as a reader. In a way, I think the concept is really cool. As a reader, it’s a neat way to check out a new author or maybe get a signed copy from an author you like. As a writer, it’s a great way to reach out to people, maybe convince them that you’re an author worth reading. Easy, right?

Muse: It’s never that easy.

No, it isn’t. Someone always finds a way to make things more difficult. And it shouldn’t be difficult. At all. From two different perspectives:

As a writer

I’ve participated in a few book giveaways, for both e-books and print copies. I’ve never had an issue with the mechanics of it; the actual giveaways themselves have always gone smoothly. I’ve been told by more experienced writers to never expect reviews or feedback from freebies, and that’s fine. I think the idea is to try and build some positive word of mouth, or pique someone’s interest so they maybe pick up the next one in the series. All good.

But is it too much to ask for people to say, “Thanks!”?

Apparently.

I’ve emailed e-books to people and never heard back. Not even confirmation that they even got it. Often, I will send a second email, just to make sure they received what they were sent. More often than not, I don’t hear back again. (I give it two tries and save the sent emails, just in case.) Maybe I am too old-school, but good manners seems to dictate the receiver should hit “Reply,” type, “Thank you,” and click “Send.” It’s an operation that literally takes less than twenty second to perform. How often do I even get that back? Maybe half the time.

I understand that a reader may not be enthused about a free book. Maybe it was a consolation prize for something else they really wanted … and then there’s that psychology of getting things for free, versus paying for them. I get it. But as a reader, you should also understand: that free book is something the author worked on. Poured their heart into. Fretted over. It may not be important to you but it is to them, and them giving it over to you is an act of kindness, of sharing their hard work. Is it asking too much to simply thank them for it, even if it is something you never intend to read?

Muse: Well—

Shut up, it was a rhetorical question … and the answer is, “Yes, if you’re not an asshole.” You entered the giveaway. The author held up their end of the bargain. Common courtesy ought to be the minimum response.

As a Reader

I talk about writing a lot here but I read a lot of fantasy too. Reading and writing … the two go hand-in-hand to me. So as a reader, I have also entered book giveaways, and it’s always thrilling to win something and get a message from an author I like or am interested in.

Except when it doesn’t happen.

Maybe one third of the time, I never receive what I am supposed to get. When that doesn’t happen, I have contacted the authors and heard back … nothing. Not a damn thing. And this really leaves me scratching my head and ultimately, a little pissed off.

Look, I hold up my end of the deal when I give books away. The readers enter such things in good faith and I try to act in the same vein, so it frosts my ass when an author offers a book, you win it, and then you literally cannot get them to respond. I expect the authors to be proactive and lean forward, to reach out to their readers. It’s part of our public-facing duty. But when the readers who entered your giveaway—and I say again, to stress it—in good faith, then contact you in an attempt to claim a prize, answer them.

Not all authors do this. Not even many. And I am sure there are some isolated events such as hard drive crashes, personal life issues, or even overlooking an email. I’m sure it’s happened. But I have been stiffed too often to believe every author that’s done it is merely a victim of bad circumstances. If I entered and won, I would like to get what I was offered.

I haven’t had all bad experiences. A couple of indy authors stand out. I entered a book giveaway by author Allegra Pescatore. I think the giveway had been closed for five minutes when she reached out. I don’t expect anything near that aggressive but it’s impressive that she was on the ball. In another instance, author Christopher Russell offered me a paperback. I told him I would be cool with an e-copy but he said he had the paperbacks to give and would be happy to send one. I accepted and he also sent a signed poster and illustrated bookmark.

These are both authors that are going to get more buys and reads from me, simply for being respectful. Were they proactive and generous because they expected future purchases from me? I doubt it. They might have been hopeful of such but I am sure they were also doing because they thought it was the right way to deal with their readers.

The authors who didn’t deliver, even after being contacted? I am not going to call out anyone directly. But they are on a “never-read” list for me now. There are simply too many good fantasy books and authors who treat their readers with respect to deal with those who don’t. Poor personal interactions are the absolute fastest way for me to make a writer persona non grata. More than political opinions or anything else. I’ve mentioned before but there is a Hugo-award winning author who was an utter jerk to me at a convention. Maybe they were just having a bad day. I don’t care. I will never touch a book by or recommend them.

#

In the end, I think this comes down to simply treating people as you’d like to be treated. In the old days, this used to be called “having manners,” but I am not hip to modern lingo, so I don’t know how to describe it today. Still, it’s very simple: follow through. If you’re a writer, do what you say you’re going to do. If you’re a reader, saying thank you goes a long way.

Or, if that’s too complicated, how about this: don’t be a douche.

Muse: That’s going to be hard for some people.

Sadly, I’m sure you’re right.

The Snark is Unbecoming

So …

I first interacted with Sarah Chorn last year when Pilgrimage to Skara was a finalist in the 2017 Self-Published Fantasy Blog-Off (still tickles every time I say that).  Sarah runs the blog Bookworm Blues, which was then, and is again this year, one of the SPFBO judges.

