I will probably not be updating again this weekend, but I didn't want to leave you all with nothing. Check out this post on my literary journal's website to see some of the writing and art blogs I use for inspiration and information.
See you next week!
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Self-Publishing
After my slightly feisty (okay, really feisty) post yesterday about Garrison Keillor's technophobia and elitism, I decided I should take a day to write about the self-publishing industry itself and what makes it so interesting and so challenging.
As someone who is heavily involved with the self-publishing scene, I am constantly trying to learn more about it. I'm always looking for solutions to problems I've had in the past and attempting to find the best possible way to produce my literary journal, Leaves & Flowers.
Self-publishing is an intense process for the writers who take it seriously. And these are the people I want to focus on.
Serious Self-Publishers
The people who are serious about self-publishing are the ones who are going to succeed.
Garrison Keillor -and anyone who knocks on self-publishing as a whole -assume that writers who self-publish simply find the first ebook website they can, slap an unpolished manuscript up onto it and flood the market with crap that nobody wants. That's simply not how it works.
The people who are serious about their writing -people who have written a number of books, perhaps published in the traditional way, have a degree in something related to writing, or are dedicated to and in love with their craft -are not going to just throw their novel up on a website without any planning.
While self-publishing and traditional publishing both have their challenges, self-publishing is just as difficult as going the "normal" route, and it has very unique challenges. The writer becomes much more than just a writer:
Those of us who choose to self-publish are not always in it because the manuscript "wasn't good enough" for a big publisher. And if it wasn't, it won't sell. Self-publishing, like traditional publishing, is a market. People who learn how to work the market effectively are going to succeed. They might not have a breakaway best-seller or a New York Times Book Review (yet!), but that's because this is a new market. It's just learning how to walk. Give it a few years, and it will be running faster than you can imagine.
I love it when I see authors who are willing to take the plunge and self-publish. It's risky, it's ballsy and it is more likely to fail. But it is also the up-and-comer, the next big thing. Getting in on it now and learning the ropes is an investment. Self-publishing is riding the new technology of ebooks and ereaders and the influx of self-publishing outlets in a way that the industry doesn't understand. And in the end, that's going to be their loss.
A Community of Writers
Those of us who self-publish form a very tight-knit community. People are more willing to interact, buy each others' books, promote one another and make friends. We play well with others, because taking the route of self-publishing requires you to engage with your community. Self-published authors can be cranky, argumentative and bitter, just like anybody, but on the whole, we are driven to help one another.
Traditionally published authors have a similar community, I'm sure, but it's always inspiring to me to see how much self-publishing authors are willing to do for one another. Building a fan base is part of succeeding, but it goes far beyond that in the self-publishing world: these writers build a community, too.
Conclusion
I have nattered on long enough for now. Self-publishing is a force to be reckoned with. It's like fire: if you learn how to use it and control it, you can make art. If you're just playing with it, which Garrison Keillor and his ilk assume is all we know how to do, you can be eaten alive. It's a challenge, and it's one that any serious writer should consider taking on.
As someone who is heavily involved with the self-publishing scene, I am constantly trying to learn more about it. I'm always looking for solutions to problems I've had in the past and attempting to find the best possible way to produce my literary journal, Leaves & Flowers.
Self-publishing is an intense process for the writers who take it seriously. And these are the people I want to focus on.
Serious Self-Publishers
The people who are serious about self-publishing are the ones who are going to succeed.
Garrison Keillor -and anyone who knocks on self-publishing as a whole -assume that writers who self-publish simply find the first ebook website they can, slap an unpolished manuscript up onto it and flood the market with crap that nobody wants. That's simply not how it works.
The people who are serious about their writing -people who have written a number of books, perhaps published in the traditional way, have a degree in something related to writing, or are dedicated to and in love with their craft -are not going to just throw their novel up on a website without any planning.
While self-publishing and traditional publishing both have their challenges, self-publishing is just as difficult as going the "normal" route, and it has very unique challenges. The writer becomes much more than just a writer:
- Editing falls on the writer's shoulders, unless she is willing to pay someone hundreds or even thousands of dollars for a professional edit. Many writers do opt for this, because a polished manuscript is essential for sales.
