Strange Horizon's Reader Poll 2015

Pleased to hear that a round table interview I was part of last year at Strange Horizons made the website's top five articles, according to their readers. Awesome.

The article is called "Representing Marginalized Voices in Historical Fiction and Fantasy, By Joyce Chng, David Anthony Durham, Kari Sperring, and Vanessa Rose Phin". My Stonecoast peeps will recognize this as stuff we talk about a lot during our MFA residency, but still... It's stuff worth sharing, I think.

It's HERE.

Eating Authors

Scary title, huh? Fortunately, it's not as sinister as it might sound.

Eating Authors is a series on author Lawrence Schoen's blog wherein he asks guests to speak about a memorable meal. He asked me me recently, and I came up with what I hope is a unique spin on it. A little bit of live seafood plucked from Shetland's craggy seaside...

I've included a photo of Sage since he features prominently in the tale.

If you're interested you can read about it HERE!

A View From Massachusetts...

...on the matter of signing up for health insurance via the new exchanges.

Some years back the family and I moved back to the States after a few years living in Scotland. We were young, but we had children and figured we should look into getting health coverage. (I won't even go into the shock to the system is was to have to exchange the NHS for the American... well, lack of a viable system. That's another discussion.) At that point, all we could do was get online and on the phone, calling up the companies directly. Little did I know what I was inviting.

For weeks after we got bombarded by phone calls, emails and promotional material, all trying to win us over to one plan or another. It was kinda crazy. For one, it was impossible to really tell the different plans apart and to have any idea what was in them. For another, the waste of it all was staggering. Long phone conversations that left me none the wiser. Big, glossy, photograph-heavy tomes filled with smiling people and promises of benevolent care. I couldn't help wondering how much money they were spending on all of it, and couldn't help feeling that all of it was unnecessary and wasteful.

Who did we chose? Well, we didn't. It was all too expensive for us at the time, and I didn't trust any of the plans would be there for us if we really needed them. We went uninsured for several years, until we moved out of state and were insured through several teaching jobs that I took over the next three years.

But eventually I left those and we came back to MA. A new MA, one in which Mitt Romney's healthcare reforms were in effect. Now I had to deal with the exchanges, and I had no choice but to be covered one way or another. I wasn't thrilled, but...

Man, was it clearer and more reassuring to go through the exchanges. All the information was in one place. All of it easier to understand and compare. Not hard sells and glossy photos and grand promises... Just information about what was offered, what it cost and what the details were. For a moment there I felt like they'd hired someone from Britain to design the website - meaning it made sense, was clear and un-intimidating, and actually tended to answer the questions I had.

I still think it's unfortunate that a for-profit business serves as the middle man between people and the healthcare they need, but if that has to be the law of the land I can attest to how much more efficient the system is with a bit of reasonable government oversight. At least I understand what I'm signing up for, and it feels like there's greater accountability from the insurers since the information is presented publicly and for all.

I don't know how the new exchanges are going to work nationwide, but if they're anything like my experience here... well, it ain't the system I would choose, but it's a lot better than the status quo.

I've Been Quiet

That's not because I've been doing nothing, though. Been doing lots of stuff, really, though circumstances are such that I can't talk about much of it. Some things have been delayed because of my ownself. Some have been screwed with in general. Some are things that involve other folks, and I have to wait for them. So... I may be waiting a while yet for those things. It will all, eventually, be good. I really have no doubt about that.

But! One of the projects that's been held up for the last year has finally come together. It's a Wild Cards/George RR Martin thing.

But... I've been remiss in updating on various new Wild Cards developments. So, before mentioning the WC news that includes me directly, I'll update on things about my mutant family. See next post...

(I'd like spread these things out a bit, as the pieces came in separately over last couple of weeks.)

Some Thoughts on a Young Man's Murder

Trayvon Martin. His story tears me up. It's hard for me to know how inundated folks are about news stories in the States (since I'm in the UK), but clearly this story has been getting much play.

If you don't know much about the story, you could read about it HERE, at the good old BBC.

Or HERE at the Guardian.

Or you could listen to the On Point show about it HERE.

Or just do a search. Plenty of stories out there. They'll tell you about a teenage boy that got shot to death while armed with Skittles, a bottle of iced tea, and a cellphone. He got shot because a paranoid neighborhood watch vigilante seemed to really be afraid of black males he didn't know. Despite the fact George Zimmerman weighs 250lbs and had a handgun (compared to Martin's 140lbs and convenience store items) he claims to have felt his life was in danger. With gun in hand, he shot. An irreversible action. The local cops accepted that. Didn't even arrest him.

Wow.

When I was a teenager I looked much like this boy. (I would post a photo of me at the same age if I had one with me.) He could be me. He could be my one of my friends. He could be Chris, or Omar, or the other Chris, or the other David, or Dwayne or... I could go on. Neither I nor any of my friends ever did any crime more serious than teenage mischief. None of us got arrested. None of us were a danger to anybody.

Like Trayvon... accept that we were luckier than him.

