It's no secret that I'm a fan of Briane Pagel's work. He has a contemplative style of writing that really works for me. Generally speaking, his stories deal with some deeper question, some "what if?" that the story is addressing. So, like, in his excellent novel, Codes, the question is something like, "What if people were like computer "codes" that could be copied?" That's a good book, by the way, you should go read it.
Which is not to imply that most stories don't begin with some kind of "what if?" by the author, but Pagel's questions, or his answers, at least, tend to have a philosophical bent to them. So Codes is more about the effect on a person finding out he's a copy rather than a runaway adventure story about clones. I suppose it's the way he answers his questions that set him apart from most authors.
Which brings us to world war four, Pagel's most recent collection of short stories. I already tend to have a contentious relationship with short stories, and these are no different in that respect.
I think my main issue is that the two main stories (or what felt like to me to be the two main stories), including the title story, "worldwarfour," felt incomplete to me. This is actually a very common response I have to short stories, that they're too short. Like there should have been more there but, for whatever reason, the author just didn't finish it or fill it out enough or got bored. Something. That's how I felt with "worldwarfour" and "if i'd been in charge of einstein's brain."
And, with both of those stories, I couldn't decide what they were about, what the question was that Pagel was exploring. That said, I did really like what was there of "worldwarfour." It felt very much like a -- I'm going to guess 10-year-old (because either I've forgotten or it was never said) -- boy wandering in the woods while playing a game with his friends. Pagel captured a stream-of-consciousness that really feels right. It's just that the story has no real conclusion, and I was left wondering if, maybe, some of the story got left out of the book.
The other three stories are good, but I wouldn't say they are great. "zanzibar" both feels complete and incomplete at the same time. Like the necessary story is there, but it's not fleshed out enough. Except that it is enough to tell the story it's telling, just probably doesn't answer the questions it will generate. Sometimes, I find this to be a very good quality in storytelling, but I wasn't quite satisfied with it here. (But, then, that might just be related to my general dissatisfaction with the world in general, right now. It's hard to say.)
"7 pigs" and "pete & repeat went out in a boat," I both quite liked, but they're... oh, I'll say that they're less serious stories, which isn't quite right, because they're not, but they're handled in a less serious manner, I suppose.
So what I would say here is this:
If you're a fan of Pagel's work, you should read this one. It doesn't require a huge time investment, and there is some good stuff in it. However, if you haven't read Pagel before, go get Codes; it's a better introduction to his work, and it's good stuff.
About writing. And reading. And being published. Or not published. On working on being published. Tangents into the pop culture world to come. Especially about movies. And comic books. And movies from comic books.
Showing posts with label Briane Pagel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Briane Pagel. Show all posts
Friday, December 23, 2016
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Angels Unbound: Raziel (an a-to-z post)
Raziel
Raziel was one of the first Angels to step out of the Void and went immediately to the work of writing down all the words of God. He's kind of like the court stenographer. He is the only Angel privy to everything God says and does, closer to God than any other but the Word. He is the Keeper of Secrets and the Angel of Mysteries. He is chief among all the Erelim, the Valiant.
From before time, Raziel wrote down all the words of God and all that happened. He wrote down the War of Heaven and the rebellion of Lucifer. He wrote down when time began and the start of Creation. He wrote of the disobedience of Man... and, then, gave them the book he wrote for them, The Book of Raziel. It was the start of... everything.
Not long after I envisioned the whole a-to-z of Angels and Demons thing, I thought it would be cool to get some other authors involved so that, stylistically, the stories wouldn't all be the same. Getting people on board for a project like this, though, turned out to be more difficult than I imagined. In general, other than a few stories that I knew I wanted to write (because they specifically pertain to larger plot arcs), I was going to leave it up to the individual author to pick the story/Angel s/he wanted to write about. Except for one: I knew early on that I wanted Briane Pagel to write the story of Raziel. Fortunately, he was on board to do that, and he has given me a story that I would never have thought of, which is why I wanted him to do it in the first place.
"Raziel" is FREE! today! Make sure you pick up a copy!
Already released:
Raziel was one of the first Angels to step out of the Void and went immediately to the work of writing down all the words of God. He's kind of like the court stenographer. He is the only Angel privy to everything God says and does, closer to God than any other but the Word. He is the Keeper of Secrets and the Angel of Mysteries. He is chief among all the Erelim, the Valiant.
From before time, Raziel wrote down all the words of God and all that happened. He wrote down the War of Heaven and the rebellion of Lucifer. He wrote down when time began and the start of Creation. He wrote of the disobedience of Man... and, then, gave them the book he wrote for them, The Book of Raziel. It was the start of... everything.
Not long after I envisioned the whole a-to-z of Angels and Demons thing, I thought it would be cool to get some other authors involved so that, stylistically, the stories wouldn't all be the same. Getting people on board for a project like this, though, turned out to be more difficult than I imagined. In general, other than a few stories that I knew I wanted to write (because they specifically pertain to larger plot arcs), I was going to leave it up to the individual author to pick the story/Angel s/he wanted to write about. Except for one: I knew early on that I wanted Briane Pagel to write the story of Raziel. Fortunately, he was on board to do that, and he has given me a story that I would never have thought of, which is why I wanted him to do it in the first place.
"Raziel" is FREE! today! Make sure you pick up a copy!
Already released:
Friday, June 19, 2015
Codes (a book review post)
Prior to its release, author Briane Pagel said about Codes that it's the best book he has written so far. After reading it, I would have to agree with him. And that's not something you should take lightly, because Pagel has written some pretty good books.
And, hey, there are hardly any editing issues in this one. And none that I can remember, now, which means, basically, that there was nothing more than simple copy editing issues and not many, at that.
The worst thing you can say about the book is that it wasn't long enough. I mean that in the "I really wish there was more of this" way and not the "This feels like author rushed it to keep it short" way. I don't know if there's a better thing that can be said about a book than "I wish there was more of this." In fact, it would have been great to have gotten to see more of all of the characters other characters, to say something that's really confusing but will make sense if you read the book. Actually, this could have been a really great mystery story, but, then, it would have been a different book but not necessarily a better book.
Okay, I think might be letting some of the book seep into me. Who am I again?
Anyway, this is the kind of story that Pagel does very well. It's a bit experimental but, still, mostly mainstream, and most of the experimenting is done in the text. And, yeah, that probably doesn't quite make sense, either, but, again, you have to read the book. Mostly, though, the thing he does well is let you see events from different characters' perspectives, which is important in a story like this.
So there's this one part that I have to mention:
There's a bit where Robbie gets a communication from someone on his... computer thing. I want to say laptop, but that might not be what it was. People are after him, and he gets this communication from this other guy that tells him to go out the window. It was like that scene in The Matrix where Morpheus tells Neo to go out the window and Neo does, but, see... and I don't want to spoil it, but I thought what Pagel did was great and much more likely to be... Yeah, likely to be.
Another major point for the book is that any time you think you know what's going on, you find out you don't really know what's going on. But in a good way. It's all just another piece of the puzzle. There were a couple of things that were very unexpected, though, and one of those was probably brilliant. And I'm going to leave it at that, because I can't really say anything else without spoilers, and this is a book you don't want spoiled.
And, hey, there are hardly any editing issues in this one. And none that I can remember, now, which means, basically, that there was nothing more than simple copy editing issues and not many, at that.
The worst thing you can say about the book is that it wasn't long enough. I mean that in the "I really wish there was more of this" way and not the "This feels like author rushed it to keep it short" way. I don't know if there's a better thing that can be said about a book than "I wish there was more of this." In fact, it would have been great to have gotten to see more of all of the characters other characters, to say something that's really confusing but will make sense if you read the book. Actually, this could have been a really great mystery story, but, then, it would have been a different book but not necessarily a better book.
Okay, I think might be letting some of the book seep into me. Who am I again?
Anyway, this is the kind of story that Pagel does very well. It's a bit experimental but, still, mostly mainstream, and most of the experimenting is done in the text. And, yeah, that probably doesn't quite make sense, either, but, again, you have to read the book. Mostly, though, the thing he does well is let you see events from different characters' perspectives, which is important in a story like this.
So there's this one part that I have to mention:
There's a bit where Robbie gets a communication from someone on his... computer thing. I want to say laptop, but that might not be what it was. People are after him, and he gets this communication from this other guy that tells him to go out the window. It was like that scene in The Matrix where Morpheus tells Neo to go out the window and Neo does, but, see... and I don't want to spoil it, but I thought what Pagel did was great and much more likely to be... Yeah, likely to be.
Another major point for the book is that any time you think you know what's going on, you find out you don't really know what's going on. But in a good way. It's all just another piece of the puzzle. There were a couple of things that were very unexpected, though, and one of those was probably brilliant. And I'm going to leave it at that, because I can't really say anything else without spoilers, and this is a book you don't want spoiled.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Do You Know the Code?
Briane Pagel has a new book out. He says it's the best book he's ever written and, seeing that I have quite liked his other books (except for that pineapple thing), at least the ones I've read, I'm really hoping for good things from this one. I've already picked it up but, with the end of the school year and everything going on with my kids, I haven't had a chance to start reading it. I'll let you know what I think as soon as I do, though.
Until then, here's Briane to talk about Codes!
Until then, here's Briane to talk about Codes!
Wherein I Hate Stuff For No Reason (a guest post by Briane Pagel)
I
know this is the space Andrew has lately been reserving for his
discussion of how to handle, or not handle, a bad (or, as it was,
not-really-so-bad) review, and I think that’s important work.
