You will RUE THE DAY!!! (Rue the day? Who talks like that?!)

I received another rejection note yesterday for Princesses In SPACE!!! (not the actual title), which brings the total to…somewhere I don’t want to tally it up, actually. Suffice it to say that I am just about out of places to submit this book, either as a direct submission to a publisher or a query to an agent. Nobody has bitten, and I find myself just about at that point where I have to admit that nobody is likely to bite at this point.

Which reminds me of that scene in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, when Kirk — having been refused permission to return to the Genesis Planet to pick up Spock’s body — tells his officers, “The word is no. I am therefore going anyway.”

I’m not really sure what the process is from here, so I’m going to have to do a lot of research and discussing with people who have been there, but unless something very strange happens, I will be getting Princesses out there myself. I’m going to aim for November 2014 for release (although at this date, don’t even think of holding me to that). I know I need to do another round of edits and then start working toward getting this book put together into a coherent form. I’ll need cover art, and I know there’s a lot of file-formatting work to be done.

Plus, I intend to create a separate website for my work, as a promotional tool. That will also be aimed for late 2014. I want to have multiple books in the pipeline at all times, when I “go live”; I want to be able to say to readers, “If you liked Princesses, tune in late 2015 for Princesses II.” And, of course, other books along the way!

The least of this news is that, if all goes as intended, the ACTUAL TITLE will be revealed by the end of the coming year.

This is exciting stuff! I’m fortunate to live in a time when this sort of thing is possible. I’m reminded of Neil Gaiman’s words, from that remarkable commencement address of his:

We’re in a transitional world right now, if you’re in any kind of artistic field, because the nature of distribution is changing, the models by which creators got their work out into the world, and got to keep a roof over their heads and buy sandwiches while they did that, are all changing. I’ve talked to people at the top of the food chain in publishing, in bookselling, in all those areas, and nobody knows what the landscape will look like two years from now, let alone a decade away. The distribution channels that people had built over the last century or so are in flux for print, for visual artists, for musicians, for creative people of all kinds.

Which is, on the one hand, intimidating, and on the other, immensely liberating. The rules, the assumptions, the now-we’re supposed to’s of how you get your work seen, and what you do then, are breaking down. The gatekeepers are leaving their gates. You can be as creative as you need to be to get your work seen. YouTube and the web (and whatever comes after YouTube and the web) can give you more people watching than television ever did. The old rules are crumbling and nobody knows what the new rules are.

So make up your own rules.

That’s what I’m gonna do! Maybe this story won’t get read by a lot of people. Maybe it will. But it’s not going to be stuck in a drawer, counted among my “practice” books before I finally manage to break through, becoming one of those novels nobody ever sees but the author, who takes out the manuscript once in a while and remembers with fondness the investment in a tale that was doomed to the drawer.

This book is my story. And it’s coming. Soon.

(Give or take. Like I said, uncharted waters and all.)

Zap! Pow!!

Share This Post

Sunday Burst of Awesome (and spectacular FAIL)

Oddities and Awesome abound! As do, unfortunately, colossal screwups.

:: In the Awesome department, if you ever wondered what it’s like taping The Price is Right — more specifically, the mechanics of moving all that crap onstage around — this video sums it up nicely.




Somehow, as a kid, I always envisioned that soundstage as being absolutely immense. It always seemed to me like they were taping that show in the Astrodome or something.

Link via.

:: Here’s a wonderful defense of Love Actually, in response to the same loopy-headed article I frothed about last week.

And you know what? Mustering the courage to say “Hey, i have some feelings for you” is not some inconsequential thing. As anyone who’s ever been at the beginning of an affair knows, getting the nerve up to say “Want to take this further?” is a huge deal! It’s hard, it’s terrifying, and when it’s over, you either live to romance another day, or the relationship ends. That’s what Love Actually is about. Those terrifying moments before the proclamation. It isn’t about afterward, where reality lives. It’s about the beginning of the feeling of love.

I said on Twitter the other day that I have come to see the Keira Knightley storyline in that movie as a kind-of Rorschach test. People who hate the movie often seem to completely get that storyline wrong. Mark doesn’t go profess his love to her in hopes that she will leave her husband; he knows she won’t. He goes to get it all out, and admit his feelings as explanation and atonement for his having not been terribly nice to her until then. How people miss this is absolutely beyond me.

:: Finally, the FAIL of the week. I was thoroughly gobsmacked by this. You know those little decals that lots of people put on the back windows of their cars? The ones that depict their family’s composition, with stick-figure parents and kids and dogs and cats and stuff? Well, the fine folks at ThinkGeek came up with Star Trek versions of those. Which is kind of a nifty idea. They even include aliens. Only…well, here’s the set:

Take a close look at Lt. Uhura. Notice anything distinctive about the way they depict her in decal form? I congratulate Nichelle Nichols and Zoe Saldana on their mutual designation by ThinkGeek as Honorary White People!