There was a time in college when I - influenced by eye-opening African-American history and literature courses - went a bit Afro-centric in my look. Grew my hair out a bit. Wore a knit cap with a Rastafarian vibe. Sported t-shirts with African themes. The more convincingly I grew into my African appearance, the more I noticed how differently people looked at me. Librarians that I'd known for years didn't recognize me. People seeing me approach them on the street grew clearly nervous. And...

I will always remember one time on campus, when I came out of the stairwell in the English Department. It was late in the day, maybe 7pm or so. I came face to face with one of my professors, a middle-aged white man with whom I'd taken two courses the year before. Apparently, I'd changed enough that he didn't recognize me. He flinched, and slid to one side of the hallway and... bolted passed me.

I stood there thinking, "What just happened?" Not only had he been my professor for two courses, he'd given me A's in both of them. He knew that I edited the college literary magazine. He'd been in the jury that awarded me the college fiction award. At least, if he'd recognized me he would've known all those things. But that evening he didn't see the young man he knew. He saw a black youth that scared him. Instead of saying, "Oh, hi David. You gave me a fright," he bolted like his life was in danger.

That's what concerns me. This professor had no reason at all to think his life was in danger. He should've recognized me from hours in his classroom - hours in which I consistently earned top marks. I was on campus, entering the department in which I had an office (as the magazine editor). And yet he ran from me because I looked - in that moment - like someone he thought was scary. How was I scary?

I had puffy hair and a funny cap. Oh, and I was black.

I've never forgotten that moment, but I hadn't thought about it for awhile. I hope that anyone reading this will have sympathy for Trayvon Martin's family. I also hope you'll ask for actual justice to be applied to his killer, and to the police that didn't feel this boy's death merited criminal examination.

If a law says you can shoot someone because you're afraid - as the Florida law apparently says - innocent people will die (are dying). Being outraged by the misguided act of an individual is one thing. Being outraged by organizations and politicians that facilitate irreversible violence in another.

I'm angry at both right now.

Innovation Starvation?

I came across an interesting article by the novelist Neal Stephenson today. It's on the World Policy Institute's Website.

In arguing that modern culture is failing to innovate big scientific ideas for the future, Stephenson considers the role that science fiction writers might play in encouraging scientific advancement.

For example, he mentions two ways the SF writers may have influence:

"1. The Inspiration Theory. SF inspires people to choose science and engineering as careers. This much is undoubtedly true, and somewhat obvious. 

2. The Hieroglyph Theory. Good SF supplies a plausible, fully thought-out picture of an alternate reality in which some sort of compelling innovation has taken place. A good SF universe has a coherence and internal logic that makes sense to scientists and engineers."

He makes some interesting points. Leaves me hankering for a big, hopeful, bold novel of a future that we can aspired to. I like dystopian fiction as much as anyone, but... it might be nice to find a way to feel positive about a possible future - and challenged to achieve it.

You can read Stepheson's piece HERE.

So bad, I'm posting a review...

Hiya. I've been pretty quiet here for awhile. That's because I was away teaching at the Stonecoast MFA Program's Winter Residency. Awesome program. Low-residency. High-quality. And yes, if you're wondering, I do get to teach genre writing there. Check the program out if you've ever wondered what an MFA has to offer - or if you've ever been interested in an MFA but worried that your sci-fi or fantasy or crime or horror or romance or historical stuff wouldn't be accepted. It is at Stonecoast, and I'm right proud of that.

But that's over. I'm home again, and I'll try to be a bit more present here. I'll start with a random rant that I see I left in my draft box: So bad, I'm posting a review...

The title of this post comes from an Amazon.com reader review of Richard K Morgan's most recent novel, The Cold Commands. I haven't read the book yet, but I will, and I'll enjoy it. I always do with Morgan. The guy can write. Even if I have issues with him sometimes, the guy can write. There's a lot more thought and thematic weight going on in his work than many of his readers seem to be aware of.

I'm not actually here to talk Morgan, though. I just felt like pointing out how lame that reviewer was. How much a waste of space. His review is short, vague, mostly about claiming that he had liked Morgan's work before but this book was so bad he couldn't even recommend others now. No specifics. Just unsupported statements.

It's that title that got me, though.

"So bad, I'm posting a review."

Does that mean he only posts reviews when books are bad? Apparently, because I clicked through and he's only ever posted one review, this poorly written one star review. I find that annoying. He read (so he claims) and enjoyed other Morgan books. Did he review them and say nice things? Acknowledge work well done? Nope. Did he spread the word about any other authors he enjoyed? Naw. Did he thank any author for writing stories that entertained him? Not a chance. The only time he's chosen to speak is when he wants to tear an author down, and to retrospectively diss earlier works.

What, I ask you, is the use of that?

Friends, I'm all for you expressing yourselves if you don't enjoy a work, but I encourage you to balance that with also expressing yourself when you do. Negativity without balance doesn't do anyone any good, in my opinion.

