...or her money, as the case may be, often part company in the name of "publishing." And yes, ladies and gentlemen, we will soon get another chance to part with our money if we so desire, just for the privilege of calling ourselves "published" authors.
Cheryl Dickow, a Catholic nonfiction author, has just started a new venture called Bezalel Books, offering the opportunity for Catholic fiction writers to have another place and outlet for their manuscripts. She (rightfully) bemoans the lack of a Catholic presence in inspirational fiction, which is presently pretty much dominated by the Prod end of things...something many of us Catholic girls have been complaining about for awhile. :-) However, what she proposes to do about it is...shall we say...less than enthralling.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, for the small price of $775, give or take a few other charges that will no doubt creep into the mix, you can sidestep all the "traditional" publishing headaches, avoid paying an agent a commission to get you into the Big Bad World of Real Books...and publish your book through this new press.
Self-publish, that is. As in, pay her to do the publication for you.
If I've never said it before on this blog, it bears saying here: the fundamental principle of publishing is MONEY GOES TO THE AUTHOR. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Please understand, self-publishing is not inherently evil. Some books start out self-published and then are picked up by regular publishers after they've proven to sell. (Self-publishers are quick to trot out those titles, so with a little research, you'll find them.) And many books are self-published for good reasons. A very happy self-published author I know said, "Hey, I've got the money, I just want the thrill of having real books in my hands, my friends and neighbors all buy these, we have a good time. I'm happy."
For him, self-publishing works. He spends an average of $1500 per book to get the things out there--ridiculously steep in terms of anyone thinking of actually supporting themselves by writing, in any degree--but he's retired, he has the cash and nothing else he'd rather spend it on, so God bless him.
Another book I'm familiar with is a good example of another great use of self-publishing. The author probably had a good idea his target audience--primarily college baseball players!-- wouldn't necessarily be a large enough market segment for a major publisher to want to take on his book. I've read parts of the book. It's well written, it's an accurate portrayal of what college baseball is about, and I get a kick out of it because it's focused on the University of Michigan Baseball team as it was composed when my son was a member of said team. (My son even is a character in the book, albeit fictionalized and disguised, as are the other teammates of this particular author. Gotta love it.)
For that type of use, for that focus, self-publishing is a perfect solution. But for the rest of us? Not so much. At least not if we have a dream of being paid for our work, even if that payment is small.
Or if we have a dream of establishing a readership in any meaningful channels.
Or if we have a hope of being considered worth investing in for a major (or even minor) publisher someday.
Because if we have dreams and hopes of being published by a major house, paid anything at all, or having our books actually available for our friends and neighbors to buy--without having to sell them literally out of our garages--we definitely should not go the self-publishing route.Because, contrary to the claims on most of these sites, it's not easier to do the self-pub route; it's harder.
Most self-publishers will charge you more for actually editing the book.
Many of them have steep art charges if you don't have a cover designed yourself.
Many of them have small staffs with very limited resources, so if you need something done or redone quickly, it just isn't going to happen.
But the biggest drawback to self-publishing, by far, is the lack of distribution channels.
You see, it's not getting the book published that gets your name out into the marketplace. It's getting the book read. And bought.
Which means, your success as a published author isn't contingent on what it costs to print the book, or even what it costs you to get a cover made, to correct errors, and to get it bound attractively and legibly. Your success as a published author strictly depends on whether you can get your books into bookstores. Or whether people can order copies of your book through online or other channels. Or both. And that's where the self-publishing promises break down.
Self-published authors too often learn after the fact, and to their pain, that a promise that their book will be "available" for sale through Barnes &Noble, or Borders, or Books A Million...doesn't mean the book will actually be on the shelves. Most of the time, the book will not be there. The great majority of the time, the book will not even be listed in the computer systems of these bookstores. And if it ain't in the computer, boys and girls, you average bookstore clerk isn't going to be able to order it for you.
So in reality, while your book may be "available" to these places, it's not going to be ordered by them. If it's not ordered, in reality, it's not there. And won't be, because the great majority of self-publishing outlets have no network of distributors. They have no distribution channels in place. Most of them don't even have contacts in the industry that they can then tap and say, "Hey, I've got 20 great novels for you to take into the marketplace."
Which means you have no means of getting the book into the hands of readers.
Which means you will, in essence, have no readers...unless you do all the distribution yourself.
Some authors have tried a variation on this, by the way. There are "drive by" authors out there who'll do things like place their book on bookstore shelves. Just put it there. Some of them have even told tales of getting their books "put into" the computer systems at major bookstores that way, because the clerks don't know any better, just assume the book wasn't listed in error, and put all the ISBN information, etc., into their databases.
