So, the agency that was being referred to in the article that started #YesGayYA has said that the authors (Sherwood Smith and Rachel Manija Brown) were lying about their article and that (direct quote): "these authors have exploited the topic."

I've read both, and while I can't know the precise words said in these conversations, I can say that I'm more than a little suspicious and unconvinced by anyone who's defense is this statement:

Our second bit of editorial feedback was that at least two POVs, possibly three, needed to be cut. Did one of these POVs include the gay character in question? Yes. Is it because he was gay? No. It’s because we felt there were too many POVs that didn’t contribute to the actual plot.

The thing is, it's not enough to say "oh, but we also wanted these straight characters reduced/cut out/etc" and then think that it's enough. Because it feels a lot like the intention argument and the "but I did this to a [insert privileged group] person, too!" arguments I am beyond weary of.

There was a damn good point made, and it's obviously been missed.

( In which I alternate between analysis and rage on the issue. )

ETA: For the sake of accuracy and fairness, it should be noted (as is stated here) that the agent who made the defensive post, Joanna Stampfel-Volpe, is not the agent in question who had the discussion with authors Sherwood and Brown. Rather, Joanna Stampfel-Volpe was merely an agent speaking on behalf of the agency.

This link Ten Rules for Writing has been circulating around my f-list for quite sometime. It's a collection of writing "rules" from various authors.

I almost didn't click the link because the idea of writing rules is something I despise absolutely. But I did.

( Thoughts about writing rules and on the querying writer-agent relationship. )

Something else to tack onto last night's post about American Idol and writers.

After watching the auditions, I now want to smack every writer who's ever argued with a rejection letter from an agent or editor. Seeing people argue with the judges was as bad for me as the horrible singing. Possibly worse.

Disappointment sucks, but you know what? So far, I've never heard of anyone getting to the next round or getting an agent deal by arguing with a rejection. So seriously, my fellow writers, take your polite "sorry, no, not for us" and move on. Because you are why we can't have nice things.

Oh, and if you're lucky enough to get some personal feedback? For the love of cheese and crackers, do not argue or make the agent regret ever having reached out to you, because then you've just messed it up for everyone who comes in behind you!

Okay, now I've gotta go do that writing and looking for a job thing that I do.

My computer is finally starting to say it's long goodbye, which is putting a cramp in how much writing I can get done. ( Cut for those who do not care about my technological woes )

Woke up to a rejection in the inbox. It was a very nice form rejection that included an apology for sending a form rejection. It made me smile, because while that's a very sweet gesture, I don't think any agent should feel the need to apologize for a form rejection. The fact that you bother to send any notification of rejection is actually quite generous on your part. So it's like saying, "I apologize for being extra nice!"

Query Score Card update time! The score is changing not only to reflect the rejections I've gotten, but that I found yet another agent who accepts fantasy that I missed when I re-checked.

Requests - 2 (1 full, 1 partial)

Rejections - 3

Timed Out - 0 (from round 3. All of round 2 has timed out, rejected, or requested)

Still Pending - 4


I'm thinking of posting the agents I've found, thus far, that accept SF/F fiction along with a more specific list of what they have/do accept. I know other lists like this are out there, so would it be helpful to anyone else if I did this or no?

I've found that a lot of agents who will look kindly on vampires, werewolves and leather-clad heroines have no interest in science fiction or higher end fantasy, and I think it's a bit deceptive on the part of some search engines to say that a writer accepts "fantasy" - because that's like saying, for example, that Scott Lynch and Laurell K. Hamilton are writing the exact same thing and if you've ever read The Lies of Locke Lamora or any of the Merry Gentry or Anita Blake series, you know they're not.

First with the bad this time:

Science-fiction author Peter Watts was detained and beaten at the U.S.-Canada border. Quoting from the article:

When Peter got out of the car and questioned the nature of the search, the gang of border guards subjected him to a beating, restrained him and pepper sprayed him. At the end of it, local police laid a felony charge of assault against a federal officer against Peter. On Wednesday, he posted bond and walked across the border to Canada in shirtsleeves (he was released by Port Huron officials with his car and possessions locked in impound, into a winter storm that evening). He's home safe. For now. But he has to go back to Michigan to face the charge brought against him.

