What we talk about when we talk about gorillas who teach at Oxford

Standard

Over on the LiveJournal version of yesterday’s post, I had someone say they were surprised to hear that I was working on a project called KING KHAN. I thought, Have I not talked about this?

Let me give you a quick rundown on this project, what it is and what it will be.

Back in April, indie rpg company Evil Hat was having a pretty good run on a Kickstarter. They were trying to fund a trilogy of books based on their Spirit of the Century game, which is a pulp-adventure game with an emphasis on the 1920-30s, and it was doing well enough that they set some stretch goals. One of those was for me to write a book featuring a particular reader favorite character: Professor Khan, an intelligent gorilla who teaches at Oxford.

After some discussion, we decided that I was going to write a book that had Professor Khan visit Los Angeles in the studio era. There’s a mysterious death, a stolen weird-science maguffin, and lots of high-strangeness of the lightning gun/shrink beam/hopping ghost variety.

And it’s funny. At least, it’s supposed to be funny. There’s action, naturally, but I’m hoping the characters and situations will be amusing and uplifting. Did I mention that it stars a gorilla who teaches at Oxford?

Anyway, I’m nearly finished with the first draft (it’ll be a short book, probably 70K or less) and, after a polish, will send it off and get back to EPIC FINALE WITH NO DULL PARTS. No rest for the weary.

6 Things Make a Post

Standard

1) There are a lot of folks who like to kick school teachers (esp the unionized ones) and you might think that I, being a homeschooling parent, am one of them. I’m not. Check out this post by a friend on why she quit working at a public school in an L.A. ghetto. Yeah, she’s a talented writer, but I know she wanted to stick it out. Unfortunately, we live in a top-down society that likes to micromanage our workers.

2) As reported on Genreville, there’s an opening at Harper Voyager for books in their upcoming ebook-focused Impulse imprint. Submissions will be open for two weeks only, starting October 1st. More details at that link, for the curious.

3) No, authors do not routinely create sock puppets to praise their own books and disparage others’ so don’t let these assholes fool you. There’s something sad and grasping in all the recent revelations about fake reviews, purchased reviews, and bullying of readers who post one-star reviews. Kate Elliott was on Twitter talking about visibility, and how desperate writers can feel about their work. “If only people would give it a chance!” Right?

But that assumes that success is an incredibly frail thing, something so delicate that a couple negative reviews can destroy it. I don’t believe that. Enthusiasm is a powerful thing, and if you can make people excited about your work, that enthusiasm will be enough.

4) You know what makes me laugh (quietly, on the inside) when I see big corporations complaining about copyright violations? The knowledge that it’s their fault. They’ve spent decades building this consumer culture where people are constantly pushed to get more more more, are judged for what they have, are assured that they can get it cheaper and faster, and have generally been driven into a state where acquiring shit they don’t need feels awesome.

Then technology changes things so they can get what they want without paying, so they do. They don’t care how much money, time, energy, or expertise went into something. They see it. They want it. They take it. And honestly, that’s the kind of culture we’ve built.

5) What I can’t stand, though, is the way companies have responded. Take a look at this io9 article about Ustream cutting off the online feed of the Hugo Awards midway through because they showed (with permission) clips from TV shows. An automated system shut down the video immediately and there was no way to restore it until after the awards had ended.

Now, you’d be hard-pressed to find another spec fic writer who cares less about the Hugo Awards than I do. My indifference is colossal. However, the program that shut down the feed shut off service without any attempt to discern that the users were at fault. Just, boom, you’re out. Notice also that in his apology, Ustream’s CEO made sure to mention their paid service, suggesting that things would have been fine (of fixed quickly) if the users had paid up first.

There has got to be a better way to work things out.

6) I’m writing this last night and I won’t be around when it posts. The plan is to duck out of my home early and get to work on KING KHAN. I’m so close to finishing this first draft I can taste it (but I won’t finish tomorrow. Probably.)

Randomness for 9/3

Standard

1) An easy way to separate eggs. Video.

2) The Hobo Convention via @sblackmoore

3) Nine Crazy Things People Find Inside Walls.

4) Yet another dumbass concept bike.

5) Yet another dude making awful threats against female comics pros. One instance where reading the comments section is a good thing.

6) Seven deadly weapons you should never make out of common household items. aka: the prop list for the next season of Burn Notice.

7) Film school in comic form! Part one: Writing the screenplay. via @RodRamsey

Bonus 7A thing) Read “comics” on an iCabinet (powered by a hand-crank). There’s no app for this.

What’s wrong with PARANORMAN?

Standard

My wife spent a few years working in the film and TV industry in NYC, and I know that she’ll want to see a movie if there’s beautiful animation. So when I heard that PARANORMAN had been made in true stop motion animation, I knew she’d want to see it.

And it was good. It’s full of beautiful choices, including slightly translucent ears. It made my son laugh several times. The pacing was quick and the performances worked.