Sarah didn’t particularly care for Pilgrimage, which is fine, she was hardly alone in that.  The book polarized opinions and it is what it is.  She was never personally impolite to me.  We became friends on Facebook and it’s all good.

Sarah recently released her novel Seraphina’s Lament, a grimdark tale which has received a large number of positive reviews.  Full disclosure:  I have not read it yet but only because my TBR is about a mile high right now.  It’s on the Future TBR list.

Anyway, things seemed to be going well.  And then apparently Sarah received this email from a reader.  She posted it on FB.  I asked if she minded me using it here and she was okay with that.  The text read:

I looked up your email address on your website.  I did not finish that Seraphina’s book.  I bought it without realizing it is liberal propaganda.  Why is everyone gay, black, or disabled?  I was looking forward to this book but now I’m disgusted.  This liberal message is offensive and everything that’s wrong with fantasy and I thought you should know.  I’m getting my money back.  I wanted a fun adventure, not this bullshit message.  Maybe next time you’ll do better.  This is why SJWs shouldn’t write.  CFX

Yeow.

Muse:  Yeah, yeow.

I have to admit, this is bothersome.  I am not going to defend or attack any particular political ideology or slant here.  I think this kind of behavior isn’t really about your opinions.

It’s about contempt, and how modern society is overrun with it.  This is rudeness, plain and simple.

What goes through someone’s head when they send an email like this?  What’s the point?  The desire to lash out and inflict pain?  The desire to make damn sure that person knows how wrong they are?  I think this kind of action can only be borne of contempt for one’s target–lack of basic human respect, in other words.  “I wanted you to know,” the reader wrote.  Translation?  “I want to be able to spit in your eye because I don’t like the theme of your book and since you’re obviously a horrible person, that’s my right.”

What happened to polite disagreement, or even just keeping your fucking opinion to yourself?  It’s gone, dead as the dodo.  Some might want to blame our current president for this state of affairs, but I have been watching it deteriorate for three decades.

No, I actually put most of this on the internet and social media.  The internet is a wonderful tool but it is also a shield of semi-anonymity.  And some people feel safe lashing out from behind that shield.  That’s not the only thing, of course.  In general, I believe our culture has gotten a lot more confrontational and I have had people verbally attack me in ways they never would have forty years ago.  (Of course, me being who I am with the temper I have, forty years ago I would have busted most of them in the mouth.  Age and legal liability have added layers of restraint and probably stripped the offenders of accountability but that’s another post.)

I read once that arrogance and self-righteousness are two of the most common and least attractive facets of human personalities.  By observation, I think that is true and it seems consistently so across age, gender, and cultural boundaries.  In order to send an email such as the one above, I think someone has to be both arrogant and self-righteous.  The latter because without that, they wouldn’t have such a visceral reaction (“They dare disagree with what I believe?”) and the former to think their opinion matters that much to the recipient in the first place.

Muse:  Yeah but people being what they are…I think they tend to amplify their own importance.

Exactly.

When Sarah critiqued Pilgrimage, she critiqued the work.  She covered characterization and plot issues she didn’t care for.  She never once made it about me.  There were those who did.  I recall reading someone stating that I must entertain latent rape fantasies.  (This makes me wonder what kind of hate mail George R.R. Martin or Mark Lawrence get.)  This was from someone that had never interacted with me, yet felt free to comment on my personality in an insulting way.

You know, here’s a thought:  if you read a book with something you find profoundly objectionable, don’t buy any more from that author.  Leave a review on Amazon or Goodreads and call it a day.  Or just keep your flap shut and move on with your life.  If you find you are easily triggered, don’t buy a book until it’s been out a month, a video game until it’s been out for three, or see a movie until it’s been out a week.  By then, you will likely have all the information to know whether you should partake or not.  It’s really no more complicated than that.

And yes, I know that if you do that, the author won’t get the privilege of hearing your “unique” wisdom and insight.  You know what?  You’ll both live.

I know, for example, Terry Goodkind is a polarizing author.  I’d be equally opposed to people sending him nastygrams about him being an Ayn Rand disciple or misogynist or whatever.  Stop stroking your egos … just don’t fucking read his work.  I can think of a few authors over the years who wove an inherent message I didn’t like in their books.  I just stopped.

Anyway, I would tell Sarah to let it roll off her back and she seems to be doing that.  The general buzz on her book is good and that is frankly the form of medicine to counter this particular kind of troll.

And lastly, just as an aside …

The person who wrote that never identified themselves, in gender or race.  Yet it was telling, in the FB discussion, how many people said something to the effect of, “That guy’s triggered,” or “What a manly man.”  I even saw someone say, “Poor triggered white dude.”  Only Sarah seemed to go with the “he/she” identifier, though I may have missed others that did so.

