THE KING'S PEACE by Jo Walton
P Nielsen Hayden
[Note crossposting.]
It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Dave Weingart
>It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
The question is, when will I have a finished copy in my local bookstore?
(Where it will, I expect, remain for about as long as my copy of A Deepness
in the Sky did, just long enough for me to get there and buy it.)
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK Consonance 2001! Urban Tapestry!
mailto:phyd...@liii.com Mike Stein! Oh, yeah, and some guy
http://www.liii.com/~phydeaux named Dave Wein-something-or-other.
ICQ 57055207 http://www.consonance.org
Nancy Lebovitz
P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>[Note crossposting.]
>
>
>It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
>
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Mary Kay Kare
> [Note crossposting.]
>
>
> It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
>
Grrr. I've finished Part 1 and am faunching for Part 2. When can we
lowly members of the public get our hands on a copy?
MKK
--
Stamp out tin toys!
Will Shetterly
P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> [Note crossposting.]
>
> It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
So, in the hope of grasping what people think is appropriate on usenet,
is this an ad? Patrick is an employee of the publisher of the book that
he's announcing; anyone who buys it will be involved in a commercial
transaction. There's no attempt to disguise the fact that he's
announcing that a product is available to buy (he didn't mention the
book's arrival in a message dedicated to something else, nor did he put
the information in his sig file).
For the record, it seems to me that messages like his are perfectly
appropriate to newsgroups devoted to written science fiction and writing
science fiction, but when it comes to what people think appropriate in a
newsgroup, my record over the last eight years or so is notably spotty.
--
"I wish I were either rich enough or poor enough to do a lot of things
that are impossible in my present comfortable circumstances." -Don
Herold
About my latest novel, CHIMERA, KIRKUS said, "from the author of the
splendid DOGLAND ...a winner."
About writing workshops given by Emma Bull and me:
www.starwatcher.org/workshops.html
Andrew Plotkin
> P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>> [Note crossposting.]
>>
>> It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
> So, in the hope of grasping what people think is appropriate on usenet,
> is this an ad?
No.
> For the record, it seems to me that messages like his are perfectly
> appropriate to newsgroups devoted to written science fiction and writing
> science fiction, but when it comes to what people think appropriate in a
> newsgroup, my record over the last eight years or so is notably spotty.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Ian A. York
Will Shetterly <shet...@bigvalley.net> wrote:
>
>So, in the hope of grasping what people think is appropriate on usenet,
>is this an ad? Patrick is an employee of the publisher of the book that
Ads are not the problem; nit-picking over whether this is an ad or not is
missing the point. Usenet is designed for dialogue and discussion; PNH's
post is part of his ongoing dialogue with the newsgroups in question.
That's in contrast to posts (including, but not limited to, ads) which are
essentially broadcast messages--designed as a one-way passage of
information. Usenet is *not* designed for that, although other aspects of
the internet are.
Hopefully contemplating this distinction will prevent cries of "It's not
fair!!!1!".
Incidentally, I've posted a comment on this distinction elsewhere, in
response to a different message; if the originator didn't see that
followup, it suggests he was sending the message as a one-way broadcast,
without intending to engage in discussion of the message.
Ian
--
Ian York (iay...@panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
Jo Walton
p...@panix.com "P Nielsen Hayden" writes:
> It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
Yipeeeeee!
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - UPDATED Interstichia; Poetry; RASFW FAQ;
THE KING'S PEACE, Tor Books, October 2000 - can be ordered now from Amazon
sample chapters on http://www.tor.com/sampleKingsPeace.html
Pete McCutchen
<shet...@bigvalley.net> wrote:
>
>
>P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>
>> [Note crossposting.]
>>
>> It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
>
>So, in the hope of grasping what people think is appropriate on usenet,
>is this an ad? Patrick is an employee of the publisher of the book that
>he's announcing; anyone who buys it will be involved in a commercial
>transaction. There's no attempt to disguise the fact that he's
>announcing that a product is available to buy (he didn't mention the
>book's arrival in a message dedicated to something else, nor did he put
>the information in his sig file).
I wondered whether you would think of that.
If you recall, I noted, in response to the issue about your alleged
infraction, that you had participated, at least occasionally, in
discussions on rec.arts.sf.written, and that I seemed to recall you
participating in sf.comp as well. Further, your statement was
arguably on-topic in sf.comp. Under those circumstances, I thought
that you were not worthy of great condemnation.
Likewise, Patrick. He's participated in both newsgroups, and the book
which he mentioned was written by a regular who was a regular before
she published the book. Under those circumstances, I think it's OK.
He's not, shall we say, using the newsgroup as his personal
advertising forum.
>
>For the record, it seems to me that messages like his are perfectly
>appropriate to newsgroups devoted to written science fiction and writing
>science fiction, but when it comes to what people think appropriate in a
>newsgroup, my record over the last eight years or so is notably spotty.
Don't let it worry you.
--
Pete McCutchen
Beth Friedman
>[Note crossposting.]
>
>It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
Yay! I'm looking forward to getting the real version.
It's listed on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble, and everything.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312872291/o/qid=968701774/sr=2-1/002-5694405-9016841
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2VB2ET9TPE&mscssid=612ES7C2H0S92HNC0017QUE8AKRKD1W3&isbn=0312872291
However, I have this gift certificate to Borders burning a hole in my
wallet, and I think I will just get my copy from them.
Congratulations, Jo!
--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com
Dan Goodman
Dave Weingart <phyd...@liii.com> wrote:
>One day in Teletubbyland, p...@panix.com said:
>>It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
I've now seen the cover art and am very favorably impressed. For once, a
female warrior whose armor/clothing actually looks practical for fighting!
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Anne M. Marble
>
> [Note crossposting.]
>
>
> It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
Yaaay! I'll be looking forward to it.
It was mentioned in the B. Dalton in-store science fiction & fantasy
newsletter. Very nice coverage -- picture (of the book) and all.
It might have been covered in the Barnes & Noble newsletter as well. I'll
have to check. (It'll give me an excuse to find more bloody books to read,
darn it.)
Mark Atwood
What does "finished" mean in this context?
--
Mark Atwood |
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
P Nielsen Hayden
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) writes:
>>
>> It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
>
>What does "finished" mean in this context?
Printed, bound, and complete with dustjacket. The actual object you'd
buy in a store -- not a proof, not an "advance reading copy."
Thomas Womack
> p...@panix.com "P Nielsen Hayden" writes:
>
> > It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
>
> Yipeeeeee!
It's not actually *out* yet, but amazon.co.uk will put a nice shiny copy on
my doorstep at 9am the day it does.
Pure self-indulgence, I know, but I believe few of the participants here are
often accused of calm restraint in the matter of long-anticipated books.
Tom
Dave Weingart
>> It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
>
>What does "finished" mean in this context?
They've all got a nice light coat of enamel.
Doug Wickstrom
>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) writes:
>>
>> It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
>
>What does "finished" mean in this context?
Printed, bound, dust-jacketed, and ready to ship, I would
imagine.
Time to walk over to Dreamhaven and reserve a copy.
--
Doug Wickstrom
"Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so
regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who
suffers, not the state." --Mark Twain
Will Shetterly
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:28:51 -0700, Will Shetterly
> <shet...@bigvalley.net> wrote:
> >
> >P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> >
> >> [Note crossposting.]
> >>
> >> It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
> >
> >So, in the hope of grasping what people think is appropriate on usenet,
> >is this an ad? Patrick is an employee of the publisher of the book that
> >he's announcing; anyone who buys it will be involved in a commercial
> >transaction. There's no attempt to disguise the fact that he's
> >announcing that a product is available to buy (he didn't mention the
> >book's arrival in a message dedicated to something else, nor did he put
> >the information in his sig file).
>
> I wondered whether you would think of that.
>
> If you recall, I noted, in response to the issue about your alleged
> infraction, that you had participated, at least occasionally, in
> discussions on rec.arts.sf.written, and that I seemed to recall you
> participating in sf.comp as well. Further, your statement was
> arguably on-topic in sf.comp. Under those circumstances, I thought
> that you were not worthy of great condemnation.
Oh, the mix of responses, both pro and con, to my announcement, has been
fascinating. I thought the announcement was appropriate in rasfc because it
was about something that two sf&f authors are doing, and I thought it was
appropriate in rasfw because it was about composition, and you're correct
that I have, over the years, participated in both groups. Yet some people
disagreed quite strongly.
> >For the record, it seems to me that messages like his are perfectly
> >appropriate to newsgroups devoted to written science fiction and writing
> >science fiction, but when it comes to what people think appropriate in a
> >newsgroup, my record over the last eight years or so is notably spotty.
>
> Don't let it worry you.
It doesn't. It just interests me. I probably let too many things interest
me.
cheers,
Will
Mary Kay Kare
> It doesn't. It just interests me. I probably let too many things interest
> me.
>
This is probably *the* fannish malady.
Julie Pascal
"Graydon Saunders" <gra...@dsl.ca> wrote in message
news:slrn8rqne0...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:58:43 -0700,
> Will Shetterly <shet...@bigvalley.net> scripsit:
> >Oh, the mix of responses, both pro and con, to my announcement, has been
> >fascinating. I thought the announcement was appropriate in rasfc because
it
> >was about something that two sf&f authors are doing
>
> no standing there.
Composition is even less about food, gardening, or any
number of other things that are discussed here all the time.
And frankly, the fact that someone is an sf author does give
them standing with me. I'm not a "respecter of persons" at
all, but gee whiz anyway, if someone is an author then they've
actually gone through the process that I'm trying to learn.
> Composition is about the process of writing sf, and what you post
> gives you standing there. (or doesn't; I'm sure there are many
> published authors whose ability to explain either their own or someone
> else's writing process is dreadful or actively harmful.)
So a measure of discernment is called for. This is a problem?
And as for the announcement... If there were a similar writing
seminar being given in the San Francisco area I'd want to know!
I have about zero chance of finding out about it from some other
source.
--Julie
piranha
Will Shetterly <shet...@bigvalley.net> wrote in
<39BD1652...@bigvalley.net>:
> P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>
> > [Note crossposting.]
> >
> > It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
YES! (congrats, jo. off to order it. oh, and congrats to
patrick as well. :-)
> So, in the hope of grasping what people think is appropriate on usenet,
> is this an ad?
no.
> Patrick is an employee of the publisher of the book that
> he's announcing; anyone who buys it will be involved in a commercial
> transaction. There's no attempt to disguise the fact that he's
> announcing that a product is available to buy (he didn't mention the
> book's arrival in a message dedicated to something else, nor did he put
> the information in his sig file).
that's irrelevant in this case. the announcement is part
of the ongoing story of jo and this particular book (which
has quite a neat story -- if you don't know, just ask, and
somebody will tell it better than i could). jo is a well-
loved resident of these groups, and things relating to her
book, the writing thereof and the selling thereof have been
part of the dialogue here.
_that_ is why it's appropriate here, IMO, not because it's
sff.
> For the record, it seems to me that messages like his are perfectly
> appropriate to newsgroups devoted to written science fiction and writing
> science fiction,
not per se, i'd say. but this is also where the two groups
probably diverge. well, maybe not. i would expect more
than "i have this book on my desk" even in .written; i'd
expect a review, even a quickie. and i would consider it
out of place in ,composition if neither author nor book
were part of the dialogue. i'd wonder why i should care,
what is it gonna teach me about writing, and what does it
have to do with community building?