- Designing the interior and exterior is also the writer's responsibility. For writers with no design experience, this can be a huge challenge as they experiment with different formats. The cover is one of the most important parts of selling a book online, because people do judge books by their cover -we all know it. Again, many writers choose to hire someone to do the designing for them, which is very expensive.
- Finding a printer is the writer's responsibility. A self-publishing author cannot simply hand the manuscript over to a publisher and know that the publisher owns or works with a printing press. The writer must seek out the best quality printer -and sometimes reformat a book to fit their specifications. Printing self-published books is expensive, especially if you order multiple proof copies (for example: I ended up needing three separate proofs of the latest issue of Leaves & Flowers; each one cost me $15. $45 for one issue is a huge amount of money to a broke college student -for a professional writer, that number could rapidly get much, much larger).
- Marketing and publicity are the responsibility of a writer. Many traditionally published writers are involved with their publicity -and many receive none at all -but in self-publishing, the risks are much greater. All of the marketing experience available to big publishers is unavailable to self-published authors, who are often working totally alone, promoting their books on Twitter, Facebook and other websites in order to create a fan base.
- Self-published writers receive no advances, have no agents and often lack experience in the publishing field. It is a steep, steep learning curve.
Those of us who choose to self-publish are not always in it because the manuscript "wasn't good enough" for a big publisher. And if it wasn't, it won't sell. Self-publishing, like traditional publishing, is a market. People who learn how to work the market effectively are going to succeed. They might not have a breakaway best-seller or a New York Times Book Review (yet!), but that's because this is a new market. It's just learning how to walk. Give it a few years, and it will be running faster than you can imagine.
I love it when I see authors who are willing to take the plunge and self-publish. It's risky, it's ballsy and it is more likely to fail. But it is also the up-and-comer, the next big thing. Getting in on it now and learning the ropes is an investment. Self-publishing is riding the new technology of ebooks and ereaders and the influx of self-publishing outlets in a way that the industry doesn't understand. And in the end, that's going to be their loss.
A Community of Writers
Those of us who self-publish form a very tight-knit community. People are more willing to interact, buy each others' books, promote one another and make friends. We play well with others, because taking the route of self-publishing requires you to engage with your community. Self-published authors can be cranky, argumentative and bitter, just like anybody, but on the whole, we are driven to help one another.
Traditionally published authors have a similar community, I'm sure, but it's always inspiring to me to see how much self-publishing authors are willing to do for one another. Building a fan base is part of succeeding, but it goes far beyond that in the self-publishing world: these writers build a community, too.
Conclusion
I have nattered on long enough for now. Self-publishing is a force to be reckoned with. It's like fire: if you learn how to use it and control it, you can make art. If you're just playing with it, which Garrison Keillor and his ilk assume is all we know how to do, you can be eaten alive. It's a challenge, and it's one that any serious writer should consider taking on.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Garrison Keillor: Technophobe
Garrison Keillor showed his true colors in his column in the Baltimore Sun. By falling into that ever-so-cliched and offensive trap of the big-name writer, he not only lost a fan in me, he also revealed even more about the problems with the industry. What did he do?
He bagged on about all of the evils and horrors of the rise of self-publishing. No, I am not kidding. He claims that when everyone can publish their own work, no one will ever read it, it will all be poor quality, the publishing industry is going down in flames and oh my god people can publish their own books!
He has perfectly illustrated the mindset that so irritated us youngsters when our grandparents chided us for wanting cars to go to school. "Back in the day," he says, "we became writers through the laying on of hands. Some teacher who we worshiped touched our shoulder, and this benediction saw us through a hundred defeats." As though writers who go the self-publishing route have no love of language, no obsession with the telling of stories, no desire to succeed at all costs -and self-publishing, my friends, is costly.
He writes that 'back in his day,' authors had to work for their publishing deals -practically write in their own blood and sacrifice their children at the altar of the great god Literature. "Self-publishing will destroy the aura of martyrdom that writers have enjoyed for centuries," he tells us. Nobody likes a martyr anyway, so I'm failing to see how that's a bad thing.