Someone has to stand up to bullies, and Andrew has a good platform
from which to do so. That’s why I am extra-appreciative of his
willingness to lend me his Wednesday slot in order to let me provide
some thinly-veiled marketing in the guise of a LISTICLE!
P.S. WHY does everything on the internet have such a stupid name? Years
into it, I still
cannot bring myself to say that I
tweeted
something. I tell people “Oh
yeah I posted a link to that on Twitter.”
“Blog,” “Tweet,” “listicle,” etc. etc. It’s so
degrading.
I feel stupid whenever I talk about anything I do on the internet.
People will say Are
you going to try to publicize your book
and I have to say Yes,
I plan to… *sigh*…
blog… about
it.
Where
was I? Oh, right: Listicle.
People love lists! That was one of the things mentioned in an
article I read entitled, “These
5 Amazing Things People Love About The Internet Will Change Your
Life.”
(Other things included cats and lists about cats.) So I’ve been
making the rounds, promoting my new book, Codes,
and
it just made sense. What
better way to discuss a near-future book about a corporation trying
to perfect the process of human cloning by implanting
computer-programmed personalities into them and marketing the result
than to create a superficial list designed to generate fake
controversy?
Did
that sentence make any sense? It’s been a long day and I got lost
in some of the clauses there.
Knowing
that Andrew usually uses this space to discuss people’s reactions
to bad reviews, I decided that the theme for my latest list would at
least tangentially relate to that topic, and so I came up with the
idea of reviewing shows and books I’ve
never even seen,
and, of course, panning them.
If
you’re like me (and I pray you’re not. TAKE MY WORD FOR IT) then
there are LOTS and LOTS of things you HATE, almost-sight-unseen. I
am a champion
at hating stuff before I know anything about it. I can dislike
something practically
before I know it exists.
It’s a talent. Books, movies, TV shows, songs, certain shades of
green… doesn’t matter what it is, I can hate it
right
up front. And, more than just hate
quietly,
I can -- based on that completely uninformed opinion review the
bejeebers out of that thing I hate. YES! FREE SPEECH! ‘MERICA!
Let’s get to it!
1.
The Walking Dead:
I have never seen this show, or even a preview for it. That has not
stopped me from hating it so much that I have started disliking other
shows
if a commercial for TWD airs during them. Can we NOT have any more
allegories about our society told through the zombie format? This
thing is all over! I can’t go onto a web page without seeing some
picture of a sweaty guy or girl holding a machete and looking fierce
next to a headline about how TWD is really
going to amazeballs you with the storyline this week.
LET ME GUESS: They nearly get overrun by zombies but then hack their
way out! Also, where is everyone getting these machetes in the first
place? I am 46 years old and I have never
seen a machete in real life. Do the zombies bring them? Do they sell
them at the True Value ™ Hardware Store? In real
life,
a zombie apocalypse would feature 100% fewer machetes and 100% more
“Dads holding a bed lamp they grabbed off the table.”
2.
The New Star Trek Movies:
This automatic-dislike probably began when they cast Chris Pine as
Captain Kirk in the first “new” Star Trek movie. Looking at Chris
Pine gives me the same feeling I get when I grind my teeth, only less
pleasant. That was bad enough. But then I heard that in one of these
movies they had Kirk driving around in a hot rod on Earth. You know
what space operas don’t
need?
Drag races on planet Earth. But to top it off, they
remade “The
Wrath Of Khan.” YOU CANNOT REMAKE THE WRATH OF KHAN. That is like
remaking a rainbow. Like remaking a glorious, rage-filled,
fist-shaking, Enterprise-attacking, earwig-monster-injecting,
desert-planet-inhabiting, Fantasy-Island-operating rainbow.
3.
The Hunger Games.
OH. MY. GOD. From the moment I first heard of this series of books I
thought they sounded like the dumbest thing ever. Here is my
understanding of the plot: some government starves all its citizens,
so that they will send a bunch of kids to shoot each other with
arrows in order to get a little bit of extra food. HOW DOES THAT MAKE
SENSE? How would that system work? It could never! But then after all
the kids shoot each other or whatever, the two (?) winners (?) get
elected to the government or something, like Charlie winning the
chocolate factory only Jennifer Lawrence didn’t even have to give
back the gobstopper? NO DO NOT BOTHER EXPLAINING WHERE I GOT IT
WRONG. The plot doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t have to, because
it’s a book for teenagers, and teenagers love it when things don’t
make sense. It lets them be convinced that adults don’t
‘understand’ them. That’s why I loved The
Cure
when I was seventeen, and why kids nowadays love The
Hunger Games
and its sequels, New
Moon
and whatever the third one was with Percy Jackson.
3a.Bonus
hatred: I cannot stand
Jennifer Lawrence.
Not even a little bit. She is somehow the female
version
of that guy in 8th
grade who thought smelling farts was funny. Associating her with a
movie makes me that much less likely to see it. If “J-Law”
showed up on my doorstep with a giant pizza and a bootleg director’s
cut of the next Star Wars movie, I wouldn’t even answer the door.
Let’s
do one more. This is fun! How about:
4.
Anything by Isaac Asimov.
To be honest, I am not sure where this one comes from because I do
not know really anything about Asimov other than I dislike him and
everything I imagine he stands for. I know as a scifi-ish writer
myself I am supposed to apparently love Isaac Asimov and everyone’s
always talking about how he predicted the future and his laws of
robotics and etc blah blah blah, but I
can’t be bothered.
I’m not even sure what Asimov is supposed to have written.
Foundation,
I think? I’d go look it up but I’d rather my browser not have a
history of searching for Asimov stuff. Even I
am cooler than that. I think Asimov wrote that story that got made
into I,
Robot,
starring Will Smith, and can we as a society really take an author
seriously anymore if Will Smith likes his stuff? I’m also pretty
sure that in reality there’d be no way robots could be programmed
not to harm humans, which I think was a ‘law’ of robotics Asimov
pulled out of thin air and made people believe was a thing. It’s
so dumb: suppose I was being held hostage by Chris Pine and Jennifer
Lawrence and the only way I’m getting out alive is if C-3PO (do NOT
get me started on R2-D2!) snipes them both with a laser rifle from
across the road. OH WAIT there’s a LAW that he can’t kill them,
only if he DOESN’T, then he’s harming a human by letting me die,
right? That is NOT how laws work, Isaac Asimov. You don’t see
gravity
only holding people down if it’s nonparadoxical.
In closing, you’ll
note that the only
people I picked on in here are people who are dead, or who don’t
matter, or who are Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pine and so deserve
it. I don’t have to worry about anyone overreacting or calling me
crazy or taking me to task for these entirely unfounded and
ill-informed, and yet still 100% correct, opinions. Don’t forget
to mention in the comments how much you agree with me!
Something
I don’t hate: My
book, Codes:
Robbie
had an ordinary life, until she walked
into Gravity Sling. Now he’s seeing coded messages everywhere,
being chased by shadowy big-corporation goons, and questioning
literally everything about the world as he knows it. Some questions
need answers. This Phillip K. Dick style debut science fiction novel
raises questions about how people use technology and each other.
Links:
Follow
me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BrianePagel
Buy
Codes
on
Golden
Fleece Press’ site: http://goldenfleecepress.com/catalog/fiction/
Labels:
Briane Pagel,
bullies,
C-3PO,
Chris Pine,
Codes,
farts,
Foundation,
Hunger Games,
Isaac Asimov,
Jennifer Lawrence,
Percy Jackson,
R2-D2,
robots,
Star Trek,
Star Wars,
Walking Dead,
Will Smith,
Wrath of Khan
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
The Weekly (Pat) Report #1
Well... Here we are! Another week in the saga of the Revenge of the Fake Reviews! You're probably all tired of hearing about it by now; I know I'm tired of talking about it. BUT, if you want things to be righted, you can't stop talking about it, because that's the same as saying, "What you did is okay, and I'm going to let you get away with it." Dilloway has already been implying that he wants me to stop talking about the things he's done and his patterns of behavior, and I will... just as soon as he has his sister take down all the fake reviews/ratings she has up for me. Which are also on goodreads, now, because Dilloway can't stop himself from escalating the situation even as he's talking about how I should stop talking about him.
So... Let's review the situation, shall we?
1. I wrote a review of a book not written by Pat Dilloway.
2. Pat Dilloway freaked out and had a hissy fit because the author of the book was a friend of his.
3. As a result of his hissy fit, he attacked my review in each place it was posted.
4. He also, in a attempt to "give me a taste of my own medicine," lowered the rating of a book of mine, "Tiberius," which he had previously reviewed and rated four stars, to one star.
5. Pat tried to extort me to change my review of the other book by offering to change his rating on "Tiberius" back to what he originally gave it. Not one to be extorted, I said no, but that whole exchange made me angry. This is not a "hey, I'll lie for you if you'll lie for me" kind of thing.
6. Then, he wrote a post on the IWM blog about what a horrible person I am and accused me of being someone who just goes around giving out 1-star ratings, basically, because I feel like it and because I like being mean to people.
7. At that point, I wrote a post explaining, again, my stance on honest reviews. This post had nothing in and of itself to do with Pat Dilloway, although he took exception to it just as he did the first time I stated my stance years ago. Also, Briane Pagel wrote a post about honesty in reviews which he posted on the IWM blog in no small part because Pat's view that reviews should be biased toward the author for indie books (although he does not practice his own stated stance and will freely give negative reviews to people he doesn't like or to whom he views as a threat or competition) is not a reflection of the views of IWM.