>but when it comes to what people think appropriate in a
> newsgroup, my record over the last eight years or so is notably spotty.
i've not had much of a chance to witness your record, except
for this last instance (which didn't get my knickers in a
knot, but which i also didn't find particularly appropriate,
being as it wasn't part of any dialogue you carried on.)
and before somebody raises the "double standard" cry -- i do
not consider this a double standard, because you could do the
very same thing here, and it would be fine: if you had been
posting here while developing ideas for the workshop, if you
had shared whichever ups and downs you experienced, if you
had talked about the writing-related aspects of it, then i
doubt anyone would have batted an eyelash when you announced
it happening.
the dialogue is what matters, and the partaking in the things
that matter to the community. the community of this group,
not the community of sff writers at large.
-piranha
Joe Slater
>Oh, the mix of responses, both pro and con, to my announcement, has been
>fascinating. I thought the announcement was appropriate in rasfc because it
>was about something that two sf&f authors are doing, and I thought it was
>appropriate in rasfw because it was about composition,
Rec.arts.sf.written is a forum for discussing written SF. It's not a
forum for promoting your business ventures, even if the participants
hope that you will tell them how to make money out of writing SF. Your
post would have been off-topic even if you weren't touting your
course; an otherwise irrelevent issue is not granted special status
just because an SF author is involved.
None the less, I wouldn't have protested if it wasn't a business
venture. This is because commercial advertisements are more intrusive
and we're getting too many of them.
As for Patrick's original message, I would have been annoyed if he had
said something like "Jo Walton's searing epic of Caribbean lust and
passion is now complete. Order your copies of _Blood and Ebony_ now
from your favorite bookstore or ring Penhow books on 800-555-5555!" He
didn't; he merely mentioned a fact about a written book - and did so
in a way that promotes no great commercial advantage either to Jo or
to him.
Distinguo:
1) It's about a written book;
2) He wasn't soliciting patronage;
3) He didn't try the "Well, I'm an SF editor therefore what I do is of
interest to SF newsgroups."
jds
--
And now kind friends, what I have wrote,
I hope you will pass o'er,
And not criticize, as some have done,
Hitherto herebefore. (Julia Moore, "The Author's Early Life")
P Nielsen Hayden
>
>> [Note crossposting.]
>>
>> It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
>
>So, in the hope of grasping what people think is appropriate on usenet,
>is this an ad? Patrick is an employee of the publisher of the book that
>he's announcing; anyone who buys it will be involved in a commercial
>transaction. There's no attempt to disguise the fact that he's
>announcing that a product is available to buy (he didn't mention the
>book's arrival in a message dedicated to something else, nor did he put
>the information in his sig file).
>
>For the record, it seems to me that messages like his are perfectly
>appropriate to newsgroups devoted to written science fiction and writing
>science fiction, but when it comes to what people think appropriate in a
>newsgroup, my record over the last eight years or so is notably spotty.
You know, I too have sometimes felt that some people are a little
hair-trigger about the boundary between acceptable discourse and
advertising on Usenet. And I have never felt compelled to get on your
case about your posts to the rec.arts.sf.* groups advertising your and
Emma's novel-writing workshops.
And yet I can absolutely see why my post wasn't an ad, and your posts
were. More to the point, while I'm glad you're asking -- no better
way to sort these things out than to ask! -- I am honestly a little
depressed by a sense that you really _don't_ get it. In the kindliest
way I can manage, because you are a genuinely good friend and a good
soul, I want to suggest that someone who has thought as long as you
have about capitalism, society, and the way money values tend to drive
out other values should _not_ be finding it so difficult to see the
ways in which my post wasn't an ad and your posts were.
The very first thing to be noted about my brief post -- which you
quote in its entirety -- is that it's not really about THE KING'S
PEACE. It wasn't posted to flog THE KING'S PEACE to anonymous
strangers; in fact, it fails completely as an attempt to do so. THE
KING'S PEACE is not advocated, recommended, or praised; it's not
even described.
Quite the contrary, my brief post was about Jo, and its purpose was
entirely personal -- to say to the inhabitants of the three close-by
villages of rasff, rasfc, and rasfw that this nifty little milestone
had been passed by our mutual acquaintance Jo. It was _personal
gossip_, just as if someone on any of these newsgroups had felt
impelled to announce their kid's softball championship or their
cousin's victory on Jeopardy. And it was also, to a lesser extent,
personal gossip about me. I was saying, to those in the three
villages who have taken a lively personal interest in watching their
friend Jo go through having her first book published: look, I have
finished copies on my desk! I am delighted! _Not_ "we are delighted
to announce", delivered in some distanced corporate voice on behalf of
Tor Books -- you will note that the words "Tor Books" appeared nowhere
in my post. Rather, _I_ am delighted. News about me. I have an
existence in the SF world, in the various tribes and communities that
comprise it, that predates my connection to Tor Books. I am no less
entitled to make light fannish chitchat about my life at work than any
other fan.
Your comment that "there's no attempt to disguise the fact that he's
announcing that a product is available to buy" is revealing, and
provides us with some hints about the root of your problem. First, of
course, this remark shows that it doesn't occur to you that I might be
doing anything other than "announcing that a product is available to
buy." My social existence outside the world of profession and
"products" doesn't seem to cross your mind -- and I'm a friend of
yours! Everything I just now talked about -- Jo, her history in the
rec.arts.sf.* groups, my history there, our overlapping friendships
and circles of fannish acquaintance, none of that surfaces in your
reading. I was only "announcing that a product is available to buy."
From some people, this would just be sad confirmation that they aren't
very thoughtful. You're very thoughtful. When a thoughtful man
suddenly goes into mental vapor lock, something interesting is going
on.
Second, this remark demonstrates that you genuinely think that the
issue, for those who objected to your workshop announcements, was
whether what's under discussion is something "available to buy."
You're operating on a fundamentally _essentialist_ model in which the
involvement of potential "commercial transactions" is what makes the
difference between a post of which people will approve and a post to
which (some) people will object.
But what those objections were actually about _wasn't_ a purity-of-
essence fear of contamination by "commercial" cooties. And the mild
rasf* taboo on out-and-out advertising _isn't_, in fact, a utopian
attempt to create a discourse in which nothing commercial or monetary
may be discussed or alluded to. Quite the contrary, what it's really
all about is _language_. This is a written medium. "Here" (to the
extent that "this" is a "place"), language is all we have -- it's all
we are. So what these objections are really about is _how we talk to
one another._
And those objections were also not -- and this is an important thing
you really need to understand -- about people not wanting to know
about your and Emma's workshops. Quite the contrary; I suspect some
people on these newsgroups are very happy to know about your and
Emma's workshops. Indeed, I'll bet some of them would like to know
even more than you've ever posted. What I'm guessing many of them
_don't_ want, though, is to be spoken to in the megaphone language of
advertising. They welcome you, and Emma, and your workshops, but they
want you to be _you_, not an ad. They want _you_ to join the party,
get a beer, flop down on the couch, join a conversation or two, and if
you have interesting things to say about the novel-writing workshops
you run, by golly, you can probably get an interesting conversation
going on the subject. Before you know it, people will be asking _you_
for the details. And you might even get a student or three out of it.
But it won't have happened because you climbed up on a table and
addressed the party through a megaphone. It'll have happened because
your workshops became part of a web of human-scale conversation and
relationships. They'll be interested in your workshops because
they're interested in you, because they feel a connection to you.
Your workshops will become -- as THE KING'S PEACE is for Jo Walton on
these three newsgroups -- not a distanced, disembodied product to be
packaged and sold, but an interesting fact about you.
You didn't take that approach. Granted, the announcements you did
post are far from the most obnoxious ads ever posted into a social
Usenet group. (Very far indeed.) And, as several people have
remarked, there are good reasons for tolerating them. But there are
good reasons for being a little annoyed at them, too. Because they
were written, not as conversation exchanged between social peers, but
in the pumped-up, distancing language of advertising. They weren't a
really egregious example of that language -- but they weren't remotely
written in the voice Will Shetterly would use if someone in the
kitchen at a house party asked what's the story about these
novel-writing workshops. "In one day, award-winning authors Emma Bull
and Will Shetterly will teach you everything you need to know to write
and sell a novel!" Is this the way human beings who respect one
another communicate among themselves? The exaggerated claim, the
patent self-praise, the unfulfillable promise? Of course not. You
don't talk like this when you're having pleasant conversations with
your friends. So when you parachute into rec.arts.sf.* and post a
message couched in terms like this, you are conveying a pretty clear
message. You're not here for normal conversation. And you're only
interested in us as potential customers -- we're not your friends.
You, Will -- you, of all people, with your long and thoughtful concern
for how monetary values alienate us from our true selves; you should
see that this is a miniature of exactly that process. With the best
intentions in the world, with the sensible aim of telling people about
a perfectly worthwhile thing, and provided with an amiable, welcoming
group, suddenly you become as a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.
You, who speak and write so subtly and well, suddenly can do nothing
but speak the alienated, alienating language of the pitch. This is
not you, this is not a defect of your mind or heart. This is the
worm, the system of lies, working its will on you. This is the thing
that monetarizes all human connection, crawling up your spine and
robbing you of your good common sense. This is hype talk, booster
talk, dead talk, the talk that pretends to meaning while sucking
meaning away. This is how all that is solid melts into air.
Resist, Will! Talk _with_ us! Reclaim your soul!
Steve Taylor
> As for Patrick's original message, I would have been annoyed if he had
> said something like "Jo Walton's searing epic of Caribbean lust and
> passion is now complete. Order your copies of _Blood and Ebony_ now
> from your favorite bookstore or ring Penhow books on 800-555-5555!" He
> didn't; he merely mentioned a fact about a written book - and did so
> in a way that promotes no great commercial advantage either to Jo or
> to him.
And most importantly for me, all ads are not equal. Jo is a regular on
this group, and people are specifically interested in the book because
*she* has written it. She's part of the local community, and the fact
that she's published a book is part of the communities life. A new book
from someone we've never heard of is less relevant, even though it's no
more nor less an ad.
That's why I get narked when people complain about Infinity Plus in the
same breath as they complain about yet another new e-zine that doesn't
pay. The first is a really valuable resource of previousy published SF
being kept in the public eye, and counts as a public service by me. 'Yet
Another E-zine' may be announced with just the same good intentions, but
it's not the same creature if you ask me...
> jds
Steve
John Ringo
There appears to be two utterly divergent philosophies about writing and
writers and how they should approach it.
All examples will be hyperbole for illustrative purposes only. And the post
is not meant in any way to offend. (Although on this ng that is virtually
impossible.)
One philosophy generally looks upon writers as the artiste in the garret.
They are treasured souls who only soil themselves with filthy lucre so as to
keep spirit attached to body. Such writers utterly shun the mechanisms of
commerce and marketing preferring to leave it all up to their agent and
publisher. IN GENERAL these writers are well regarded in fandom (and on
USENET) and tend to garner various sorts of awards. And their writing is
usually "purer" than the "type two" writer.
The type two writer approaches writing as a means of income. As such this
type of writer will often relentlessly self promote. They generally consider
themselves storytellers first and an "artist" a distant second. The approach
of such a writer is often commercially successful at the sake of IN GENERAL
disdain from critics and hardcore fandom/webdom.
Some of this is germane disdain; such writers are rarely if ever of the
literary "purity" of the artistic souls. But some of it is simple prudery if
you will. Critics expect their criticisms to be listened to and the type two
writer generally has his or her ear tuned to the cash register. They spend
more time worrying about their Amazon.com rankings than what a critic says.
