Okay, so not really... writers shouldn't really be baseball players, that is. At least, I shouldn't. I suck at baseball. I know; my dad used to make me play softball when I was in high school on the church team when they didn't have enough players to be a team. They would make me catcher, because the catcher doesn't really need to do anything in softball. That, or they would stick me out in right field, because the ball might come that way twice in a game. It was his fault I was no good, anyway, but that's a different story.
But back to Moneyball... Oh, wait, we weren't talking about that, yet, were we? Well, in that case, on to Moneyball!
As you might have figured out, I recently watched it. Yes, Moneyball! What do you think I'm talking about here? >sheesh!< Anyway...
Moneyball is really excellent. Brad Pitt is excellent. Jonah Hill is excellent. Surprisingly so, actually. As it turns out, he can actually act. I hope to see more of him in serious roles like this one. Beyond the fact that the movie is just good, it's very interesting. In case you don't know:
Moneyball is based on the book about Billy Beane's revolutionary approach to building his 2002 Oakland A's team. Faced with a lack of funds and having just lost his best players to richer teams, Beane knew that a new approach was necessary. The story is fascinating.
But I don't really want to talk about it, because you can go watch it. And, if you're a writer, you should go watch it. And, if you're a writer and you've seen it and you didn't see the parallels to the publishing industry, you need to go watch it again. I will say this much about it, though:
There is a scene early on in which Beane is sitting in a room full of scouts, and they're discussing options on whom to replace their lost players with. There are comments like:
"This guy looks good."
"But he can't play <whatever position> well."
"But he looks good. The fans will love him."
"His girlfriend is ugly."
"What does that have to do with anything?"
"It means he lacks confidence."
"But he's a great player."
"His girlfriend is ugly."
And it went on and on and, mostly, the scouts never talked about the abilities of the players. They wanted stars, not good players.
And I couldn't stop thinking of literary agents. They want stars, and the writing doesn't matter at all.
In the end, Beane built the team based on the statistics without regard to the externals of the player.
Too old? Does he get on base? Yes. Take him.
Looks funny. Does he get on base? Yes. Take him.
He looked at the ability of the players. Their ability to perform. That was #1. Not just #1; it was the only thing.
The whole thing had a rocky beginning. The coach wouldn't get in line with what Beane was trying to do. They lost a lot of games. A lot. Even Beane didn't know if he was doing the right thing. It felt right, I guess, but it was a... it was a giant mess.
Then... it started working, and they won a record streak of games. 20 in a row. But, now, I'm talking about the movie, and that's not really the point.
The point is that it was hard. There were rough spots. Everyone ridiculed him. Everyone. And, in the end, they tried to say what he did failed. But today? Virtually every team in baseball has someone on staff that does what Beane did. In the end, sports is about money, and winning means money, so the owners of the teams want to win, so they went where the money is.
Publishers should take a look at that and start trying to go where the money is instead of spending their time talking about how bad self-publishing is and how bad e-publishing is and how bad Amazon is. Bookstores, too. I'll leave you with this quote; you can figure out how it relates (all emphasis is mine):
"You won the exact same number of games that the Yankees won, but the Yankees
spent one point four million per win and you paid two hundred and sixty
thousand. I know you've taken it in the teeth out there, but the first guy
through the wall. It always gets bloody, always. It's the threat of not just the
way of doing business, but in their minds it's threatening the game. But really
what it's threatening is their livelihoods, it's threatening their jobs, it's
threatening the way that they do things. And every time that happens, whether
it's the government or a way of doing business or whatever it is, the people are
holding the reins, have their hands on the switch. They go bat shit crazy. I
mean, anybody who's not building a team right and rebuilding it using your
model, they're dinosaurs."
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 publishing industry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label publishing industry. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Thursday, October 27, 2011
forty-nine
Many, many weeks ago, Rusty over at The Blutonian Death Egg awarded me the 7x7 Link Award. I was just beginning to move at the time, so it's taken me a while to get back to this one. If it was a normal award, I think I would have just conveniently forgotten about it, which I did anyway for a few weeks, but I kind of like this one, so I figured I'd honor it.
Not that I really understand the 7x7 part of it. I mean, I get the 7 links, but where does the x7 come in? It's like that "5x5" thing from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I looked that up once, and it doesn't really mean anything in the way they use it in the show, so I've always found that phrase curious and wondered about its origin. It's an interesting leap from the original meaning, the area of clearest reception from a radio station, to... well... I'm still not completely clear on the meaning in Buffy beyond "I'm cool." But I digress.