8. Pat expanded his attack on me to include Briane and 1-starred at least one of Briane's books in response to Briane's post about reviews.
9. I wrote a post about the childish behavior of Pat Dilloway with the idea that the way you deal with bullying behavior is to bring it to light. The bully wins if you keep it hidden, and it allows the bully to keep doing it and do it to other people.
10. Pat began harassing me and calling me names in the comments section on my blog (he had also been doing the same to me on goodreads).
11. I published a review of a book of his which I had previously withheld. I see, now, that withholding the review in the first place was a mistake but, at the time, I had not wanted to get into it with Dilloway, because I already knew how he reacted to bad reviews. The review was not revenge, as he seems to think, but was to make a point, again, about the types of reviews that I do, i.e. reviews with objective reasoning based on the product which have nothing to do with how I may feel about the author.
12. Dilloway, of course, attacked the review. Another reviewer pointed out some of the things that I was talking about in the review, things Dilloway said didn't exist, and Dilloway attacked him, too. The other reviewer posted his own review of Dilloway's book because his comments somehow mysteriously vanished from the comment thread on Amazon, and Dilloway attacked that review, too, though most of Dilloway's comments were removed by Amazon.
13. Dilloway began spamming my comment sections on my posts with hundreds of comments calling me names. Yes, I said hundreds. These comments I just ignored and stored, but Dilloway, then, went out of his way to also call various of my commenters names and, actually, called all of my commenters stupid.
14. Because of Dilloway's "I didn't do that, oh, I did do that but it's okay" attitude and his similarity to Vox Day along with his persistence in spamming my comments, I wrote the Sad Puppy post.
15. Dilloway asked for people to help teach me a lesson (on Facebook (I saw the post but don't remember the exact language he used)), and his sister went over to Amazon and began 1-starring all of my books. Later, his other sister also 1-starred the same books that Dilloway had 1-starred.
16. Dilloway wrote another post about what a horrible person I am and how I am just petty dictator for removing all of his comments which were full of nothing more than calling people names and insulting people. Sorry, it's my blog and, if insulting people is the best you have, I don't need that on my blog.
17. Amazon stepped in and removed all of the Dilloway siblings reviews/ratings on "Tiberius" and The House on the Corner. Dilloway re-posted his reviews, both with 3-star ratings, just to have Amazon remove them again. That happened several times (at least three), but Dilloway was persistent in re-posting the reviews every time Amazon removed them. They currently stand with 3-star ratings. Neither sister replaced their reviews on those books, but the first sister still has six 1-star ratings of my work on Amazon.
18. Dilloway began spreading around, in order to show how horrible I am, that I am currently in a feud with my church. That's a very interesting thing since, currently, I do not attend church nor have I in years. I'm assuming that Dilloway is referring to the series I've been doing about racism, and I am going to be generous and assume that his misunderstanding came from a lack of being able to read closely rather than that he is siding with the batch of racist assholes I was talking about in those posts.
Oh, wait, he could have just been purposefully lying about me so as to discredit me. Hmm... yeah, let's go with that option. Occam's Razor and all of that.
19. His sister expanded her rating attack to goodreads where she has currently given me more than 50 1-star ratings (because each piece of the Shadow Spinner serialization is still listed there).
This is the point at which I'm saying that I am not going to quit talking about Pat Dilloway and what he has done and is doing until he fixes it. Not just his reviews (he also went and downrated everything he'd rated of mine on goodreads), because he's changed those so that he can, I suppose, say, "Hey, look, I don't have any bad reviews of his works," but his sister's, too, since, ultimately, he is responsible for those being there. Also, if I see that he's doing this kind of thing to anyone else, I will do my best to let people know about that, too. Because, you know what? Bullies don't get to win.
And, now, for my favorite one!
20. Just this week, Dilloway has published a post saying how much he hates me and how, also, he's sure that everyone believes he's an asshole but, really, what he's doing is okay because he keeps it isolated to "out-of-the-way message boards and blogs." At least he's not putting it in a book that's for sale on, say, Amazon where thousands of people could see it.
The logic here is amazing to me. It's kind of like saying, "Hey, I know I hit you in the back of the head with this board, but at least I did it in this alley where no one could see instead of out on the street." Or, "I know I stole $100.00 from you, but at least I didn't steal $1000.00." It is not the magnitude of something that makes it wrong. The thing is wrong or it's not. Speeding is still against the law even if there are no cops around to catch you.
He also states in the that post that he has been involved in "many a flame war," which I also find interesting considering his stance that I am the problem. I suppose that this could be considered a flame war except that I have kept all of my talk (except for one stray comment) restricted to my blog and have also restricted my talk to only pointing out actual actions without resorting to calling names and insulting anyone's intelligence. At any rate, I think the person who has an issue with getting involved in flame wars should take a look at his behavior.
So that's the update. Next week's will be restricted to only new developments, but I wanted to get the sequence of events down here at the outset. I think I covered everything, at any rate.
If you would like to find out what you can do to help fight the bullies who attack and/or intimidate authors like this just because they can, please feel free to email me.
So... Let's review the situation, shall we?
1. I wrote a review of a book not written by Pat Dilloway.
2. Pat Dilloway freaked out and had a hissy fit because the author of the book was a friend of his.
3. As a result of his hissy fit, he attacked my review in each place it was posted.
4. He also, in a attempt to "give me a taste of my own medicine," lowered the rating of a book of mine, "Tiberius," which he had previously reviewed and rated four stars, to one star.
5. Pat tried to extort me to change my review of the other book by offering to change his rating on "Tiberius" back to what he originally gave it. Not one to be extorted, I said no, but that whole exchange made me angry. This is not a "hey, I'll lie for you if you'll lie for me" kind of thing.
6. Then, he wrote a post on the IWM blog about what a horrible person I am and accused me of being someone who just goes around giving out 1-star ratings, basically, because I feel like it and because I like being mean to people.
7. At that point, I wrote a post explaining, again, my stance on honest reviews. This post had nothing in and of itself to do with Pat Dilloway, although he took exception to it just as he did the first time I stated my stance years ago. Also, Briane Pagel wrote a post about honesty in reviews which he posted on the IWM blog in no small part because Pat's view that reviews should be biased toward the author for indie books (although he does not practice his own stated stance and will freely give negative reviews to people he doesn't like or to whom he views as a threat or competition) is not a reflection of the views of IWM.
8. Pat expanded his attack on me to include Briane and 1-starred at least one of Briane's books in response to Briane's post about reviews.
9. I wrote a post about the childish behavior of Pat Dilloway with the idea that the way you deal with bullying behavior is to bring it to light. The bully wins if you keep it hidden, and it allows the bully to keep doing it and do it to other people.
10. Pat began harassing me and calling me names in the comments section on my blog (he had also been doing the same to me on goodreads).
11. I published a review of a book of his which I had previously withheld. I see, now, that withholding the review in the first place was a mistake but, at the time, I had not wanted to get into it with Dilloway, because I already knew how he reacted to bad reviews. The review was not revenge, as he seems to think, but was to make a point, again, about the types of reviews that I do, i.e. reviews with objective reasoning based on the product which have nothing to do with how I may feel about the author.
12. Dilloway, of course, attacked the review. Another reviewer pointed out some of the things that I was talking about in the review, things Dilloway said didn't exist, and Dilloway attacked him, too. The other reviewer posted his own review of Dilloway's book because his comments somehow mysteriously vanished from the comment thread on Amazon, and Dilloway attacked that review, too, though most of Dilloway's comments were removed by Amazon.
13. Dilloway began spamming my comment sections on my posts with hundreds of comments calling me names. Yes, I said hundreds. These comments I just ignored and stored, but Dilloway, then, went out of his way to also call various of my commenters names and, actually, called all of my commenters stupid.
14. Because of Dilloway's "I didn't do that, oh, I did do that but it's okay" attitude and his similarity to Vox Day along with his persistence in spamming my comments, I wrote the Sad Puppy post.
15. Dilloway asked for people to help teach me a lesson (on Facebook (I saw the post but don't remember the exact language he used)), and his sister went over to Amazon and began 1-starring all of my books. Later, his other sister also 1-starred the same books that Dilloway had 1-starred.
16. Dilloway wrote another post about what a horrible person I am and how I am just petty dictator for removing all of his comments which were full of nothing more than calling people names and insulting people. Sorry, it's my blog and, if insulting people is the best you have, I don't need that on my blog.
17. Amazon stepped in and removed all of the Dilloway siblings reviews/ratings on "Tiberius" and The House on the Corner. Dilloway re-posted his reviews, both with 3-star ratings, just to have Amazon remove them again. That happened several times (at least three), but Dilloway was persistent in re-posting the reviews every time Amazon removed them. They currently stand with 3-star ratings. Neither sister replaced their reviews on those books, but the first sister still has six 1-star ratings of my work on Amazon.
18. Dilloway began spreading around, in order to show how horrible I am, that I am currently in a feud with my church. That's a very interesting thing since, currently, I do not attend church nor have I in years. I'm assuming that Dilloway is referring to the series I've been doing about racism, and I am going to be generous and assume that his misunderstanding came from a lack of being able to read closely rather than that he is siding with the batch of racist assholes I was talking about in those posts.