On the surface, this sounds pretty clever. A little guerilla marketing, as it were. Forcing them to acknowledge the book exists, and then giving them the means to reorder it.
The only problem is, that doesn't work.
Oh, a few authors may have had this actually turn in their favor. But then they went online and spread the word that "all you have to do is..." and a lot more people started trying to do this. Bookstores got wise to it. Clerks got wise to it. And those books got, respectfully, tossed.
They didn't get bought. They didn't get inventoried. They most certainly didn't get put into the databases. What's worse, the authors and their publishers were flagged for later reference...and not in a nice way, either.
So where's the win here? Answer? There isn't one. Your literal only alternative as a self-published author is to sell the books yourself.
If you have a speaking platform, this is a little easier. If you're affiliated with a university, this sometimes is easier (although don't try it without asking, because if anything, universities are even pricklier than major bookstores when it comes to "contraband"--i.e., something published other than via a university press!-- coming from one of their own). If you are like that guy in the video with the FREE HUGS sign, and you have no problem approaching complete strangers by the hundreds with books in your hand and a pitch on your lips, then maybe self-publishing, and its associated self-distribution, is for you.
But for most of us? Again, not so much.
Not even because most writers tend to be introverts, which is reason enough for most of us to crawl under our desks in the fetal position at the very thought of "marketing" and "distribution" like that....but also because, let's face it. Traveling the world to distribute a self-published book can get...shall we say...a little pricey. As in expensive. As in, expenses you may or may not ever recover from book sales, and probably won't.
So the moral of the story? If you have cash to spend, don't mind how you spend it, and don't care if you ever sell beyond 40 copies to your sisters and your cousins and your aunts...and you're fed up with the cycle of writing, revising, submitting, getting rejected, resubmitting, revising and re-revising, tinkering, pitching, etc., etc., etc...self-publishing may be the way you want to go with a novel. Otherwise, you'll want to refer back to the basic principle of the publishing industry--money goes to the author--and play the game in such a way that someone's willing to take your work and pay you for it.
Because that same someone will also make sure the book comes out with no misspellings in it (up to and including your name), has a cover that doesn't repel a reader, and has all the pages included, right-side up and in the proper order.
Because that same someone will have an editor who will (if you're fortunate) improve the book for you and make it sing, someone who knows what you're trying to say and helps you say it better.
And most of all, because that someone actually knows how to get those books into the marketplace so readers can read them, and love them, and recommend them to all their sisters and their cousins and their aunts.
Why? Because that someone will have already invested money in the operation, and they want to at least recoup some of that money. So they'll make it their business to at least do a minimum amount of publicity, and pitching their distributors, so they can make that happen...or they won't stay in business long.
Take the high road, folks. It's better for all of us in the long run.
My take,
Janny
Friday, January 12, 2007
Sunday, January 07, 2007
So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodnight...
For right now at least, after long consideration and an even longer time in the organization, I'm cancelling my membership in Romance Writers of America.
For them, this won’t be a biggie. I’m one of 9,500, and they barely know I’m here. But for me, this is a big deal. And it’s not coming without a lot of soul-searching. But I got my renewal notice in the mail a few weeks ago, and I’ve pitched it.
Now some people, in light of fairly recent events, will probably figure it’s because I can’t “take the heat” anymore (in more ways than one). They saw me get bitch-slapped over my letter in the RWR, they cheered and ridiculed and threw the mud, and they’ve probably been hoping for just such an action from the likes of me. Heck, if any of them knows how to pray (ain’t gonna go there), they may have even been praying to the god of their choice for just such an outcome.
But this isn’t an answer to anyone’s prayers. At least not in that sense. And the reasons for this decision, while undeniably connected to some very ugly stuff in the recent past, go back way farther than the summer of 2006.
I used to joke about being in RWA longer than dirt, citing as evidence the fact that I have a 4-digit membership number...when most of the people I know have six or seven digits in theirs. Part of that, of course, is a renumbering system; but part of it, it cannot be escaped, has to do with simply being a member of something for a long, long time.
Since 1988, to be exact.
So if there’s more to this than the fabled summer and fall of 2006, what else is there to it? Why would I jump from an organization I've been in for so long? Have I stopped writing romances?
"Probably not" is the best answer I can give to this one! Whether or not I wrote *romances,* as in the generic form of the word and strict sense of the genre, is still up for debate. I never published a romance with a major romance publisher; my book is considered inspirational romance in most circles, but it wasn't taken up by the Harlequin/Silhouette end of the world when it was pitched to them. So the jury's still out on whether I even wrote romance in the first place.