So I'm supposed to link to a bunch of my previous posts, so here goes:
1. Most Beautiful: I don't think I really do "beautiful" at this point. I generally don't go in for that kind of prose in the blog, although, maybe, I should. Actually, when I ever get around to talking about poetry, I might end up with some posts I think would qualify, but I'm not sure when I'll get to that. The closest I probably come to that is The Farm about the burning of where I grew up.
2. Most Helpful: I'm going to have to go with one of my earliest posts, which is one most of you probably haven't seen. It's called 400 Words and deals with part of my strategy that enabled me to sit down and make it through writing my first book.
3. Most Popular: I don't have a good answer for this one. How should I know, really? I'm going to divide it into categories:
a. most clicks: By far, my post with the most clicks (almost 3 times as many as the next most clicked) has been my review of the movie Hanna. I think it's the quote I used for the title of the post, because most of the click throughs to it have come from web searches on that quote. I have a secret experiment in the works to test this, but it's going to take a while before I know anything.
b. most comments (no restrictions): The Man With No Eyes has received more comments than any other post, but that's probably because it was involved in one of the campaign challenges for the Platform Building Campaign, so I don't think it's a good pick.
c. most comments (restricted to posts not involved in a blogfest): It looks like Writing in the Slow Lane takes the award for most popular just in and of itself. There are a couple of others that are probably close, but this one's not related to a blogfest of any kind and seemed to get a lot of meaningful comments.
4. Most Controversial: I'm going to have to go with my very last past, The Cliche Monster. I'm really surprised by this one, but I must have just fumbled the ball somewhere in there, because I got the feeling that most people just didn't get what I was really saying there. Yeah, I may be projecting somewhat because there was a huge drop in comments on that one and I lost followers for the first time ever after posting it. Really, I was just trying to say that writers shouldn't worry and obsess so much about whether or not someone has done a similar story, because, you know, someone out there has written a similar story. But it's the telling that matters, not the story itself. It seemed to make some people unhappy, though.
5. Most Surprisingly Successful: Again, I'm going to have to go with the review of Hanna. I'm still surprised at the steady stream of click throughs I get from that post. Not that it seems any of those people hang around, but who knows?
6. Most Underrated: That would have to be this post about zombies. I just expected it to get more response, but I feel like it really just flew right under the radar. It's also one of my favorite posts, because I think I had a real insight with that one. Oh, well...
7. Most Prideworthy: I have to say that the post I have the most pride in is the one annoucing that my book, The House on the Corner, is available for sale. Or for buying. For you to buy (and you should (ask Rusty Webb (hey, I have to plug the book sometime!))). However, there's nothing about that post in and of itself to really have pride in. So... a post I think is really well done that I would point out to people and say, "hey, I wrote that," that's a harder question, and I actually have a few. Some of them are already listed, so I've picked one more that's not previosuly listed: The Dream Vs the World. Okay, and one more: Publishing and the Real Estate Market.
Well, that's about it. It's interesting to look back at what I've done so far, especially since I'm approaching my 100th post. Interesting to see how the readership has grown and how the way I write posts has changed. I sort of assume that I present a more challenging blog than most people are interested in. I tend to be long (I'm very uncomfortable with anything less than around 1000-1200 words), and people (often) don't like long, so I appreciate you guys that do stop by and read what I have to say. I hope I tend to make people think. I do try to include humor in the blog, but I have to stop and remember to do it, really, because all of this is pretty serious stuff to me, and it's what I spend my time thinking about. Not that I don't laugh. I'm a big fan of comedy. And I don't use pretty pictures. Really, I just don't have time for it. After spending a couple of days (sometimes more) on a post (writing is a slow process for me, and, although, a blog post goes quicker then fiction, it isn't by much), I just don't have the necessary energy (or time) to spend many more hours looking for images to toss in.
As a special treat, though, and kind of because Matthew MacNish inspired me with his series on monsters, here's a short excert from The House on the Corner (just to prove that the humor does live inside me (it just may be a little closer to middle school humor than my wife would like)):
Not that I really understand the 7x7 part of it. I mean, I get the 7 links, but where does the x7 come in? It's like that "5x5" thing from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I looked that up once, and it doesn't really mean anything in the way they use it in the show, so I've always found that phrase curious and wondered about its origin. It's an interesting leap from the original meaning, the area of clearest reception from a radio station, to... well... I'm still not completely clear on the meaning in Buffy beyond "I'm cool." But I digress.