Oh, wait, he could have just been purposefully lying about me so as to discredit me. Hmm... yeah, let's go with that option. Occam's Razor and all of that.
19. His sister expanded her rating attack to goodreads where she has currently given me more than 50 1-star ratings (because each piece of the Shadow Spinner serialization is still listed there).
This is the point at which I'm saying that I am not going to quit talking about Pat Dilloway and what he has done and is doing until he fixes it. Not just his reviews (he also went and downrated everything he'd rated of mine on goodreads), because he's changed those so that he can, I suppose, say, "Hey, look, I don't have any bad reviews of his works," but his sister's, too, since, ultimately, he is responsible for those being there. Also, if I see that he's doing this kind of thing to anyone else, I will do my best to let people know about that, too. Because, you know what? Bullies don't get to win.
And, now, for my favorite one!
20. Just this week, Dilloway has published a post saying how much he hates me and how, also, he's sure that everyone believes he's an asshole but, really, what he's doing is okay because he keeps it isolated to "out-of-the-way message boards and blogs." At least he's not putting it in a book that's for sale on, say, Amazon where thousands of people could see it.
The logic here is amazing to me. It's kind of like saying, "Hey, I know I hit you in the back of the head with this board, but at least I did it in this alley where no one could see instead of out on the street." Or, "I know I stole $100.00 from you, but at least I didn't steal $1000.00." It is not the magnitude of something that makes it wrong. The thing is wrong or it's not. Speeding is still against the law even if there are no cops around to catch you.
He also states in the that post that he has been involved in "many a flame war," which I also find interesting considering his stance that I am the problem. I suppose that this could be considered a flame war except that I have kept all of my talk (except for one stray comment) restricted to my blog and have also restricted my talk to only pointing out actual actions without resorting to calling names and insulting anyone's intelligence. At any rate, I think the person who has an issue with getting involved in flame wars should take a look at his behavior.
So that's the update. Next week's will be restricted to only new developments, but I wanted to get the sequence of events down here at the outset. I think I covered everything, at any rate.
If you would like to find out what you can do to help fight the bullies who attack and/or intimidate authors like this just because they can, please feel free to email me.
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
It's Time For You To Grow Up (part 2)
Truth is the greatest enemy of the small minded. --me
Back in January, I wrote this post about... Well, you should probably just go read it, but the short of it is about being more offensive, in both connotations of the word:
1. tackling subjects that tend to upset people (hence my current series on racism)
2. not backing down from a fight or, in other words, going on the attack
I think this post will do both of those things.
I get that authors reviewing other authors is loaded topic. Honestly, I'm tired of talking about it. I believe what I believe about it, views which you can find scattered through numerous posts on here, and it's not likely that you're going to change my mind about it. I'm going to add one further thought, though, that I don't think I've stated before:
Authors reviewing authors is a longstanding practice. What do you think it is when a publisher solicits blurbs from authors for book covers? Those are encapsulated reviews meant to support, usually, a newer author and help sell books. And, sure, they pick the good ones, because they want people to buy the book. It doesn't change the fact that "negative" reviews are just as valid.
Go back and read part one of this (if you weren't here last week) if you want my full take on the subject.
All of that said (including the stuff in the older posts), and no matter what your opinion is on reviewing, here is a thing that is never okay: It is never okay to threaten someone with a negative rating/review in order to elicit a positive one in return.
So here's what happened:
I recently reviewed Lyon's Legacy by Sandra Almazan. Now, Sandra is someone I "worked with" on the mostly abandoned Indie Writers Monthly project. [I say "worked with" in that I never actually worked with her other than that we both contributed to the same blog. It's only "working with" in the very loosest of ways since we all contributed individually and never really worked on any joint projects other than the magazine, which Briane coordinated, so I only worked with Briane on that.] However, what I think of a book I read has nothing to do with whether I know the person or not. I'm reading a book then reviewing the book I read, and none of that part of the process has anything to do with whether I know you. [The only part where knowing you comes into the equation is that I am much more likely to read your indie book if I do know you. Once I've picked the book up, though, none of that continues to matter. It's all about the book at that point. (As it should be.)] I happened to not like this particular book (but you can go back and read the review).
As it happened, Pat Dilloway (also part of the IWM group) had posted a review of "Tiberius" (one of mine) about a week before I posted my review of Lyon's, or, at least, that's when I noticed it. It was a review he just slid in there without ever mentioning it to me. It was a short, respectable review with a 4-star rating.
However, as soon as my review for Lyon's posted, Pat attacked it and changed the rating he'd given "Tiberius" to 1 star. To be honest, that pissed me off. Especially when he told me that he would change it back if I would either pull down my review of Lyon's or change it to be favorable. In short, he tried to extort a positive review from me by preying on what he assumed would be my fear of having a negative review on one of my books. That pissed me off some more. That's playground bully behavior.
Needless to say, I didn't change the review.
Now, I understand that some of you feel that negative reviews are... inappropriate, but, again, I'm going to say to go back and read part one of this to get my full thoughts on that.
At this point, the thing that actually makes me mad is the hypocrisy of Pat Dilloway and his supposed belief that indie writers should only give other indie writers positive reviews because "selling books is fucking hard." And, you know, he's right; it is hard. But lying in book reviews/ratings for what can, at best, only be a short term gain (and usually isn't even that) hurts everyone in the long term. There's no better way to convince readers to stay away from indie books than for indie writers to lie in their reviews/ratings just to get the same favor back. Which is Pat's goal, as he fully admits:
"I do it because I'd want them to help me should I ask for it."
Just to say it, I don't help people for the goal of getting them to help me in return. That's not called "helping;" that's called "quid pro quo." If I'm going to help someone, I'm doing it either because it's the right thing to do or because I just want to help the person, not because I'm trying generate future favors. But I digress...
We're supposed to be talking about hypocrisy.
Dilloway's stance about only giving positive reviews to other indie authors goes back years. At least as far back as when I first declared my policy about honest reviews. Since then, however, he has been in at least one feud with an indie author he said he considered a friend and to whom he gave a 1-star review. I suppose it must be one of those things where it's okay for him to do it but it's not okay for anyone else.
I've seen him give 1-star ratings to indie authors where he admitted to not reading the books. I think those were all "revenge ratings," though, so I suppose that makes it okay. Which would apply to what he did to me.
He gave a 1-star rating to a recent ABNA winner, an indie author, but I suppose the fact that the guy won a contest and got a pocket full of money from it then got an Amazon publishing deal made that one okay. Here's what he had to say about:
Oh, and he also gave Alex Cavanaugh a 1-star rating on his book Cassastar for the sole purpose of not liking Alex.
All of that to say that Dilloway actually has no standards about whom and how he reviews and rates; he throws them out based upon his mood. You just better hope to never end up on the wrong side of him, because he may just go toss a bunch of 1-star ratings at you for not liking you. Kind of like this guy:
The best part, though, was that Dilloway presented what he did like this: "...I changed an overly generous 5-star review of his book to 1-star to let him have a taste of his own medicine." I love the phrase "his own medicine." If he paid attention at all to anything that I do or say, he would understand that my medicine is to read a book and offer a rating and review based upon my experience of the product. My medicine is never to go over and give someone a bad review because I'm mad at him. A more accurate way of putting that would be for Dilloway to just admit that he was giving me his medicine. Or, more accurately, his brand of poison.
On the other side of all of this is a post that Briane Pagel posted. I strongly recommend that you go read his post. Yes, it's long, but it has a very interesting take on the two sides of this controversy. Not the controversy between me and Dilloway but the controversy about reviews in general and whether we should just give out positive reviews to fellow indie authors. In that post, he excerpts from several reviews I've given his stuff. Um... He excerpts negative things I've said about his various books (and I like Briane's stuff!). More interestingly, he talks about how me pointing out the negatives in his writing helped him to grow as a writer. You should just go read the post.
I suppose the question, the real question, is "How do you deal with people like this?" The first way is what I'm doing here: You shine a light on the bad behavior. Of course, he has a belief that I behaved badly by giving Lyon's a negative review, and it's his right to say that he doesn't believe indie authors should be truthful in their reviews of other indie authors as long as it's "supporting" the author in question, but that's a far different thing than going around downgrading ratings of authors' works because you don't like them or because you're mad at them. Basically, you should let people know of whom they should be aware, so I'm letting you know.
The second way is to not let these kinds of people bully you. You don't adjust what you're doing to accommodate them, because, once you start doing that, you can never stop. It's like negotiating with terrorists. There's a reason we don't do that.
The third way is to show support for each other when someone is faced with dealing with a down-rating bully. So, you know, if you want to help out, go pick up one of my things (specifically "Tiberius" in this case), read it, and leave an honest review/rating. Seriously, I'd much rather have an honest 1-star rating than someone just giving me a 4 or 5 to be "nice" or to, hopefully, garner my favor for the future.
[Next week, I will actually have a review of one of Dilloway's works, something I read way back and never reviewed because I didn't, at the time, want to get into it with him, knowing how he is. But, then, I suppose that was a bit like trying to slide by the notice of the playground bully, and no one can do that indefinitely, because you can't ever tell what will set one of them off.]
1. tackling subjects that tend to upset people (hence my current series on racism)
2. not backing down from a fight or, in other words, going on the attack
I think this post will do both of those things.