Do I need to cut back on the number of groups and commitments I have? Not a relevant question to this case.
My commitment to RWA takes a lot less time lately than it did years ago, when I was a board member of Chicago-North, Manuscript chairperson, helped to redefine some guidelines and rules of procedure, worked in various volunteer capacities, and ran the Fire and Ice Contest. (Sometimes it's hard for me to remember that I actually did that, for reasons we may get into later...another story, for another blog.) I did tally up at one time that out of the first seven years I belonged to my local chapter, five and a half of them were as a Board member.
So I did a lot of service, both on the local and national level (working the AGM at the National Conference several years running, to the point where I could almost supervise other people). But since I moved out of my home state, and even before that, I had scaled down my participation in RWA events considerably, due once again to several extra-writing reasons.
So, while cutting back on extracurriculars is never a bad idea if it enables one to put more time into writing, that's not exactly the reason, either.
So what reason can I have for making this move?
The reason is, quite frankly, I don’t trust RWA anymore. Haven’t trusted them for some time, in fact. Haven’t respected them for some time. And it's come to the point now where I realize I can no longer sign my name to an organization that is hell-bent on going ways and directions I don’t want to go.
Is this because of “defining romance,” then? Well, again, not exactly.
It must be said, as it has been before, that I didn’t start the famous RWR/defining romance fight. RWA did, itself, by sending out the survey to the membership. That action drew howls of protest from many “big names” in the business—and now, some people in RWA claim that it withdrew the survey because of that protest. Discontinued it. Told us not to bother.
Only problem was…it didn’t tell us. Not one word. Anywhere. Not even when asked, point-blank, directly, about said survey.
Instead, RWA allowed some of us to stick our necks out, to cause a ruckus, and to incur some really abusive treatment. They could have prevented all this from happening, but they didn’t. Which means they were either really, really stupid; really, really bad communicators; or they played some of their membership for the sake of getting a “good fight” going in the pages of RWR…and thereby making sure more people read the magazine.
No matter which of these motives you want to attribute to them, it’s not good.
While this situation is unfortunate, what’s worse is that it is part of a consistent pattern RWA has had over more than a decade in which they have neglected to tell many of us many things. Or have told us things which have then been proven embarrassingly wrong in the light of reality.
So what have they done when this happens?
Ordinary honest people, if caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar, are mature enough to say so. They right the wrong, and they apologize. Has RWA ever done this?
Nope.
RWA chooses to “spin” the results instead, until by the time you get done reading their version of what happened, you wonder what alternate reality you’ve just stepped into.
I have to give them points on this aspect of their conduct; some of those spins were downright creative. But given the choice between that kind of creativity and integrity in my professional organization, I know what I need to choose.
I will miss the chapter meetings; when I could get to them, I enjoyed the fellowship and the craft involved. I will miss a lot of the people who I’ve met through RWA. I regret leaving an organization that enabled me to make many dreams come true—but I have better things to do with my money than pay dues to an organization I basically don’t trust anymore.
If things change, I’ll be happy to come back.
But I ain’t holding my breath.
Janny
For them, this won’t be a biggie. I’m one of 9,500, and they barely know I’m here. But for me, this is a big deal. And it’s not coming without a lot of soul-searching. But I got my renewal notice in the mail a few weeks ago, and I’ve pitched it.
Now some people, in light of fairly recent events, will probably figure it’s because I can’t “take the heat” anymore (in more ways than one). They saw me get bitch-slapped over my letter in the RWR, they cheered and ridiculed and threw the mud, and they’ve probably been hoping for just such an action from the likes of me. Heck, if any of them knows how to pray (ain’t gonna go there), they may have even been praying to the god of their choice for just such an outcome.
But this isn’t an answer to anyone’s prayers. At least not in that sense. And the reasons for this decision, while undeniably connected to some very ugly stuff in the recent past, go back way farther than the summer of 2006.
I used to joke about being in RWA longer than dirt, citing as evidence the fact that I have a 4-digit membership number...when most of the people I know have six or seven digits in theirs. Part of that, of course, is a renumbering system; but part of it, it cannot be escaped, has to do with simply being a member of something for a long, long time.
Since 1988, to be exact.
So if there’s more to this than the fabled summer and fall of 2006, what else is there to it? Why would I jump from an organization I've been in for so long? Have I stopped writing romances?
"Probably not" is the best answer I can give to this one! Whether or not I wrote *romances,* as in the generic form of the word and strict sense of the genre, is still up for debate. I never published a romance with a major romance publisher; my book is considered inspirational romance in most circles, but it wasn't taken up by the Harlequin/Silhouette end of the world when it was pitched to them. So the jury's still out on whether I even wrote romance in the first place.