Andy Whitfield

I find myself rather shocked by the death of Andy Whitfield. He's the actor that played Spartacus in the Starz series. Only 39, he died of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Part of the shock is that he's younger than me, fitter than me, richer than me, and that it seems so unfair that just as his career takes off he has to start fighting for his life.

I guess the other thing is that I liked the guy. Spartacus: Blood and Sand is a very different approach to the rebellion than I'll be taking with my novel. It's highly sexed up, peopled by chiseled men with no body hair and lingerie models, with gallons of blood splatters and some really over the top gore. I was almost embarrassed to watch it. But I did. It was strangely addictive, and the writers were pretty sharp in terms of turning the screws on the plot in surprising ways.

Few of the characters look like they would have historically. Far from being chiseled, gladiators were well-fed so as to be covered with a nice layer of protective body fat. They'd have been carrying extra weight intentionally, since any added inches of fat have to be passed through before a blade can do damage to important organs.

There were quite a few moments that the series manifested itself more as fantasy than history, but I'm okay with that. If I wasn't I wouldn't have reason to write my own Spartacus book. My point is that despite my differences with the series, I enjoyed it. And part of why I enjoyed it was Andy Whitfield.

I'm sorry to see him go.

Wishing I Could Talk To The Dog

I can, of course. I do all the time.

"There's a good boy."

"Want a treat?"

"Leave the cat alone!"

"Saba, go to your mat!"

I say all those things daily, but I mean really talk to the dog. I mean explain to him in-depth why most of his pack has abandoned him. Why it's only him and I in a house that's a little bit more packed away and empty every day. I wish I could've explained to him why I left him with some guy he didn't know for three weeks. I'm back now, but we're hardly a pack of two.

Alas, I can't, so we get a lot of this...


We have a little over two more weeks of this. And then?

And then I'll be wishing I could explain to him why I'm putting his crate in a van and driving to Boston, why I'm putting him on a plane and flying him across the Atlantic, and then why we'll be spending another day driving from London dead North until we hit the heart of Scotland. I wish I could explain to him that once all that's done his pack will be there to greet him. They'll shower him with love. There will be that boy that plays Saba-stick with him. And that girl that cuddles him. And the alpha-mom, she'll be there too. They'll be a lovely enclosed lawn and garden to dash about in, and lots of cows nearby to eyeball. I wish he knew that he'll soon be taking epic walks through Scottish moorland, up mountains and through hills swarming with rabbits.

Alas, I can't.

It's funny being a dog owner. It doesn't at all occur to me that I should be saying all the same things to the cat. The cat's fine. The dog, however...

Well, we'll take walks. He'll get extra treats. And all will eventually be well.

Alone

That's what I am.

Wife and kids gone to Scotland.

Me... alone.

With dog.

Cat.

And other cat.

But still... it sucks.

Black Hills

So this post started simply enough. I was going to write about how much I'd enjoyed Dan Simmon's Black Hills: A Novel. Simple. Thing is that during the process of blathering about it, I poked around the web looking for other stuff about Mr. Simmons', and I was reminded why I'd really rather I didn't do that.

For example, there's this piece published on his website, and here at Free Republic website Message from a Time Traveler. Hmmm.

And then there was the October 2005 message from Dan. Hmmm. I'm sure there's more stuff that might make my cheek twitch, but I stopped there.

I became troubled. It's not just that I find the content of the time traveler piece silly, it's also that I find it maliciously so, and that I find the structure of it to be manipulative. (ie- The fake conversation with a supernaturally intelligent stranger that knows more than me and slowly convinces me to be afraid, to be very afraid of those scary Muslims...) And it's not just that I don't think there's plenty to be criticized about all things Katrina-related, but that I would hope that a wealthy person looking out at the world from a perch on the Rockies might show some humility when discussing a social tragedy with complex origins. Also, the rambling, discursive structure of it lacks the clarity and empathy I so appreciate about his fiction.

If I had started with those pieces I wouldn't have been very interested in reading his fiction. This much is clear; Mr Simmons and I do not see the world with the same eyes politically. But... the guy can write (fiction). So do our differences matter in terms of my encouraging people to read his work? I'm not sure.

Certainly, I don't want my readers to only be people that are aligned with me politically. I've had some wonderful correspondences with readers that I know have a very different world view than me in terms of politics, social issues, religion, etc. I love those interactions, and I love it that it's the fiction that has created a connection that might not be there if we instead began by comparing and contrasting our political stripes.

It may be wrong of me to begin this by doing just that, but I couldn't help it. And I should point out that the things he wrote about in those pieces have nothing directly to do with the book in question. It's other stuff. So... with that jumbled opening I offer the words of praise I initially composed for Mr. Simmons. Here goes:

There are some writers that I read a bit of and politely fold the cover on. I'm not one to denigrate other authors, but plenty of what's published and praised leaves me a tepid. Then there are authors that I admire greatly, feeling (perhaps mistakenly) that they're my compatriots and peers in this writing craft. And there are others to whom I nod in reverence. Dan Simmons is one of these. I don't know who or what he is as a person, but as a writer he's a pro that has taken his talent and exercised it with admirable discipline. He is, in a lot of ways, the kind of writer I want to be when I grow up. Why?