I get that authors reviewing other authors is loaded topic. Honestly, I'm tired of talking about it. I believe what I believe about it, views which you can find scattered through numerous posts on here, and it's not likely that you're going to change my mind about it. I'm going to add one further thought, though, that I don't think I've stated before:
Authors reviewing authors is a longstanding practice. What do you think it is when a publisher solicits blurbs from authors for book covers? Those are encapsulated reviews meant to support, usually, a newer author and help sell books. And, sure, they pick the good ones, because they want people to buy the book. It doesn't change the fact that "negative" reviews are just as valid.
Go back and read part one of this (if you weren't here last week) if you want my full take on the subject.
All of that said (including the stuff in the older posts), and no matter what your opinion is on reviewing, here is a thing that is never okay: It is never okay to threaten someone with a negative rating/review in order to elicit a positive one in return.
So here's what happened:
I recently reviewed Lyon's Legacy by Sandra Almazan. Now, Sandra is someone I "worked with" on the mostly abandoned Indie Writers Monthly project. [I say "worked with" in that I never actually worked with her other than that we both contributed to the same blog. It's only "working with" in the very loosest of ways since we all contributed individually and never really worked on any joint projects other than the magazine, which Briane coordinated, so I only worked with Briane on that.] However, what I think of a book I read has nothing to do with whether I know the person or not. I'm reading a book then reviewing the book I read, and none of that part of the process has anything to do with whether I know you. [The only part where knowing you comes into the equation is that I am much more likely to read your indie book if I do know you. Once I've picked the book up, though, none of that continues to matter. It's all about the book at that point. (As it should be.)] I happened to not like this particular book (but you can go back and read the review).
As it happened, Pat Dilloway (also part of the IWM group) had posted a review of "Tiberius" (one of mine) about a week before I posted my review of Lyon's, or, at least, that's when I noticed it. It was a review he just slid in there without ever mentioning it to me. It was a short, respectable review with a 4-star rating.
However, as soon as my review for Lyon's posted, Pat attacked it and changed the rating he'd given "Tiberius" to 1 star. To be honest, that pissed me off. Especially when he told me that he would change it back if I would either pull down my review of Lyon's or change it to be favorable. In short, he tried to extort a positive review from me by preying on what he assumed would be my fear of having a negative review on one of my books. That pissed me off some more. That's playground bully behavior.
Needless to say, I didn't change the review.
Now, I understand that some of you feel that negative reviews are... inappropriate, but, again, I'm going to say to go back and read part one of this to get my full thoughts on that.
At this point, the thing that actually makes me mad is the hypocrisy of Pat Dilloway and his supposed belief that indie writers should only give other indie writers positive reviews because "selling books is fucking hard." And, you know, he's right; it is hard. But lying in book reviews/ratings for what can, at best, only be a short term gain (and usually isn't even that) hurts everyone in the long term. There's no better way to convince readers to stay away from indie books than for indie writers to lie in their reviews/ratings just to get the same favor back. Which is Pat's goal, as he fully admits:
"I do it because I'd want them to help me should I ask for it."
Just to say it, I don't help people for the goal of getting them to help me in return. That's not called "helping;" that's called "quid pro quo." If I'm going to help someone, I'm doing it either because it's the right thing to do or because I just want to help the person, not because I'm trying generate future favors. But I digress...
We're supposed to be talking about hypocrisy.
Dilloway's stance about only giving positive reviews to other indie authors goes back years. At least as far back as when I first declared my policy about honest reviews. Since then, however, he has been in at least one feud with an indie author he said he considered a friend and to whom he gave a 1-star review. I suppose it must be one of those things where it's okay for him to do it but it's not okay for anyone else.
I've seen him give 1-star ratings to indie authors where he admitted to not reading the books. I think those were all "revenge ratings," though, so I suppose that makes it okay. Which would apply to what he did to me.
He gave a 1-star rating to a recent ABNA winner, an indie author, but I suppose the fact that the guy won a contest and got a pocket full of money from it then got an Amazon publishing deal made that one okay. Here's what he had to say about:
Just last week I gave 1-star to a book being published by Amazon. And you know what, it won't fucking matter! That book has hundreds of reviews already; mine is just crying out in the wilderness. There's no harm to it.
Oh, and he also gave Alex Cavanaugh a 1-star rating on his book Cassastar for the sole purpose of not liking Alex.
All of that to say that Dilloway actually has no standards about whom and how he reviews and rates; he throws them out based upon his mood. You just better hope to never end up on the wrong side of him, because he may just go toss a bunch of 1-star ratings at you for not liking you. Kind of like this guy:
The best part, though, was that Dilloway presented what he did like this: "...I changed an overly generous 5-star review of his book to 1-star to let him have a taste of his own medicine." I love the phrase "his own medicine." If he paid attention at all to anything that I do or say, he would understand that my medicine is to read a book and offer a rating and review based upon my experience of the product. My medicine is never to go over and give someone a bad review because I'm mad at him. A more accurate way of putting that would be for Dilloway to just admit that he was giving me his medicine. Or, more accurately, his brand of poison.
On the other side of all of this is a post that Briane Pagel posted. I strongly recommend that you go read his post. Yes, it's long, but it has a very interesting take on the two sides of this controversy. Not the controversy between me and Dilloway but the controversy about reviews in general and whether we should just give out positive reviews to fellow indie authors. In that post, he excerpts from several reviews I've given his stuff. Um... He excerpts negative things I've said about his various books (and I like Briane's stuff!). More interestingly, he talks about how me pointing out the negatives in his writing helped him to grow as a writer. You should just go read the post.
I suppose the question, the real question, is "How do you deal with people like this?" The first way is what I'm doing here: You shine a light on the bad behavior. Of course, he has a belief that I behaved badly by giving Lyon's a negative review, and it's his right to say that he doesn't believe indie authors should be truthful in their reviews of other indie authors as long as it's "supporting" the author in question, but that's a far different thing than going around downgrading ratings of authors' works because you don't like them or because you're mad at them. Basically, you should let people know of whom they should be aware, so I'm letting you know.
The second way is to not let these kinds of people bully you. You don't adjust what you're doing to accommodate them, because, once you start doing that, you can never stop. It's like negotiating with terrorists. There's a reason we don't do that.
The third way is to show support for each other when someone is faced with dealing with a down-rating bully. So, you know, if you want to help out, go pick up one of my things (specifically "Tiberius" in this case), read it, and leave an honest review/rating. Seriously, I'd much rather have an honest 1-star rating than someone just giving me a 4 or 5 to be "nice" or to, hopefully, garner my favor for the future.
[Next week, I will actually have a review of one of Dilloway's works, something I read way back and never reviewed because I didn't, at the time, want to get into it with him, knowing how he is. But, then, I suppose that was a bit like trying to slide by the notice of the playground bully, and no one can do that indefinitely, because you can't ever tell what will set one of them off.]
Labels:
Alex Cavanaugh,
book review,
Briane Pagel,
bully,
Cassastar,
hypocrisy,
Indie Writers Monthly,
IWM,
lying,
Lyon's Legacy,
medicine,
offensive,
playground,
racism,
Shadow Spinner,
Star Wars,
Tiberius
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Codes (a book pre-view post)
Okay, so any of you who have been around for any length of time will know that I really don't do cover reveals or book promos or any of that stuff. Generally speaking, it's because I don't want to support a book I haven't read and which may turn out to be something I wouldn't have supported if I'd read it first. But, see, that has more to do with not having read anything by the authors who usually ask me to do that kind of stuff. I just can't pre-support a book by what amounts to an unknown quantity no matter how I feel about the actual person. Sorry, but you can be a great human being and still be a lousy writer, so I might think the world of you and still think you should find another line of work.
None of that is the case with Briane Pagel. At this point, I've been reading his stuff for years and like nearly all of what he produces. I loved Eclipse, and the farther away I get from Up So Down, the more I like it. That to say that I feel confident in announcing Pagel's new book: Codes
It's currently available for pre-order from Golden Fleece Press. Or it's supposed to be. I don't actually see a purchase link, but it is listed in their upcoming books section. Maybe it's just not live yet? Anyway, hop over to Thinking the Lions to follow Briane and get all the updates about his new book.
None of that is the case with Briane Pagel. At this point, I've been reading his stuff for years and like nearly all of what he produces. I loved Eclipse, and the farther away I get from Up So Down, the more I like it. That to say that I feel confident in announcing Pagel's new book: Codes
It's currently available for pre-order from Golden Fleece Press. Or it's supposed to be. I don't actually see a purchase link, but it is listed in their upcoming books section. Maybe it's just not live yet? Anyway, hop over to Thinking the Lions to follow Briane and get all the updates about his new book.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Just Exactly How Life Looks (a book review post)
It can sometimes be difficult to review a collection of short stories. Especially when the stories are not linked together with a strong central them, the temptation can be to review each story individually, and that's not really helpful in answering the question of "should I buy this collection?" I will admit, though, that that is the temptation I'm having here. So I'm going to approach it another way entirely...
"The Death of the Second-hand Cowboy"
This is a great story. It's almost worth the cost of the whole collection. Not quite but almost. It deals with the rather metaphysical question of what an author (or a creator) owes to his characters (or his creation). Possibly, it's because of being an author but the idea of, basically, turning around and being confronted by one of my characters demanding to know what the heck I'm doing with him is... Well, I don't know if I would want that.
I mean, what if it was the cop from Shadow Spinner? How could I even answer the "Why?" that I'm sure would be his question. Because the story demanded it? Would that work for you if it was you asking "Why?"