This is completely unacceptable and a clear violation of civil rights. There's a defense fund for Dr. Watts and donations can be sent (according to the BoingBoing article) via PayPal to donate@rifters.com

Another good link is here about the incident, pecunium, Root and Branch. Definitely worth you reading. Because having a different president doesn't mean that all the ugliness of the old administration is gone.


And for a bit of good. Today is Agent Appreciation Day! While I don't have an agent (but would dearly like to), I definitely enjoy seeing people share the many wonderful things their agents do for them as writers.

I may not have an agent, but I know that I've received a lot of great advice, help, and pointers from agents who went out of their way to be extra kind, even when rejecting me. They didn't have to be, but they were. I'm much better for it, and hopefully am sending out a stronger manuscript than I had in hand a year or two ago.

As a writer? I can say that such advice as "you give away too much information in the prologue" is worth it's weight in gold coming from an agent - and for such advice I'm thankful to so many. And yes, that definitely does include Colleen Lindsay. I disagree vehemently with the things she says online sometimes (still do), but I won't deny that her help was invaluable in shaping up the Tower!Guy manuscript. She didn't have to go out of her way, but she did. I'm sorry there's not a day to say "Thank you even though I'm not your client" - because I'd like to do that. I imagine I'm probably not the only unpublished nobody she's reached out to, and if you're someone who's benefitted from her free-of-charge, keen-sighted hardwork, I'd recommend sending up a flag.

I also owe thanks to other agents who rejected the Tower!Guy novel and gave bits of feedback, even if they were a sentence or two on how they felt about the protagonists or the plot or the setting. Or heck, even just some advice about the market and about who is and isn't looking for my type of book.

Like I said, you wouldn't believe the benefit of having someone say something as simple as, "Your plot slows down in the middle" or "Your protagonist cries too much". Not always easy to swallow, but they help you hone in on where you need to improve that book and whatever books you write in the future.

So to those many agents who have been so kind, who I have not thanked personally because it would clog their already crowded inboxes - I salute you.

If you do have an agent that's done you a good turn, go and add their name to the list. We need to recognize the good guys and gals in this industry.

Because Friday is for nothing if not walking around the internet picking up shiny things.

John Scalzi talks about his short fiction rates and author Catherynne M. Valente replies by discussing her short fiction rates. Definitely a good couple of posts about rates, the market, and making a living in this business.

Justine Musk talks about writing like a bad girl in Part One and Part Two of her "Why You Need To Write Like a Bad Girl".

My favorite line of the two posts: "Because bad girls get to go everywhere." That my friends, is one excellent statement.

raecarson has an interesting discussion going about YA and what it is. I, of course, have strong feelings on the matter. But mostly, I just want YA to continue being a genre that under-18 readers can turn to for awesome books that are for them. Like I said in comments there. If there's ever a time in your life when you need really awesome books - it's when you're a kid.

And just for fun, The worst SF movies of the decade (also by John Scalzi). I pretty much agree with all his choices, though I'm wondering why none of the made-for-TV movies that SciFi (sorry, SyFy) puts out are on that list. Any "bad movie" compilation that does not include Mansquito is incomplete if you ask me.

I think agent Rachelle Gardner wins the internets for this post here, which was a follow up to yesterday's rather contentious post which got a lot of comments both positive and negative concerning writers who complain.

I have to commend her for really listening, even when it had to be really wince inducing to do so. I'd love to see more of this kind of thing from agents.

Also? I would love it if every agent set up an autoresponse system for queries. I don't mind a "no response equal rejection" policy if I have a way of knowing the email got there. A simple, "Your query has been received, if you don't get a response in [insert time frame], we aren't interested" would go a long, long way.

Good on the SFWA for coming out with this statement denouncing Harlequin's self publishing imprint. And while we're at it, a pat on the back to the RWA for also not tolerating these shenanigans, either.