I can only shake my head at shit like this. It’s maddening. It can’t be any kind of production issue, since they managed to get the skin tones of the aliens right. And they made the tribble brown. But the black human woman? The one who was played by a real life black woman? They whitewashed her, but good.

Unbelievable. Although actually, the sad thing is…it’s not that unbelievable, really.

More next week, maybe.

Share This Post

Your Daily Dose of Christmas!

My alma mater, Wartburg College, does a big yearly music production at Christmas, called Christmas With Wartburg. It’s always quite a production, with several vocal groups coming together with several instrumental groups to present a sacred program. Putting it together was a lot of work each year, and the performances consumed an entire weekend — at the time we would perform twice on campus and then once in Cedar Falls, IA (a bigger town twenty miles away) and once in Des Moines.

I mention all this because our main rival school, Luther College, does a similar thing. Here’s their rendition of “Angels We Have Heard On High”, one of my two favorite Christmas hymns (I can’t choose between this one and “Hark! the Herald Angels Sing”). As a still-loyal Wartburg grad, I’d love to be able to say that those nitwits from Luther screw it up, but…no, I wouldn’t love to be able to say that. There’s just as much talent there as at Wartburg, and this is really well done.


(But still…go Knights!)

Share This Post

Your Daily Dose of Christmas!

I have my issues with Aaron Sorkin, but there are still times when he grabs me and doesn’t let go. Two brief scenes from the first season episode of The West Wing, entitled “In Excelsis Deo”. The backstory here (among political stuff) is that Toby Ziegler (communications director at the White House) gets a call from DC police because a homeless man has been found dead, wearing a coat that had Toby’s business card in the pocket. Toby realizes that the coat was one he donated to a shelter or something, and the card was still in the pocket; he learns that the homeless guy was a Korean War veteran, and uses the President’s clout to arrange a military funeral, with the guy’s surviving brother (also homeless) in attendance.

Along the way, we learn something of Mrs. Landingham, which is a good reminder that the Christmas season is not always a time of happy memories for everyone. There’s a reason so much joy and so much melancholy tend to coexist at Christmas.

Share This Post

THIS must be the cover….

UPDATED below.

UPDATED again, below.

Well, my endless search for cover-art for Princesses In SPACE!!! (not the actual title) has come to an end. This has to be the cover.

Obviously it won’t be, but…this is SO evocative of what I hope is the book’s “feel”. I really want the eventual cover art to be something like this!

UPDATE: I pasted the picture on a starry background (which I stole from the Astonomy Picture of the Day, because that’s what I do!):

UPDATE II: The artist who created the image above somehow found it here, and left a gracious comment. Her name is Liza van Rees, and more of her work is available here.

Share This Post

Your Daily Dose of Christmas!

I’ve said this before, but where I’m usually able to separate music from specific associations to things in my life, there are exceptions, and Tchaikovsky’s Suite from The Nutcracker is one of them. We played this every year in the Symphony Orchestra at college on the Christmas program, and in my junior year Fantasia came out on home video (VHS, huzzah!), so this suite invariably takes me back to Wartburg College, orchestra rehearsals under Maestro Janice Wade (who would get so mad if we tried to ritard in the very last bars of the Waltz of the Flowers!), and watching Fantasia.

So here is this year’s posting of the Suite from The Nutcracker. How I love this work! (And this is an unusually fine performance.)

Share This Post

Pursuing Capital

A bit of politics here, after the break. Keep scrolling if you don’t want one of my rare bursts of liberalism in this space!

On we go….

I’ve seen three articles online in the last week that have really expressed well my increasing trouble with the idea that we need to rely on free-market capitalism, and only free-market capitalism, to solve all of our various problems.

First, this by Henry Blodgett, speaking against the notion of rich people as “job creators”:

As America struggles with high unemployment and record inequality, everyone is offering competing solutions to the problem.

In this war of words (and classes), one thing has been repeated so often that many people now regard it as fact.

“Rich people create the jobs.”

Specifically, by starting and directing America’s companies, entrepreneurs and rich investors create the jobs that sustain everyone else.

This statement is usually invoked to justify cutting taxes on entrepreneurs and investors. If only we reduce those taxes and regulations, the story goes, entrepreneurs and investors can be incented to build more companies and create more jobs.

This argument ignores the fact that taxes on entrepreneurs and investors are already historically low, even after this year’s modest increases. And it ignores the assertions of many investors and entrepreneurs (like me) that they would work just as hard to build companies even if taxes were higher.

But, more importantly, this argument perpetuates a myth that some well-off Americans use to justify today’s record inequality — the idea that rich people create the jobs.