So I'm supposed to link to a bunch of my previous posts, so here goes:
1. Most Beautiful: I don't think I really do "beautiful" at this point. I generally don't go in for that kind of prose in the blog, although, maybe, I should. Actually, when I ever get around to talking about poetry, I might end up with some posts I think would qualify, but I'm not sure when I'll get to that. The closest I probably come to that is The Farm about the burning of where I grew up.
2. Most Helpful: I'm going to have to go with one of my earliest posts, which is one most of you probably haven't seen. It's called 400 Words and deals with part of my strategy that enabled me to sit down and make it through writing my first book.
3. Most Popular: I don't have a good answer for this one. How should I know, really? I'm going to divide it into categories:
a. most clicks: By far, my post with the most clicks (almost 3 times as many as the next most clicked) has been my review of the movie Hanna. I think it's the quote I used for the title of the post, because most of the click throughs to it have come from web searches on that quote. I have a secret experiment in the works to test this, but it's going to take a while before I know anything.
b. most comments (no restrictions): The Man With No Eyes has received more comments than any other post, but that's probably because it was involved in one of the campaign challenges for the Platform Building Campaign, so I don't think it's a good pick.
c. most comments (restricted to posts not involved in a blogfest): It looks like Writing in the Slow Lane takes the award for most popular just in and of itself. There are a couple of others that are probably close, but this one's not related to a blogfest of any kind and seemed to get a lot of meaningful comments.
4. Most Controversial: I'm going to have to go with my very last past, The Cliche Monster. I'm really surprised by this one, but I must have just fumbled the ball somewhere in there, because I got the feeling that most people just didn't get what I was really saying there. Yeah, I may be projecting somewhat because there was a huge drop in comments on that one and I lost followers for the first time ever after posting it. Really, I was just trying to say that writers shouldn't worry and obsess so much about whether or not someone has done a similar story, because, you know, someone out there has written a similar story. But it's the telling that matters, not the story itself. It seemed to make some people unhappy, though.
5. Most Surprisingly Successful: Again, I'm going to have to go with the review of Hanna. I'm still surprised at the steady stream of click throughs I get from that post. Not that it seems any of those people hang around, but who knows?
6. Most Underrated: That would have to be this post about zombies. I just expected it to get more response, but I feel like it really just flew right under the radar. It's also one of my favorite posts, because I think I had a real insight with that one. Oh, well...
7. Most Prideworthy: I have to say that the post I have the most pride in is the one annoucing that my book, The House on the Corner, is available for sale. Or for buying. For you to buy (and you should (ask Rusty Webb (hey, I have to plug the book sometime!))). However, there's nothing about that post in and of itself to really have pride in. So... a post I think is really well done that I would point out to people and say, "hey, I wrote that," that's a harder question, and I actually have a few. Some of them are already listed, so I've picked one more that's not previosuly listed: The Dream Vs the World. Okay, and one more: Publishing and the Real Estate Market.
Well, that's about it. It's interesting to look back at what I've done so far, especially since I'm approaching my 100th post. Interesting to see how the readership has grown and how the way I write posts has changed. I sort of assume that I present a more challenging blog than most people are interested in. I tend to be long (I'm very uncomfortable with anything less than around 1000-1200 words), and people (often) don't like long, so I appreciate you guys that do stop by and read what I have to say. I hope I tend to make people think. I do try to include humor in the blog, but I have to stop and remember to do it, really, because all of this is pretty serious stuff to me, and it's what I spend my time thinking about. Not that I don't laugh. I'm a big fan of comedy. And I don't use pretty pictures. Really, I just don't have time for it. After spending a couple of days (sometimes more) on a post (writing is a slow process for me, and, although, a blog post goes quicker then fiction, it isn't by much), I just don't have the necessary energy (or time) to spend many more hours looking for images to toss in.
As a special treat, though, and kind of because Matthew MacNish inspired me with his series on monsters, here's a short excert from The House on the Corner (just to prove that the humor does live inside me (it just may be a little closer to middle school humor than my wife would like)):
Mom opened the door to send us over to get Lewis and Carroll, because we were going trick-or-treating with them. Before we went out the door, I asked, “Mom, what's an imp?”
She frowned at me, “Where did you hear about imps, Sweetheart?”
“Elli said there would be imps outside tonight, and imps are mean because they've been constipated by demons from living too close to Hell.”
Everyone stared at me. I hate that. “What?” I said and made a frowny face.