Additionally, the very fact that big names in the traditional industry whine about self-publishers as though we are out to get them and destroy literature is a huge contributor to the failure of that very industry. Instead of working with self-publishers and self-publishing outlets to help improve the quality of writing and the access of writers to editors (who Keillor clearly assumes are an endangered species), the publishing industry runs around flapping its hands and refusing to adjust to the new model of the writing world. Technology marches on, you guys. Get on board and make it work for you, or become obsolete. People once thought the pen would be the downfall of academia. While academia certainly has its issues, none of them are pen-related. Stop hand-flapping and learn about the technology before you bash it.
But let's get on to to the meat of my complaint:
Not all self-published authors are the same.
By tarring all self-pubs with the same brush (namely that self-pubs are ignorant of the market and the conventions of writing, lacking the sense of martyrdom Keillor says is required for a proper author, and clearly holding the idea that not having to go through the exact same process he did means that whatever a self-pubber produces is obviously going to be garbage), Keillor discredits thousands of authors -like my friend Renda, to name just one -who have worked their way into the market, fighting tooth and nail every step of the way.
Yes, there certainly are people out there who will write a book, slap it up on an ebook site with no editing, no design knowledge or marketing tools and sell very few copies, mostly to blood relatives. Maybe that's what some people want -to share a book, perhaps a family story, with, you know, family. Other authors will simply lack the knowledge to market and design a book, and they will fail. But that is not the entirety of the self-publishing market, although Keillor would desperately like you to believe that it is.
There certainly are quality control issues with self-publishing. It is entirely possible to miss something in the editing process. I have done it myself, much to my everlasting embarrassment. It's a steep, steep learning curve, this self-publishing thing. It's a lot harder than traditional publishing, because the individual is writer, agent, editor, marketer, designer, type-setter and publisher all in one -and it all comes out of the author's own pocket. With traditional publishing, you polish and polish and hire an agent and work with that person to navigate a deal, and then maybe do some of the marketing to help earn back the advance that self-publishing writers sure aren't going to get.
This technophobic attitude is infuriating, because it is narrow-minded and ignorant of what it actually means to self-publish. Writers who are serious about the process often hire an agency -like DuoLit, who also did a blog post about the hatred directed at self-publishing writers -to help them during the process. And it's expensive. Upwards of $2,000 for a single book. That's not something that a hobbyist is going to go for. To get the services you need to make a good, professional, well-edited book, you have to be serious about it.
And the people who aren't -the people Garrison Keillor assumes make up the entirety of the self-publishing world -won't get read. If they don't learn the skills they need, or pay someone to provide them with those skills or knowledge, then their book will sit in obscurity on a digital shelf, unsold. Rather like books produced by, oh, say, the traditional publishing industry that don't sell well because they're terrible (it happens, although Keillor would like us all to believe that every traditionally published book is a triumph of literary and philosophical prowess).
To be a self-published author -a good one -takes time, it takes skill, energy and dedication; this is something most authors who succeed at self-publishing have in spades. They simply chose to go a different route. And different, according to Keillor, is bad. Very bad indeed.
Keillor protests that he is not an elitist at a couple of points throughout the column. And yet, his attitude is unmistakable: Oh say it isn't so -the philistines can publish books now. Wherever are my smelling salts and fainting couch? Verily, it is the downfall of all things literary. Nothing good can come of this. We are your readers and your paycheck, Keillor, we of the self-publishing market, and we are not pleased to be so disparaged.
We are simply choosing to earn our literary keep in a way that allows us to ride the wave of technology. If you fear that, fine. Cling to the old, dying model and shake your fist at us dang kids as we ride by in our shiny new ebooks, continuing to tell stories and spread them to those who need and want them, just as real writers have always done.
He bagged on about all of the evils and horrors of the rise of self-publishing. No, I am not kidding. He claims that when everyone can publish their own work, no one will ever read it, it will all be poor quality, the publishing industry is going down in flames and oh my god people can publish their own books!