My hats off to both organizations and those that made the decisions. Especially the RWA. I can only imagine that it was not an easily reached decision on their part, but they acted correctly. Proving that the romance genre does, in fact, possess some of the most awesome people on God's green earth.

Frankly, I'm appalled that Harlequin would do this. It's so clearly a grab for money meant to prey on naive and desperate writers. It's little more than a confidence scheme. The name change tells me that Harlequin knows this and there is some sense of corporate guilt in knowing that they're basically trying to line their pockets on the desperation of the unpublished.

I'm reminded of the guiding principle of the con from Hu$tle, "Find someone who wants something for nothing and give them nothing for something."

arcaedia also known as Jennifer Jackson, has a pretty good write up on it as well, and I echo her sentiments entirely.

There is a time and a place for self publishing, and it's for people who want to stay strictly amateur and have no interest in profits or distribution or recognition. Want to put out a cook book for your church bake sale? Self publish! Want to distribute some family stories and memories amongst relatives and loved ones? Self publish! Want to give a book of your short stories to a few friends who've asked to see them time and again? Self publish!

Yes, some have gotten extraordinarily lucky, but so have some people who buy lotto tickets. All the other millions who buy tickets just blow their money and have nothing to show for it.

When you want significant money and distribution to enter the equation, you need to work with other people on professional terms that ensure that you get compensated for your work.

Unfortunately, the self-publishing con doesn't want you to know this. They want you to think that you're cleverly by-passing those stodgy, elitist publishers and agents and editors who sit around cackling like the witches of endor while breaking the dreams of innocent, unpublished writers who are delicate, special little snowflakes that just need someone to recognize their snowflakeyness.

Those editors and agents and publishers are not some big scheme to break your heart that someone put there just to be mean. It's a system and an industry that functions the way it does because that's, more or less, what works best.

Yes, there are kinks in the system - but the fact that enough people make money (including writers) for it to be an industry should tell you that something.

Even if the industry went paperless and electronic tomorrow, agents, editors, and publishing companies would still exist in some form. The business of getting a lot of people to read this Really Great Book Over here still requires the same steps. Someone has to write the book, someone has to check that the book is actually good, someone has to distribute the book to places (virtual or real) where readers can acquire the book, and someone has to tell lots of people about the book so they will go to that place and buy it.

Which means that companies will still need to exist who profit from marketing and distributing books by having a wider network than a single author could muster on their own, and go-between agents will still exist to mediate between writers and those companies.

And that means that anyone who tells you that you, too, can be a famous author in a few easy steps just by paying a small free is still going to be giant crook. Even a big company like Harlequin.

This piece on GalleyCat asking Agents? Who needs 'em? sparked off a lot of controversy across the publishing sphere. The article posed the question about whether agents are becoming obsolete (or already are) with the advent of things like eBooks and Kindle.

I have to admit there was something of an anti-agent tone running through the piece, and there have been a lot of rebuttals:

Author Stacia Kane said: Yes, Virginia, you need an agent

Author Jeaniene Frost had some words to say as well

Miriam Goderich of the Dystel and Goderich Literary Agency responded that she also thinks agents are necessary an not going anywere

( My thoughts on the subject, let me show them to you. Or, the answer is not a Yes/No dichotomy. )

My good friend vanessabrooks asked me via twitter: Why don't you buy the 1000 True Fans theory?.*

If you don't know what the 1000 true fans theory is, you can read about it here. It's, more or less, the idea that you can as an artist create a sustainable career if you have 1000 true fans willing to buy everything you produce (the number thrown around is $100 worth of stuff).

Simple math will tell you that 1000 fans buying 100 dollars worth of stuff gets you $100,000. Not bad, right?

( Don't let Charlie Eppes fool you. Numbers can lie. Just like anything else that people use or create. Or why I don't buy into the 1000 true fans theory. )


*And in case I haven't introduced you to the addictive excellence of her web serial "Strange Little Band", let me do so now. This stuff is truly addictive in the way really good dark chocolate is addictive. Psychics and romance and shenanigans and some occasional lulz. It's got it all! Get thee hence to the website!