Of the five most conservative people I know, three of them are women, one of whom is Hispanic.  One of the three is definitely acerbic enough to write the above.  Yet most everyone assumed it was a dude and more than one assumed they were white.  Sometimes our biases crash to the forefront without us even trying.  Just sayin’ …

Anyway, friends, be well.

Meeting Your Heroes — Why Author Interaction Matters

So …

I was brought into mind on this topic by a post made by Petrik Leo, a prolific reviewer for Booknest.EU and Goodreads.  It came about in the SPFBO Facebook group, on a discussion about reviewers.  Petrik had a sidebar sub-thread on brutal reviews where he stated, “I was called a huge jerk and an asshole by the author himself for giving his book 4/5 stars.”

Wowsa.

That got me thinking and that is, of course, always dangerous.  I’m no stranger to harsh reviews but it’s never occurred to me to attack someone for stating their opinion about my work.  Why not?  Well, for one, no book is going to appeal to all the people all the time and I don’t expect mine to be any different.

But more than that, I see no upside in this business of doing so.  It just doesn’t feel like a good idea.

There’s that saying out there:  you should never meet your heroes, with the idea being that even heroes are flawed, imperfect human animals, and once exposed to those imperfections, it will cast an indelible stain on your perception–your idealized notion–of that person.  In short, you’ll come away with a poorer image of them than you started.

While there is a fragment of truth to the notion, I think it’s a bad philosophy to live by.  Moreover, it’s incumbent on said “heroes” to not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Allow me to explain.

Muse:  Would you please?  Your circular babble is making my head hurt.

Shaddup, you.

I think there is nothing better than meeting an author you like in person.  You don’t have to get a book signed or praise them up one side and down the other.  Just having a few moments to converse with that person gives them a feeling of tangibility, I guess.  You can make a connection, even if just a fleeting one.

I think it goes without saying it helps if they make an effort too.

I’ve met a number authors.   By and large, they were mostly positive experiences.  For example, I met Brian McClellan (Powder Mage trilogy) last year and had a chance to chat with him for several minutes.  Down-to-earth, easy-going guy.  He was happy to chat a bit and just put me at ease immediately.  I had a very brief interaction earlier this year with Fonda Lee (Jade City).  She never stopped smiling, was very, very nice.  Over the years I’ve had similar experiences with Terry Brooks, Beth Cato, Gini Koch, and others too numerous to mention.

I attended the San Diego Comic-Con in the mid-90s and met author/artist Frank Miller   Frank Miller has a reputation as being prickly but he was polite and open and seemed genuine.  I met Mark Silvestri and talked to him a few moments and came away thinking he was absolutely the nicest guy in the comic industry at the time.  (I also nearly ran over Stan Lee the same day but that’s another story).

You know what the commonality between all these interactions was?  It made me more inclined to support the authors.  For those whose work I hadn’t already purchased, I did so.  Those I had, I talked up to friends and fellow readers.  Something about a positive personal interaction makes you (well, me, at least) want to be more supportive.

Of course, none of these people knew me from Adam, so I wouldn’t expect any of them to remember those meetings.  I am certainly not at all famous in the writing community–

Muse:  Based on the reviews for Pilgrimage to Skara, you might be infamous, though.

–but that didn’t matter.  They engaged with a fan of the genre (me), if not of their work specifically, and did so without expectation.

Now there is the other side of the coin.

I have also had a brief interaction with an author who won a Nebula Award in the last decade.  They were arrogant, condescending, insulting, and generally full of themselves.  I am embarrassed to say but were we in another era, I would have punched them in the face.  I will never buy one of their books.  I don’t care how many accolades that person receives.

At that same aforementioned Comic-Con, I met a comic writer I greatly admired–and came away disappointed.  I loved the person’s writing and storylines but in person, they were sarcastic, short-tempered, and generally unpleasant.  I stopped reading books written by that person.

Some authors act like jerks.  How’s that work out for them?  At least with me, not well at all.

Look, I don’t pretend negative reviews hurt.  Of course they do.  But acting like an idiot and yelling (verbally or in print) is a lose-lose situation for an author.

Some authors prefer not to interact with the public at all.  That’s probably the safest course–and the least rewarding.  Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right?  Besides, how much effort does it take to be polite and pleasant?  Very little, IMO, and the rewards from the fandom are well worth it.

I fully think that keeping my chin up and letting negativity sluff to the side has led to more people being willing to take a chance on Pilgrimage and on me, personally, as an author–and indirectly, a few more sales.  That kind of goodwill is hard to build and easy to squander, so I look at it as a gift and I intend to nurture it.  And honestly, I do appreciate that they took their time to read my book and offer their thoughts.

So to that anonymous person Petrik referenced in the quote above:  lighten the fuck up.  4/5 stars?  You should be falling-on-your-face thankful.  If it was 1/5 stars, politely thank the reviewer for his time, put the review away, and read it a few days later after the sting subsides.  See if there is any kernel of truth you can use to improve.  Separate criticism of your work from criticism of yourself.