Or, even worse, what if it was Tom from The House on the Corner? And that may seem an odd one for those of you have read House, but you don't know what's coming for him, and I do, and, if I was him, I would want to know why. Why him. And I don't know if those things can be explained.
So this idea of the Second-hand Cowboy showing up in the author's living room and wanting to know why is really intriguing and really frightening. And the most interesting part (at least to me) is that the author never attempts to blame anyone else even though he could very legitimately have done so.
It's a really good story.
The rest of the stories are of variable quality. One thing Pagel periodically suffers from is a lack of focus. A lack of focus can be used to good effect when it's being used purposefully to achieve that effect but, when the lack of focus ends up being just a lack of focus, it means that it's just a blurry word picture without any real discernible meaning. A few of the stories in this collection feel like that to me, like they almost say something, but they just weren't drawn together well enough to really get the message through (and I don't mean message in the sense of a moral, just message as the story itself).
Having said that, there are a few other very nice stories in this collection, "voices" in particular. Not actually knowing what it's like to be blind, I think Pagel did a good job of capturing living through sound. Also, "Panorama." I was unsure of this story until I got to the end, but it's very touching and, I think, really captures the subject matter. "Thinking the Lions" is one I probably like more than I should. It's probably a bit out of focus, but I really like the concept he's working with and, actually, think it could have been longer.
So, as I said, "The Death of the Second-hand Cowboy" is almost worth the cost, but, with 10 other stories, there's probably something else in there that will make it pay off for you. It's definitely worth a look.
And, because it's me, I have to touch on the technicals. This one came out back before Pagel really began taking an interest in editing, and it shows. Mostly, it's in the commas, which are all over the place, but there are various other things, too, along with some formatting issues. The commas, though, are probably not something that will be an issue for most people. Actually, probably the only thing anyone else will notice are the formatting errors as the paragraph indentations do sort of wave at you.
"The Death of the Second-hand Cowboy"
This is a great story. It's almost worth the cost of the whole collection. Not quite but almost. It deals with the rather metaphysical question of what an author (or a creator) owes to his characters (or his creation). Possibly, it's because of being an author but the idea of, basically, turning around and being confronted by one of my characters demanding to know what the heck I'm doing with him is... Well, I don't know if I would want that.
I mean, what if it was the cop from Shadow Spinner? How could I even answer the "Why?" that I'm sure would be his question. Because the story demanded it? Would that work for you if it was you asking "Why?"
Or, even worse, what if it was Tom from The House on the Corner? And that may seem an odd one for those of you have read House, but you don't know what's coming for him, and I do, and, if I was him, I would want to know why. Why him. And I don't know if those things can be explained.
So this idea of the Second-hand Cowboy showing up in the author's living room and wanting to know why is really intriguing and really frightening. And the most interesting part (at least to me) is that the author never attempts to blame anyone else even though he could very legitimately have done so.
It's a really good story.
The rest of the stories are of variable quality. One thing Pagel periodically suffers from is a lack of focus. A lack of focus can be used to good effect when it's being used purposefully to achieve that effect but, when the lack of focus ends up being just a lack of focus, it means that it's just a blurry word picture without any real discernible meaning. A few of the stories in this collection feel like that to me, like they almost say something, but they just weren't drawn together well enough to really get the message through (and I don't mean message in the sense of a moral, just message as the story itself).
Having said that, there are a few other very nice stories in this collection, "voices" in particular. Not actually knowing what it's like to be blind, I think Pagel did a good job of capturing living through sound. Also, "Panorama." I was unsure of this story until I got to the end, but it's very touching and, I think, really captures the subject matter. "Thinking the Lions" is one I probably like more than I should. It's probably a bit out of focus, but I really like the concept he's working with and, actually, think it could have been longer.
So, as I said, "The Death of the Second-hand Cowboy" is almost worth the cost, but, with 10 other stories, there's probably something else in there that will make it pay off for you. It's definitely worth a look.
And, because it's me, I have to touch on the technicals. This one came out back before Pagel really began taking an interest in editing, and it shows. Mostly, it's in the commas, which are all over the place, but there are various other things, too, along with some formatting issues. The commas, though, are probably not something that will be an issue for most people. Actually, probably the only thing anyone else will notice are the formatting errors as the paragraph indentations do sort of wave at you.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
What Time Is the Tea Kettle?
So I'm not much into promotion, even self-promotion; however, when I have a new product out, I figure I ought to at least mention it. Speaking of which, my new thing is out! Actually, it's two things. Two novelettes about the same character and his cat. I posted an excerpt from it quite a while back on a different site, so I'll give you that same taste in a moment. I'd call this new story whimsical. Definitely offbeat.
Bryan Pedas, from A Beer for the Shower, put together the spectacular cover, and I think he captured the feel of the story pretty well. He called it "absurdist" rather in the same vein as Carroll's Wonderland. Did you know that there's no real category for that? Well, there's not.
Briane Pagel, who also got an early look, said it's "perfect."
And my students, who also got to hear the excerpt, can't wait to find out what happens to Jeffry and what's up with the tea kettle.
I'm just going to say it: If you've liked anything I've written, this is one you should read.
PLUS! Not only do you get "What Time Is the Tea Kettle?" but you also get "Soul Cakes"! A second novelette featuring Jeffry and his owner. That's two for the price of one! Seriously, go pick up your copy, read it, love it, and leave a review!
Just to help you on the way, here is a bit of "What Time Is the Tea Kettle?"
The red
tea kettle was blocking my view of the clock. It kept doing that. I
sighed as I rolled over and sat up in bed. It was new and hadn't yet
learned its place, so I picked it up by the handle and carried it out
of the bedroom, down the darkened hall, and into the kitchen, only
once stepping on one of the cat's toys, quite an accomplishment. I
flicked the little stove light on and set the kettle on the counter.
What
time was it again? That was when I realized that I'd forgotten to
check the time after I picked up the kettle, so I glanced at the
stove clock in the dim light of the kitchen to find it blocked by the
red tea kettle, handle up so that I couldn't read the time. I glanced
over to the counter top where I was sure I had just set it, but, yes,
it was not there. I sighed again, shook my head slightly, and picked
the tea kettle back up, looking for somewhere else to set it. It
needed a place, its own place, to be. Maybe, then, it would quit
wandering around.
I could
put it in a cupboard, but that would just be inconvenient, having to
get it in and out all of the time. I wanted it to live on the stove
but on the burner where it wouldn't block the clock.
Oh! The
clock. I wanted to know the time. I looked over at the clock, and
there was the tea kettle again. Hadn't it just been in my hand? I was
sure I hadn't set it down.
I
reached for it again, but, at that moment, the cat floated by,
ghostlike, doing whatever it is that cats do at night. He brushed my
cheek with his tail as he lightly pressed one paw onto my shoulder as
he passed by. Looking for flying bugs, I supposed.
His
sudden spring to the ceiling almost caught me by surprise, and I saw
him going for the spider in the corner where the ceiling met both
walls on that side of the dining room that adjoined the kitchen.
“Geoffrey!”
The cat
stiffened, caught in the act, but he couldn't stop like he would have
been able to if he'd been on the floor. He looked back over his
shoulder at me and “mew”ed just as he collided with the ceiling
and bounced to the wall, grabbing hold with his claws.
The
spider scurried into the crack where the two pieces of trim met. I
could see him peeking out but was too far away to hear the cursing
that I was sure was happening. Spiders like very much to curse. Most
of them, anyway. Tarantulas are above that sort of thing. Or so they
say.
The cat
arched his back and, then, marched down the wall studiously ignoring
me as I scolded him, “Geoffrey, what have I told you about the
spiders? We leave the spiders alone. Spiders are good.” I spoke
slowly and distinctly, as if he was hard of hearing, which, honestly,
at that moment, he was.
When he
got close enough, he leaped from the wall to the dining table and sat
like the puff of smoke he had originally been named for.
I
sighed and shook my head at the cat, thinking back to the small, gray
puffball he'd been when he'd shown up on my doorstep. Like a puff of
smoke when you blow out a match or a candle. All except for the toes
on his front paws, which were white. I had determined to call him
Smoke and actually had for a number of weeks.
Until
my nephew came to visit.
He's my
sister's kid. We don't ever see each other, my sister and me, unless
she needs something. That particular day, she had needed me to
babysit, her usual reason for seeing me, so she had dropped my nephew
off at an obscene hour on a Saturday morning. A time when normal
people are still sleeping. My nephew came in asking, “What's for
lunch?”
I told
him it was too early for lunch, to which he replied, “Actually,
it's late for lunch. At school, it's already nap time.”
I
grumbled and went to grub around in the kitchen and look for food.
He met
the cat while I was trying to find slices of leftover pizza that I
could pick enough of the mushrooms off of that it would convince him
to pretend they weren't really there to begin with.
“Warm
or cold?” I shouted out into the room with the TV that only worked
three days a week.
“Cold's
fine.”
“It's
going to the table, then. Why don't you bring Smoke, and you can feed
him some treats while we're eating.”
That's
the great thing about pizza: I was about to have it for breakfast,
and my nephew was having it for lunch, and we were both perfectly
satisfied that all was right with the world with that arrangement.
He
plopped the kitten down on the table in much the same spot as he was
currently sitting and eyeing me sullenly for the scolding.
As I
dropped several cat treats into the boy's hand, he said, “Why do
you call him Smoke?”
“That's
his name.”
“No,
it's not.” He said it very matter-of-factly, very like when he had
said, “At school, it's already nap time.”