He has perfectly illustrated the mindset that so irritated us youngsters when our grandparents chided us for wanting cars to go to school. "Back in the day," he says, "we became writers through the laying on of hands. Some teacher who we worshiped touched our shoulder, and this benediction saw us through a hundred defeats." As though writers who go the self-publishing route have no love of language, no obsession with the telling of stories, no desire to succeed at all costs -and self-publishing, my friends, is costly.
He writes that 'back in his day,' authors had to work for their publishing deals -practically write in their own blood and sacrifice their children at the altar of the great god Literature. "Self-publishing will destroy the aura of martyrdom that writers have enjoyed for centuries," he tells us. Nobody likes a martyr anyway, so I'm failing to see how that's a bad thing.
Additionally, the very fact that big names in the traditional industry whine about self-publishers as though we are out to get them and destroy literature is a huge contributor to the failure of that very industry. Instead of working with self-publishers and self-publishing outlets to help improve the quality of writing and the access of writers to editors (who Keillor clearly assumes are an endangered species), the publishing industry runs around flapping its hands and refusing to adjust to the new model of the writing world. Technology marches on, you guys. Get on board and make it work for you, or become obsolete. People once thought the pen would be the downfall of academia. While academia certainly has its issues, none of them are pen-related. Stop hand-flapping and learn about the technology before you bash it.
But let's get on to to the meat of my complaint:
Not all self-published authors are the same.
By tarring all self-pubs with the same brush (namely that self-pubs are ignorant of the market and the conventions of writing, lacking the sense of martyrdom Keillor says is required for a proper author, and clearly holding the idea that not having to go through the exact same process he did means that whatever a self-pubber produces is obviously going to be garbage), Keillor discredits thousands of authors -like my friend Renda, to name just one -who have worked their way into the market, fighting tooth and nail every step of the way.
Yes, there certainly are people out there who will write a book, slap it up on an ebook site with no editing, no design knowledge or marketing tools and sell very few copies, mostly to blood relatives. Maybe that's what some people want -to share a book, perhaps a family story, with, you know, family. Other authors will simply lack the knowledge to market and design a book, and they will fail. But that is not the entirety of the self-publishing market, although Keillor would desperately like you to believe that it is.
There certainly are quality control issues with self-publishing. It is entirely possible to miss something in the editing process. I have done it myself, much to my everlasting embarrassment. It's a steep, steep learning curve, this self-publishing thing. It's a lot harder than traditional publishing, because the individual is writer, agent, editor, marketer, designer, type-setter and publisher all in one -and it all comes out of the author's own pocket. With traditional publishing, you polish and polish and hire an agent and work with that person to navigate a deal, and then maybe do some of the marketing to help earn back the advance that self-publishing writers sure aren't going to get.
This technophobic attitude is infuriating, because it is narrow-minded and ignorant of what it actually means to self-publish. Writers who are serious about the process often hire an agency -like DuoLit, who also did a blog post about the hatred directed at self-publishing writers -to help them during the process. And it's expensive. Upwards of $2,000 for a single book. That's not something that a hobbyist is going to go for. To get the services you need to make a good, professional, well-edited book, you have to be serious about it.
And the people who aren't -the people Garrison Keillor assumes make up the entirety of the self-publishing world -won't get read. If they don't learn the skills they need, or pay someone to provide them with those skills or knowledge, then their book will sit in obscurity on a digital shelf, unsold. Rather like books produced by, oh, say, the traditional publishing industry that don't sell well because they're terrible (it happens, although Keillor would like us all to believe that every traditionally published book is a triumph of literary and philosophical prowess).
To be a self-published author -a good one -takes time, it takes skill, energy and dedication; this is something most authors who succeed at self-publishing have in spades. They simply chose to go a different route. And different, according to Keillor, is bad. Very bad indeed.
Keillor protests that he is not an elitist at a couple of points throughout the column. And yet, his attitude is unmistakable: Oh say it isn't so -the philistines can publish books now. Wherever are my smelling salts and fainting couch? Verily, it is the downfall of all things literary. Nothing good can come of this. We are your readers and your paycheck, Keillor, we of the self-publishing market, and we are not pleased to be so disparaged.