Because he consistently produces ambitious, genre-hopping (and merging) novels, filled with an intelligent engagement with history, rich with ideas, fueled by a verve for storytelling and infused with heavy doses of the fantastic. He's prolific, but the finished products he manages to publish every year are dazzlingly in their reach and erudition. I've praised his work before. The occasion for this endorsement is his recent novel, Black Hills.

Now, I'll admit the description was not one that immediately grabbed me. The historical setting held interest, but I couldn't get the shape of the book from the dust jacket material:

When Paha Sapa, a young Sioux warrior, "counts coup" on General George Armstrong Custer as Custer lies dying on the battlefield at the Little Bighorn, the legendary general's ghost enters him - and his voice will speak to him for the rest of his event-filled life. Seamlessly weaving together the stories of Paha Sapa, Custer, and the American West, Dan Simmons depicts a tumultuous time in the history of both Native and white Americans. Haunted by Custer's ghost, and also by his ability to see into the memories and futures of legendary men like Sioux war-chief Crazy Horse, Paha Sapa's long life is driven by a dramatic vision he experienced as a boy in his people's sacred Black Hills. In August of 1936, a dynamite worker on the massive Mount Rushmore project, Paha Sapa plans to silence his ghost forever and reclaim his people's legacy-on the very day FDR comes to Mount Rushmore to dedicate the face.

It still doesn't exactly hook me. It's the kind of book that you just need to enter with an open mind, let it define itself, get to know the characters, and get swept along. That's what I did, and I enjoyed it very much.

I found Paha Sapa to be a compelling character, rendered with understated empathy. He has an interior life that he cannot and will not share with the white people that shape his life in so many ways. Simmons does a wonderful job of understanding that. He portrays a man that shares very little of himself with others, and he makes it clear how limited seeing him from the outside is. And yet the novel provides us an intimate exploration of his childhood, his desires, disappointments, loves and, ultimately, his singular destructive ambition.

Here's what Publishers Weekly had to say in a starred review:

Hugo-winner Simmons, the author of such acclaimed space operas as Hyperion and Olympos as well as Drood, an intriguing riff on Dickens's unfinished last novel, displays the impressive breath of his imagination in this historical novel with a supernatural slant. In the author's retelling of Custer's last stand at the Little Big Horn in 1876, the dying general's ghost enters the body of Paha Sapa, a 10-year-old Sioux warrior who's able to see both the past and the future by touching people. The action leaps around in time to illustrate the arc of Sapa's life, but focuses on 1936, when, as a septuagenarian, he plots to blow up the monuments on Mount Rushmore in time for a visit to the site by FDR to atone for his role in constructing the stone likenesses. In his ability to create complex characters and pair them with suspenseful situations, Simmons stands almost unmatched among his contemporaries.

That's probably all the review one needs to enter the book. I'm actually glad that I didn't read any reviews before starting it. So, if you're inclined to pick up it you might want to stop reading here.

Or, stay with me... I looked up some reviews as I prepared this post. I found lots a positive ones, sure, but others like this Washington Post review written by Barbara Ehrenreich are a bit jumbled, though still positive. I like The Post and review for them myself. I certainly like it that Simmons manages - some times, at least - to get the critical attention that his work deserves. While I offer the link, the review seems a bit scattered to me. For some reason, she chooses to mention Jonathan Franzen.

Now is that necessary?

But, anyway, she is a fan when all the back and forth has run its course.

The guy that reviewed it for The Science Christian Monitor, Justin Moyer, is another story entirely. Personally, I think the reviewer gets pretty much everything that he snidely complains about wrong. But you can read it here if you’re so inclined.

Paha Sapa a "Sioux Forrest Gump"? That's a clever jibe. It’s definitely the type of line that would put me off a book, and that’s what it’s intended to do. Problem is, I read the book already, and I don't think that’s an accurate characterization. Perhaps the reviewer mistook Paha Sapa’s reticence when speaking to white people for a lack of intelligence. I didn’t. It’s a defense mechanism in a world in which he’s discriminated against at every turn.

Nor do I get why it offends the reviewer that the main character of the novel knows several famous people and is on the ground at a number of historic moments/settings. That's the reason he's the main character. That's why the story is about him.

He then appears to slight Paha Sapa's strange bond with Custer by saying it would make a good Sherman Alexie story. So... not a good Dan Simmons story, but a good story if a hip Native American writer wrote it instead? Maybe, but references like that seem less about the substance and more about the reviewer making sure we know he's read Sherman Alexie. We'll, I've read Sherman Alexie too.

So there. (Makes a silly face.)

Another thing that bugs me about when reviewers trash a book is that they have the advantage of being able to contextualize things that the reader of the review has not (assuming he/she hasn't read the book yet) had an opportunity to contextualize themselves. Take this, for example:

Close to death, Paha Sapa envisions the “rewilding” of the Great Plains at an unspecified date by the federal government – that is, the same government that blazed the Trail of Tears, murdered Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, and commissioned Rushmore in the first place... Given America’s questionable management of its natural resources and the sham global warming debate, this Eden isn’t just an unlikely outcome – it’s bad fiction that neither reflects reality nor entertains.