And when interacting with your readers, you’re going to get bored.  You’re going to be tired.  Some people will be annoying.  You’re going to hear, “I have an idea for a book” or some variant at least once every ten minutes.  It will get old, I know.  Don’t get mad.  Smile and nod.  Answer questions thoughtfully.  Pay attention to what your readers tell you.  Readers will appreciate the effort.  I always did.

Seriously, keep it on an even keel.  Giving attitude directly to your readers is the fastest way to turn them off.

And if you want to be a writer, that’s the last thing you need.

The Case for Anti-Intellectualism

So …

It’s been two weeks but I have yet to do my write-ups on the 2017 Tucson Festival of Books, mostly because I have been lazy.  And because spring is here and it’s been time to get outside start on gardening and what not.  But mostly laziness.

The panels were good and I enjoyed them.  However, I did have a side incident which left me confused.

On Day 2 (Sunday, 12 Mar), I was standing in line for the first of several panels.  I wasn’t really thinking about anything, just kind of enjoying the cool Tucson morning before the afternoon heat set in.  Then this little guy behind me broke my reverie by asking questions.

I paraphrase below, mostly because I don’t recall every single word, but the gist is correct.  The opening exchange was fine, going something like this:

>>Him:  So do you know anything about this panel?

Me:  Hmm?  Well it’s [description of panel].

>>Him:  Are they going to talk about things other than science-fiction?  I hope the lessons are more generic than that.

Me:  Well, maybe. I mean there are some universal publishing lessons involved.

>>Him:  Do you know anything about [author, and member of the upcoming panel]?  I understand he’s done some screenplays.

Me:  He was on a panel I saw yesterday and he mentioned doing [popular movie from 20 years ago].

>>Him:  Cool.

Okay, so far, so good, right?  Now it takes a turn into the bizarre.

>>Him:  I sat through a screenwriting panel this morning.  There was one good guy on it and two locals.  It wasn’t helpful.

Me:  No good, eh?

>>Him:  Yeah the locals were awful.  (He adopts a condescending grin.)  Tusconians, am I right?

Me:  I’m not following you.

>>Him:  Oh just this town.  Full of uneducated people.  Most of the out-of-staters agree.

At this point, I am slightly annoyed.  My parents and both of my sisters and their respective families live in Tucson.  Now, I have a generally low opinion of people everywhere and it really has nothing to do with geography or education, but more along the lines of people’s natural arrogance and self-righteousness–and I am getting waves of it from this guy.

Me:  Well, people are bad everywhere I guess.

>>Him:  You have to admit the education level and ignorance of people here is pretty amazing.

Me:  Are you from here?

>>Him (shocked that I would say such a thing):  No, I am from [some small city in Illinois].  But I see a lot of things there that are the same here.  I am just here at the university where I can be with smart people.

Me:  Smart people aren’t always the answer.  Our last ten presidents are college-educated and look where that’s gotten us.

>>Him (getting upset):  Well, I meant graduate level education.

Me:  What does that have to do with anything?

And this part is forever etched in my mind, so it is a direct quote:

>>Him: Well, you’re just showing your anti-intellectualism.  Good luck with that.

He turned his back on me and started fiddling with his phone.

Let’s set aside that it takes a particular breed of jerkass to engage someone you don’t know in conversation, find out they think different than you, then insult them and turn your back on them.  He’s lucky I’m not a lunatic.

(Muse: ?)

Okay, a complete lunatic.

I was completely taken aback by his audacity–so much so that I could only stammer out that I had a graduate level degree and I knew what I was talking about.  He chose to ignore me.  About then, the doors opened and they started seating people for the panel.

In retrospect, I had a whole bunch of things I wish I had said to him.  In retro-retrospect, I am glad I didn’t waste my time.

What drives someone to walk around with a diploma-sized chip on their shoulder, judging other people based on the size of their education?  Arrogance, certainly.  Inflated self-esteem would be another.  But I think also insecurity.

This guy was nothing to look at.  Short.  Bald.  A crop of nose hair the size of the Amazon.  Knowing my wife’s tastes, she would have called him ugly.  Was it Napoleon syndrome?  Sneering down his nose at his “lessers” because of some accolade displayed by a group of other people?  Is that a way for him to displace his self-doubt about his own aspects, physical or otherwise?

Dirty secret:  I do have a Master’s Degree, in atmospheric physics.  It was a lot of work but at no time did I ever think that inherently made me “better” than anyone else.  I didn’t elevate myself to another plane simply because a group of people decided that I was cool enough to join their club–which is frankly all advanced degrees are.  You pay your dues and deference to your committee and they decide to let you in.  And if you think I am wrong, I can point to lot of individuals with advanced degrees that are frankly dumb as a bag of bowling balls.  They just kow-towed to the right positions in their field of study.