We are simply choosing to earn our literary keep in a way that allows us to ride the wave of technology. If you fear that, fine. Cling to the old, dying model and shake your fist at us dang kids as we ride by in our shiny new ebooks, continuing to tell stories and spread them to those who need and want them, just as real writers have always done.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The Body Finder
Today I want to write about The Body Finder and the idea of showing, not telling. I can already hear some of you whining, "But we know about that! That's so basic!" Well, stick with me. It's clear that this is a lesson writers still need to learn, myself included.
Show-don't-tell (SDT from now on) is something I struggle with, because I have a desire to over-explain things. I like making sure my readers know precisely what I mean, probably because I am argumentative and prefer to cover all points as explicitly as possible. With a blog and in academic papers, that's not a bad policy.
In fiction (and creative non-fiction), that's a very bad policy indeed. It leaves you with sentences like, "He was angry -very angry." Excuse me while I grab a pillow and take a snooze on that sentence.
How about this one? "His hands were clenched so tight that little half-moon cuts showed up in his palms."
That is an angry fellow. I would be sitting up and paying attention if that sentence was used. Telling a reader that someone is experiencing X is so much less engaging than showing a reader how X is being experienced.
So, on to The Body Finder and how SDT is related.
I don't read a lot of YA. It's not really my go-to genre -it's not that I don't like it, but I'm definitely not the target demographic. I generally enjoy what YA books I do pick up, but it's not a genre I actively seek out.
That being said, I have a question for avid readers of YA: Is it common practice for many YA writers to use italics to show a reader that something is important -very important -throughout most of a book? I suspect that it's not, because the SDT rule holds true in all creative writing, YA included; I have a feeling that the italics issue might be limited to a few books, like The Body Finder.
I will elaborate on it, but my main point today is this: If you have to use italics to show strong emotion or denote importance, you're doing it wrong. (By "it" I mean writing).
Using italics seems to me to be the very essence of breaking the SDT rule: you are telling people that something is important by setting it apart from the rest of the font -not by giving readers any details as to why this something is significant. That's a problem in a couple of big ways.
The Body Finder has the worst case of italics overload I've ever seen. At minimum, 1 out of every 3 pages (not including the fully italicized "interior" pages, which are italicized for a valid reason) has at least one use of italics on it. Visually, that's horrible. It also tells me, at a glance, that I am being told things and not shown them.
Take this sentence, for example: "She needed to see what was there." Okay -at this point in the story, the reader already knows that Violet has the ability to sense the 'echoes' of dead things. It's almost a compulsion for her to seek them out. But telling the reader that she needed to see something does not evoke the emotion of need -it's just a lame signifier that "ooh this is important so pay attention."
Bummer. I want to see more of Violet's struggle between her desire to find these things (people) and put them to rest, and her desire to be a normal teen. Telling me she needed something doesn't do that.
Once in a while, the use of italics can be pulled off and done well. In a book like The Body Finder, where it's used to replace emotive writing, however, it takes the story and cheapens its emotional color and its fire.
That is especially sad, because The Body Finder (apart from a few cliched characters and adverb overuse almost as bad as the italics abuse) is actually a very good story. The plot is captivating enough that I was able to deal with the italics...on my first reading. My first reading took me about two hours. My second reading took me two days, because I was so frustrated with the constant italics that I would put the book down, which is bad. (See how annoying it gets?)
Readers -what's your take on the SDT rule and italics? Do you use italics effectively in your own creative writing? If so, how? Am I being too harsh? Is italics abuse common in YA novels?
Show-don't-tell (SDT from now on) is something I struggle with, because I have a desire to over-explain things. I like making sure my readers know precisely what I mean, probably because I am argumentative and prefer to cover all points as explicitly as possible. With a blog and in academic papers, that's not a bad policy.
In fiction (and creative non-fiction), that's a very bad policy indeed. It leaves you with sentences like, "He was angry -very angry." Excuse me while I grab a pillow and take a snooze on that sentence.
How about this one? "His hands were clenched so tight that little half-moon cuts showed up in his palms."
That is an angry fellow. I would be sitting up and paying attention if that sentence was used. Telling a reader that someone is experiencing X is so much less engaging than showing a reader how X is being experienced.