This is certainly a part of the dichotomy surrounding the ad issue. Some
writers disdain any mention of an upcoming book. Their approach is "that's
marketing and the publisher does marketing." I do not discount that
approach, as I've mentioned such writers are often the best of the lot.
However, such writers often end up out of the field, crushed by those awful
souls who write for the _market_ and not the critics. I grieve when I see a
writer like that destroyed by their approach. And, to an extent, I blame the
support of the "writing is literature" mindset.
Making another generality, the type one "artistic" writer's characters and
wordsmithing (style if you prefer) is generally their forte and their books
plots are often a bit contrived, a weak mannikin upon which to hang a
brilliant garment. OTOH, the type two "market" writer tends to have a really
good plot and so-so characterization and style. Just an opinion and you know
what they say about opinions.
Would that I could be a Cherryh. Would that I could be a McKillip. However,
I am not. I just write stories and hope like heck people like the story. And
I relentlessly self promote. That is my personality and my approach just as
my writing is a bit more "in your face" than the more artistic types. I
admire their ability and question their sanity. I hope that someday they
admire my sales and question my ability.
:-)))
John
--
The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad
girls live.
-- George Carlin
See sample chapters for my upcoming book "A Hymn Before Battle" (Baen
Publishing) at:
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200007/0671319418.htm?blurb
www.johnringo.com
"Steve Taylor" <sm...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:39BD9588...@ozemail.com.au...
Karen Lofstrom
: Patrick didn't say a)what it cost or b)where to get it or c)when it
: was available; he's announcing the tangible evidence of the first
: (booklength sf, fiction) publication of a well-regarded poster to all
: three of those groups, and about whose book there has been some
: interest expressed on all three of those groups in the recent past.
Patrick can announce things without his announcements being ads because he
participates regularly in the rec.arts.sf.* groups, because Jo
participates regularly, and because he's speaking informally, friend to
friend, without adspeak. As Graydon pointed out, he isn't telling us any
of the things an ad would. He's just communicating his satisfaction and
happiness (material to those of us who like Patrick) and saying something
that Jo might not (because she's modest).
I think Will could have rephrased his announcement and no one would have
blinked. If he'd said, "I'm going to be in LA, giving a seminar, and I
want to know if there's any rasfc participants living in LA, so we can get
together for lunch or whatnot," people might have asked for more info
about the seminar, and probably would have jumped at the chance to meet
Will informally.
That's friend talking to friend, or at least acquaintance to acquaintance.
It feels right. But if Will posts something extremely formal, that reads
like a paid advertisement in a newspaper, it's distancing, perhaps even a
bit insulting. It suggests that we don't mean anything to him, that we're
just eyeballs, anonymous strangers, with pocketbooks he might be able to
access.
The problem seems to me to be that AFAIK Will participates in Usenet only
sporadically, and hasn't quite got the hang of all the conventions, and
the appropriate tone.
(And lest it seem that I'm saying I know it all and he doesn't, I'll point
out that I've been hanging out on Usenet for a mere eight years and I'm
still capable of of astonishing feats of ignorance and gaucherie. Just
fewer than I used to commit.)
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member #462 of the Lumber Cartel (TINLC)
Sylvia Li
>
> Will Shetterly <shet...@bigvalley.net> with a twinkle in his eye, slyly inquired in
> <39BD1652...@bigvalley.net>:
> > So, in the hope of grasping what people think is appropriate on usenet,
> > is this an ad?
>
> no.
[snip]
> >but when it comes to what people think appropriate in a
> > newsgroup, my record over the last eight years or so is notably spotty.
>
> i've not had much of a chance to witness your record, except
> for this last instance (which didn't get my knickers in a
> knot, but which i also didn't find particularly appropriate,
> being as it wasn't part of any dialogue you carried on.)
>
> and before somebody raises the "double standard" cry -- i do
> not consider this a double standard, because you could do the
> very same thing here, and it would be fine: if you had been
> posting here while developing ideas for the workshop, if you
> had shared whichever ups and downs you experienced, if you
> had talked about the writing-related aspects of it, then i
> doubt anyone would have batted an eyelash when you announced
> it happening.
Will did talk about ideas for the workshop in rasfc; I'm sure he'll attest
that the discussion which ensued was interesting, and occasionally even
helpful. There were memorable exchanges about theme, and about lists of
initia... and um, shall we say, a somewhat spirited discussion concerning
tone, plus assorted other stuff. I think all of that might have happened
during a period when you were not reading the group, though.
> the dialogue is what matters, and the partaking in the things
> that matter to the community. the community of this group,
> not the community of sff writers at large.
I'll drink to that.
--
Sylvia Li
Sylvia Li
>
> I thought the announcement was appropriate in rasfc because it
> was about something that two sf&f authors are doing, and I thought it was
> appropriate in rasfw because it was about composition, and you're correct
> that I have, over the years, participated in both groups.
Will, did you inadvertently swap rasfc and rasfw in the above sentence? It
makes considerably more sense with the references interchanged.
--
Sylvia Li
Sylvia Li
>
> [Note crossposting.]
>
>
Wonderful! I'll be looking for it eagerly.
--
Sylvia Li
P Nielsen Hayden
There's some truth to what you say, but it's a lot more complicated
than that. Nobody's been saying Will should abjure making money; at
least, nobody sensible. They're saying that ads are inappropriate in
the middle of conversations.
After all, it's perfectly possible to be a thoroughgoing true believer
in capitalism, markets, and even advertising, and _still_ be ticked
off at phone solicitors who call in the middle of dinner. Not that
Will's little notices have been a fraction as annoying (to my mind) as
phone solicitors -- but the point is, your model of practical
commercial attitudes versus airy-fairy idealistic ones is orthogonal
to the actual issues at hand.
To say nothing of the irony of Will Shetterly winding up as the
epitome of the practical-minded business-is-business
don't-care-about-none-of-that-artsy-fartsy-nonsense writer. Now I
really have seen everything. I mean. Ack ack ack. (fades off gobbling)
P Nielsen Hayden
That has certainly been my presumption.
Mark Atwood
<SNIP>
>
> Resist, Will! Talk _with_ us! Reclaim your soul!
Clipped and saved. Well said.
Scott Taylor
<J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <slrn8rq0p...@pnh-0.dsl.speakeasy.net>
> p...@panix.com "P Nielsen Hayden" writes:
>
> > It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
>
> Yipeeeeee!
:-)
Congratulations, Jo!
Yay!
--
Scott Taylor
Freelancer for Hire
Have Powerbook, Will Travel
John Ringo
extent that I do, I accept them as the price of the medium. And there are
others who form a similar vein.
OTOH, there are some who fly off the handle at somebody including an ad in
their sig. Think of it as the two hyperbolic extremes. I _suspect_ that the
subgroups are functionally similar and one of the reasons that you get
the...reaction to the possibilities of ads in certain ngs is the makeup of
their "community."
Note, that I pointed out the greater acceptance of the artistic writer in
USENET over the crass commercialist. I don't find the discussion orthogonal
at all.
John
--
The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad
girls live.
-- George Carlin
See sample chapters for my upcoming book "A Hymn Before Battle" (Baen
Publishing) at:
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200007/0671319418.htm?blurb
www.johnringo.com
"P Nielsen Hayden" <p...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8rr6j...@pnh-0.dsl.speakeasy.net...
snip
>but the point is, your model of practical
> commercial attitudes versus airy-fairy idealistic ones is orthogonal
> to the actual issues at hand.
>
snip
John Ringo
John
(Who came back from Worldcon to a very large and heavy UPS shipment. Yippee
indeed.)
--
The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad
girls live.
-- George Carlin
See sample chapters for my upcoming book "A Hymn Before Battle" (Baen
Publishing) at:
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200007/0671319418.htm?blurb
www.johnringo.com
"Jo Walton" <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:968693...@bluejo.demon.co.uk...
> In article <slrn8rq0p...@pnh-0.dsl.speakeasy.net>
> p...@panix.com "P Nielsen Hayden" writes:
>
> > It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
>
> Yipeeeeee!
>
> --
> Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
> http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - UPDATED Interstichia; Poetry; RASFW FAQ;
> THE KING'S PEACE, Tor Books, October 2000 - can be ordered now from Amazon
> sample chapters on http://www.tor.com/sampleKingsPeace.html
>
William December Starr
p...@panix.com said:
> It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
Are they all the same?
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Julie Pascal
I've been off the group for a while... is "The King's Peace" the
first or second one?
--Julie
rmtodd
> [...]
> Resist, Will! Talk _with_ us! Reclaim your soul!
Thanks for one of the better explanations of why posting ads on Usenet
is wrong. Usenet is, at its best, a *conversation*; posting ads on
Usenet is like crashing someone's birthday party just to tell them what a great
deal you're willing to offer them on this used cars.
Joe Slater
>p...@panix.com said:
>> It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>Are they all the same?
They exist in a male and a female version which are identical, except
for one paragraph.
Nancy Lebovitz
P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>You didn't take that approach. Granted, the announcements you did
>post are far from the most obnoxious ads ever posted into a social
>Usenet group. (Very far indeed.) And, as several people have
>remarked, there are good reasons for tolerating them. But there are
>good reasons for being a little annoyed at them, too. Because they
>were written, not as conversation exchanged between social peers, but
>in the pumped-up, distancing language of advertising. They weren't a
>really egregious example of that language -- but they weren't remotely
>written in the voice Will Shetterly would use if someone in the
>kitchen at a house party asked what's the story about these
>novel-writing workshops. "In one day, award-winning authors Emma Bull
>and Will Shetterly will teach you everything you need to know to write
>and sell a novel!" Is this the way human beings who respect one
>another communicate among themselves? The exaggerated claim, the
>patent self-praise, the unfulfillable promise? Of course not. You
>don't talk like this when you're having pleasant conversations with
>your friends. So when you parachute into rec.arts.sf.* and post a
>message couched in terms like this, you are conveying a pretty clear
>message. You're not here for normal conversation. And you're only
>interested in us as potential customers -- we're not your friends.
>
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
P Nielsen Hayden
Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>In article <slrn8rq0p...@pnh-0.dsl.speakeasy.net>,
>>p...@panix.com said:
>>> It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
>
>wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>Are they all the same?
>
>They exist in a male and a female version which are identical, except
>for one paragraph.
You're thinking of the section where Sulien first arrives in the City
and joins the scorpion gang. But in both versions she avoids the
unfortunate episode with the elevator shaft.
Phil Fraering
Yippee! I was under the impression that it was a book already, and
was searching for it on my way back from Houston.
Wasn't at Barnes and Noble, wasn't in a rice field... oh well.
--
Phil Fraering "One day, Pinky, A MOUSE shall rule, and it is the
p...@globalreach.net humans who will be forced to endure these humiliating
/Will work for tape/ diversions!"
"You mean like Orlando, Brain?"
Doug Wickstrom
excited the ether to say:
I just wanted to savor this part, even if it does come
dangerously close to "I expected better of you."
Will, you don't know me, but we have many friends in common, and
I trust their judgement. Be a mensch, not a pitchman.
--
Doug Wickstrom
"The police are not here to create disorder. They are here to preserve
disorder." --Richard Daley
Doug Wickstrom
<john...@cuthis.mindspring.exthisout.com.invalid> excited the
ether to say:
>Not...necessarily. For example, I don't even notice the ads. Or to the
>extent that I do, I accept them as the price of the medium. And there are
>others who form a similar vein.