[snip]

The prevailing story that justifies tax cuts for America’s entrepreneurs and investors is that the huge pots of gold they take home are supposed to “trickle down” to the middle class and thus benefit everyone.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way it actually works.

First, America’s companies are currently being managed to share the least possible amount of their income with the employees who help create it. Corporate profit margins are at all-time highs, while wages are at an all-time low.

Second, as Hanauer observes, America’s richest entrepreneurs, investors, and companies now have so much money that they can’t possibly spend it all. So instead of getting pumped back into the economy, thus creating revenue and wages, this cash just remains in investment accounts.

Read the whole thing.

Second, this by David Simon, creator of the highly-regarded teevee series The Wire (which I have not seen). This article is a nearly pitch-perfect summation of what I believe.

Labour doesn’t get to win all its arguments, capital doesn’t get to. But it’s in the tension, it’s in the actual fight between the two, that capitalism actually becomes functional, that it becomes something that every stratum in society has a stake in, that they all share.

The unions actually mattered. The unions were part of the equation. It didn’t matter that they won all the time, it didn’t matter that they lost all the time, it just mattered that they had to win some of the time and they had to put up a fight and they had to argue for the demand and the equation and for the idea that workers were not worth less, they were worth more.

Ultimately we abandoned that and believed in the idea of trickle-down and the idea of the market economy and the market knows best, to the point where now libertarianism in my country is actually being taken seriously as an intelligent mode of political thought. It’s astonishing to me. But it is. People are saying I don’t need anything but my own ability to earn a profit. I’m not connected to society. I don’t care how the road got built, I don’t care where the firefighter comes from, I don’t care who educates the kids other than my kids. I am me. It’s the triumph of the self. I am me, hear me roar.

That we’ve gotten to this point is astonishing to me because basically in winning its victory, in seeing that Wall come down and seeing the former Stalinist state’s journey towards our way of thinking in terms of markets or being vulnerable, you would have thought that we would have learned what works. Instead we’ve descended into what can only be described as greed. This is just greed. This is an inability to see that we’re all connected, that the idea of two Americas is implausible, or two Australias, or two Spains or two Frances.

[snip]

We have become something other than what we claim for the American dream and all because of our inability to basically share, to even contemplate a socialist impulse.

Socialism is a dirty word in my country. I have to give that disclaimer at the beginning of every speech, “Oh by the way I’m not a Marxist you know”. I lived through the 20th century. I don’t believe that a state-run economy can be as viable as market capitalism in producing mass wealth. I don’t.

I’m utterly committed to the idea that capitalism has to be the way we generate mass wealth in the coming century. That argument’s over. But the idea that it’s not going to be married to a social compact, that how you distribute the benefits of capitalism isn’t going to include everyone in the society to a reasonable extent, that’s astonishing to me.

And so capitalism is about to seize defeat from the jaws of victory all by its own hand. That’s the astonishing end of this story, unless we reverse course. Unless we take into consideration, if not the remedies of Marx then the diagnosis, because he saw what would happen if capital triumphed unequivocally, if it got everything it wanted.

And one of the things that capital would want unequivocally and for certain is the diminishment of labour. They would want labour to be diminished because labour’s a cost. And if labour is diminished, let’s translate that: in human terms, it means human beings are worth less.

[snip]

Mistaking capitalism for a blueprint as to how to build a society strikes me as a really dangerous idea in a bad way. Capitalism is a remarkable engine again for producing wealth. It’s a great tool to have in your toolbox if you’re trying to build a society and have that society advance. You wouldn’t want to go forward at this point without it. But it’s not a blueprint for how to build the just society. There are other metrics besides that quarterly profit report.

The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile. It’s a juvenile notion and it’s still being argued in my country passionately and we’re going down the tubes. And it terrifies me because I’m astonished at how comfortable we are in absolving ourselves of what is basically a moral choice. Are we all in this together or are we all not?

Read that whole thing, too.

Finally, local blogger and friend Alan Bedenko provided a bit of graphical information yesterday demonstrating pretty conclusively that America’s thirty-plus year experiment with supply-side economics has simply not produced the kind of overall economic prosperity that’s been promised. What has happened instead is a relentless upflow of money that is causing less social mobility than ever before.

The libertarian response would be one of two answers: first, we just haven’t made the markets free enough yet and only by remaining the final shackles will we create a tide that really lifts all boats, or second, the freedom of the markets is so inherently good and important that they actually supersede the real economic problems they create. Quite the bit of doublethink there: “Our prescription will solve a problem that in our hearts we don’t really believe is a problem at all.”

The worst thing is that there is now an entire generation of Americans who have grown up and internalized this bullshit and who think that this is the natural order of things, the way it’s supposed to run. Huge amounts of economic inequality and instability? Features, not bugs.

Will it ever change? Of course it will. The pendulum always swings. I just hope I get to see it start to swing back in my lifetime.

Share This Post