I will take two examples I know personally.  They both have doctorates from the same discipline.  One is a genuine good person.  That person is a little arrogant but I think that is outgrowth from their abundance of self-confidence (they were the same way, or worse, when they were younger and less educated).  They are also a very funny, easy-going person–moreso than me, for sure–who judges people by how they act, not how many initials are after their names.

At the other end of the extreme is someone who while very book smart, has no common sense, and is currently in some hot water for ethics violations in their field–violations that a first year entrant in the field would know well enough to steer around.  Smart but not very bright, if you catch my drift.

I am not well versed in sociocultural evolution but I do believe that a lot of human behavior can be traced to our primate roots.  Cutthroat methods of “getting ahead” via education or economics are the modern equivalent of our ancestors smashing each other in the head with an antelope thighbone.  So in some sense, I understand the guy’s arrogance.  He achieved, or is achieving, and naturally feels superior to those that haven’t.

At the same time, we aren’t apes anymore.  Western society does embrace the idea of equality and I grew up steeped in that idea.  It is hard to conceive of someone being “less” than me because they are less educated.  In my travels, I have met so many honest, hard-working people that lack a post-high school education.  These people are the ones who prop up our society.  Some people will probably pooh-pooh me, stating that our society does stratify into classes and education plays into that, yadda yadda yadda.  Okay, that’s true.  So why perpetuate it?  Why play into it?  Why not strike your own personal blow and treat people as human, even if they have less than you?  Why not show your disdain to those who do?

So to have some smarmy little weasel stand in front of me, acting as though his education made him something special … yeah, it pushed my buttons.  He wasn’t special.  He could have disappeared off the planet and the universe would have hummed on, unperturbed.

Muse:  You fantasized about making him disappear, didn’t you?

You know me too well.  Sometimes we would do well to get in touch with our ape roots.  He’s lucky I have a check on my berserker heritage (mostly) and didn’t have a thighbone handy.

I am not against education (in principle; there is a ton of indoctrination passed off as education.)  But neither do I believe it is a guarantee of having a high-quality person on your hands.  So if I judging individuals based on their own merits, rather than paying homage to their “credentials” makes me an anti-intellectual, then so be it.

I prefer to think of myself as anti-pretentious-asshole.

Ethics of Writing and Publishing

So ….

There is a book review site known as Dear Author, which reviews (as near as I can tell) contemporary young adult romance.  The site is run by a woman named Jane Litte and every posts multiple books reviews and related news blurbs.  The site pulls no punches on reviews.  Just a few days ago, a book was given a grade of “D,” and this is not unusual.

Litte is no stranger to trouble.  From the quick Google scan I did, I see that she was banned from the association Romance Writers of America, a 10k+-strong alliance of romance authors, for bad behavior.  She’s been involved in kerfluffles with authors several times (the blog Stop the Goodreads Bullies has a whole file on Litte).  None of this is surprising or unusual but the next part might be.

Dear Author is the subject of a lawsuit by the publisher Ellora’s Cave.  Details of the lawsuit are not pertinent for this post but during the process, it came out that Jane Litte writes under the nom de plume Jen Frederick and under that name has, apparently, been moving in writer circles under the radar.  Litte explained herself in a long letter a few days back (found here).

Well, well, well.  You know, I have issue with this.

Muse:  I’m shocked.

First of all, it is hard for me to argue with anything written in this excellent post over at the blog The Passive Voice.  To summarize, the post makes the points that:

1) There is a well-worn rule that authors should not respond to negative reviews and comments, as it looks amateurish and weak.  The blog (and I) agree with that but also points out that authors are human and like to vent their feelings.  Other circles of authors (online forums, etc.) are supposed to be safe spaces to do that.  That’s harder when the negative reviewer is lurking in that supposed safe space, posing as a friendly author … a wolf in sheep’s-clothing, as it were.  Having that reviewer in that circle, unknowingly, is not only an intrusion, but stifles discussion.

2) The brain is not a computer.  No matter how much Litte claims to have segregated her work, some bleed-over between the programs is inevitable.  Having one avoid the other is almost impossible.

3) The potential for impropriety–for promoting her own books, using internal connections, suppressing competition etc.–is almost limitless.  This is a case of perception because even if Litte completely on the up-and-up and she provides countless evidence to support that, it still smells funny.  And that odor won’t go away.  It’s a textbook case of questionable ethics.  At best, it’s unprofessional.  At worst, it’s predatory.

The best definition I have heard for integrity is this:  integrity is doing the right thing when no one is watching you.  Litte defends her right to review and write at the same time and I don’t think anyone questions her legal right to do so.  But ethically, I have an enormous problem with what she did.  The Passive Voice post I link above outlines most of it but there is more.  In my opinion, her actions lack integrity.  She didn’t lie but she didn’t admit to her separate identities until she had to.  She says she did not use direct influence but passive influence/bias exists and is hard for even the most self-aware of us to avoid.  She moved as a trusted agent in areas/circles where people felt safe to speak dissenting opinions to her public persona – and again, passively, it is very difficult to avoid letting that influence her actions.