That
was annoying. I wasn't even awake yet. No pizza. No coffee. And less
than four hours of sleep. “Yes, it is. I named him that.”
He
looked at the cat, held out the hand with the treats, and cocked his
head slightly as the cat took one and sat down with it.
“He
says he already has a name, and he doesn't like Smoke.”
“What's
wrong with Smoke?”
The boy
shrugged, “I don't know. He says he doesn't like it.”
“Why
didn't he tell me, then?” I raised one eyebrow at the kid, thinking
I'd won.
He
glanced back at the kitten and offered him another treat. The pizza,
his slice and mine, was just sitting there on our plates waiting to
be eaten, making me cranky, while my nephew chastised me on behalf of
the ball of fur that looked like it was about to drift away.
“He
says he did tell you. He says you don't listen.”
“I
do, too, listen.” I crossed my arms, thinking back, trying to
figure out if I'd been listening. I wasn't sure, and that made me
more cranky, because the kid might be right.
“If
you listened, you'd know his name is Jeffry.”
“Jeffry?”
I blinked, stared at the kid, and picked up my slice of pizza. Just
to make a statement by doing it. “What kind of name is Jeffry for a
cat?”
The
small shoulders of the boy shrugged as he took a bite of his pizza,
“I don't know. I just know that's his name.”
I waved
my pizza in the air, “I like Smoke better.”
With
his mouth stuffed, barely comprehensible, he replied, “He doesn't
like Smoke.”
“So.
He's my cat.” I obstinately took a bite of my pizza.
The cat
made a cat noise, not quite a meow, that I didn't catch. I should
have, but it sounded jumbled.
After a
moment of chewing, the boy said, “Jeffry says he'll call you Bob.”
“But
my name's not...” I ripped a big hunk of pizza off with my teeth
and sent it spluttering everywhere as I said, “Fine!” After I
swallowed, I added, “Geoffrey, it is.” Internally, I smiled,
knowing that neither of them could spell so couldn't tell that I had
given the cat a name I wanted to give him anyway.
As the
cat sat on the table and stared at me, I wasn't entirely sure he
hadn't known all along. Cats always look like they have secrets, even
when they don't. Who knows what was going on in that cat's head.
I saw
the spider creeping back out of the crack in the ceiling, and I
glanced up at it, “You leave that spider alone.”
The cat
stood up, turned, and lifted its tail to me as it hopped off of the
table, drifting off through the house but near the floor this time.
I stood
there a moment in the arbitrary division between the kitchen and
dining room completely unaware of what I was doing. Why I was up.
What time it even was.
Oh! The
time! I turned back to the stove, and there was the red tea kettle
again blocking the clock. I grabbed the tea kettle and jerked it from
the stove. 1:16 glowed dimly in green on the little panel on the back
of the stove where the knobs are, and I stood there staring at the
readout. I didn't even remember why I'd wanted to know what time it
was. Or why I was awake...
Why was
I awake? Something had woken me up. That's why I had been trying to
look at the time. Oh, well. I had no idea what it was, if I had ever
known at all. What I did know is that I was going back to bed.
I
sighed and raised the red tea kettle up to eye level, “But what do
I do with you?” I yawned, shook my head, and set the tea pot back
down on the stove. I'd figure it out later.
Monday, September 15, 2014
How My First Novel Ended Up In The Trash
Considering that I have at least one post each week tied over to Indie Writers Monthly, I'm sure most of you realize that I write for that blog, too. There's a team of us over there and several posts a week, which may lead to the question: "Why is it called Indie Writers Monthly if there are weekly posts?" And that's, in that context, a very good question. One I'm not sure I've ever actually addressed here. I think Briane did over there, but I'm not sure how many of you follow along over there. Not many, based on the comments.
So why is it called Indie Writers Monthly?
Well, along with the blog, there is a monthly magazine. The magazine deals with various writing topics and, I think, is probably a pretty good resource for indie authors. Or, maybe, any authors. I mean, heck, I contribute to it, and I always have worthwhile stuff to say. Right? Right?
Hey! I don't hear you. I said, right?
Okay, that's better.
The September issue is out and is all about how to deal with negative reviews. In this issue I talk about my first ever novel and how a negative review prompted me to throw it in the trash (the novel, not the review), something I think all authors should avoid. I tell my creative writing students to never throw any of their writing away. Or delete it. There's always the potential for something to be useful later even if it's not working in the moment.
The issues are only $0.99, so you can get nearly all of them for less than a cuppa at Starbucks. I'd say that's a pretty good deal. Plus! The current issue also contains issue #1 as a FREE! extra, which is especially good, considering that the first issue is no longer available on its own.
To assist in your perusal, here are the links to each issue:
Issue 2 (April)
Issue 3 (May)
Issue 4 (June)
Issue 5 (July)
Issue 6 (August)
Issue 7 (September)
The Annual -- Contains 15 short stories about time travel. You should definitely give it a look.
The June issue not only contains an interview with me but my short story "The Day the Junebugs Came." Personally, I'd love for you to pick that one up and take a read through the story and, then, let me know what you think BY LEAVING A REVIEW.
And, hey, with this month's issue being about handling negative reviews, I'll know how to respond no matter what you think of the story, right? As I said, it's less than a buck, and you can probably read the issue on your lunch break.
Aside from all of that, we're also accepting submissions. If you have some bit of writing advice you think authors would benefit from, send it in. But it doesn't have to be writing advice; it could also be a short story. Or poetry. Or whatever. We're not too picky about what we'll look at. Which is not to say that we'll just print anything, because we won't, but we're (mostly) willing to look. Or Briane is. Someone is.
There you go, a whole, semi-new writing resource I bet you really didn't even know about. Pick up a copy today!
So why is it called Indie Writers Monthly?
Well, along with the blog, there is a monthly magazine. The magazine deals with various writing topics and, I think, is probably a pretty good resource for indie authors. Or, maybe, any authors. I mean, heck, I contribute to it, and I always have worthwhile stuff to say. Right? Right?
Hey! I don't hear you. I said, right?
Okay, that's better.
The September issue is out and is all about how to deal with negative reviews. In this issue I talk about my first ever novel and how a negative review prompted me to throw it in the trash (the novel, not the review), something I think all authors should avoid. I tell my creative writing students to never throw any of their writing away. Or delete it. There's always the potential for something to be useful later even if it's not working in the moment.
The issues are only $0.99, so you can get nearly all of them for less than a cuppa at Starbucks. I'd say that's a pretty good deal. Plus! The current issue also contains issue #1 as a FREE! extra, which is especially good, considering that the first issue is no longer available on its own.
To assist in your perusal, here are the links to each issue:
Issue 2 (April)
Issue 3 (May)
Issue 4 (June)
Issue 5 (July)
Issue 6 (August)
Issue 7 (September)
The Annual -- Contains 15 short stories about time travel. You should definitely give it a look.
The June issue not only contains an interview with me but my short story "The Day the Junebugs Came." Personally, I'd love for you to pick that one up and take a read through the story and, then, let me know what you think BY LEAVING A REVIEW.
And, hey, with this month's issue being about handling negative reviews, I'll know how to respond no matter what you think of the story, right? As I said, it's less than a buck, and you can probably read the issue on your lunch break.
Aside from all of that, we're also accepting submissions. If you have some bit of writing advice you think authors would benefit from, send it in. But it doesn't have to be writing advice; it could also be a short story. Or poetry. Or whatever. We're not too picky about what we'll look at. Which is not to say that we'll just print anything, because we won't, but we're (mostly) willing to look. Or Briane is. Someone is.
There you go, a whole, semi-new writing resource I bet you really didn't even know about. Pick up a copy today!
Friday, July 18, 2014
Les Miserables (a local color post)
As I mentioned in passing, recently, my oldest son has been a part of a local production of Les Miserables. He's actually getting paid for this gig, which is pretty cool, especially since he didn't even audition for the part. He was requested by the director (whom he worked with several years ago in a production of The Pirates of Penzance). Not that he had a big part in that he was one of the main characters or anything; he wasn't, but he did have several solo bits and was a named character, Combeferre, along with the ensemble stuff he did. Basically, he was on stage through the greater part of the performance. He's even the first one onto the stage, as he gets pushed out as part of the prisoner gang.
As you can guess, I'm going to say my son was great. And he was. But, look, it's chorus work, mostly, and the chorus folk did a fine job, on the whole (with the exception of one kid who didn't know what to do with himself when he wasn't actively doing anything). His singing was right on, so it's hard not to be great when you don't have so much room to screw up. Okay, look, if my kid has one issue, it's that he might smile too much, but that's also one of the things that makes him good. He's got charisma, and he draws eyes to him just by being on the stage. [Recently, he was in Pride & Prejudice in the role of Bingley, largely due to his ability to smile. Well, he got that role as opposed to some other role, because no one can smile the way he can.]
Overall, the production was quite well done, but there were a few issues. Primarily, it was difficult at times to hear the singing over the orchestra. Maybe, this was an issue for use because we were sitting right up front, just one row removed from said orchestra, so the music was right in our faces. Or, maybe, they just didn't have the sound system set up to overcome the orchestra; I don't know. What I do know is that I was glad, as I watched, that I have seen the movie, because there were a few places I wouldn't have know what was going on if I hadn't seen it, because I couldn't hear the vocals. The worst of that happened during the scene where Javert shows up with the revolutionaries, where I still had a moment of "huh? What's he doing there?" until I remembered what was going on.