Do I need to cut back on the number of groups and commitments I have? Not a relevant question to this case.
My commitment to RWA takes a lot less time lately than it did years ago, when I was a board member of Chicago-North, Manuscript chairperson, helped to redefine some guidelines and rules of procedure, worked in various volunteer capacities, and ran the Fire and Ice Contest. (Sometimes it's hard for me to remember that I actually did that, for reasons we may get into later...another story, for another blog.) I did tally up at one time that out of the first seven years I belonged to my local chapter, five and a half of them were as a Board member.
So I did a lot of service, both on the local and national level (working the AGM at the National Conference several years running, to the point where I could almost supervise other people). But since I moved out of my home state, and even before that, I had scaled down my participation in RWA events considerably, due once again to several extra-writing reasons.
So, while cutting back on extracurriculars is never a bad idea if it enables one to put more time into writing, that's not exactly the reason, either.
So what reason can I have for making this move?
The reason is, quite frankly, I don’t trust RWA anymore. Haven’t trusted them for some time, in fact. Haven’t respected them for some time. And it's come to the point now where I realize I can no longer sign my name to an organization that is hell-bent on going ways and directions I don’t want to go.
Is this because of “defining romance,” then? Well, again, not exactly.
It must be said, as it has been before, that I didn’t start the famous RWR/defining romance fight. RWA did, itself, by sending out the survey to the membership. That action drew howls of protest from many “big names” in the business—and now, some people in RWA claim that it withdrew the survey because of that protest. Discontinued it. Told us not to bother.
Only problem was…it didn’t tell us. Not one word. Anywhere. Not even when asked, point-blank, directly, about said survey.
Instead, RWA allowed some of us to stick our necks out, to cause a ruckus, and to incur some really abusive treatment. They could have prevented all this from happening, but they didn’t. Which means they were either really, really stupid; really, really bad communicators; or they played some of their membership for the sake of getting a “good fight” going in the pages of RWR…and thereby making sure more people read the magazine.
No matter which of these motives you want to attribute to them, it’s not good.
While this situation is unfortunate, what’s worse is that it is part of a consistent pattern RWA has had over more than a decade in which they have neglected to tell many of us many things. Or have told us things which have then been proven embarrassingly wrong in the light of reality.
So what have they done when this happens?
Ordinary honest people, if caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar, are mature enough to say so. They right the wrong, and they apologize. Has RWA ever done this?
Nope.
RWA chooses to “spin” the results instead, until by the time you get done reading their version of what happened, you wonder what alternate reality you’ve just stepped into.
I have to give them points on this aspect of their conduct; some of those spins were downright creative. But given the choice between that kind of creativity and integrity in my professional organization, I know what I need to choose.
I will miss the chapter meetings; when I could get to them, I enjoyed the fellowship and the craft involved. I will miss a lot of the people who I’ve met through RWA. I regret leaving an organization that enabled me to make many dreams come true—but I have better things to do with my money than pay dues to an organization I basically don’t trust anymore.
If things change, I’ll be happy to come back.
But I ain’t holding my breath.
Janny
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Back to the Drawing Board...er, Writing Desk
Well, I'm at the end of the submissions rope with the last agent. Shortly before Christmas, I got a rejection from the #1 agent choice I had out of New York...or at least an agent I thought would be #1 for me. So it's back to square one with that submission. After something like twelve queries, 4 quick rejects, three or four requests for partials, three requests for full manuscripts...I'm batting .000 again. Time to start the process all over again.
And in this same time frame I also received a couple of rejections on the Golden Heart book. This, too, discouraged me, until I realized that I was sending out basically eight-year-old writing for these agents to take a gander at.
Eight-year-old writing! Suppose it's probably likely that my craft has improved in eight years?
I suspect if I took and rewrote the Golden Heart book the way I write NOW...
But of course conventional wisdom says, "Start something new." Only trouble with that advice? I don't have any new ideas. Haven't had any for years. A couple of flickers here and there, but no complete books that really at least worked in draft form have come to me in probably three years or more.
Almost leads one to wonder just how long a writer's block can last...if one believes in writer's block. Which I don't.
I do, however, believe in burnout. Which is probably what I've been through. Considering that over the past three years I've had enough stresses, changes, and general tumult in *real life* to send me off the Richter scale on those Stress Charts they all have. You know, the ones where they give a numerical value to the stresses in your life, and you're not supposed to go over 100 in a 12-month period or you're severely stressed and will probably need help?