So, on to The Body Finder and how SDT is related.
I don't read a lot of YA. It's not really my go-to genre -it's not that I don't like it, but I'm definitely not the target demographic. I generally enjoy what YA books I do pick up, but it's not a genre I actively seek out.
That being said, I have a question for avid readers of YA: Is it common practice for many YA writers to use italics to show a reader that something is important -very important -throughout most of a book? I suspect that it's not, because the SDT rule holds true in all creative writing, YA included; I have a feeling that the italics issue might be limited to a few books, like The Body Finder.
I will elaborate on it, but my main point today is this: If you have to use italics to show strong emotion or denote importance, you're doing it wrong. (By "it" I mean writing).
Using italics seems to me to be the very essence of breaking the SDT rule: you are telling people that something is important by setting it apart from the rest of the font -not by giving readers any details as to why this something is significant. That's a problem in a couple of big ways.
- It's distracting. I use bold/italics on my blog for emphasis because this is largely fact- and opinion-based writing, and because I want to set main points apart from the rest of the text. It is intentionally distracting. In a novel, I don't want to be distracted from the flow of the writing -it needs to pull me in and keep me there because I'm too entranced to look away. Throwing in italics every few paragraphs is visually unappealing and breaks the flow of the writing.
- It's lazy. If, as a writer, you are using italics to show that something is meaningful, you need to take a good look at why that is. It's probably because you're not using enough sensory detail to make the reader understand without having to be told. It's way simpler to use italics to tell someone this sentence is significant, but in the end, you're not really saying anything.
The Body Finder has the worst case of italics overload I've ever seen. At minimum, 1 out of every 3 pages (not including the fully italicized "interior" pages, which are italicized for a valid reason) has at least one use of italics on it. Visually, that's horrible. It also tells me, at a glance, that I am being told things and not shown them.
Take this sentence, for example: "She needed to see what was there." Okay -at this point in the story, the reader already knows that Violet has the ability to sense the 'echoes' of dead things. It's almost a compulsion for her to seek them out. But telling the reader that she needed to see something does not evoke the emotion of need -it's just a lame signifier that "ooh this is important so pay attention."
Bummer. I want to see more of Violet's struggle between her desire to find these things (people) and put them to rest, and her desire to be a normal teen. Telling me she needed something doesn't do that.
Once in a while, the use of italics can be pulled off and done well. In a book like The Body Finder, where it's used to replace emotive writing, however, it takes the story and cheapens its emotional color and its fire.
That is especially sad, because The Body Finder (apart from a few cliched characters and adverb overuse almost as bad as the italics abuse) is actually a very good story. The plot is captivating enough that I was able to deal with the italics...on my first reading. My first reading took me about two hours. My second reading took me two days, because I was so frustrated with the constant italics that I would put the book down, which is bad. (See how annoying it gets?)
Readers -what's your take on the SDT rule and italics? Do you use italics effectively in your own creative writing? If so, how? Am I being too harsh? Is italics abuse common in YA novels?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Inked, by Renda Dodge
Image Credit: Renda Dodge
My friend Renda Dodge, a two-time contributor to Leaves & Flowers and all around great writer, has just released the second edition of her novel Inked.
Some of you may remember my review of Inked from around the time of its initial release. I'll pick a few of the choice quotes, to refresh your memory and then bring in some new highlights:
First Review
Inked is about a young woman named Tori who has an undiagnosed personality disorder. She deals with it by getting a new tattoo every time there's a major shift in her life.
Tori is a fascinating character. She's rebellious, she's angry, she's scared -and she knows it, which makes the story even more interesting. Tori acknowledges her own faults throughout the story, but she's still too pissed off and frightened to allow herself much room for changing the parts of herself she doesn't like -not to say she doesn't, because she certainly does, but I got a feeling that Tori isn't ever going to totally break out of certain aspects of her personality (nor did I want her to).
Tori isn't a character I could see undergoing a traditional growth pattern in a novel -and that's definitely one of the strengths of the book; keeping Tori very much herself keeps the book human. This is not a hero story, this is a story of someone who is just a person trying to deal with their life and getting a little lost doing it. We've all been there in one way or another, and Tori reflects that back to the reader.