“What did Elli say about the imps, Sweetie?”
“She said they're constipated.”
Sam started laughing, “Contaminated! Imps are contaminated.”
“Huh?” I said. “Oh, yeah! Contaminated! She said they're contaminated!”
Everyone started laughing. Everyone but me. “What's contaminated?”
Tom said, “Contaminated is like when something is polluted. Pollution contaminates the Earth.”
“What does that mean? Imps aren't the Earth.”
Mom knelt down next to me, “Contaminating something is making something that was good into something that's bad. Like when you leave food out and it gets mold on it.”
“Ohhh...,” I said. “Then, what's constipated?”
Tom and Sam started laughing harder.
That made more mad than when they were laughing before. “What! What does it mean?”
“Constipated is being full of poop,” Sam said and kept laughing.
“Maybe imps are constipated! Maybe that's what makes them so mean!” laughed Tom.
Sam fell on the floor laughing, “They're contaminated with constipation!”
Mom rolled her eyes and shook her head, “Boys... Just ignore them.” She opened the door and walked out with me.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Kafka and the Metamorphosis of the Publishing Industry
Before I get started, by show of hands, how many of you have read Kafka? Any Kafka? Okay, yeah, that's what I thought. Before you feel bad, I haven't read as much Kafka as I'd like. In fact, I've only read The Metamorphosis, but it did leave me wanting to read more by him; I just haven't gotten to it, yet. Unfortunately, Kafka is not someone I studied in school even with a degree in English focused on literature.
Also, before I get started, and this is something you'll want to remember for a later post, although I probably won't refer back to it, I got turned onto reading Kafka by my, then, 9-year-old son. Yes, my middle child has already been reading such things as Kafka, and he started that at 9. He learned about Kafka in The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones and decided he wanted to read something by him, so we bought him The Metamorphosis which he actually enjoyed even though he found it a bit odd. For those of you with kids, Young Indiana is a great show to invest in. Not only is it Indiana Jones, but it's full of historical accuracy, and the DVDs are loaded with documentaries about the history presented in the episodes.
Now the warning, there are going to be spoilers from The Metamorphosis. However, that should not spoil any reading of the work, because reading Kafka is more about the experience of reading Kafka rather than knowing what's going to happen in the story. It's the difference between, when cold, looking at a coat and knowing that, if you put it on, you'll be warm and actually putting it on. It doesn't matter how long you look at it (how much you know in advance), looking at it will never make you warmer. Only the experience of putting it on (actually reading Kafka) will make you warmer.
In short, The Metamorphosis is about a guy that wakes up one morning to discover that he's turned into some insectoid monster. He doesn't know what to do about this, because he is the sole means of support for his family: his parents and sister. Basically, they never leave the small apartment they all share, and he's worried about how everyone will survive if he can no longer work. Although he has frequently felt overly burdened by his family, he also takes a perverse pride in his ability to keep all of them dependent on him and has done his best, over the years, to foster that dependence. However, his new condition has left all of that in chaos.
There's also the complication that he doesn't want anyone to see what he's become, and with good reason. When his family does finally see him, they are disgusted and drive him into hiding in his room. They are forced, now, to care for and support him. The family suffers a reversal, now feeling burdened by taking care of the bug creature that had once supported them. They take in lodgers in an effort to support everyone, since the sister has never worked and the parents haven't worked in years. This, of course, complicates everything as they have to take care of the bug while keeping him hidden from the people living in the house.
Eventually, the other family members must seek out employment and learn to become functioning members of society again. The bug takes their place in the dark, driving them out into the light. In the end, the sister states that the bug must not really be her brother, because, if it was, it would go away and not burden them so. Hearing this, the bug decides that she is correct. If he loves them, he will not inflict himself upon them any longer, and he chooses to allow himself to die, freeing them to pursue their own lives, although they have already decided to abandon him.
Now, I disagree with the general, surface interpretation of this work, so I'm not going to go into it. I'll just say that Kafka is a much debated subject in literary circles (not that he is much debated, but when he comes up, it is with disagreement and debate, so he's much debated). Most of his works are interpreted on a very surface level, although there are a number of scholars that have endeavored to interpret him based on a more holistic view of his life that often disagree with the more convenient views on Kafka's works. Oh, and to make it worse, Kafka very often intentionally used ambiguous wording.
At this point, I bet y'all are looking at the title of this post and wondering what any of this has to do with publishing and the publishing industry. Well, I'll tell you.