Which doesn’t change the fact that I left vaguely dissatisfied. Part of the problem is that Norman’s world is filled with ghosts, right up to the point that he could use their help. Then the movie complete forgets that the whole town is crowded with kindly dead folks. Weirdly, there’s a scene specifically to set up his grandmother’s spirit as his protector, but then the movie forgets all about her.

The other problem is the way the antagonists lose their potency mid-story. Until the final final baddie shows up, one antagonist after another is essentially disarmed through the power of reasonable discussion. Nothing builds. It just keeps fizzling out, and the threat the main baddie represents doesn’t become concrete until the last few minutes.

All of those choices steal urgency from the story. Still, it’s a fun movie and gorgeous to look at. There’s even an Easter egg at the end showing a stop motion of the creation of the main character. I’m tempted to buy the DVD just for that.

Money = Visibility

Standard

It’s no secret that SCOTUS has declared that money is a form of speech. I’m no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that money is the volume knob on the megaphone you speak into, not speech itself, but maybe that’s not a valuable distinction. At least, the top court in the country didn’t think so.

But money is visibility, too. It’s common for creative types to talk about obscurity as the biggest threat to our… well, I guess the word would have to be “careers” even though it makes me want to go back to bed for the rest of the week. Writers obsess about getting the word out about our work; yesterday’s post about the best seller letting her husband, assistant, and readers harass reviewers for low ratings is one example. Another was my own obsession with sending Child of Fire to every blog reviewer I could find.

People buy ads in magazines, on blogs, in Google search results. They make bookmarks, keychains, and other swag. They plead for positive reviews on Amazon.

And so on and so forth. Anything to spread the word. Even if it’s not ethical.

This week, the news came out that self-publishing success story John Locke boosted himself out of the long tail by purchasing reviews on Amazon. He paid a service an even grand for fifty reviews (to start); each reviewer also bought his 99 cent book, so the reviews would show up as ‘verified.’

Now, he claims that he didn’t demand the reviews be positive, but surprise surprise, they were. He also couldn’t have made the Kindle 1 million seller list if he hadn’t had something in his books that made people want to read them. Have you read any of this work? It’s not good, but it has a quick pace some readers want.

Still, the dude rose out of obscurity by lying to readers. That’s a shitty way to build a career and not only is it deadly to his reputation, but to the entire system of reader endorsements. Customers are still enchanted by the idea that the best stuff will naturally accrue positive attention; game that, and you leave us with nothing but paid ads and publisher PR campaigns.

Worse, the review vendor outed in the article is treating it like a PR boost, which I suppose it is. Quick tip for Mr. Rutherford: he should stop identifying his clients to journalists if he intends to stay in business.

Salon touched on this, too. Here’s a quick quote: … employing a service that dishonest and cynical demonstrates a bizarre contempt for the reader. It casts the writer as a producer of widgets and the reader as a sucker who probably won’t complain if the product doesn’t live up to the hype, because hey, at least it was cheap. Books, in this scenario, become flea market trash — wind-up toys you buy on a whim and expect to break.

The comments on that Salon article are the usual hash of self-publisher ranting. It doesn’t matter what charge you lay on any self-publisher anywhere, publishers are always worse in some unspecified way.

But it comes down to one thing, really: Don’t lie to people. Don’t try to trick them into liking you or your work. It’s not that hard.

Four ways to use YOUR social networking skills to build a large community of assholes

Standard

This weekend’s entertainment (aside from seeing PARANORMAN–review upcoming) was yet another author (and surrogates) behaving badly. The Readers Digest version: after passive-aggressively complaining that her wonderful readers hadn’t pushed her to #1 on a best seller list (apparently she landed on the #2 spot for the nth time) her husband, assistant, and readers began writing outraged notes to people who had posted negative reviews on Amazon.

Eventually, they dug up the phone number of one of the reviewers and began leaving scary messages on her voice mail. When the author heard about this, she suggested all this would blow over if the reviewer would just take down her critical post (and boy, she sure must love all this attention).

But hey, maybe YOU would like to have legions of assholes willing to bully and threaten readers who leave negative reviews. Maybe you would like to be surrounded by people who think it’s romantic when your spouse calls a reviewer a “psycho.”

If so, here’s a four-step method (because the internet loves lists!) for building your own community of bullies:

1. Be yourself but not, you know, your actual self.

Your bullies will expect you to share your authentic self but will be put off by your actual self. Your actual self might acknowledge ambiguity, might equivocate or feel uncertainty.

You don’t want to show that. Simply talk about your enthusiasms, your goals, and your belief in a fairer, better world. Try to avoid any kind of self-doubt and reserve your negative or critical remarks for your chosen out-groups (See below).