Speaking of Javert, I'm still waiting to see a version of Les Mis where I think the Javert performance is worthwhile. If the other performances in the recent movie adaptation hadn't been so strong, Russel Crowe could have ruined it, because he was pretty horrible. The guy in this production was better but only just. Mostly, he just stood in place on stage and sang, which is where he did a better job than Crowe, because he did have a good voice and sang the numbers well, but he just stood there and sang for most of them. Unemotionally. In fact, just about his only acting was to tilt his head back and look down his nose at Jean Valjean. My wife says that Javert is the kind of role where you can get away with playing it with a stick up your butt, because Javert has a stick up his butt, and I agree, but I am still dissatisfied.
The actor playing Jean Valjean, Pedro Rodelas, had a very Hugh Jackman look to him and played the role with the same kind of heart, which made him hard not to like, even if some of the music stretched his vocal range beyond his ability. I think the same can be said of Jackman, though (actually, I think I did say that somewhere after I saw the movie), but the emotion both actors poured into the role made up for any gaps in their singing ability.
The most difficult part of this production was the actor they chose to play Marius, David Strock. The man can sing, but he was just too old for the part, and I couldn't buy into him as the student revolutionary standing next to the young woman playing Cosette. He just looked out of place, which made it difficult to buy into that whole young love-at-first-sight thing that's supposed to be going on.
However, the kid they had playing Gavroche, Ari Vozaitis, was amazing and could have completely stolen the show if he'd more "screen" time. I'm guessing he's not older than 12.
The only other issue is a practical one: The show is quite pricey. But I suppose that's the price you pay ["Claim the pun!" as Briane Pagel would say.] for local theater. Still, $30 is a lot to pay for a ticket but, if you can afford it, I would strongly recommend the show. I'll put it like this: It's long. Three hours long. But I didn't once have that feeling of wondering how much longer it was, and that's saying a lot. Also, my wife cried and, as previously stated, if my wife cries, you know it's good.
As you can guess, I'm going to say my son was great. And he was. But, look, it's chorus work, mostly, and the chorus folk did a fine job, on the whole (with the exception of one kid who didn't know what to do with himself when he wasn't actively doing anything). His singing was right on, so it's hard not to be great when you don't have so much room to screw up. Okay, look, if my kid has one issue, it's that he might smile too much, but that's also one of the things that makes him good. He's got charisma, and he draws eyes to him just by being on the stage. [Recently, he was in Pride & Prejudice in the role of Bingley, largely due to his ability to smile. Well, he got that role as opposed to some other role, because no one can smile the way he can.]
Overall, the production was quite well done, but there were a few issues. Primarily, it was difficult at times to hear the singing over the orchestra. Maybe, this was an issue for use because we were sitting right up front, just one row removed from said orchestra, so the music was right in our faces. Or, maybe, they just didn't have the sound system set up to overcome the orchestra; I don't know. What I do know is that I was glad, as I watched, that I have seen the movie, because there were a few places I wouldn't have know what was going on if I hadn't seen it, because I couldn't hear the vocals. The worst of that happened during the scene where Javert shows up with the revolutionaries, where I still had a moment of "huh? What's he doing there?" until I remembered what was going on.
Speaking of Javert, I'm still waiting to see a version of Les Mis where I think the Javert performance is worthwhile. If the other performances in the recent movie adaptation hadn't been so strong, Russel Crowe could have ruined it, because he was pretty horrible. The guy in this production was better but only just. Mostly, he just stood in place on stage and sang, which is where he did a better job than Crowe, because he did have a good voice and sang the numbers well, but he just stood there and sang for most of them. Unemotionally. In fact, just about his only acting was to tilt his head back and look down his nose at Jean Valjean. My wife says that Javert is the kind of role where you can get away with playing it with a stick up your butt, because Javert has a stick up his butt, and I agree, but I am still dissatisfied.
The actor playing Jean Valjean, Pedro Rodelas, had a very Hugh Jackman look to him and played the role with the same kind of heart, which made him hard not to like, even if some of the music stretched his vocal range beyond his ability. I think the same can be said of Jackman, though (actually, I think I did say that somewhere after I saw the movie), but the emotion both actors poured into the role made up for any gaps in their singing ability.
The most difficult part of this production was the actor they chose to play Marius, David Strock. The man can sing, but he was just too old for the part, and I couldn't buy into him as the student revolutionary standing next to the young woman playing Cosette. He just looked out of place, which made it difficult to buy into that whole young love-at-first-sight thing that's supposed to be going on.
However, the kid they had playing Gavroche, Ari Vozaitis, was amazing and could have completely stolen the show if he'd more "screen" time. I'm guessing he's not older than 12.
The only other issue is a practical one: The show is quite pricey. But I suppose that's the price you pay ["Claim the pun!" as Briane Pagel would say.] for local theater. Still, $30 is a lot to pay for a ticket but, if you can afford it, I would strongly recommend the show. I'll put it like this: It's long. Three hours long. But I didn't once have that feeling of wondering how much longer it was, and that's saying a lot. Also, my wife cried and, as previously stated, if my wife cries, you know it's good.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
The Road to Fiction (an IWM post)
I was asked an interesting question recently. I like interesting questions; they make you think. Well, they make me think. I don't actually know about you. I don't actually even know if you do think, because so many people don't, though I like to think that if you're reading this blog then you're a thinker, so we'll just go with that.
Anyway...
The question was, "How do you write fiction?" Let me clarify that. I get the question, "How do you write?" a lot, but I've never had the question, "How do you write fiction?" Her contention was that writing non-fiction is easy; it just requires a bit of research and putting it together in a way that's easy for the reader to take in. But she didn't know how to go about writing fiction.
Anyway...
The question was, "How do you write fiction?" Let me clarify that. I get the question, "How do you write?" a lot, but I've never had the question, "How do you write fiction?" Her contention was that writing non-fiction is easy; it just requires a bit of research and putting it together in a way that's easy for the reader to take in. But she didn't know how to go about writing fiction.
* * *
I'm sure at least some of you have guessed that you need to hop over to Indie Writers Monthly to find out where "The Road to Fiction" leads.
Friday, June 6, 2014
Unexpected Applause: Up So Down (a book review post)

Because it's me, let's just get this out of the way:
The book needs some editing and formatting help. Mostly, it's nothing all that serious, an overuse of commas that most people won't notice, but there are some spots where there are wrong words or names and a couple of those spots did make me have to go back to figure out who was talking at a given a moment. There is also some inconsistency in the formatting, but it's hard to say whether that's a real issue or not. For me, there is a minor visual distraction, but I don't know if it's the kind of thing most people pay attention to or not. In a book that's not as well written, the editing and formatting issues would be bigger problems, because they would highlight the problems in the book as a whole, but, here, they are more like swatting at an annoying fly rather than being caught in a swarm of yellow jackets.
Now, the major element in the book that is likely to cause problems for people is something that is there on purpose and which I enjoyed very much: the story is told non-linearly. In general, we don't like non-linear stories all that much, but I think this one worked well. As I was reading it, I kept thinking, "This is like how it is to get to know someone." When you meet someone, you don't get their chronological life story laid out in front of you. What you get are small stories that are shared at relevant times and those things rarely happen in sequence. That is how we learn about Sarah and Bumpy, little pieces of a year or so of their lives connected sort of by theme rather than by when they happened.
So, as I said, I kept thinking about this idea of getting to know people as I was reading the book, then, when I got to the end, in the author's note, Briane Pagel talks about choosing to write it that way because that's how you get to know someone, so, with that intent in mind, I have to say he pulled it off perfectly.
That non-linear aspect to the story is what propelled the reading of it. You find out early on (so this isn't much of a spoiler) that Sarah's fiance has died. She thinks it was murder. So, of course, you want to find out what's going on there. To some extent, Sarah blames her brother, Bumpy, for what happened, but that's complicated by Sarah's guilt over a childhood event between her and her brother for which she blames herself and which causes her to blame herself for, basically, Bumpy's life and how messed up it is. How messed up it is according to her, at any rate. So, then, because she blames Bumpy's irresponsibility on herself, she also, somewhere in there, blames her fiance's death on herself, too. She's a little messed up, to say that least.
The other issue that is potentially an issue for people is the lack of resolution to most areas of the lives of the characters. I will admit that when I got to the end I had a very "What? It's over!" reaction. I was a bit upset. But the farther away I get from finishing the book, the more okay I become with the way it ends. This is not an action/adventure thing where the space ships take off from the previously hidden rebel base to fight the enemy space station and it just ends leaving you hanging. This book is like being in people's lives, and people come in and out of our lives, and it's more the kind of thing where you to turn to someone several months down the line and says, "Hey, you remember Sarah? I wonder what ever happened with that thing with her fiance? Did they decide it was a murder or not?" And the other person says, "You know, I haven't seen her in months. I wonder what did happen with that. Have you heard what happened with her brother?" That's exactly how this book feels to me, like my life crossed paths with these people for just a little while, I got to know them a bit but not all the way, and they passed back out of my life. So it's not that there aren't resolutions; it's just that I don't see those people anymore so I don't know what happened with them. Sometimes, I'll wonder but, mostly, I will just go on with my life.
There's your measure of deciding if this book is for you. It's certainly not your typical fare, and I think that's a good thing. If you need a bunch of action, look somewhere else. If you want to get involved and invested in some characters, pick up Up So Down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)