Once upon a time, way back in the infancy of publishing, writers were the driving force in the publishing world. Publishers were dependent upon writers as the son was dependent upon the parents. But the son grew up, and the roles changed. The son went to work to support the parents (and the sister (we'll call her agents, just for the sake of doing it)) and grew proud in his ability to do so to the point where he forced them all to become dependent upon him. He caused them to believe that they were incapable of surviving without him even to the point where they couldn't doing anything without him, even going outside. Everything they had came from him, and he made sure they knew it.
One day, though, the publishing industry woke up as a monstrous bug. This was horrifying and very difficult to come to grips with. It did its best to hide what had happened, and its authors and agents did their best to ignore the condition hoping everything would return to normal all on its own. Time passed, but the situation did not correct itself, and the large bug became more and more of a burden. This was especially true, because writers and agents had come to believe they were completely dependent upon the publishers.
This is where we are. The publishing industry has become this huge burden that everyone else needs to support in order to sustain it. It has become parasitic. No, it didn't start out that way, but that's what it's become.
Okay, I lied earlier. Here's the thing, most critics interpret The Metamorphosis based on the obvious assumption that the metamorphosis the title refers to is that of the son waking up as a bug. Everything is taken to be from the perspective of this poor young man who becomes shunned and abandoned by his family through no fault of his own. Although I believe this to be a perfectly valid interpretation, I think it's one that is too simplistic for Kafka. Remember how Kafka was intentionally ambiguous? I think this is one of those times. His writing often held a very obvious way of looking at things, but, if you looked a bit more, there was an alternate (or deeper) meaning. See, the story doesn't end with the bug's death. It goes on following the family and their emergence into the world much as a butterfly emerges from a cocoon. It is the metamorphosis of the family that I believe the title is referring to. They have to learn to walk away from the bug and be their own people no longer tied to it.
The central moment of the book, the crux, is not the opening where the son wakes up as a bug but the moment when the daughter asserts that they have a choice: staying and supporting the bug which is killing them all or walking away from the bug and becoming. It's a scary step for the parents and the daughter, because they don't know what they'll become.
And, so, here we are. We writers. Digital technology has given us a choice. The choice to stand with the monstrous behemoth that is the traditional publishing industry, the thing that confines us and binds us into supporting it, the thing that lured us into dependence upon it or the choice to walk away and become. Agents have the same choice. Agents used to work for writers, after all, not publishers. They, also, don't have to be tied to the publishers. It's a scary place to be. I mean, maybe, just maybe, traditional publishing will figure out where they've made mistakes and take steps to change. To go back to supporting authors without demanding dependence. At the moment, I tend to doubt that. They still seem intent upon living off of the writers (and agents) that work for them.
Or writers can take that step. That step towards becoming. The step toward their own metamorphosis. Of becoming an independent entity. Stepping out into the light and making your own way is always difficult. There are risks. But it's living. Or, you know, we can choose to stay cooped up in the house and continue on the downward path of destruction with the large bug in the other room we're all trying to pretend isn't there.
Also, before I get started, and this is something you'll want to remember for a later post, although I probably won't refer back to it, I got turned onto reading Kafka by my, then, 9-year-old son. Yes, my middle child has already been reading such things as Kafka, and he started that at 9. He learned about Kafka in The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones and decided he wanted to read something by him, so we bought him The Metamorphosis which he actually enjoyed even though he found it a bit odd. For those of you with kids, Young Indiana is a great show to invest in. Not only is it Indiana Jones, but it's full of historical accuracy, and the DVDs are loaded with documentaries about the history presented in the episodes.
Now the warning, there are going to be spoilers from The Metamorphosis. However, that should not spoil any reading of the work, because reading Kafka is more about the experience of reading Kafka rather than knowing what's going to happen in the story. It's the difference between, when cold, looking at a coat and knowing that, if you put it on, you'll be warm and actually putting it on. It doesn't matter how long you look at it (how much you know in advance), looking at it will never make you warmer. Only the experience of putting it on (actually reading Kafka) will make you warmer.
In short, The Metamorphosis is about a guy that wakes up one morning to discover that he's turned into some insectoid monster. He doesn't know what to do about this, because he is the sole means of support for his family: his parents and sister. Basically, they never leave the small apartment they all share, and he's worried about how everyone will survive if he can no longer work. Although he has frequently felt overly burdened by his family, he also takes a perverse pride in his ability to keep all of them dependent on him and has done his best, over the years, to foster that dependence. However, his new condition has left all of that in chaos.