Updated Information
Some new things you might notice about Inked are the new cover, which is absolutely gorgeous, and it definitely adds a very visual element to the story. While I liked the abstract sort of approach to the first cover, the new cover is a picture of Tori herself, and that's great.
There are also some quotes on the book from reviewers, including one from yours truly, which makes me feel super important! :)
This second edition of Inked is a great-looking book. I encourage you to check out my initial review and buy a copy. Independent writers put a huge investment into their work, and Renda's work is totally deserving of your support. Inked is a great read, and it's not a book you will soon forget once you've picked it up.
Inked is available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Books-a-Million for your purchasing pleasure.
Facebook and Damage Control
Too little, too late. I just wanted to write a brief recap on my decision to quit Facebook from a few weeks back before I do my big blog post today, which will be much more awesome than this one.
Facebook is now scrambling to scale back the invasive privacy changes made several weeks ago, responding only belatedly to the angry public outcry about it. I see several reasons for the delay in their response: They wanted to wait and see if the complaining would die down as it always has (and to some extent, I think this probably happened) and they wanted to get as much out of the changes they made before they were forced to address them. That's speculation on my part, but given what we know about how badly Facebook treats its users, probably not wholly inaccurate.
For me, these revisions to the policy are too little, and way too late. I deleted my Facebook account about two weeks after I quit using it. I didn't deactivate it, I full-on no-holds-barred no-resurrection deleted it.
And you know what I found out? Even when you go in and go through the process of deleting it, Facebook keeps it on there for another two weeks, as though I cannot be trusted with my own decision and choices regarding my information. Given all of the recent actions of Facebook, that shouldn't have surprised me, but it did. And it made me mad.
Any chance of reconciliation between us evaporated at that point, no matter what changes they eventually decided to make.
I was a loyal user of Facebook for several years. I liked it, for the most part. I could chat with my parents and get information from groups and friends without too much effort. But that took a back seat to my concerns about the unethical and sly behaviors of Facebook. Any changes they try to make now are just a further slap in the face to people who are still using it, because we all know they'll just try to pull something else in a few months.
Conclusions
Without Facebook, I am a much more productive individual. I've been blogging regularly, writing every weekday for Suite101, getting my schoolwork done more quickly and even engaging in new creative writing endeavors. Facebook wasn't a useful tool for me anymore, and when they tried to make money off of my information, that was all it took for me to be able to say buh-bye.
Facebook is now scrambling to scale back the invasive privacy changes made several weeks ago, responding only belatedly to the angry public outcry about it. I see several reasons for the delay in their response: They wanted to wait and see if the complaining would die down as it always has (and to some extent, I think this probably happened) and they wanted to get as much out of the changes they made before they were forced to address them. That's speculation on my part, but given what we know about how badly Facebook treats its users, probably not wholly inaccurate.
For me, these revisions to the policy are too little, and way too late. I deleted my Facebook account about two weeks after I quit using it. I didn't deactivate it, I full-on no-holds-barred no-resurrection deleted it.
And you know what I found out? Even when you go in and go through the process of deleting it, Facebook keeps it on there for another two weeks, as though I cannot be trusted with my own decision and choices regarding my information. Given all of the recent actions of Facebook, that shouldn't have surprised me, but it did. And it made me mad.
Any chance of reconciliation between us evaporated at that point, no matter what changes they eventually decided to make.
I was a loyal user of Facebook for several years. I liked it, for the most part. I could chat with my parents and get information from groups and friends without too much effort. But that took a back seat to my concerns about the unethical and sly behaviors of Facebook. Any changes they try to make now are just a further slap in the face to people who are still using it, because we all know they'll just try to pull something else in a few months.
Conclusions
Without Facebook, I am a much more productive individual. I've been blogging regularly, writing every weekday for Suite101, getting my schoolwork done more quickly and even engaging in new creative writing endeavors. Facebook wasn't a useful tool for me anymore, and when they tried to make money off of my information, that was all it took for me to be able to say buh-bye.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Internet Grammar for Writers
Today, I messed up my grammar on a comment on a blog post -I used "it's" instead of the possessive "its" and I am still embarrassed. I went back and added a comment to correct myself, but it's just one of those things where I wish I was flexible enough to kick my own face. I'll settle for blushing.