Ads are not the price of Usenet, ads are the _death_ of Usenet.
They have killed every newsgroup that did not resist them
utterly. Ads on Usenet are the equivalent of postage due junk
mail with a bill for the printing attached. They cost the
advertiser little, and the recipient much. They destroy the
conversational neighborhood, and account for as much as, or more
than, one-half of all Usenet and e-mail bandwidth. They are
choking that portion of the Internet I find most useful, and I
not only notice them, I refuse to tolerate them.
--
Doug Wickstrom
"I always knew that I would see the first man on the moon. I never
dreamed that I would see the last." --Jerry Pournelle
Will Shetterly
Graydon Saunders wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:58:43 -0700,
> Will Shetterly <shet...@bigvalley.net> scripsit:
> >Oh, the mix of responses, both pro and con, to my announcement, has been
> >fascinating. I thought the announcement was appropriate in rasfc because it
> >was about something that two sf&f authors are doing
>
> Composition is not about sf authors, and being an sf author gives you
> no standing there.
>
> Composition is about the process of writing sf, and what you post
> gives you standing there. (or doesn't; I'm sure there are many
> published authors whose ability to explain either their own or someone
> else's writing process is dreadful or actively harmful.)
If you'd quoted my entire message, you would've seen that Typo Lad mismatched
rasfc and rasfw. Does my post make more sense with those corrections? I had
assumed that RASFWritten would include information about authors and
RASFComposition, information about writing.
Will
Will Shetterly
> As for Patrick's original message, I would have been annoyed if he had
> said something like "Jo Walton's searing epic of Caribbean lust and
> passion is now complete. Order your copies of _Blood and Ebony_ now
> from your favorite bookstore or ring Penhow books on 800-555-5555!" He
> didn't; he merely mentioned a fact about a written book - and did so
> in a way that promotes no great commercial advantage either to Jo or
> to him.
But if anyone sees Patrick's announcement and goes out and buys the book,
Patrick and Jo benefit. That's how capitalism works. If no one goes out and
buys the book, you would be correct. But, um, do you really think Patrick hopes
no one will go out and buy the book that he has taken the trouble to announce
is available?
Again, I'm a big fan of editors tryng to increase sales of books, especially
editors who publish my books.
Will
--
"I wish I were either rich enough or poor enough to do a lot of things that are
impossible in my present comfortable circumstances." -Don Herold
About my latest novel, CHIMERA, KIRKUS said, "from the author of the splendid
DOGLAND ...a winner."
About writing workshops given by Emma Bull and me:
www.starwatcher.org/workshops.html
Will Shetterly
P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> After all, it's perfectly possible to be a thoroughgoing true believer
> in capitalism, markets, and even advertising, and _still_ be ticked
> off at phone solicitors who call in the middle of dinner. Not that
> Will's little notices have been a fraction as annoying (to my mind) as
> phone solicitors --
Actually, only one little notice (he notes defensively).
>
> To say nothing of the irony of Will Shetterly winding up as the
> epitome of the practical-minded business-is-business
> don't-care-about-none-of-that-artsy-fartsy-nonsense writer. Now I
> really have seen everything. I mean. Ack ack ack. (fades off gobbling)
I rather enjoyed that.
Will Shetterly
Sylvia Li wrote:
Yup. There are good reasons why I've never been a line editor.
Will Shetterly
Karen Lofstrom wrote:
> Patrick can announce things without his announcements being ads because he
> participates regularly in the rec.arts.sf.* groups, because Jo
> participates regularly, and because he's speaking informally, friend to
> friend, without adspeak. As Graydon pointed out, he isn't telling us any
> of the things an ad would.
Oh? He's telling you that there's a product and it's available. I've seen few
ads that did less than that.
Will
Frank
Will Shetterly
> Your comment that "there's no attempt to disguise the fact that he's
> announcing that a product is available to buy" is revealing, and
> provides us with some hints about the root of your problem. First, of
> course, this remark shows that it doesn't occur to you that I might be
> doing anything other than "announcing that a product is available to
> buy."
Well, actually, that's not so; statements do many things. I'm merely trying
to focus on one: the advertising question.
> They welcome you, and Emma, and your workshops, but they
> want you to be _you_, not an ad. They want _you_ to join the party,
> get a beer, flop down on the couch, join a conversation or two, and if
> you have interesting things to say about the novel-writing workshops
> you run, by golly, you can probably get an interesting conversation
> going on the subject.
When I have I refused to engage in a discussion? I thought the thread ran a
bit long because I engaged in one. I think I'm engaging in one now. I
confess, I'm leery of prolonging this one, because it might make someone
think this means more to me than it does.
> You, Will -- you, of all people, with your long and thoughtful concern
> for how monetary values alienate us from our true selves; you should
> see that this is a miniature of exactly that process. With the best
> intentions in the world, with the sensible aim of telling people about
> a perfectly worthwhile thing, and provided with an amiable, welcoming
> group, suddenly you become as a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.
> You, who speak and write so subtly and well, suddenly can do nothing
> but speak the alienated, alienating language of the pitch. This is
> not you, this is not a defect of your mind or heart. This is the
> worm, the system of lies, working its will on you. This is the thing
> that monetarizes all human connection, crawling up your spine and
> robbing you of your good common sense. This is hype talk, booster
> talk, dead talk, the talk that pretends to meaning while sucking
> meaning away. This is how all that is solid melts into air.
Um, actually, it was me noticing that the workshop was a couple of weeks
away, so I'd better spread the word online quickly, and I had a short
message already composed for a newspaper ad, so I posted it. I shall not
make this mistake again. (I am taking suggestions for new ones.)
Julian Flood
> Patrick didn't say a)what it cost or b)where to get it or c)when it
> was available
Does anyone know these details, please?
--
Julian Flood
Life, the Universe and Climbing Plants at www.argonet.co.uk/users/julesf.
Jo Walton
ju...@pascal.org "Julie Pascal" writes:
> I've been off the group for a while... is "The King's Peace" the
> first or second one?
First one. My first published novel. And it's speeding through the
night to giant bookstores even now. It seems so... sfnal.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - UPDATED Interstichia; Poetry; RASFW FAQ;
THE KING'S PEACE, Tor Books, Out now!!!
Michael Caldwell
>P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> scripsit:
>[regretful big snip]
<More massive snippage>
>>Resist, Will! Talk _with_ us! Reclaim your soul!
>Next village over, I could say 'rasff award'.
>Here, I'm going to say: here, Patrick, have some laurels.
But whatever you do, don't rest on them, prickly things Laurels.
--
Michael Caldwell
>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
>>[Note crossposting.]
>>It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
>Yay! I'm looking forward to getting the real version.
>It's listed on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble, and everything.
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312872291/o/qid=968701774/sr=2-1/00
2-5694405-9016841
>http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2VB2ET9TPE
&mscssid=612ES7C2H0S92HNC0017QUE8AKRKD1W3&isbn=0312872291
>However, I have this gift certificate to Borders burning a hole in my
>wallet, and I think I will just get my copy from them.
Hmm, most like I'll be getting it from Amazon. Jo, do you have some sort
of Amazon Afiliates thing on a web-page somewhere? I'd like to give you
some more filthy lucre along the way if I could.
Oh, and congratulations.
--
Ian A. York
Will Shetterly <shet...@bigvalley.net> wrote:
>
>Oh? He's telling you that there's a product and it's available. I've seen few
>ads that did less than that.
In spite of a half-dozen people telling you it's not the ad, you're
ignoring all of them and focusing on your own perception.
You're a professional writer. You know what words are for, and what
happen to them when you string them together. You know what leaving words
out can do, and what messages can be sent by omission, by tone, by
unstated assumptions. Fair or not, I'm more apt to believe that you're
writing says what you intend it to say, and that the tone of contempt in
your posts, the bullying, the smug condescension, the high-school-debating
gotcha style, the sniggering incredulous amusement that we marketing
cattle should dare to have an opinion--that this tone is deliberate,
either a reflection of your true attitude or (even worse) some kind of
experiment in button-pushing.
The last time you posted regularly on r.a.sf.*, some of your friends kept
insisting that this wasn't the real Will Shetterly, you aren't really like
this, it's all a misunderstanding. I'm willing to accept that still, but
it's only because of these other people who you are now attacking that you
don't mean to sound this way, and you're ignoring the people who are
trying to explain this to you for some other reason.
Perhaps you don't care what people think about you, or perhaps you don't
realize that there are people at the other end of the monitor. If you do
care, then I'll offer the same suggestion several people offered you last
time: Take a close look at your posts before you send them out, and treat
them as an exercise in professional writing.
Ian
--
Ian York (iay...@panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
J.B. Moreno
> Not...necessarily. For example, I don't even notice the ads. Or to the
> extent that I do, I accept them as the price of the medium. And there
> are others who form a similar vein.
And they are making a mistake -- ads are not the price of the medium, if
we accept that it will become true, but as long as we don't and we fight
them, it won't.
> OTOH, there are some who fly off the handle at somebody including an ad
> in their sig.
Not if it is reasonably short and preceded by a sigdash (and of course at
the proper place at the BOTTOM of the post), at least not by anyone that
is at all familiar with usenet. I can point out groups on as diverse
subjects as weaving and gay guys where the Charter of the group will
basically say "no ads, reasonable size notes in the sigs of regulars are
not considered ads".
> Think of it as the two hyperbolic extremes. I _suspect_ that the subgroups
> are functionally similar and one of the reasons that you get
> the...reaction to the possibilities of ads in certain ngs is the makeup of
> their "community."
I'm not sure what you are referring to hear by "subgroups" -- is it the
authors, the fans, or the newsgroups?
If it's authors -- this is not the first complaint about Will's ads; if
it's the fans, well, I can't speak for them, if it's the reaction in the
newsgroup, I think that Patrick hit it dead on the nail (it's about
whether or not you're engaged in a discussion or saying "buy this",
although of course there are, as always, some gray areas, which is why in
general authors who are regulars here get cut a lot more slack than ones
that are semi-regulars or near unknowns).
> Note, that I pointed out the greater acceptance of the artistic writer
> in USENET over the crass commercialist. I don't find the discussion
> orthogonal at all.
He said you missed the point, and that artistic versus crass is orthogonal
to the issue of objection to ads. He's right. There's a group for ads --
rec.arts.sf.marketplace, you can post ads there weekly (possibly even
daily) and no one will object. This isn't that group.
Bottom line -- it's because Will is an author (and one that posts here
occasionally) that there have been so /few/ complaints (this group is
generally pretty intolerant of ads, well intentioned or not). It's not
people saying "how dare he be interested in paying the mortgage" but
rather people saying "that isn't appropriate /here/ even if you do write
stuff I like".
In my case it was "I like what he writes, someone else has already
complained, no reason to beat a dead horse, let's move on to something
else" -- and for once I don't think my reaction was at all unusual.
--
JBM (that's me) a DBDG.
John Ringo
Weird feeling, idn'it? I keep having what I call VOMs, Very Odd Moments.
Congratulations again!
John
--
The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad
girls live.
-- George Carlin
See sample chapters for my upcoming book "A Hymn Before Battle" (Baen
Publishing) at:
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200007/0671319418.htm?blurb
www.johnringo.com
"Jo Walton" <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:968743...@bluejo.demon.co.uk...
P Nielsen Hayden
Will Shetterly <shet...@bigvalley.net> wrote:
>P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>
>> Your comment that "there's no attempt to disguise the fact that he's
>> announcing that a product is available to buy" is revealing, and
>> provides us with some hints about the root of your problem. First, of
>> course, this remark shows that it doesn't occur to you that I might be
>> doing anything other than "announcing that a product is available to
>> buy."