Well, sure, that sounds a bit stupid when you put it that way. What the reviewer ignores is that the government gets around to the "rewilding" Paha Sapa envisions after a catastrophic collapse of the ecology of the middle of America. The land is turned into desert, abandoned and uninhabitable in a conventional sense. It's quite clearly explained that governmental/business/personal mismanagement of the land by the majority American culture is what caused it. So the “rewilding” is not a sudden liberal/environmentalist take over in 2020 or something. We're talking a response to disaster, suffering, mass-extinction, likely within a larger world of global calamities that are outside of Paha Sapa’s vision. Given that context - which is the true context of the book - I find his dismissal of the idea glib, and lacking in the imagination that makes science fictional meditations on the future so interesting.

So there. (Sticks out tongue.)

Oh, final bit on this one. He writes: Simmons thinks he can heal Colonial wounds with a good yarn...

I don't feel that way. Simmons isn’t trying to “heal Colonial wounds” at all. I’d say he’s showing the ways in which we move forward scarred by those wounds, creating fresh ones as we go, acknowledging some mistakes and making new ones at the same time, while hopefully aging into enough wisdom to be able to run our fingers over those wounds, recognizing and remembering them - and acknowledging that the truth of them lives on in our very blood. In our DNA, so to speak.

So that's what I wrote. I can't take any of it back. That's still the book I remember reading, and that was my reaction to it. Was I mistaken? Should I read it differently? Or is the book the book and my reaction to it should be what it is, regardless of other stuff?

You tell me.

Publish Small?

Publishing is a good thing. Really, it is.

But I have felt myself wondering about what feels like a new variation on an old question lately. Namely, I’m seeing more and more folks - in many cases students I’ve been in contact with in various programs - publish works in online magazines that that I’ve never heard of, and that I’m not sure have much of a readership or hope for a lasting reputation. Now, the fact that I haven’t heard of a site doesn’t mean a thing. It could just mean that I’m lame, uncool, out of it. May be a great site, no doubt, with just the sort of readers the writers are looking for. I’m absolutely sure that’s the case sometimes. But I’m just as sure that it’s not the case other times.

I know some established authors that advise aspiring writers to write, revise, submit. Publish and move on to the next thing. I generally agree, but I also think that to that mantra one should add caveats, like 1) submit selectively after doing your homework about what publications might like your work and introduce you to the readers you really want to have, 2) know that you might need to return for a second or third or fourth round of revision to a story, even if you’ve also moved forward with other ones, and 3) remember that publishing isn’t the end of the game - it’s the start of it, and you’ll want to make sure that start is a strong one.

Please understand that I’m not talking about established sites/magazines with a core readership. There are lots of ways that publications with modest readerships are great places to be published. I’m talking about sites that have newly appeared and are hoping to find a readership - and looking to use your words to do it. I’ve heard students lament having “published” a story with a site that promptly vanished - taking the story and the rights to republish it with them into the netherworld. I’ve also seen some sites that seem to need content so desperately that quality is secondary. And I’ve heard people admit that they published something on a site that they personally had no interest in reading. Hmmm. Come on folks - if you don’t like a publication enough to read other stories published in it, why would you want to put your own work in it?

This all got me wondering if the plethora of places to publish is a good thing, or if it’s actually something of a pitfall that’s not ultimately going to benefit the writer. I have an opinion on this.

Before I get to it, though, I’d ask you to consider this post by Ann Leckie and the comments that follow it. I read this a while back, and it speaks directly to what I'm talking about. She lays some of the fundamental issues out and talks with a lot of clarity about them. And, as you’ll note from the fact that her discussion jumped off a John Scalzi-sponsored discussion about another related topic, this question has real significance in our changing publishing landscape. So go take a look and then come back.

Okay, you’re back? Very glad. So what do you think?

My short thoughts are that emerging writers should be mindful of where they publish, at least in terms of what their expectations are. I can see lots of reasons to enjoy engagement with an online community that's far from the mainstream and that's hitting an audience - however small - of like-minded readers (most of whom are probably aspiring writers themselves). That said, I also believe aspiring writers should be very careful where they publish for two reasons - one artistic and one career-oriented.

Artistically... Sorry say it, but being rejected and having to face what that means is a very important part of developing as a writer. It's got to happen. It should happen. Through the process of offering fiction and being turned down we grow more and more into who we are as writers. I'm not suggesting that every editor knows what's best or anything like that. That’s not the point. I believe that writers should face rejection no matter how brilliant they are. It's working and facing obstacles that pushes us to get better, to linger longer with our characters and themes, to grow a bit older, to find more effective ways to communicate. Or to decide that you’ve done it just right, and just need to find the right person to agree. Or… to face the fact that not every story needs to find a publisher; sometimes they should stay unpublished; that’s not always a bad thing.