You know, there is another post on Passive Voice about the Dear Author/Ellora’s Cave lawsuit.  In private conversations between authors, comments about the case may be discoverable because of Litte’s undercover involvement in the circle’s discussion.  If Ellora’s Cave was mentioned, the information may be subject to testimony or even subpoena, and so might the authors.  Litte’s hidden involvement now puts other people in the crosshairs of a lawsuit–an unintended consequence of her actions.

Litte may well survive this and keep on writing and reviewing.  But I think all this will damage her on both fronts.  And it could have been avoided if she had been more forthcoming.  It might have been harder at first for her but it would have been easier than the scrutiny she’s now under.  When I was growing up, my father used to say, “You can pay now or pay later but sooner or later, everyone pays.”

Litte elected to pay later.  And now she is.

Is it Safe to Come Out?

This article over at Tor on Neil Gaiman’s collection of short stories Trigger Warning asks a really excellent question.  The article reviews some of the stories and talks about Gaiman’s works but for me, the payoff comes at the very end, from a quote from Gaiman:

‘We build stories in our heads’, writes Gaiman. ‘We take words, and we give them power, and we look out through other eyes, and we see, and experience, what they see. I wonder, Are fictions safe places? And then I ask myself, Should they be safe places?’

So simple yet so profound.  Are works of fiction safe–and should they be? I am going to take the side of “no,” works of fiction are not obligated to be safe places for the reader.  At the same time, the author is under no obligation to challenge the reader.  But wait, how can that dichotomy be?  Well, let me try to explain.

In my experience, the best lessons in life come not from the classroom or the laboratory, but from the world.  Someone can be told about love, terror, despair, joy, and triumph.  Someone can have their assertions and biases challenged in an academic setting.  Someone can watch a slideshow the best way to drive a car.  None of those are as effective as actually driving.  Or interacting with someone that knocks their preconceived notions off a pedestal.  Or loving, fearing, despairing, being overjoyed, or winning over an obstacle. And I think that is what successful stories do.  They draw the reader inside and tap into those deep emotions seated in the back of our lizard brains.  We experience the wins and losses of the protagonist.  We anguish alongside them at their heartbreaks, and feel that delightful schadenfreude at their revenges.

But here’s the thing:  change is hard.  Change is scary.  We’re creatures of habit.  We resist change.  At some level, if we knew before reading a book or watching a movie that we’d experience such intense emotions, on some level we shy away.  It’s a danger to our states of mind and we do move away from danger.  But fiction should be allowed to challenge us, to make us look inward, make us reflect and feel.  After all, it is only through change that we grow.

Then one might ask the question, “Should fiction be obligated to challenge the reader?  Should fiction always be an unsafe place?”  Well, no.  That is entirely in the hands of the author.  For all the intensity and haunting imagery felt by the reader, it is felt by the writer first.  A quote about peering into the abyss seems appropriate here.  I’ve written some pretty dark and disturbing stuff, to the point where even good friends and family members have asked, “What is wrong with you?”  (Good question, guys.)  So, if on the chance I want to write something cliched and traditional, where not only will I not make the reader unsafe, I will not make it unsafe for myself, why can I not do that?  Can I tell a story where there is no great moral imperative or raging torrent of emotional energy?  Yes, it might make the story a little, for lack of a better word, boring.  Maybe.  But is that my right as the author? I like to read stories that challenge my assumptions, as long as I don’t feel lectured.  I also like reading something predictable and safe.  And I should be able to.  It’s comfort food for the mind and sometimes, you just have to do something kind for yourself.  Otherwise, why do anything?

So anyway, rambling thoughts for early on a Wednesday morning.  As always, comments, dissenting thoughts, and insults are always welcome.

One Space or Two? That is the Question….

So….

Recently, I made a submission and for the first time I can recall seeing, the submission guidelines explicitly called for the submission to only have a single space between sentences.  There was a blurb in the guidelines about the two-space paradigm being put in the grave, and then the guidelines move on to other issues.

But that got me thinking.

As I write this entry this morning, almost every writing article or grammar guide I can find on the subject says that single-spacing is the way to go.  Most of the articles I can find on the subject have a light condescending touch to them (such as this article from Writer’s Digest, which says, “Sorry two-spaces, it’s time to make the switch.”)  As if the information is something that is so obvious it can be seen from space.

Muse:  I see what you did there.

Some of the argument comes down to improvements in typography.  I concur that with realistically-spaced fonts (pretty much all of them these days) replacing old-style typewriter fonts (like Courier), where each letter took the same amount of room in a line, make the two-spacing less of a necessity than it used to be.  That is a more compelling argument than any other.  Some of the arguments also seem to come down to aesthetics or time-saving, in the effort of reducing keystrokes.