>
>Well, actually, that's not so; statements do many things. I'm merely trying
>to focus on one: the advertising question.
But Will, I wasn't talking about "the advertising question." I was
explaining why this isn't an "advertising question."
You asked: why is Patrick's post OK and mine not? You said: after
all, Patrick is telling people there's a "commercial product available
for sale."
I said: no, I wasn't. That's a reading you've forced on my one-line
post by taking it entirely out of the context of the social life of
these three newsgroups.
Anyone involved in any of that social life who is also some kind of
professional could be, with some frequency, similarly misread. With
sufficient determination, all kinds of casual remarks could be
reframed as "ads", as "announcing that a product is available to buy."
Your claim that "statements do many things...I'm merely trying to
focus on one" is rhetorical card-palming. You weren't "merely trying
to focus on one" thing. You were putting forth a particular
proposition -- that my post was an "ad" as much as yours was.
I suggested, at some length and in some detail, that this wasn't so.
Your subsequent response doesn't acknowledge this or even do it the
courtesy of directly disagreeing with it. Instead, you've responded
with an "all I was trying to do was..." riff. Hello! Earth to Will!
Who do you think you're talking to here?
Part of the reason you sometimes come across online as condescending
and superior is that you pull these kinds of rhetorical stunts and
appear to think you can get away with them. But they aren't even very
good rhetorical stunts. They're kind of entry-level prestidigitation.
>> They welcome you, and Emma, and your workshops, but they
>> want you to be _you_, not an ad. They want _you_ to join the party,
>> get a beer, flop down on the couch, join a conversation or two, and if
>> you have interesting things to say about the novel-writing workshops
>> you run, by golly, you can probably get an interesting conversation
>> going on the subject.
>
>When I have I refused to engage in a discussion?
When did I say you've "refused to engage in a discussion"? I was
telling you how conversation works in these parts, and modelling ways
that you could have conversations that (as a nice side-effect) let
people know about your novel-writing workshops.
Your defensive response does you very little credit. I'm actually
pretty disappointed.
>I thought the thread ran a bit long because I engaged in one. I think
>I'm engaging in one now. I confess, I'm leery of prolonging this one,
>because it might make someone think this means more to me than it
>does.
And here, having raised an issue and received intense and sincere
responses from several quarters, you loftily inform us that, by the
way, the discussion doesn't actually mean too much to you.
You've done this before. It hurts. Just speaking for myself,
what stings most when you do this isn't the pang of feeling personally
dissed; what's excruciating is watching you do yourself further injury
with exactly the kind of intelligent and sympathetic people with whom
you were born to have good conversations.
>> You, Will -- you, of all people, with your long and thoughtful concern
>> for how monetary values alienate us from our true selves; you should
>> see that this is a miniature of exactly that process. With the best
>> intentions in the world, with the sensible aim of telling people about
>> a perfectly worthwhile thing, and provided with an amiable, welcoming
>> group, suddenly you become as a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.
>> You, who speak and write so subtly and well, suddenly can do nothing
>> but speak the alienated, alienating language of the pitch. This is
>> not you, this is not a defect of your mind or heart. This is the
>> worm, the system of lies, working its will on you. This is the thing
>> that monetarizes all human connection, crawling up your spine and
>> robbing you of your good common sense. This is hype talk, booster
>> talk, dead talk, the talk that pretends to meaning while sucking
>> meaning away. This is how all that is solid melts into air.
>
>Um, actually, it was me noticing that the workshop was a couple of weeks
>away, so I'd better spread the word online quickly, and I had a short
>message already composed for a newspaper ad, so I posted it. I shall not
>make this mistake again. (I am taking suggestions for new ones.)
The question wasn't whether you "made a mistake". The question you
raised was why your post was a violation of local etiquette and mine
wasn't. You got a long, complicated, serious, nuanced, and personally
sympathetic answer, composed with some hours' work and at some
personal cost. You've responded with a brushoff.
Is that how you want me to take it?
Manny Olds
> Composition is even less about food, gardening, or any
> number of other things that are discussed here all the time.
The Plenipotentary of Usenet has ruled that food and "should that post
have been posted?" are On Topic in every newsgroup except the announcement
groups. I do believe that gardening has obtained a local variance permit
for rasfc, because of the unusual density of British people.
I'm not sure that the permit was strictly necessary, however. I'd be
surprised if you could think of *any* topic whatsoever that was not at
least potentially relevant to the composition of science or speculative
fiction. I once read a story about someone who used his vegetable garden
to crash a spaceship, for example.
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"This is the global village, and the village, contrary to the city, has
always been a place where conformity, narrow-minded snooping,
denunciation, gossip and poison-pen letters reign. This is what we see
with the Internet now." -- philosopher Alain Finkielkraut
Sylvia Li
>
> When I have I refused to engage in a discussion? I thought the thread ran a
> bit long because I engaged in one. I think I'm engaging in one now. I
> confess, I'm leery of prolonging this one, because it might make someone
> think this means more to me than it does.
>
> > You, Will -- you, of all people, with your long and thoughtful concern
> > for how monetary values alienate us from our true selves; you should
> > see that this is a miniature of exactly that process. With the best
> > intentions in the world, with the sensible aim of telling people about
> > a perfectly worthwhile thing, and provided with an amiable, welcoming
> > group, suddenly you become as a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.
> > You, who speak and write so subtly and well, suddenly can do nothing
> > but speak the alienated, alienating language of the pitch. This is
> > not you, this is not a defect of your mind or heart. This is the
> > worm, the system of lies, working its will on you. This is the thing
> > that monetarizes all human connection, crawling up your spine and
> > robbing you of your good common sense. This is hype talk, booster
> > talk, dead talk, the talk that pretends to meaning while sucking
> > meaning away. This is how all that is solid melts into air.
>
> Um, actually, it was me noticing that the workshop was a couple of weeks
> away, so I'd better spread the word online quickly, and I had a short
> message already composed for a newspaper ad, so I posted it. I shall not
> make this mistake again. (I am taking suggestions for new ones.)
Oh, so that's how it happened. (Thanks for explaining.) On the bright
side, your post was the occasion for Patrick's *magnificent* thundering
eloquence, which has been saved in my file marked Wonderful. So I hope you
don't mind too much having been the trigger for it.
For a newspaper ad, the tone seems about right. Flamboyant overstatement is
unfortunately necessary there, to have even a hope of catching a reader's
eye amid all the clutter. What kind of response did it get?
--
Sylvia Li
Sylvia Li
>
> In article <39BDCF6A...@bigvalley.net>,
> Will Shetterly <shet...@bigvalley.net> wrote:
> >
> >Oh? He's telling you that there's a product and it's available. I've seen few
> >ads that did less than that.
>
> In spite of a half-dozen people telling you it's not the ad, you're
> ignoring all of them and focusing on your own perception.
>
> You're a professional writer. You know what words are for, and what
> happen to them when you string them together. You know what leaving words
> out can do, and what messages can be sent by omission, by tone, by
> unstated assumptions. Fair or not, I'm more apt to believe that you're
> writing says what you intend it to say, and that the tone of contempt in
> your posts, the bullying, the smug condescension, the high-school-debating
> gotcha style, the sniggering incredulous amusement that we marketing
> cattle should dare to have an opinion--that this tone is deliberate,
> either a reflection of your true attitude or (even worse) some kind of
> experiment in button-pushing.
Okay, okay, peace! Look, reread what Will wrote. It wasn't even remotely in
the tone you describe. It was gentle teasing, at most. But if you turn on
the diatribe-generator like that it soon will be, everybody will get
stubborn, and then we'll have another bout, which we surely don't need.
> Perhaps you don't care what people think about you, or perhaps you don't
> realize that there are people at the other end of the monitor. If you do
> care, then I'll offer the same suggestion several people offered you last
> time: Take a close look at your posts before you send them out, and treat
> them as an exercise in professional writing.
This started out as a thread labelled THE KING'S PEACE. Let's keep it that
way; don't spoil Jo's triumph by turning her happy moment into a brawl.
Read where Will explains how that one ad-like post got posted, take a deep
breath, and make nice, okay?
--
Sylvia Li
Sylvia Li
>
> Reputation is a side effect of conduct; the notion that it can be
> created as a direct effect of promotion is one of those unfortunate
> ills of thought plaguing the 20th century.
Let me just sit here and appreciate the elegance of that for a moment.
--
Sylvia Li
Sherwood Smith
<ama...@abs.net> wrote:
>It was mentioned in the B. Dalton in-store science fiction & fantasy
>newsletter. Very nice coverage -- picture (of the book) and all.
>
>It might have been covered in the Barnes & Noble newsletter as well. I'll
>have to check. (It'll give me an excuse to find more bloody books to read,
>darn it.)
>
Oh, Anne. Do order it. I started reading a review copy yesterday
over breakfast, and the next thing I knew almost two hours had passed,
and my locked-in-tight schedule was in serious trouble--and so was I.
I'm longing to get back to it.
Pete McCutchen
<john...@cuthis.mindspring.exthisout.com.invalid> wrote:
>This is certainly a part of the dichotomy surrounding the ad issue. Some
>writers disdain any mention of an upcoming book. Their approach is "that's
>marketing and the publisher does marketing." I do not discount that
>approach, as I've mentioned such writers are often the best of the lot.
>However, such writers often end up out of the field, crushed by those awful
>souls who write for the _market_ and not the critics. I grieve when I see a
>writer like that destroyed by their approach. And, to an extent, I blame the
>support of the "writing is literature" mindset.
Pardon me, John, but this is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand.
I have nothing against action-adventures stories with fast-paced
plots, marketing, or even relentless self-promotion. Indeed, if you
stick around here long enough, you will hear me extol the virtues of
old-fashioned space opera, of rip roaring adventure yarns, of
larger-than-life heroes (or heroines!) fighting the good fight against
the wicked. I've never finished a book by Delany; I find Gene Wolfe
nearly incomprehensible, but I read Poul Anderson's Flandry stories
9,183,214 times before I lost my virginity. Put an exploding
spaceship on the cover of your book, and I'm there. I yield to nobody
in my lowbrow literary tastes.
At the same time, however, there's a time and a place for everything.
I suspect that if you went to a party, hopped on a table, began
reading the blurbs on the back of your book, people would notice.
Some of them might even object, or feel slighted, on the grounds that
you were taking a social event, and turning it into a forum for your
advertising. I suspect that if you made this a regular practice,
you'd not get invited to so many parties any more.
More to the point, advertising can absolutely destroy a newsgroup; it
can rob the party of its fun. If one guy hops an table and reads the
blurb from his book, well, it might cause a bit of fuss, but we can go
back to our discussion with little fuss. But if somebody starts doing
it every five minutes, well, the party loses its lustre, and people
leave. And, lest you believe that this fear is exaggerated, I suggest
that you pick your particular fetish and point your newsreader over to
the alt.sex hierarchy, which is now officially useless, because of all
the phone sex ads.
And the truth is, John, you know this, without being told. Because,
by gosh, you've participated in rec.arts.sf.written, at least. You
didn't post an ad for your book, though you have mentioned it from
time to time. You may have ulterior motives for showing up, but by
gosh, you don't seem to act like it. You actually talk, rather than
showing up and making announcements. But, lo and behold, it turns out
that your book gets promoted too, because, naturally, the topic comes
up in the normal course of conversation.