There's also the complication that he doesn't want anyone to see what he's become, and with good reason. When his family does finally see him, they are disgusted and drive him into hiding in his room. They are forced, now, to care for and support him. The family suffers a reversal, now feeling burdened by taking care of the bug creature that had once supported them. They take in lodgers in an effort to support everyone, since the sister has never worked and the parents haven't worked in years. This, of course, complicates everything as they have to take care of the bug while keeping him hidden from the people living in the house.
Eventually, the other family members must seek out employment and learn to become functioning members of society again. The bug takes their place in the dark, driving them out into the light. In the end, the sister states that the bug must not really be her brother, because, if it was, it would go away and not burden them so. Hearing this, the bug decides that she is correct. If he loves them, he will not inflict himself upon them any longer, and he chooses to allow himself to die, freeing them to pursue their own lives, although they have already decided to abandon him.
Now, I disagree with the general, surface interpretation of this work, so I'm not going to go into it. I'll just say that Kafka is a much debated subject in literary circles (not that he is much debated, but when he comes up, it is with disagreement and debate, so he's much debated). Most of his works are interpreted on a very surface level, although there are a number of scholars that have endeavored to interpret him based on a more holistic view of his life that often disagree with the more convenient views on Kafka's works. Oh, and to make it worse, Kafka very often intentionally used ambiguous wording.
At this point, I bet y'all are looking at the title of this post and wondering what any of this has to do with publishing and the publishing industry. Well, I'll tell you.
Once upon a time, way back in the infancy of publishing, writers were the driving force in the publishing world. Publishers were dependent upon writers as the son was dependent upon the parents. But the son grew up, and the roles changed. The son went to work to support the parents (and the sister (we'll call her agents, just for the sake of doing it)) and grew proud in his ability to do so to the point where he forced them all to become dependent upon him. He caused them to believe that they were incapable of surviving without him even to the point where they couldn't doing anything without him, even going outside. Everything they had came from him, and he made sure they knew it.
One day, though, the publishing industry woke up as a monstrous bug. This was horrifying and very difficult to come to grips with. It did its best to hide what had happened, and its authors and agents did their best to ignore the condition hoping everything would return to normal all on its own. Time passed, but the situation did not correct itself, and the large bug became more and more of a burden. This was especially true, because writers and agents had come to believe they were completely dependent upon the publishers.
This is where we are. The publishing industry has become this huge burden that everyone else needs to support in order to sustain it. It has become parasitic. No, it didn't start out that way, but that's what it's become.
Okay, I lied earlier. Here's the thing, most critics interpret The Metamorphosis based on the obvious assumption that the metamorphosis the title refers to is that of the son waking up as a bug. Everything is taken to be from the perspective of this poor young man who becomes shunned and abandoned by his family through no fault of his own. Although I believe this to be a perfectly valid interpretation, I think it's one that is too simplistic for Kafka. Remember how Kafka was intentionally ambiguous? I think this is one of those times. His writing often held a very obvious way of looking at things, but, if you looked a bit more, there was an alternate (or deeper) meaning. See, the story doesn't end with the bug's death. It goes on following the family and their emergence into the world much as a butterfly emerges from a cocoon. It is the metamorphosis of the family that I believe the title is referring to. They have to learn to walk away from the bug and be their own people no longer tied to it.
The central moment of the book, the crux, is not the opening where the son wakes up as a bug but the moment when the daughter asserts that they have a choice: staying and supporting the bug which is killing them all or walking away from the bug and becoming. It's a scary step for the parents and the daughter, because they don't know what they'll become.
And, so, here we are. We writers. Digital technology has given us a choice. The choice to stand with the monstrous behemoth that is the traditional publishing industry, the thing that confines us and binds us into supporting it, the thing that lured us into dependence upon it or the choice to walk away and become. Agents have the same choice. Agents used to work for writers, after all, not publishers. They, also, don't have to be tied to the publishers. It's a scary place to be. I mean, maybe, just maybe, traditional publishing will figure out where they've made mistakes and take steps to change. To go back to supporting authors without demanding dependence. At the moment, I tend to doubt that. They still seem intent upon living off of the writers (and agents) that work for them.
Or writers can take that step. That step towards becoming. The step toward their own metamorphosis. Of becoming an independent entity. Stepping out into the light and making your own way is always difficult. There are risks. But it's living. Or, you know, we can choose to stay cooped up in the house and continue on the downward path of destruction with the large bug in the other room we're all trying to pretend isn't there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