I saw those and, when I realized that three months into some very recent years I was pushing 400 points...
There have truly been times when I could relate to the old joke:
Patient: Well, Doc, how do I stand?
Doctor: I've been wondering the same thing.
So I suppose I should be gentle with myself for the next few days, weeks, months, or years, at least. Maybe confine my writing to this blog. (hah!) But I'd be blissfully happy, truth be told, if I woke up one of these mornings with six great ideas bouncing around in my head, and the only problem was staying awake long enough to write them all down.
Heck, I'd settle for ONE great idea bouncing around in my head.
Or half a one.
So that's the status at this point. I'm not a "half empty" type of person...but I think there are times when our writing is running at "half empty," and unfortunately, this is one of them for me.
How are y'all doing?
Janny
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
The Twelve Days of Christmas...
...have just begun, so you may appreciate these holiday pointers on how to enjoy them to the fullest!
If you receive any partridges or pear trees, be sure to feed and/or cultivate.
If you receive two turtle doves, you'll probably need to pick up birdseed.
If you receive three French hens, teach 'em English, for Pete's sake...then fricassee 'em.
If you receive four calling birds, make sure they have good cell phone plans. (And that the French hens don't get a chance to bribe them to call home.)
If you receive five golden rings, spread them out over fingers...or toes.
If you receive six laying geese, collect eggs and make quiche. (French hen goes well with this.)
If you receive seven swimming swans, make sure you stock adequate towels.
If you receive eight milking maids, watch out for cow pies.
If you receive nine dancing ladies, roll back the carpets.
If you receive ten leaping lords, have yourself a basketball tournament.
If you receive eleven piping pipers, put them to work decorating cakes. (What do you mean, that's not what they're piping?)
If you receive twelve drumming drummers, you are very fortunate indeed. Bring out the scented candles, have a drum circle, and feast on aforementioned fricassee and quiche. (And the frosted/piped cakes.)
Whatever gifts you receive, in other words, make the most of them. Soon, we'll be talking about resolutions for the New Year, some things we've learned in this old one, and what to do about both of these things. But for now, it's time to pack up the tents and get ready to go back to work in the morning. So light up the pear tree (white lights are quite the thing), enjoy the company, the food, and the new jewelry!
Janny
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Hot diggity! Someone's reading this!
Don't laugh. :-) My son made the comment about the commercial where two guys are talking about blogs and the one guy says, "your blog readers...meaning your mother?" And this was after I'd read and commented on his blog! Didn't even think of it.
But I was seriously considering taking this blog down entirely. CWC has been sitting up here for awhile without a great deal of attention being paid to it...until recently. Recently, the site visits have crept up, the comments are starting to show up here and there, and in short, there's actual communication going on. And that's the idea of a blog in the first place!
Of course, I did read yesterday about commercial bloggers who are making advertising money in the tens of thousands of dollars per year by posting about various business "inside information" and selling advertising from the people and businesses who post...but quite frankly, I'm not sure I want to work that hard in that direction. Not that I'd mind making money off a blog! (Yes, and how soon do I want to leave the day gig?)
But I think I can find better ways to make money off the internet than selling advertising for a writing blog. Maybe this will become the Next Hot Thing on the block, and people will want to line up to be seen on Catholic Writer Chick. It is to be fervently hoped that that happens! And if it starts to, I WILL advertise for help in selling advertising--so any of you who have that kind of bent and background, don't hesitate to comment here.
In the meantime, I'm going to begin posting more frequently about writing in particular and the Catholic world view (at least the world view of this Catholic chick) in general. Happy reading and writing!
What are we reading lately? FIRST LADY by Susan Elizabeth Phillips. Enjoying it, wouldn't necessarily run out and buy every other of her work, but at least I'm not pitching it across the room like the last SEP I tried to read. Jury's still out on whether it ends up being "satisfying," but it did bring to mind an unfortunate (and rather silly) mindset that propels a lot of women's fiction, especially romance, and which I first noticed on soap operas years ago. I'll post about THAT curiosity shortly. In the meantime, have to get back to at least pretending to look like I'm working...
More later,
Janny
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Rejoicing in the flak...volume 2
Just got an e-mail last night from a fellow Christian writer who congratulated me on riling up the likes of Nora Roberts, Jennifer Cruisie and Pat Gaffney...saying getting reaction from the likes of these names is probably a feather in my cap.
I don't doubt it--after all, Queen Nora spends precious little time penning letters to the editor of RWR, and ditto for the other two. They would no doubt plead more pressing engagements, like deadlines for their latest million-selling books. If I were in their shoes, I probably wouldn't write letters to editors much either. But they made an exception in this case, and it's all about what I had to say. Or, maybe I should clarify--what I believe a great many people in RWA want to say, but are afraid to.