I've listened to the news of publication success for some stories in the last few years with mixed emotions. On one hand, I'm happy if the writer is happy. On the other hand, I've also felt, "Oh, that's a shame. That story would've been really good after another revision." Instead of being locked in to a marginal publication, it might have found a home someplace that got it noticed by people with the capacity to move a career forward.

Oh, and that's where the career side of things kicks in. I agree completely with Ann's assessment that a history of small publications doesn't mean much to the people that remain in charge of publishing mainstream books. If you don’t care about those folks, fine. If your objective isn’t publication for the widest audience possible that’s fine too. There are lots of ways to enjoy your life as a writer. Small venues can be just the sort of thing to keep you going - and keep you happy. But if what you’re after is your own personal world domination… then I suggest that you be as careful with where you submit your work as you are with how you craft it.

A Short Homeschooling Aside

A kind person recently posted a comment on an earlier blog post I’d made about how my homeschooled kids were doing well being in local elementary this year. Little did that individual know that those queries would become a full-blown blog post. Surprise!

Here’s what Me, Myself and I wrote:

Just picked up Acacia in the hope it might be as good as reviewers have been saying (from what I have read so far, it exceeds expectations by the way) and found my way here.

I find home schooling such an oddity and also something of a concern. I live in the UK where it is illegal and sometimes, when I read articles on home-schooling in the USA I am glad that is the case.

Now, while I accept that there are children educated at home with parents like you and that they receive a good balanced education, I seem to read a lot about children being educated with parents who have a specific agenda. An agenda related to religious fundamentalism that teaches "Creationism" over evolution and other "controversial" subjects.

A perfect example, that might be of interest to you as a historian is:

The History of the Ancient World: From the Earliest Accounts to the Fall of Rome, by Susan Wise Bauer.

Bauer - Doctorate of Divinity - was home-schooled and produced this book for adults and also as a tool for teaching history as part of a home-schooling program. In it she accepts Bible stories as "truth" and in the first chapter supplies "evidence" to "prove" that the "Flood" occurred.

This book has received very good reviews on Amazon. I was wondering what your thoughts on this might be? Or is it I just have a distorted view of American Home-schooling? (Assuming you even read your old blogs)

Anyway, just a thought.

Again, first book is excellent so far and really only popped over here to say thanks and now when I get here congratulations to Maya :-)

And here are my thoughts in response:

First off, thanks for picking up Acacia: The War with the Mein. Very glad to hear you’re enjoying it. I hope you keep doing so. And that you tell people about it!

Second, homeschooling isn’t illegal in the UK. Legally, it’s pretty similar to in the US. Children have to be educated, but the law does not say that school is the only route to education. There are some countries where homeschooling is pretty much illegal - Germany comes to mind - but that’s not the case in the UK.

This is true throughout the UK, but I'm most familiar with Scotland. Take, for example, this "Home Education Guidance" material from The Scottish Government website:

"Every child has a right to an education, and it is the duty of the parent of every school age child to provide that education, either by sending the child to school, or by other means.

Home education is a key aspect of parental choice, and is an equally valid choice alongside the option to send a child to school. However, it is a choice which only a minority of parents make. Each individual enquiry about home education, request to withdraw a child from school, or contact between a local authority and a home educating family should be dealt with as fairly, consistently, timeously and accurately as possible."

I’m in a position to be familiar with this issue over on your turf because my wife is Scottish. I met her in Scotland and we lived there for a number of years. My daughter was born there, and went as far as pre-school in Scotland, before we moved back to the USA. We think a lot about moving back, and have looked into homeschooling in Scotland. It’s not illegal; it’s just not as common.

Actually, you might say it’s less regulated than in the US. Here in Massachusetts we have to petition the school district to homeschool, draw up a plan for each year, and then at the end of the year provide them work samples, journals, etc that show how the year went. All of this needs to be approved by the school board, and signed off on by the Superintendent of our district. So, in some ways by having homeschooling be a more common it’s also more overseen by the school authorities. (This varies greatly across the country, though.)

By the way, we’ve never had a problem with any of our homeschooling arrangements. When we visited the local elementary school at the beginning of this year, the principal was thrilled to have the kids in the school. He also complimented us on the thoroughness of our homeschool materials. Turns out, he was part of the committee that had to approve them. We also just had our parent/teacher conferences at the school. Both kids are doing well, and both their teachers commend them on creative thinking, enthusiastic learning, and being avid readers. Maya’s teacher actually said she can likes it that Maya approaches things in ways that seem out of the box at times, which she says brings something fresh to the class. My understanding is that a lot of the best colleges feel the same way, and are getting more and more savvy on how promising homeschooled kids can be.

Third, there is only one thing that homeschoolers have in common - for some reason or another they have decided they want things other than (or in addition to) what their school possibilities offer and they are in a position to take it on themselves. (I added that “and” because a lot of people don’t like their kid’s school much, but not everyone is able to do something like homeschool.)

