The Nebula Award nominees are here.
words
Randomness for 2/11
Standard1) Jessa Crispin, editor and founder of Bookslut.com, writes a largely critical article about Jeff VanderMeer’s Booklife. As a response, VanderMeer interviews her on his blog. Now THAT is a smart response to a negative writeup.
2) Peter Osnos on Macmillan vs. Amazon.com.
3) An important chart for urban fantasists.
4) Weird stalker calls, and how to end a story on a dramatic note.
5) Jimmy Dean’s iPhone accessories.
6) Polls show that 70% of Americans support allowing “gay men and lesbians” to serve in the military, but only 59% support allowing “homosexuals” to serve. Rational actors? I don’t think so.
7) Anne Rice to release a “Vook.” FYI Perez Hilton loved it.
Well don’t I feel all special
StandardNow that I’ve joined SFWA, I can follow the Nebula Awards nominations, tracking them as they pile up. It’s like a horse race, but the people involved move very slowly.
In case anyone asks, I’m not on there, of course, and I didn’t expect to be. I’m also not asking people to nominate my book or whatever. I’m not writing the sort of work that wins awards, and I won’t be any time soon. It’s not a concern. In fact, I posted my joke bio on the Campbell Award page. I won’t win and I don’t care.
One thing I *do* care about is that I haven’t nominated anyone yet. I’ve only read one new sf/f novel this year–I’ve bought a bunch, but only read one. It’s already near the front of the pack, but maybe my nom would do it some good.
But is that fair? My sample size is one–shouldn’t I keep out of the whole mess? There may be ten or twelve novels that deserve the award more, but how would I know? I’m still reading mystery novels from the sixties and Planet Hulk.
So, should a person nominate books for an award if they’re not well read in the field?
Bought today
StandardAn ebook idea
StandardMicrosoft Word’s annoying “comment” feature gave me a weird idea–which maybe you’ve already heard about from other people, but I’ll post it here in case it’s the newest thing in newville.
Background: for many years, local Seattle writer David Schmader gave live performances in which he played the schlocktastic movie SHOWGIRLS and delivered a running commentary for a live audience. I never went to one of his performances because a) it would involve going outside and b) it’s SHOWGIRLS, but the shows were so popular that the studio offered to let him do the show as a commentary track on the DVD.
That’s almost tempting.
Anyway, I’ve been thinking about ebooks and people’s desire to resell them used. I’m not too keen on that idea, for reasons that I don’t necessarily want to go into, but it occurred to me that there are a lot of books that could stand to have a commentary track.
Would you be interested in an ebook of Lord of the Rings with interspersed comments by Tom Shippey? Would you want to read David Hines’s comments on John Ringo’s Paladin of Shadows books? Jo Walton’s take on… whatever?
The novels could be sold as an annotated edition–slightly more expensive than the original ebook, with payment going to the original publisher (and author) and a small fee going to the annotater. It wouldn’t be a “used” book the way paper books are sold, but it would be a value-added way for ebook readers to resell their content–and readers who were especially insightful (or, to be honest, snarky) could start a nice little side business.
Just an idea.
Edited to add: Actually, I’m not done writing about this. More in a bit.
Edited to add, redux: I meant to talk about this 70-minute slam review of The Phantom Menace, which everyone has been linking to lately. I’d planned to link to it, too, right up to the point that I watched it.
To explain: it’s seventy minutes of breaking down the many ways in which the film failed, and how George Lucas became too big to be “edited,” and how to establish audience sympathy, set up a protagonist, dramatize a dilemma central to the plot, etc. Interesting stuff, and it’s very professionally done.
The downside is that the reviewer decided to do the job in character. The conceit of the critique is that this is a film made by a brain-damaged serial killer–a guy so totally screwed up he’s one step away from a monster, and yet even he understands how badly Lucas blew it. So, between the comments about Qui Gon’s character and the utter muddle of the film’s plot, we get a bunch of goofy comments about women chained in the basement, f-bombs, disembodied voices, and general misogyny. Thanks for making sure I can’t watch this with my kid, filmmaker. So, a lot of useful insight and a lot of distasteful humor.
But this is something I’d expect to see on the annotation market, as I’m going to call it now. Readers as characters–Joe Bob Briggs or Red Mike, dialogs between the reader (as straightman) and an evil alter-ego).
Which would be kinds cool.