Which brings up a whole 'nuther idea, a nagging thought that I've had over and over and have no answers to. Posting about it here will verge on preaching to the choir, but I'm tempted to do it anyway, because even Steve, my buddy, brought up the curious fact that there were no letters printed in the RWR this month agreeing with my position.
And this is something I've been wrestling with for awhile.
One woman did put up a letter several months back, asking RWA not to mess with the idea of one-man, one-woman romance stories as their foundation. She basically warned of much the same things I did, only perhaps without so strong a connection to pedophilia as I made.
(There's a whole 'nuther subtopic we could go into about the recent Church scandals, pedophilia, and homosexuality, and their interconnectedness...but that's another topic for another day. It's just a real curious, and real obvious, connection, one that you're not hearing about in the same liberal media attacking our Church. But, I digress.)
But other than that one letter, and one refuting it, which basically I ended up turning around and refuting back... :-) There's been precious little evidence in RWA of not only any Christian presence but even of a more traditional presence and mindset that would have said, "Well, DUH, of course," to the notion of one-man, one-woman being the foundation of modern romantic fiction, and something we might want to stick with, even to the point of defining it if we felt that necessary.
Which makes me wonder a couple of things.
1) Is the moral, upright point of view really that rare nowadays? or,
2) If it isn't, where are the other letters?
I can tell you a short answer: people aren't writing them because they know what kind of abuse they'll be subject to for doing so. Heck, I had to completely delete one blog of mine from the system, there was so much of this abuse coming in. I despaired of leaving the blog up for Round Two, so I didn't. People don't want to stick out their necks only to see the blade coming down, and I don't blame them.
On the other hand, however, isn't right worth standing up for? In public? And damn the consequences?
I still think so...and I used to think lots of people would agree with that. But it's a little troubling not to see more evidence of it at the moment. It makes you think, and it makes you wonder.
I'm hoping it's not an accurate barometer of where we are as a group of Christian people--that we're only willing to take moral stands where it's "safe" to do so. We wouldn't be here if that was the background of our faith and of our predecessors.
So we do have to be very careful, and concerned, if we're passing on the wrong message to those who could most benefit from our being brave. Standing up for right only when we're sure nothing will "happen to us" as a result certainly isn't the legacy we inherited from the Church thus far. In some circles, it's become the legacy of the Church today, but we have to fight against that, too.
To my mind, it's a fight worth waging. But I sometimes wonder how many of us really feel that way anymore. And what will become of us, and our faith, if we stop fighting the good fight the minute things get nasty.
Pondering,
Janny
I don't doubt it--after all, Queen Nora spends precious little time penning letters to the editor of RWR, and ditto for the other two. They would no doubt plead more pressing engagements, like deadlines for their latest million-selling books. If I were in their shoes, I probably wouldn't write letters to editors much either. But they made an exception in this case, and it's all about what I had to say. Or, maybe I should clarify--what I believe a great many people in RWA want to say, but are afraid to.
Which brings up a whole 'nuther idea, a nagging thought that I've had over and over and have no answers to. Posting about it here will verge on preaching to the choir, but I'm tempted to do it anyway, because even Steve, my buddy, brought up the curious fact that there were no letters printed in the RWR this month agreeing with my position.
And this is something I've been wrestling with for awhile.
One woman did put up a letter several months back, asking RWA not to mess with the idea of one-man, one-woman romance stories as their foundation. She basically warned of much the same things I did, only perhaps without so strong a connection to pedophilia as I made.
(There's a whole 'nuther subtopic we could go into about the recent Church scandals, pedophilia, and homosexuality, and their interconnectedness...but that's another topic for another day. It's just a real curious, and real obvious, connection, one that you're not hearing about in the same liberal media attacking our Church. But, I digress.)
But other than that one letter, and one refuting it, which basically I ended up turning around and refuting back... :-) There's been precious little evidence in RWA of not only any Christian presence but even of a more traditional presence and mindset that would have said, "Well, DUH, of course," to the notion of one-man, one-woman being the foundation of modern romantic fiction, and something we might want to stick with, even to the point of defining it if we felt that necessary.
Which makes me wonder a couple of things.
1) Is the moral, upright point of view really that rare nowadays? or,
2) If it isn't, where are the other letters?
I can tell you a short answer: people aren't writing them because they know what kind of abuse they'll be subject to for doing so. Heck, I had to completely delete one blog of mine from the system, there was so much of this abuse coming in. I despaired of leaving the blog up for Round Two, so I didn't. People don't want to stick out their necks only to see the blade coming down, and I don't blame them.