--
Pete McCutchen
P Nielsen Hayden
Will Shetterly <shet...@bigvalley.net> wrote:
>Joe Slater wrote:
>
>> As for Patrick's original message, I would have been annoyed if he
>> had said something like "Jo Walton's searing epic of Caribbean lust
>> and passion is now complete. Order your copies of _Blood and Ebony_
>> now from your favorite bookstore or ring Penhow books on
>> 800-555-5555!" He didn't; he merely mentioned a fact about a
>> written book - and did so in a way that promotes no great
>> commercial advantage either to Jo or to him.
>
>But if anyone sees Patrick's announcement and goes out and buys the
>book, Patrick and Jo benefit. That's how capitalism works. If no one
>goes out and buys the book, you would be correct. But, um, do you
>really think Patrick hopes no one will go out and buy the book that
>he has taken the trouble to announce is available?
Which is, of course, a tendentiously phrased question. Joe Slater
didn't suggest any such thing. I wouldn't claim any such thing.
And yet, Will, I _didn't_ make that post in order to get people to "go
out and buy that book." I made that post out of friendship and
delight. You are insisting otherwise.
If you want to discuss "how capitalism works," I suggest you start
with the question: what about capitalism causes you to persist -- and
you _are_ now persisting, in the face of explicit information to the
contrary -- in claiming that the post in question was a commercial
ploy?
What about capitalism requires you to read my acts as first and
foremost reflecting my role at Tor? Will, _you and I_ are personal
friends. We have known each other since before I worked as an SF
editor, before I worked at Tor -- and before you had books published
there. What about capitalism makes it so difficult for you to see my
acts as anything other than commercial acts on behalf of Tor?
The initial misreading is mere error, not an offense. Continuing to
make the claim, at this point in the conversation, is something else.
>Again, I'm a big fan of editors trying to increase sales of books,
>especially editors who publish my books.
I am too. And in fact I frequently say and post things that I hope
will interest people in taking a look at this or that book. I did
that before I worked for a publishing company, too. And many things I
say and post have to do with books not published by my employer.
(See, for instance, recent threads in rasff about CRYPTONOMICON, a
book I quite admire.)
If I play a "commercial" role in the social life of these newsgroups,
it's not so much focussed on "increasing sales of books" as on trying
to provoke interest in them. Actual sales are somebody else's
department. To the extent that I try to do this, I try to do it as
part of ongoing conversations, not as a human sandwich board; and I do
it as myself, someone who has written in fannish venues about their
enthusiasms and interests for twenty-five years. I certainly don't
claim to have always perfectly managed my several different roles in
life. But I am primarily a poster to the rasf* groups as myself, as a
longtime fan. I post far more to rasff than to either of the others.
As to your books, Will, you know I admire them, and in my role as
coordinator of the list (aside to onlookers: Will's editor at Tor is
Beth Meacham, not me), I regularly do everything I can to give them
their shot at success. You can certainly hurt my feelings by doggedly
insisting that posts I make out of friendship are in fact posts made
for calculated commercial advantage. But you can't hurt my feelings
enough to make me handle your books unprofessionally.
P Nielsen Hayden
Karen Loftsrom: No, really, here's the larger context. Please look
at the larger context. If you look at the larger
context, you will see and understand new things.
Will Shetterly: Oh? No, I think I'll just stick to my reading.
I'm not going to listen to new information; I'm just
going to repeat my initial assertion.
Pete McCutchen
>In article <8pj109$k9v$1...@cedar.ggn.net>,
>Dave Weingart <phyd...@liii.com> wrote:
>>One day in Teletubbyland, p...@panix.com said:
>>>It's a book. I have ten finished copies on my desk.
>
>I've now seen the cover art and am very favorably impressed. For once, a
>female warrior whose armor/clothing actually looks practical for fighting!
"What do we want? Body Armor!"
"When do we want it? Now!"
--
Pete McCutchen
Sylvia Li
>
[snippage]
> I suggested, at some length and in some detail, that this wasn't so.
> Your subsequent response doesn't acknowledge this or even do it the
> courtesy of directly disagreeing with it. Instead, you've responded
> with an "all I was trying to do was..." riff. Hello! Earth to Will!
> Who do you think you're talking to here?
>
[more snippage]
> When did I say you've "refused to engage in a discussion"? I was
> telling you how conversation works in these parts, and modelling ways
> that you could have conversations that (as a nice side-effect) let
> people know about your novel-writing workshops.
>
> Your defensive response does you very little credit. I'm actually
> pretty disappointed.
>
> >I thought the thread ran a bit long because I engaged in one. I think
> >I'm engaging in one now. I confess, I'm leery of prolonging this one,
> >because it might make someone think this means more to me than it
> >does.
>
> And here, having raised an issue and received intense and sincere
> responses from several quarters, you loftily inform us that, by the
> way, the discussion doesn't actually mean too much to you.
>
> You've done this before. It hurts. Just speaking for myself,
> what stings most when you do this isn't the pang of feeling personally
> dissed; what's excruciating is watching you do yourself further injury
> with exactly the kind of intelligent and sympathetic people with whom
> you were born to have good conversations.
[even more]
> The question wasn't whether you "made a mistake". The question you
> raised was why your post was a violation of local etiquette and mine
> wasn't. You got a long, complicated, serious, nuanced, and personally
> sympathetic answer, composed with some hours' work and at some
> personal cost. You've responded with a brushoff.
Umm, not wanting to get into the line of fire here, but might I just point
out -- entirely in the abstract -- that being on the receiving end of your
extraordinarily memorable post might have been ever-so-slightly
embarrassing? And that it is, for some people, quite difficult to *admit*
being embarrassed?
--
Sylvia Li
Manny Olds
> What about capitalism requires you to read my acts as first and
> foremost reflecting my role at Tor? Will, _you and I_ are personal
> friends. We have known each other since before I worked as an SF
> editor, before I worked at Tor -- and before you had books published
> there. What about capitalism makes it so difficult for you to see my
It seems to me that the root of the problem is that we are not *real* to
him; he doesn't process Usenet as if people were involved. This is a
pretty common problem, but usually you see it in sociopathic people who
find Usenet a good venue to get loose and get ugly.
Realizing that someone you would ordinarily put in the "decent and
sensible" category has this deficiency is like discovering your lover
can't taste chocolate.
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"Son, you can't think of them as people, just targets or silhouettes.
If you think about them as being people, with families, jobs, and a
livelihood, there is no way you could ever pull that trigger. My
recommendation to you is to not get into the position where you have to
think about another person as being anything other than another person,
and you'll do alright." -- a former sniper
Holly E. Ordway
>In rec.arts.sf.composition Julie Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:
>
>> Composition is even less about food, gardening, or any
>> number of other things that are discussed here all the time.
>
[snip]
>I'd be
>surprised if you could think of *any* topic whatsoever that was not
>at least potentially relevant to the composition of science or
>speculative fiction. I once read a story about someone who used his
>vegetable garden to crash a spaceship, for example.
To give credit to rasfc, I've noticed that a large number of the
seemingly off-topic conversations at least *started* with an on-topic
question or comment. For instance, a long thread on clothing that I
recall from a while ago actually began with a discussion of what would
be good terms to use for clothing for a future culture (will "tunic"
do?). And the off-topic threads frequently mutate back into reasonably
relevant ones, such as the discussions of group identity that could
actually be quite good for inspiring sf cultures. At least, that's
what I tend to think.
I do think that it's worthwhile to make an effort to keep things on
topic, as well as to drive off ad-posters. Massive off-topicality
won't kill a newsgroup the way ads will, but I think that making an
effort to keep on topic improves the quality of the group. The
different groups *are* communities, but I like it when the main focus
of the community is on the subject matter that the community was
founded to discuss, rather than on social chat among the members.
Actually, rasfc is pretty darn good about that, too. It all seems to
come back to writing in the end. I've read other newsgroups that I
just couldn't stand... there would be a gazillion threads consisting
entirely of conversations like "Hi Marge, how's your hubby?" "Oh, he's
out fishing today. What are you up to?" in the cat newsgroup. Things
that clearly should have been taken to private email. Gah.
Back to the thread topic here... rasfc is a good group because we make
an effort to keep it that way. And of ten or so newsgroups that I read
on a daily basis, it's the only one where I typically read or at least
skim *all* the posts. And it has one of my lowest killfile rates...
the only exception being, I think, rec.sport.fencing where I haven't
had to killfile anybody at all.
--Holly
Joel Rosenberg
Manny> In rec.arts.sf.composition P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com>
Manny> wrote:
>> What about capitalism requires you to read my acts as first and
>> foremost reflecting my role at Tor? Will, _you and I_ are
>> personal friends. We have known each other since before I
>> worked as an SF editor, before I worked at Tor -- and before
>> you had books published there. What about capitalism makes it
>> so difficult for you to see my
Manny> It seems to me that the root of the problem is that we are
Manny> not *real* to him; he doesn't process Usenet as if people
Manny> were involved. This is a pretty common problem, but usually
Manny> you see it in sociopathic people who find Usenet a good
Manny> venue to get loose and get ugly.
Manny> Realizing that someone you would ordinarily put in the
Manny> "decent and sensible" category has this deficiency is like
Manny> discovering your lover can't taste chocolate.
"Then there's more for me!!!"?
Lisa A Leutheuser
Will Shetterly <shet...@bigvalley.net> wrote:
>Joe Slater wrote:
>
>> As for Patrick's original message, I would have been annoyed if he had
>> said something like "Jo Walton's searing epic of Caribbean lust and
>> passion is now complete. Order your copies of _Blood and Ebony_ now
>> from your favorite bookstore or ring Penhow books on 800-555-5555!" He
>> didn't; he merely mentioned a fact about a written book - and did so
>> in a way that promotes no great commercial advantage either to Jo or
>> to him.
>
>But if anyone sees Patrick's announcement and goes out and buys the book,
>Patrick and Jo benefit. That's how capitalism works. If no one goes out and
Well, yes. But it still wasn't an ad.
>buys the book, you would be correct. But, um, do you really think Patrick hopes
>no one will go out and buy the book that he has taken the trouble to announce
>is available?
Actually, I think people who know nothing of the author or book,
will probably ignore the post. The post wasn't designed to reach
out to (i.e. advertise to) people who didn't already know of Jo
Walton and her book. It was a signal to people who have been waiting
months and months for this book to activate their book-finding radars
and begin scanning the shelves for it in the upcoming weeks. The
sales were made long ago; we're just waiting to be able to do the
actual transaction.
You cannot correctly interpret PNH's post without knowing the culture
and history of the groups he posted to. If you do, you get the wrong
meaning. It's that simple. In addition, the tone of the post is also
important. An ad that reads like an ad will be criticized. I think
if PNH posted an actual promo ad (see Joe Slater's example above) he'd
be roundly criticized. An announcement, however, made by a group
regular about something a large number of group members want to hear
about is not the same. Tone, group culture, and group history all matter.
--
Lisa Leutheuser - eal (at) umich.edu - http://www.umich.edu/~eal
Any advertising or other links in this post were not inserted by
the poster.
J.B. Moreno
> P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>
> > Not that Will's little notices have been a fraction as annoying
> > (to my mind) as phone solicitors
>
> Actually, only one little notice (he notes defensively).
Posted repeatedly over the years (the nitpicker points out).
Joel Rosenberg
J> Will Shetterly <shet...@bigvalley.net> wrote:
>> P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>>
>> > Not that Will's little notices have been a fraction as
>> annoying > (to my mind) as phone solicitors
>>
>> Actually, only one little notice (he notes defensively).