2. Your assholes need regular feeding.

And nothing feeds an asshole quite like unequivocal praise. Tell them you love them. Tell them you could never succeed without them. Thank them profusely. You “owe” it all to them, don’t you? Bullies love to be told they are important

Even better, if possible, is to share “inside” information with them. How publishing works, how TV production works, how Congress works, whatever. Let them feel they’re getting the inside scoop that out-groups are not getting (the poor, deluded fools). Insider info can limit your community to people with an interest in the insider topic at hand (rather than the more diffuse praise-devouring mobs) but it can also intensify the bullies’ attachment. Use your judgement to decide which is best.

3. Can you believe the cruelty of [out-group]?

Assholes love the rush of power that comes from bullying people online, but the ones who use their cruelty solely for the rush are not numerous enough for your purposes and they are difficult to control; what if they turn on you??? Best to avoid them.

What you want is a mob of closeted bullies, people who think of themselves as essentially good people but are willing to bully and insult people at the proper instigation. And there is nothing that pleases a closeted asshole quite like a Just Cause.

This is why it’s important to identify an out-group who are the essence of cruelty, who believe themselves intelligent and authoritative but are in truth utterly deluded. Your chosen insider information will be useful for this: Are you sharing tips on successful self-publishing? Advocating for a return to the gold standard? Pushing for single-payer health care? The out-groups suggest themselves.

If you’ve decided not to narrow the focus of your community with insider info, you’ll want to turn them lose on more personal enemies. Remember in point 1. where you were told to share your dreams and goals? Well, this out-group threatens those dreams with their negative reviews, personal attacks, and nasty schoolyard rumor-mongering.

4. Where ever you’re standing, that’s the high road.

You can’t turn your personal assholes loose on your chosen out-group without a Just Cause. You yourself must maintain the appearance of fairness and honest dealing while hinting at personal attacks you’ve hidden from the community. Also, every negative review or disputed fact must be attributed to personal attack and/or a secret agenda. If you’re going to insult your out-group by, say, calling them “pinheads” be sure to insist that “They started it.” In fact, no matter how nasty or ugly things get keep asserting that the out-groups are the ones making everything awful.

Never directly ask your bullies to go bully. It’s much more effective talk about your personal pain, caused by someone on a particular site. Don’t be specific and don’t link directly, but make sure the assholes can easily find it on their own.

Talk about how much it hurts to get a negative review, and how obviously personal it all is, and that you suspect this is the same person sending (undefined) awfulness to you privately. Your assholes, seeing a threat to their steady diet of praise, will do their best to drive that negative review off the internet, and the person who wrote it as well. After all, you’ve convinced them that you “owe” them, right? They will feel a powerful urge to protect their emotional investment.

It’s possible that you will feel the faint urge to ask them to stop–perhaps you’ll think there’s something vaguely wrong with calling a woman’s home and threatening her–but you should squelch that urge. Ignore it until it goes away. Remember to always act as though you and your bullies are only responding in kind, and that the whole kerfuffle would stop as soon as the other person stops.

Finally, you may be asking yourself: Why the fuck would I want this?

I have no idea. People do, apparently. I’m convinced they don’t do it consciously. They take their offline behavior and bring it online, where it creates this awful crowd of self-justifying creeps and bullies, and they convince themselves it’s what social media success is supposed to be.

Personally, I’d never go online again if my own readers started doing this.

Randomness for 8/26

Standard

1) Barkour! Video (not a typo)

2) Organizing a game session through a flow chart.

3) Godzilla vs. Kinkade.

4) A working hoverbike you don’t need a pilot’s license to drive.

5) The World’s 19 Weirdest Hangover Remedies.

6) 27 Ways to Rethink Your Bed.

7) Mark Waid’s four panels that never work.

A Most Excellent Documentary on Monster Movies

Standard

Here’s the Kickstarter promo video:

I’m not sure if that will work, so here’s the direct link.

The docu is called MEN IN SUITS, and its about the actors, often never named, who wore the monster suits in classic horror, science fiction, and fantasy movies. The filmmakers are the same guys who made my book trailer and who won an award at SDCC for their Lovecraft documentary.

Anyway, watch the video, please. It’s a fun project that will bring some attention to people who deserve more time in the limelight.

You may have noticed that the blog has grown quiet

Standard

In truth, I’m a little under the weather. It’s nothing serious, but while I’ll probably be skimming through my social media whatevers, I’m not sure I’m up to an actual blog post.

Besides, I have a bunch of work to finish this month, not least of which is to come up with a worthwhile title for EPIC FANTASY WITH NO DULL PARTS.

I hate titles.

Randomness for 8/14

Standard

1) Some Advice For How To Cope In These Tough Times.

2) 17 Images You Won’t Believe Are Photoshopped, (part 10)

3) A labyrinth created from a quarter-million books.

4) The self-described “Hardest Game In The World.” h/t to my son

5) The Tragedy Series.

6) A $2 Million Dollar “Batcave” Movie Theater.

7) Brilliant or Gross? 20 recipes. None of these sound good to me, and I’m not a particularly conservative eater.