On the other hand, however, isn't right worth standing up for? In public? And damn the consequences?
I still think so...and I used to think lots of people would agree with that. But it's a little troubling not to see more evidence of it at the moment. It makes you think, and it makes you wonder.
I'm hoping it's not an accurate barometer of where we are as a group of Christian people--that we're only willing to take moral stands where it's "safe" to do so. We wouldn't be here if that was the background of our faith and of our predecessors.
So we do have to be very careful, and concerned, if we're passing on the wrong message to those who could most benefit from our being brave. Standing up for right only when we're sure nothing will "happen to us" as a result certainly isn't the legacy we inherited from the Church thus far. In some circles, it's become the legacy of the Church today, but we have to fight against that, too.
To my mind, it's a fight worth waging. But I sometimes wonder how many of us really feel that way anymore. And what will become of us, and our faith, if we stop fighting the good fight the minute things get nasty.
Pondering,
Janny
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Thoughts on becoming a "public person"
I had one of those epiphanies this morning; they come every once in awhile, things that take you aback and make you consider something you hadn't before. It happened when one of my friends said to me, "Well, you seem to have become a public person in doing what you did." And I thought, Wow. It's that easy to become a "public person"?
And then I thought, Wouldn't it be wonderful if, indeed, that was true? Well, wonderful in a way. But I won't find that out this time around...because, despite appearances, it hasn't happened yet.
On one level, yeah, my name's out there, all right. My name's on a lot of blogs, a lot of boards, a lot of e-mails, and apparently, a lot of people's minds. So I've gotten a slice of being a "public" personality, for what that's worth.
But am I, really, any more a public person than I was before I wrote to the RWR? I would maintain no. Not at all.
I didn't become a "public person" simply because something I wrote got a lot of knickers in a twist. That didn't do it, for the simple reason that the hundreds of lines of text that are being written about me, invoking my name, or cussing me out now...don't have anything to do with me as a PERSON. They have to do with an image. A straw woman, if you will.
Someone people seized on and are hanging in effigy. But not, really, anyone who resembles who I AM.
They have nothing to do, for example, with this blog.
Or, for that matter, my other one.
Or with the years of experience in the trade that have contributed to my publishing credits, my teaching credits, and the people who can point to guidance I gave them that helped them along the path.
They have nothing to do with the fact that I love to sing, and can die happy because I've seen Sam Ramey sing Figaro. (yes!)
They have nothing to do with the long succession of cats I've owned over the years, who in themselves would probably provide blog material for years to come.
They have nothing to do with my beautiful, brilliant children, and how proud I am of them.
They have nothing to do with the fact that my husband has survived a very early heart attack, has had other complications over the past week, and has still managed to get himself back home for some good old fashioned home cooking and recovery time.
They have nothing to do with my faith...which I prove not only by staying Catholic, but by being a Cubs fan. (Hey, faith manifests itself in all kinds of ways.)
In short, you'll see thousands of words online about "me" right now. But in reality, those words aren't about ME at all. They're about strangers' IDEAs of one aspect of who I am.
And in most cases, who these strangers seem to think I am is a very judgmental, nasty, and biased person, a right-wing nutjob who'd throw them all into a baptismal font against their wills and force them to convert to some form of Christian/fascism that even scares ME to think about.
Of course, that's usually what happens when people don't bother to find out who a person really is. It happens when they prejudge, based on bits and pieces of information. In other words, it's based on bigotry
Interesting, considering that's the most popular term for ME nowadays.
But that is, after all, what happens when people don't want to risk being corrupted by the facts.
Because of this, I have a renewed empathy for other public figures and household names. The amount and kind of press a man or woman receives now has little to do with his or her character, beliefs, actual thought processes, ethics, or soul--and everything to do with what certain media types DECIDE that person is, slanting their comments and coverage accordingly...having the nerve to call what they do "journalism"...and hoodwinking vast numbers of people into believing they're getting "the real truth" about someone.
Balderdash. Of course, it's not the truth. Any more than what you'll see on most sites slamming ME is. How can it be, when it's written by strangers?
Oh, people went to my blogs and looked at my profiles...but just long enough to find something they could pick on. Oh, people took personal preferences, politics, and religious ideas from my sites, things I had deliberately steered AWAY from mentioning in my letter--not because I'm ashamed of them, but because they were irrelevant--and extrapolated them into personal insults in order to discredit what I said. But nothing they said truly discredits me...because it's on the level of playground taunting.