J> Posted repeatedly over the years (the nitpicker points out).
That's a fair cop. Will tends to show up in this newsgroup when (and
perhaps because) he has something new to sell; he's a busy guy.
Then again, most writers, most of the time, have something to sell --
I certainly do (see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812550463,
a book about which Publisher's Weekly said, "it's our hope that
Rosenberg will find another avenue for his remarkably minimal talents
and negligible writing skills; perhaps he should consider a career as
a shepherd") -- but most of the writers who participate, even as
erratically as I do, in this and related newsgroups, do so even when
they don't have a new product out on the market.
Lisa A Leutheuser
Will Shetterly <shet...@bigvalley.net> wrote:
>
>Karen Lofstrom wrote:
>
>> Patrick can announce things without his announcements being ads because he
>> participates regularly in the rec.arts.sf.* groups, because Jo
>> participates regularly, and because he's speaking informally, friend to
>> friend, without adspeak. As Graydon pointed out, he isn't telling us any
>> of the things an ad would.
>
>Oh? He's telling you that there's a product and it's available. I've seen few
>ads that did less than that.
So, if (when!) I sell my first novel and I make the joyful
proclamation "I just sold my novel XYZ" then I'm advertising?
If I say it face-to-face to a group a friends is it an ad?
If I say it on rasfc, where some people know me, is it an ad?
If your answer is "no" to the first but "yes" to the second,
please explain your reasoning because I want to understand.
Karen E. Leonard
Sylvia Li wrote:
>
> (snip) take a deep
> breath, and make nice, okay?
What Sylvia said, in spades.
Will, let the louder squawks go by, and next time remember the
approved format for these little announcements. Ian, it's not
necessary to be so combative.
>
I rather considered the idea that "all you need to be a novelist, in
one day" was a tongue-in-cheek comment.
All of the preceding two para's was an excuse for putting the first
line in, in case anyone is confused about this.
Karen Leonard
about to kill the whole thread!
> --
> Sylvia Li
P Nielsen Hayden
Sylvia Li <meta...@escape.ca> wrote:
[quoting me]
>> The question wasn't whether you "made a mistake". The question you
>> raised was why your post was a violation of local etiquette and mine
>> wasn't. You got a long, complicated, serious, nuanced, and personally
>> sympathetic answer, composed with some hours' work and at some
>> personal cost. You've responded with a brushoff.
>
>Umm, not wanting to get into the line of fire here, but might I just point
>out -- entirely in the abstract -- that being on the receiving end of your
>extraordinarily memorable post might have been ever-so-slightly
>embarrassing? And that it is, for some people, quite difficult to *admit*
>being embarrassed?
Sure. Remarkably enough, it happens to me too. Life presents us with
many challenges.
Dorothy J Heydt
Lisa A Leutheuser <e...@umich.edu> wrote:
>So, if (when!) I sell my first novel and I make the joyful
>proclamation "I just sold my novel XYZ" then I'm advertising?
>If I say it face-to-face to a group a friends is it an ad?
>If I say it on rasfc, where some people know me, is it an ad?
Human minds being the irrational things they are (to Hal's
lasting annoyance), I would have to say, "Well, no, if you do any
of those things, it's not an ad, it's ok; but if *I* did any of
those things it's not merely an ad, it's the sin against the
Holy Ghost."
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
James Nicoll
And this is different from Will's past behavior online how,
exactly? IMS, he sticks to his models, from 'QEII owns her subjects'
to 'All the South wanted was State's Rights', without modification
from external stimuli. Given the nature of some of his stated opinions,
that would seem to be a precondition to holding them.
James Nicoll
--
Much apologies but my return path is temporarily broken. Please
use jdni...@home.com instead.
Avram Grumer
> But if anyone sees Patrick's announcement and goes out and buys the
> book, Patrick and Jo benefit. That's how capitalism works. If no one
> goes out and buys the book, you would be correct. But, um, do you
> really think Patrick hopes no one will go out and buy the book that
> he has taken the trouble to announce is available?
My interest in Ken McCloud's books was sparked by discussions in
rasf.written. That does not make those discussions ads.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
"Some people need to learn that the Internet changes everything.
And some people need to learn that it doesn't." -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden
jhe...@my-deja.com
I find myself wondering if this entire thread digression is an
insidious plot to show us wannabe types that our hero-figures have feet
of clay.
--
Jim
"I am but mad north-northwest: when the wind is southerly I know a
hawk from a handsaw."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Matthew Austern
> I think Patrick can safely assume anyone on all three groups who might
> buy that book because of finding out about it there _already would_,
> and already knew about when it was going to come out (because when Jo
> posted about having sold it, people asked her that); all Patrick
> annouced was, yep, it's now in the state where a box of them could
> kill you if they fell on you out of a tree, and that he, Patrick
> Nielsen Hayden, fannish person, is happy about that.
Nah. That's part of it, but he also said that *he* had a copy of the
book already. He wasn't advertizing the book, he was gloating. And
gloating is a perfectly proper thing to do in this newsgroup. (Even
though in this case it means I'm completely jealous of him, the
bastard.)
Dorothy J Heydt
>
>I find myself wondering if this entire thread digression is an
>insidious plot to show us wannabe types that our hero-figures have feet
>of clay.
Cheer up, though their feet may be of clay, mostly their hearts
are of gold. Marion Zimmer Bradley was one of the most
exasperating women who ever lived, but there are dozens of people
(myself included) who would never have been published but for
her.
Dorothy J Heydt
Graydon Saunders <gra...@dsl.ca> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:54:50 GMT,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> scripsit:
>>
>>Human minds being the irrational things they are (to Hal's
>>lasting annoyance), I would have to say, "Well, no, if you do any
>>of those things, it's not an ad, it's ok; but if *I* did any of
>>those things it's not merely an ad, it's the sin against the
>>Holy Ghost."
>
No, I think you miss my point, what annoys Hal is that he expects
people to think LOGICALLY and act RATIONALLY and they don't.
(See my other post somewhere, noting his similarity to Mr.
Spock.)
Richard D. Latham
> Karen Lofstrom wrote:
>
> > Patrick can announce things without his announcements being ads because he
> > participates regularly in the rec.arts.sf.* groups, because Jo
> > participates regularly, and because he's speaking informally, friend to
> > friend, without adspeak. As Graydon pointed out, he isn't telling us any
> > of the things an ad would.
>
> Oh? He's telling you that there's a product and it's available. I've seen few
> ads that did less than that.
>
> Will
>
Perhaps it's just my feeble brain, but I didn't get that notion at all
from his posting. Understand that I'm not "a carnie", I'm one
of the marks, so I don't understand all the gory stuff that goes on
between the "unsolicited manuscript comes in over the transom",
and "I can buy on down at the local Barnes & Nobles". Getting to see
the "activity behind the curtain" is _why_ I read this group, after
all ... not counting the fact that a lot of very interesting people
hang out here.
I'd assumed that Patrick (sp?) was saying that he had 10 "reviewing
copies" sitting on his desk ... I'd assumed, given the long lead times
for published reviews, that it might be 6 months or more before the
book in question was "available for purchase" by us regular joes.
Since Jo is a regular, and had been _long_ before she made this (her
first, IIRC) sale, the community (me at least, and other posts make me
beleive I'm not alone) have been watching the progression of this
novel from the "I finally got up the guts to send the d&mn thing off"
to "Yeah ! I've got a contract" to "available", because, rightly
or wrongly, we think of Jo as a friend, and we're happy to see our
friends succeed.
Chances are (about 100% actually), when I notice that the book is
available, I'll buy a copy, but there wasn't anything in the postng in
question that made me beleive that my ability to do so was immiment
... I thought the post was an "I've finally got the cover art back",
or some such, progress report.
--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lat...@us.ibm.com
Helen Kenyon
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>Likewise, Patrick. He's participated in both newsgroups, and the book
>which he mentioned was written by a regular who was a regular before
>she published the book. Under those circumstances, I think it's OK.
>
>He's not, shall we say, using the newsgroup as his personal
>advertising forum.
>
Not only is Jo a regular, but (unless my memory is completely failing
me), she has, over the last couple of years, talked about writing _The
King's Peace_ as part of the ongoing discussion here about the craft of
writing. Patrick's announcement is simply the last triumphant chord in
the symphony, which we have been listening to since the piece was in
rehearsal, so to speak.
Helen
(hoping the above makes sense as it's late and I've been marking essays
until now.)
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
Or try http://blaenau.members.beeb.net and follow the town trail
to see Blaenau Ffestiniog in glorious sunshine.
**Please delete the extra bit from e-mail address if replying by mail**
Matthew Austern
> If you'd quoted my entire message, you would've seen that Typo Lad mismatched
> rasfc and rasfw. Does my post make more sense with those corrections? I had
> assumed that RASFWritten would include information about authors and
> RASFComposition, information about writing.
You're almost right, but there's a crucial distinction you're not
making. RASFWritten is *discussion* about written science fiction,
and RASFComposition, *discussion* about writing.
Will Shetterly
> "In one day, award-winning authors Emma Bull
> and Will Shetterly will teach you everything you need to know to write
> and sell a novel!" Is this the way human beings who respect one
> another communicate among themselves? The exaggerated claim, the
> patent self-praise, the unfulfillable promise?
1. Do you think that Emma and I don't know everything you need to know to
write and sell a novel? If that's so, I think we've faked it fairly well.
But I'm not sure that I should change our promise to "..will teach you
everything you need to know to fake knowing how to write and sell a novel."
2. Do you think it's impossible to teach everything you need to know in a
day? Then I can only repeat my belief that we actually teach what you need
to know in an hour or two, and the rest of the day is devoted to things
we've found useful, but that not all published writers understand, such as
point of view.
3. As for the "patent self-praise," it's sweet that you think everyone in
the newsgroup knows us and our work, but I think the thread quickly proved
that wasn't so. That's why I added the Kirkus quote in my sig.
Will
--
"I wish I were either rich enough or poor enough to do a lot of things that
are impossible in my present comfortable circumstances." -Don Herold
About my latest novel, CHIMERA, KIRKUS said, "from the author of the
splendid DOGLAND ...a winner."
About writing workshops given by Emma Bull and me:
www.starwatcher.org/workshops.html
Julie Pascal
"Graydon Saunders" <gra...@dsl.ca> wrote in message
news:slrn8rs8pb....@localhost.localdomain...
> I think Patrick can safely assume anyone on all three groups who might
> buy that book because of finding out about it there _already would_,
> and already knew about when it was going to come out (because when Jo
> posted about having sold it, people asked her that); all Patrick
> annouced was, yep, it's now in the state where a box of them could
> kill you if they fell on you out of a tree, and that he, Patrick
> Nielsen Hayden, fannish person, is happy about that.
Finding out that someone on r.a.sf.c has published a book
makes me far more likely to go out and buy it than if I just
saw the book on the shelf in the store. There *is* an
element of promotion involved, even if it is incidental to
the bulk of the conversation. Mostly I'm really happy
for Jo, even though I don't know her. I'd like to, someday.
Assuming that anyone finding out about the book on the
newsgroups and buying it would have done so anyway
is assuming too much.
But, as someone, or several someones, have said. The issue
is a matter of participation.