Bad internet grammar is one of those things that annoys me only peripherally anymore. I hate it, but I have slowly come to realize that going, "AAAAAH! Bad grammar -augh, die, die, die!" every time I see it is a) not constructive b) not going to fix anything and c) bad for my blood pressure. I'll certainly correct myself on those rare and awful instances when I do screw it up, but I'm not going to go out of my way to correct anyone else.
I don't know if that's necessarily right or not, however. Obviously if I appointed myself High Queen Internet Guerrilla Grammarian I would never get anything else done as long as I lived, and since I do have goals aside from being online all day, that's not feasible. What I don't know is how to constructively address it, because it is a problem, at least in my eyes.
One of my biggest frustrations is when I get on a blog -especially an author's blog -and read things like "summery" instead of "summary" and confusions of it's/its (guilty myself, I know, we'll get back to that), they're/there/their, you're/your, etc.
To me, that suggests that either this author is uneducated and doesn't know the grammar rules, or she's lazy and doesn't care. Neither option is going to make me rush out and buy this person's book, that's for sure.
With Twitter I am more forgiving -typos happen. They are so easy to make. But on a blog? You have time to review it. Checking over the writing even briefly takes so little time, and it can make a huge difference in the way a random reader and potential customer perceives you. Here is where we're getting back to my screw-up this morning. The difference between a blogger/commenter with a typo I can respect and one that I can't is whether or not they address it.
Obviously on a blog, if there aren't any errors, there's nothing to address -but what that does show is attention to detail and an effort in editing. In comments, a simple "Oops! I meant 'its' instead of 'it's'!" does the trick. Just letting a glaring error sit there is awful, at least to me. It encourages all of us to be lax with our writing and our attention to detail, and as a writer, that seems like a fate worse than death.
----
What do you think? Am I too much of a stickler on this issue? Are internet grammar mistakes forgivable and acceptable because of the relaxed format of the internet, or does our appearance as writers matter more?
Bad internet grammar is one of those things that annoys me only peripherally anymore. I hate it, but I have slowly come to realize that going, "AAAAAH! Bad grammar -augh, die, die, die!" every time I see it is a) not constructive b) not going to fix anything and c) bad for my blood pressure. I'll certainly correct myself on those rare and awful instances when I do screw it up, but I'm not going to go out of my way to correct anyone else.
I don't know if that's necessarily right or not, however. Obviously if I appointed myself High Queen Internet Guerrilla Grammarian I would never get anything else done as long as I lived, and since I do have goals aside from being online all day, that's not feasible. What I don't know is how to constructively address it, because it is a problem, at least in my eyes.
One of my biggest frustrations is when I get on a blog -especially an author's blog -and read things like "summery" instead of "summary" and confusions of it's/its (guilty myself, I know, we'll get back to that), they're/there/their, you're/your, etc.
To me, that suggests that either this author is uneducated and doesn't know the grammar rules, or she's lazy and doesn't care. Neither option is going to make me rush out and buy this person's book, that's for sure.
With Twitter I am more forgiving -typos happen. They are so easy to make. But on a blog? You have time to review it. Checking over the writing even briefly takes so little time, and it can make a huge difference in the way a random reader and potential customer perceives you. Here is where we're getting back to my screw-up this morning. The difference between a blogger/commenter with a typo I can respect and one that I can't is whether or not they address it.
Obviously on a blog, if there aren't any errors, there's nothing to address -but what that does show is attention to detail and an effort in editing. In comments, a simple "Oops! I meant 'its' instead of 'it's'!" does the trick. Just letting a glaring error sit there is awful, at least to me. It encourages all of us to be lax with our writing and our attention to detail, and as a writer, that seems like a fate worse than death.
----
What do you think? Am I too much of a stickler on this issue? Are internet grammar mistakes forgivable and acceptable because of the relaxed format of the internet, or does our appearance as writers matter more?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