It doesn't take much thinking to call someone names. Nor any courage. So while Janet W. Butler, in some ways, has become a "public person"...Janet W. Butler, the real person--who would have been willing to exchange e-mails with many of these people, if they'd had the guts to do so--is still hiding behind the curtain. Not by choice, but by design: the design of people who don't choose to know a whole, real person with multiple facets, but who instead choose the low road of insults, slams, and name-calling.
This might make for some interesting conversation, some lively blogs, and a lot of mutual patting each other on the back. But has it made for any real public dialogue, communication, or exchange of idea or opinion based on actual ideas and opinions?
Read the blogs yourself, and unfortunately, you'll get the answer.
Paddling away in the water over the bridge,
Janny
And then I thought, Wouldn't it be wonderful if, indeed, that was true? Well, wonderful in a way. But I won't find that out this time around...because, despite appearances, it hasn't happened yet.
On one level, yeah, my name's out there, all right. My name's on a lot of blogs, a lot of boards, a lot of e-mails, and apparently, a lot of people's minds. So I've gotten a slice of being a "public" personality, for what that's worth.
But am I, really, any more a public person than I was before I wrote to the RWR? I would maintain no. Not at all.
I didn't become a "public person" simply because something I wrote got a lot of knickers in a twist. That didn't do it, for the simple reason that the hundreds of lines of text that are being written about me, invoking my name, or cussing me out now...don't have anything to do with me as a PERSON. They have to do with an image. A straw woman, if you will.
Someone people seized on and are hanging in effigy. But not, really, anyone who resembles who I AM.
They have nothing to do, for example, with this blog.
Or, for that matter, my other one.
Or with the years of experience in the trade that have contributed to my publishing credits, my teaching credits, and the people who can point to guidance I gave them that helped them along the path.
They have nothing to do with the fact that I love to sing, and can die happy because I've seen Sam Ramey sing Figaro. (yes!)
They have nothing to do with the long succession of cats I've owned over the years, who in themselves would probably provide blog material for years to come.
They have nothing to do with my beautiful, brilliant children, and how proud I am of them.
They have nothing to do with the fact that my husband has survived a very early heart attack, has had other complications over the past week, and has still managed to get himself back home for some good old fashioned home cooking and recovery time.
They have nothing to do with my faith...which I prove not only by staying Catholic, but by being a Cubs fan. (Hey, faith manifests itself in all kinds of ways.)
In short, you'll see thousands of words online about "me" right now. But in reality, those words aren't about ME at all. They're about strangers' IDEAs of one aspect of who I am.
And in most cases, who these strangers seem to think I am is a very judgmental, nasty, and biased person, a right-wing nutjob who'd throw them all into a baptismal font against their wills and force them to convert to some form of Christian/fascism that even scares ME to think about.
Of course, that's usually what happens when people don't bother to find out who a person really is. It happens when they prejudge, based on bits and pieces of information. In other words, it's based on bigotry
Interesting, considering that's the most popular term for ME nowadays.
But that is, after all, what happens when people don't want to risk being corrupted by the facts.
Because of this, I have a renewed empathy for other public figures and household names. The amount and kind of press a man or woman receives now has little to do with his or her character, beliefs, actual thought processes, ethics, or soul--and everything to do with what certain media types DECIDE that person is, slanting their comments and coverage accordingly...having the nerve to call what they do "journalism"...and hoodwinking vast numbers of people into believing they're getting "the real truth" about someone.
Balderdash. Of course, it's not the truth. Any more than what you'll see on most sites slamming ME is. How can it be, when it's written by strangers?
Oh, people went to my blogs and looked at my profiles...but just long enough to find something they could pick on. Oh, people took personal preferences, politics, and religious ideas from my sites, things I had deliberately steered AWAY from mentioning in my letter--not because I'm ashamed of them, but because they were irrelevant--and extrapolated them into personal insults in order to discredit what I said. But nothing they said truly discredits me...because it's on the level of playground taunting.
It doesn't take much thinking to call someone names. Nor any courage. So while Janet W. Butler, in some ways, has become a "public person"...Janet W. Butler, the real person--who would have been willing to exchange e-mails with many of these people, if they'd had the guts to do so--is still hiding behind the curtain. Not by choice, but by design: the design of people who don't choose to know a whole, real person with multiple facets, but who instead choose the low road of insults, slams, and name-calling.
This might make for some interesting conversation, some lively blogs, and a lot of mutual patting each other on the back. But has it made for any real public dialogue, communication, or exchange of idea or opinion based on actual ideas and opinions?
Read the blogs yourself, and unfortunately, you'll get the answer.
Paddling away in the water over the bridge,
Janny
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