That’s all we have in common as a group, though. Think of how many different things that can include. Sure, some do it because they’re ultra-conservative or religious. But some do it because they’re ultra-liberal or think there’s too much latent religiosity in the school system. Some do it because they want to travel a lot and have the kids come with them. (A couple of years ago we spent an autumn in Shetland, living with my father in law. The kids went to the primary school while they were there, did a term, had a great time and there were no complications or strings on either end.) Some do it because they want a more academically strenuous curriculum, or because they think the system is too limited, or because their kids are really good at something and they want to develop that more than there school can. There are tons of reasons, and lots of them overlap.

Homeschooling does mean that there’s the possibility the schooling is done badly. But there’s the possibility that the schooling is done badly in school. Yes, you could raise your kids with some crazy religious ideas. But plenty of folks send their kids to school and still have crazy religious ideas.

As for your query about that writer… I don’t have anything specific to say about what a certain writer that happened to be homeschooled might have written. It doesn’t have anything at all to do with us. Do people with their kids in school have any responsibility to comment on the weird things that other people who have went to school do? I guess this seems like kind of a non-issue to me, because the majority of weird stuff that gets written is by people who have come through a normal educational system.

But, you might say, I read about a case where some crazy guy kept his family of ten children locked up in a compound out in the desert, doing all manner of horrible things to them and saying it was his right to do so as a homeschooler.

To which I say that's confusing two different things. Please separate them. I have a great deal of sympathy and concern for children who are abused and/or poorly educated. But if a child is being abused or neglected it's the abuse or neglect that's the problem, not that they claim it's homeschooling. I believe parents should have choice, but with it comes responsibility, and I've no problem with our looking after the welfare of young people at a societal level.

So, I do think you have an incomplete picture of what homeschooling means - both here and in the UK. Why do you hear all these awful stories about things in the USA? Hey, I've lived in the UK. You all love to read stories about awful things Americans do! It's a lot more fun. The fact that David Durham's family has been part of a vibrant, liberally-minded homeschooling community that involved lots of classes, sporting events, library events, school interaction, travel, language study, environmental programs and produced children that so far are at or above the academic standards for their age... Well, that's hardly going to sell newspapers. But it is a big part of exactly what many people homeschool for.

Wow. Long answer. Dude, you just kept me from working on Acacia Three for a good hour and a half. I’ll get back to it in a minute.

Let me just close by making sure I say a few other things.

Remember, my kids are happily in school now, and it’s going great! I’m not at all interested in proselytizing. If homeschooling isn’t your thing, that’s absolutely fine with me. I loved homeschooling, but that doesn’t mean I think it's for everybody. Nor do I think for a minute that parents that have their kids in school are necessarily anything less than wonderful parents. We homeschooled because we wanted to AND because it worked for us to do so.

On balance I think the best we can do is have governments that provide education and/or ensure that kids are educated. I think that system should also include avenues for parents to take on a primary educational role if they want to, and I think government authorities have the responsibility to ensure that parents are providing for their children - whether they're in school or not.

What would we do if we found ourselves living back in the UK soon? (Rejoice!) Oh, and… the kids would start by going to school. We’re all satisfied that that would work for us. My wife did well by Scottish schools, and my brother in law is a teacher now. There are lots of ways we’re confident the British system would work well for the kids. But…

... we’re living proof that there are alternatives.

Okay, now, since the kids are away at school and the house is quiet, I’m going to carry on toward the end of Acacia 3.

I hope, Me, Myself and I, that you don't mind me taking this time to respond to you. It's all meant with respect, of course.

Soup Revelation

My wife just revealed something to me. She said, "I don’t like having soup for dinner.”

She said, "I like it for lunch, but not for dinner. It makes me angry."

Twelve years of marriage, but there’s still so much to learn…

Questions For Writers #1

A while back a student emailed me a bunch of questions about writing. I answered them. My answers weren't great or anything, but I did take a bit of time to put my thoughts into words. I emailed back... and I don't recall if I ever heard back from the student.

Perhaps my answers weren't what he was looking for. (I have to admit, a lot of them do have an "I dunno, you just have to figure it out" sort of vibe.) Having put time into them, though, I'd like to offer them up again! One at a time. Occasionally. That sort of thing.

Okay, first, a question:

How much research do you need to do for a project (short story vs. novel, say)? Do you absorb a lot upfront and dive into more as needed along the way, or do you only search out the bits you need as they arise? Or something else? How do you know where to start in terms of finding sources/information?

And my answer:

Since I’m mostly writing novels I always want to know enough about my subject matter to know that there’s a novel in it - and that the time period/setting is an integral part of what’s going to make it interesting. But I don’t try to know everything. I do the bulk of the research as I write, as I discover blank spots in my knowledge and have to find the details to fill them in.

I certainly do search out the bits I need as they arrive, but I also try to have a variety of other indirect research sources: nonfiction books on related issues/time period/cultures/science/history, novels written about (or during) the time of my story, novels that may be about entirely different subject matter… Reading a great Vietnam War novel may be very informative to how I write about ancient warfare, etc. I’d also suggest that when reading secondary historical works you check the footnotes. If the book gives you an interesting bit of information find out where they got it; go there for more; follow leads.