I’d envision the market working like this: A year for the book to be on sale. After that time, annotated versions could be sold alongside the un-annotated versions through the same online sellers. Publishers and authors would be able to have annotated versions that were not actual commentary pulled (for instance, a reader who posts their own fiction/fanfiction as annotations to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows would not be legit) but would be able to pull annotations because they were excessively critical.
I guess it would never happen in real life, but I like to think about it.
More Amazon.comFail
StandardJeff Vandermeer posted about the sense of entitlement many ebook readers show in the comment sections of the Macmillan/Amazon.com threads that have popped up since last week. Take a look; it’s an interesting piece.
One thing I think he’s missing is the anger and resentment of self-proclaimed indie authors, who seize on any opportunity to lambaste large NY publishers and their many, many rejection letters. The common indie author shouts of “Last century’s business model!” and “Useless middlemen!” and “Getting between authors and readers!” have been rhetorical weapons the 9.99 Boycotters have snatched up and brandished with gusto.
In the meantime, I’ve disabled the Amazon.com links in the sidebar of my blog. I’ll reinstate them when Boneshaker (and other Tor titles) are restored. It won’t mean much to the Big River Flowing Through All Those Tubes, but it’s what I can do at the moment.
Last, there are four entries in the Valentine’s contest (although not all of them are on the correct post). I’ll be listing my top three tonight sometime after dinner. Last chance to enter!
Contest reminder
StandardThe contest for winning a copy of Child of Fire has ten comments on it but only one actual entry. Enter before tomorrow (Thurs) evening if you want a free book.
Five things make a post
Standard1) The changes my agent has asked me to do have turned out to be surprisingly simple. Not easy by any means, and certainly not quick, but not terribly complicated, either. What she’s asked me to pare away, unify and change are pretty self-contained as far as the overall plot goes. Except the ending. I’m still thinking about the change to the ending.
2) Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking was a revelation. Rupert Everett’s performance in the lead was startling and affecting. The murder plot–wealthy young girls kidnapped from their homes and strangled–wasn’t terrifically original, but the performances were wonderful.
3) Some weeks ago, I posted links on my main blog/website to let people pre-order Game of Cages if they wanted. I went to every site I’d listed for Child of Fire and dug up a link for all of them… except for Barnes & Noble, because the book wasn’t listed yet. It’s still not listed.
Sure, the publication date is seven months away, but it ought to be listed by now, yeah? If, that is, B&N plans to stock the book at all.
4) I really do not need to be distracted by the idea that B&N might not be carrying my book, along with everything that implies. Not when I have a novel to finish.
5) Isn’t “pre-order” kind of a ridiculous term? Some friends pointed this out to me a while ago, but the “pre-order” happens when I’m planning a purchase. Even if the product isn’t available yet, I’m still ordering it, right?
I think I’m going to spend my time thinking about #5 and #1 instead of #4
Randomness for 1/28
Standard1) I’m not sure what to call this video clip: GUN FU HUSTLE (Bollywood version)? Whatever you call it, it’s delightfully absurd and inventive.
2) Cherie Priest: high priestess of steampunk.
3) Dear News Media: When reporting on polls, please keep in mind…
4) Louis CK — Being White. God, how I laughed.
5) UK government bans export of fake bomb detectors.
6) Ted Haggard’s wife Gayle stands by her husband/writes book. Ms. Haggard says that her husband confessed to a sexual encounter with another man early in their marriage. He asked for and received her forgiveness, sought counseling, and they moved on. Or that’s what she thought–later she discovered (along with everyone else) that he had been seeing men in secret. However, now he’s asked for and received her forgiveness, sought counseling and they’ve moved on. So that’s totally different from the previous time. (Actually, there is a difference: Ms. Haggard has a book with an Amazon.com sales ranking in three digits. I hope she’s squirreling that money away.)
7) Try to conceal your unbearable surprise, but the CIA agent who claimed in December of 2007 that waterboarding got worthwhile intelligence out of hard-core terrorists, disrupting dozens of attacks? Well, it turns out that he was lying. So much for the “It works. Period.” crowd.
Attention newly published authors!
StandardFor authors with recent first-time pro sales, you might want to check your eligibility for a John W. Campbell Award (not-a-Hugo)[1] by going to this site. Once you’ve confirmed that you’re eligible, you should let the folks running the awards know that by clicking the “Contact Us” link on that same web page.
Good luck!
[1] That’s the full name of the award, yeah?