What I would add to that is that no group that I read minds
announcements from regular participants. Every group I read minds
announcements or periodic postings from people who do
not otherwise participate. It doesn't matter if they are not
selling anything. It doesn't matter if the posting is absolutely
on topic to the group. If someone has not been participating
at *some time* in the group then even a non-commercial
announcement is annoying.
Participants in the newsgroups can, of course, include
announcements or ads in their sig files as much as they
like.
--Julie
Julie Pascal
"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:G0s6v...@kithrup.com...
> In article <sbsv5.3052$O5.6...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
> Lisa A Leutheuser <e...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> >So, if (when!) I sell my first novel and I make the joyful
> >proclamation "I just sold my novel XYZ" then I'm advertising?
> >If I say it face-to-face to a group a friends is it an ad?
> >If I say it on rasfc, where some people know me, is it an ad?
>
> Human minds being the irrational things they are (to Hal's
> lasting annoyance), I would have to say, "Well, no, if you do any
> of those things, it's not an ad, it's ok; but if *I* did any of
> those things it's not merely an ad, it's the sin against the
> Holy Ghost."
How's the sequel to "Point of Honor" comming along? I liked
the bits that I've seen and I'd sure like to read the rest of it.
--Julie
Andrea Leistra
Will Shetterly <shet...@bigvalley.net> wrote:
>But if anyone sees Patrick's announcement and goes out and buys the book,
>Patrick and Jo benefit. That's how capitalism works. If no one goes out
>and buys the book, you would be correct. But, um, do you really think
>Patrick hopes no one will go out and buy the book that he has taken the
>trouble to announce is available?
That's not quite what's going on here.
If anyone saw Patrick's announcement and decided _as a result of the
announcement_ to buy the book, he and Jo would benefit. But given the
nature of that announcement (simply stating that _The King's Peace_
is a book, a statement completely meaningless to anyone who hasn't
been reading rasfw regularly (or rasfc, I presume)), I'd be surprised if
anyone who hadn't heard of it already would have been moved to buy it.
Announcements of the arrival in bookstores of long-awaited books
are certainly on-topic here, and this is just one step away from the
"I found _The King's Peace in my local Borders", which also are not
ads.
Further, Patrick and Jo are regulars here (rasfw); you are not. We're
generally willing to give a bit more leeway to regulars, who are
participating in discussions, than to a flyby announcement. It's not
fair, but that's how it is.
--
Andrea Leistra
JE Anderson
Will Shetterly wrote:
> Karen Lofstrom wrote:
>
> > Patrick can announce things without his announcements being ads because he
> > participates regularly in the rec.arts.sf.* groups, because Jo
> > participates regularly, and because he's speaking informally, friend to
> > friend, without adspeak. As Graydon pointed out, he isn't telling us any
> > of the things an ad would.
>
> Oh? He's telling you that there's a product and it's available. I've seen few
> ads that did less than that.
>
> Will
Will, you are not being fair. Patrick simply announced that a book we have been
hearing about has been successfully published. Not in the working stage anymore
or contracted, but published. Jo is an author who we have become friends (or at
least net-aquaintances) through usenet and I think it is appropriate for Patrick
to announce her book is finished and ready for the shelves. Yes people will buy
- but they will be the same people who have been waiting to hear its out.
I personally had no problem with your ad but many people have had very convincing
arguments to the opposite. You should sit back and re-read some of them and
really think about what they are trying to say. It is not that Will Shetterly is
evil, but that they would prefer Will speak to us as people not as customers.
Janet Anderson
Julian Flood
> Oh? He's telling you that there's a product and it's available. I've seen
> few ads that did less than that.
<pompous voice> Some snarks, Mr Shetterly, are boojums. Don't you understand
this?</>
Actually the only ads that irritate me are of the 'great new website for
your fiction' sort. They give me nothing. Mentions of new books by local
authors(*), seminars, etc (why do we never get con info?), never bother me
because they keep me in touch with the great throbbing heart of SF.
(*)Jo Walton, The King's Peace. Possibly published by Tor Books.
Incidentally, I've thought of a title for the second of the series: 'The
King's Street Run'. It would have everything: action compressed into a few
hours; quaffing; wild behaviour; lust; debauchery; unarmed combat;
poisoning; a yearning for the past and hope for the future after pain and
torture.
--
Julian Flood
Life, the Universe and Climbing Plants at www.argonet.co.uk/users/julesf.
John Ringo
people to rush out and buy your book. By God, Joel, now I have to read the
damn thing!
:-)))
John
--
The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad
girls live.
-- George Carlin
See sample chapters for my upcoming book "A Hymn Before Battle" (Baen
Publishing) at:
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200007/0671319418.htm?blurb
www.johnringo.com
"Joel Rosenberg" <jo...@winternet.com> wrote in message
news:wkog1t8...@winternet.com...
John Ringo
promote Jo's book, are you?
;-))))))
(Very Evil Grin.)
John
--
The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad
girls live.
-- George Carlin
See sample chapters for my upcoming book "A Hymn Before Battle" (Baen
Publishing) at:
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200007/0671319418.htm?blurb
www.johnringo.com
"Avram Grumer" <av...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:avram-12090...@manhattan.crossover.com...
John Ringo
John
--
The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad
girls live.
-- George Carlin
See sample chapters for my upcoming book "A Hymn Before Battle" (Baen
Publishing) at:
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200007/0671319418.htm?blurb
www.johnringo.com
"Sherwood Smith" <sherwoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:39be35a2...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:23:54 -0400, "Anne M. Marble"
> <ama...@abs.net> wrote:
>
> >It was mentioned in the B. Dalton in-store science fiction & fantasy
> >newsletter. Very nice coverage -- picture (of the book) and all.
> >
> >It might have been covered in the Barnes & Noble newsletter as well. I'll
> >have to check. (It'll give me an excuse to find more bloody books to
read,
> >darn it.)
> >
>
> Oh, Anne. Do order it. I started reading a review copy yesterday
> over breakfast, and the next thing I knew almost two hours had passed,
> and my locked-in-tight schedule was in serious trouble--and so was I.
>
> I'm longing to get back to it.
J.B. Moreno
> J> Will Shetterly <shet...@bigvalley.net> wrote:
> >> P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> >>
> >> > Not that Will's little notices have been a fraction as
> >> > annoying (to my mind) as phone solicitors
> >>
> >> Actually, only one little notice (he notes defensively).
>
> J> Posted repeatedly over the years (the nitpicker points out).
>
> That's a fair cop. Will tends to show up in this newsgroup when (and
> perhaps because) he has something new to sell; he's a busy guy.
I don't think anyone objects to his having something new to sell,
particularly not if it's a new book.
> Then again, most writers, most of the time, have something to sell --
> I certainly do
Still, there's a difference between pushing something while you're doing
something else, and only pushing something. The workshop ad is only an
ad, it's not slipped into the conversation.
> (see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812550463, a book about which
> Publisher's Weekly said, "it's our hope that Rosenberg will find another
> avenue for his remarkably minimal talents and negligible writing skills;
> perhaps he should consider a career as a shepherd")
Uhm, I think you need to get a handle on a couple of things called
"marketing" and "presentation". <g>
(OTOH, maybe not, I did got to see what it was -- and I had to go to
extra work to do so because you didn't include it in brackets).
> -- but most of the writers who participate, even as erratically as I do,
> in this and related newsgroups, do so even when they don't have a new
> product out on the market.
But that applies to Will too, either that or he sticks around so long
after word that its impossible to tell the difference.
He's certainly not just dropping in, posting and ad, and then leaving.
Will Shetterly
"Ian A. York" wrote:
> In article <39BDCF6A...@bigvalley.net>,
> Will Shetterly <shet...@bigvalley.net> wrote:
> >
> >Oh? He's telling you that there's a product and it's available. I've seen few
> >ads that did less than that.
>
> In spite of a half-dozen people telling you it's not the ad, you're
> ignoring all of them and focusing on your own perception.
Actually, in my ham-handed way, I'm trying to point out that the definition of
"ad" is a slippery one. I'm not accusing Patrick of posting an ad.
I do tend to think ads are part of the price we pay for free speech, and I'm
willing to pay it, but I understand the opposition to ads in newsgroups, and I'm
not going to post any more. The reason I chose the subject line that I did was so
that people who weren't interested in Emma, me, or writing seminars could skip
the message. I now see that was insufficient.
Will
Will Shetterly
> Your claim that "statements do many things...I'm merely trying to
> focus on one" is rhetorical card-palming. You weren't "merely trying
> to focus on one" thing. You were putting forth a particular
> proposition -- that my post was an "ad" as much as yours was.
No, I was asking a question, and pointing out the issues that made me think
this is a more slippery issue than some people do.
> I suggested, at some length and in some detail, that this wasn't so.
> Your subsequent response doesn't acknowledge this or even do it the
> courtesy of directly disagreeing with it. Instead, you've responded
> with an "all I was trying to do was..." riff. Hello! Earth to Will!
> Who do you think you're talking to here?
>
> Part of the reason you sometimes come across online as condescending
> and superior is that you pull these kinds of rhetorical stunts and
> appear to think you can get away with them. But they aren't even very
> good rhetorical stunts. They're kind of entry-level prestidigitation.
I don't know why people think I'm smarter than I am, given how many stupid
things I do. I don't even know what "orthogonal" means, but I will look it up.
I tend to believe that people believe what they say they believe, and wish
people would do the same for me. I realize that some people are quick to infer
what I didn't mean to imply, and that always makes me sorry. But I really don't
know what I can do about that.
> >> They welcome you, and Emma, and your workshops, but they
> >> want you to be _you_, not an ad. They want _you_ to join the party,
> >> get a beer, flop down on the couch, join a conversation or two, and if
> >> you have interesting things to say about the novel-writing workshops
> >> you run, by golly, you can probably get an interesting conversation
> >> going on the subject.
> >
> >When I have I refused to engage in a discussion?
>
> When did I say you've "refused to engage in a discussion"? I was
> telling you how conversation works in these parts, and modelling ways
> that you could have conversations that (as a nice side-effect) let
> people know about your novel-writing workshops.
If I make a new post, I assume it has the potential of starting a conversation.
I was rather surprised by the people who didn't ask me about what I said, but
instead declared that it was advertising or impossible. But I now see how that
happened; I'm not making any hint that anyone should try to explain that again.
> >I thought the thread ran a bit long because I engaged in one. I think
> >I'm engaging in one now. I confess, I'm leery of prolonging this one,
> >because it might make someone think this means more to me than it
> >does.
>
> And here, having raised an issue and received intense and sincere
> responses from several quarters, you loftily inform us that, by the
> way, the discussion doesn't actually mean too much to you.
Loftily? If it meant nothing, I wouldn't be here.
> >Um, actually, it was me noticing that the workshop was a couple of weeks
> >away, so I'd better spread the word online quickly, and I had a short
> >message already composed for a newspaper ad, so I posted it. I shall not
> >make this mistake again. (I am taking suggestions for new ones.)
>
> The question wasn't whether you "made a mistake". The question you
> raised was why your post was a violation of local etiquette and mine
> wasn't. You got a long, complicated, serious, nuanced, and personally
> sympathetic answer, composed with some hours' work and at some
> personal cost. You've responded with a brushoff.
>
> Is that how you want me to take it?
No. Your post included a rather thorough dismissal of the validity of our
seminar, which I was reluctant to address (but have since addressed under a new
subject line). That reluctance undoubtedly affected the tone of my reply. I am
sorry that my brevity was interpreted as a brushoff. It was actually a
reluctance to engage in issues that distract me from more pressing issues and,
more importantly, upset you.
Will