Bottom line is that research is trial and error. I don’t think there’s one magical way to do it.

My current thoughts on this answer?

Well, yeah, that's pretty much what I think about that. Writing is blundering with intent. Just do that. Blunder like you mean it. Good things may come of it.

Franzenfreude?

I won't offer my opinion on Mr. Franzen. Who would care anyway? But I do offer this link to a Slate article on the criticism of the NY Times male slant.

Am I surprised? Not in the slightest. One could easily extend the criticism to lots of other categories, though. For example, what do their percentages look like on reviews by authors of color? What about male vs female people of color?

Personally, The Times has actually been quite good to me. When I was a literary historical novelist they gushed. When I became a somewhat more commercial historical novelist they were still pretty good to me. When I became a fantasy novelist...

Okay, well at that point I ceased to exist for them. But three out of five ain't bad. Fortunately, it was offset by all the other readers for whom I sudden popped into existence. Always trade offs...

Traumatized Again

I remember the Exxon Valdez very well. I was a young adult. I watched it from afar. But still, in a way it became a environmental accident trauma that has lingered with me ever since.

I don't know. Just felt like mentioning it...

In Search Of A Good Read

Thanks to Laura J. Mixon for pointing me toward this article by John Crace in The Guardian. The man makes sense. I like his analysis of what makes writing work, and of what doesn't work - regardless of the literary accolades it may receive. Please go take a look!

Of course, I may like it because he says a lot of the very same things I go around saying. A couple of examples:

"First things first: the novel is here to stay. Whether we're downloading books on to a Kindle or turning pages of a book is an entirely different argument: the hunger for good storytelling has lasted for centuries and shows no signs of going away. The issue is quality. And I would argue the quality is still there; it's just not always that easy to find it."

Yep. I feel like I say that to somebody (or at least think it) every couple of days. He sites a number of problems with connecting readers with good books, including the vast number of total books being published these days. I agree it's hard to find the good stuff, and I also agree that:

"These books [good ones] do exist. It's just a matter of knowing where to look. Critics often get very sniffy about genre writing, but I believe that's where many of the best novels are to be found... The great novel is very much alive and well. It's just not always where you're told it is."

Good man.

Of course, at the end I wonder what - other than state such opinions - we can do about it?

Ten Rules For Writing Fiction

I like this piece from the Guardian (which Mike Kimball pointed out to me). It starts with Elmore Leonard's tips, but then goes on with a grabbag of other authors, including Richard Ford, Margaret Atwood, Geoff Dyer, Neil Gaiman, PD James, Phillip Pullman, Michael Morpurgo, Zadie Smith, Jeanette Winterson and many others!

Take a look HERE.

Go To The Next Room

Random post, this one.

Okay, so you know I'm writing for George RR Martin's Wild Card series, right? A month or so ago, he responded to my three part Infamous Black Tongue story. Lots of edits, lots of things to change. My story has to jive with the work of like six other authors - and none of us have read the other author's work! Just George. Master of it all, he is. And good thing, too, because he's an awesome editor. Everything he asked for - either to fit with other stories, or just editorial in general - made sense to me. So I rewrote.

Thing is, as I approached revising the end of one of the climatic scenes, I realized I had to make a change that George hadn't mentioned. When IBT has beaten down a particular baddy, he punches him one last time. Seeing him go unconscious, he says, "Go the next room."

Go to the next room.

Made complete sense to me, but I doubt it would make sense to anybody else. Why'd I write that line? Well, let me take you back...

When I was a young, spritely, twenty something Outward Bound Instructor living and working in Baltimore I spent one summer doing a long course that was urban based. We worked in partnership with the Yale School of Forestry. Basically, I spent the summer doing urban forestry with at-risk kids from inner city Baltimore.

On one of those days, we worked at some sort of men's home/shelter. We were given a tour of a the facility by a charismatic, talkative resident of the place, a guy that had lived his own hard life to get to the relative stability the home offered him. He had a great cadence to his speech as he led us around, a combination of street-smart slang and no nonsense gruffness that he somehow delivered with spiritual equanimity.

When he was done talking about a room, he would always say the same thing. "Alright? Got it? Good. Go to the next room." It seemed a strange, loose, kinda funky mantra at the time. And over the years it's come to have spiritual significance for me. Like, he wasn't just saying move your body into the next room so we can carry on with this tour. It's become an invitation to a higher plane. "Go to the next room, where rewards - or karmic retribution - await you." I've never forgotten it, and every now and then that phrase pops into my head.

That, in some strange way, was what Infamous Black Tongue was laying down on the villain in question. But without context I understand that it would mean nothing to anybody but me. Oh, and you - now that you've read this far.

Still, though, it doesn't make that much sense in that moment, so I cut it. Perhaps one day I'll write a story in which I can build that line and let someone deliver it in context. Here's hoping, cause I need to get it out of my system...