Let me go ahead and say this:  to any writers or typists out there that are still engaged in the double-spacing habit, I fully recommend that you break the habit and get used to one space.  It will make your lives easier when dealing with the rest of the publishing world.  If nothing else, make friends with the Find & Replace commands (CTL-H in Word) and replace your double-taps with single spaces before you submit.  (Example on how to do so found here.)

But now I say precisely why I am not going to do that.

First of all, I find the aesthetics argument unconvincing.  I have been to museums of modern art and witnessed what has been labeled “fine art.”  This is stuff I would have labeled as offenses against nature.  Modern home decor is, to my eyes, bland, unappealing, and soulless.  Not interested in sterile living; my cozy country decor is much more comfortable.  Facial piercings have wide appeal but I am not interested in having my own.  Aesthetics are a purely personal decision.  So who the heck are they to tell me what’s visually appealing and what isn’t?  I can read single-spaced text well enough but I find it cramped and jumbled, especially in a small font.  Two spaces feels more regimented and natural to me.  The “rightness” of this is based on the opinion of people and as I have said many times, people can and usually do fail.  They are wrong.  They are arrogant about the rightness of their beliefs.  Millions of people watch reality television.  Does its popularity make it “right” and “good”  Trends come and go; what is proper today is passe tomorrow and the rules, like most fad rules, are capricious and unpredictable.  So I am bucking the “popular” trend and going with what is comfortable and appealing to my eyes.

Second, all of the articles I read provided themselves an escape hatch by saying that two spaces is acceptable for those uniformly-space fonts, like Courier.   Standard Manuscript Format (SMF, also known as Shunn format in  many spec-fiction circles) is still considered the standard for formatting submission to many magazines, including a good portion of the professional market.  Well, guess what?  Shunn format recommends submissions be in Times New Roman …. or COURIER!  In other words, one of the two acceptable fonts for a sizable chunk of the market is of that dreaded type that needs a double-spacing.  Granted, many markets that take online submissions are moving away from rigid formatting guidelines.  It’s pretty easy to reformat a lot of packages and if they are having trouble, mags can always send it back to the author and ask for formatting changes.  Even so, pretty telling that the standard for submissions retains the old way of doing business.

But that brings me to my third point.  If an editor really likes a story, how hard is it to do the copy-n-replace I mentioned above?  It isn’t.

Muse:  But what if–

Yes, it is possible that the editor may not elect to read through the story because of a double-spacing format.  That is the risk one takes by persisting with the old ways, which is why I recommended above that nobody do that.  I think a writer wants to be in the business of minimizing risk and giving their story every possible break.  At the same time, if editors are really hard over on this, it will be in their submission guidelines.  I think when you start trying to second-guess an editor’s intentions, you don’t improve your odds.  For every time you guess right, you probably have a guess that puts you out of the running.  So it is best to follow the guidelines explicitly.  If it says SMF or Shunn format, then the editor gets my double-spaced Courier submission.

Last–and this is more of a meta-argument than a direct rebuke to the single-space mafia–what is the point of communication, really?  Is it to be beholden to a set of rules?  Or is to beam a message the recipient?  Now, I agree, we do need a some uniformity to prevent the Balkanization of the language (where every subgroup splinters their dialect away further and further until they no longer resemble the original or each other).  But where is that line?  Language is constantly evolving with society.  “Email” did not exist as an acceptable word thirty years ago.  “Automobile” did not 130 years ago.  Saying the two-space rule is right and that’s final is as ridiculous as the rule about the salad fork being on the left.  As far as concrete tangible effects on the world, what the hell difference does it make?  Seriously?  The text is still readable.  You can argue that people used to double-space can be trained to read single-space easier.  Well, the inverse works too, so I find few convincing reasons to abandon the double-space, short of an editor’s guidelines.   Besides, the way the semi-sneering attitude taken by many who hold this position ruffles my feathers to no end, as if it’s a moral imperative on the order of “Thou shalt not kill.”  One person quoted in the Slate article above referred to double-spacers as “amateur typists.”  (I had a vision of this woman in black cocktail dress, gently swirling a glass of wine as she circled her debutante ball and sneered about poor people in her nasal Martha’s Vineyard voice.)  Holier-than-thou folks, inside writing circles or out, make my fingers curl into fists.  If they are for something, I automatically lean the other way.

Anyway, those are my rambling thoughts.  Feel free to pipe in and disagree.  I the meantime, I am sticking with my two spaces.  Where necessary, I will change my format to one.  As for the rest?  Oft-quoted philosopher Henry David Thoreau exhorted his readers to seek justice and rebuke the government as a matter of conscience but to also be prepared for the consequences of doing so.  I might cost myself a sale with my intransigence.

But it is my position and I will stand with it as long as I can.

Muse:  You would have bought yourself less trouble arguing about the Oxford comma.

Maybe next time.

But I Wanna Throw a Tantrum!

Sometimes, authors want to throw a fit. I always wonder why they do.

I wonder what authors are thinking when I see things like this.  The instinct to defend oneself from biting words is natural but the reality is this:  if you work in any kind of artistic or entertainment industry, there is going to be someone who does not like your work.  Always. Even the consensus best works of all time have their detractors.  And the way the western world is structured, legally, if they don’t like it, those detractors are allowed to say so.  Loudly.  Profanely.  In the most scathing and insulting manner they can.  And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

As I see it, an author has three options when they chance on bad reviews of their work:

1) engage with the reviewer and either a) get in a pissing contest, where they will always look like a loser (the saying about wrestling a pig in mud comes to mind) or b) try to respond nicely which–while okay–is probably giving the reviewer exactly what they want:  fuel to keep slinging poo.
2) Let it chew you up and obsess on it until you curl into the fetal position on the floor, mumbling the reviewer’s name over and over.
3) Or develop a thick skin and get back to work.

In just the last few months, there have been some big hacking scandals, where dozens of celebrities (mostly actresses) have had nude photos of themselves released.  Putting aside the violations and intrusions of their privacy, I have not heard a single one say they were going to stop acting because of it.  They nut up and soldier on.  If I can’t do the same when someone basically says my work sucks and so do I (which has happened) then I need to hand in my author card.

If you read a bad review of your work, my recommendation is:
– Defer the hurt.  Ignore it.
– Look to see if there is any truth in what they wrote.  This is the hardest but most crucial part for a writer: self-honesty.  If someone says only a fat moron would write a plot this trite with all these Oprah-sized holes, ask yourself:  is it trite?  Are there holes?
– Pick up a pen and get back to writing,
– If you still hurt, get a punching bag or go for a hike.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

D&D Player Loses Bet, Summons Satan

Saint Bernie, MN –  A college student at Whatsamatter U was playing Dungeons and Dragons Friday night when apparently a bet went wrong and was forced to summon the Prince of Darkness in a spectacle involving a pentagram, the blood of a freshly-killed cat, and a topless virgin coed.  According to witnesses, the spell was temporarily halted while the campus was scoured for a virgin.  Upon completion of the spell, Satan himself arrived at the dorm room and threatened the players with the most unholy vengeance before stealing the remaining beer and vanishing in a puff of smoke.

The Saint Bernie Police Department was notified about the potential animal abuse and states they have launched an investigation.

No charges will be filed against Satan.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Silly, yes.  But hardly any more so than the feeling I had on reading this article on Tor.com about the “Summer of Sleaze.”  The article discusses the foofaraw surrounding the “disappearance” of college student James Egbert, which was blamed on him being a player of Dungeons and Dragons.  Never mind that he was found living in another state months later (though he did tragically commit suicide); having the narrative out there that this fantasy game was poisoning the minds of young people was just too tantalizing for the social crusaders of the day.  Jack Chick (surprise, surprise) had a field day with this.

This was hardly new, of course.  Fred Wertham penned Seduction of the Innocent back in 1954, warning that comic books were corrupting the children of America and right about the same time, Elvis Presley’s swinging hips were too risque for that newfangled media of television.  In the ’80s, it was about rap music.  More recently, it has been about violence in video games.  At every turn of cultural development, there is someone waiting to stand up and scream, “Not on my watch!”, though it is, of course, debatable how much of it is “their” watch.  After all, culture is a shared experience, not one cuckoo-cloudlander’s personal preference.

Back to the point.  Egbert’s so-called disappearance spawned a whole series of books regaling people on the evils of role-playing games.  There was an even an atrocious movie based on one of the books, Mazes and Monsters (starring a young Tom Hanks).  For a bit, the whole country was awash with this nonsense.

I played D&D as a kid.  I read comic books.  I read spec fiction now and have read some pretty horrifying stuff, and even written a little.  And you know what?  I turned out okay.

Muse:  You sure about that?

Yes.  I didn’t turn into an amoral killer.  I don’t do drugs.  I don’t worship Satan.  I lead a normal life and so do all of the other people I know who engaged in these activities.

It’s about the twin dragons of insecurity and the need for importance that drives the people to pick up the sword and prattle on.  And they are dangerous as far I am concerned-more dangerous than some teenage rolling dice in a basement somewhere.  This whole type of malarkey puts me in mind of the C.S. Lewis quote:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

True dat.

And to anyone who agrees with stemming the tide of moral decay and decadence, I say this:

There is a great thing about living in the western world in the 21st century:  you have the freedom to not give a crap what anyone else is doing.  If you see something annoying on TV, change the channel.  If you read something that is abhorrent to your values, put it down.  If you see artwork that offends your spiritual convictions, walk away.

But please spare us the theatrics and righteousness of forcing your “proper” views on the rest of us.  Spend that time doing something nice for yourself, since you, like the rest of us, will be nothing but food for worms in sixty years.  Enjoy your worm-free existence while you can.

Muse:  Where did that come from?

Someone pushed one of my censorship buttons today.  Sorry, I’ll calm down by the next installment.