Monday, April 18, 2011

So That's What We're Calling It Now

A few writers have been getting into a tangle about how writers should generate income in this new fluid world of publishing. It started with a quasi-gentlemanly spat between David Hewson and Cory Doctorow. Hewson launched with this blog post to which Doctorow took to Twitter here to respond. Others chimed in--most defending Doctorow. I have to admit, the conversations and comments first baffled me, occasionally irritated me and finally just saddened me when I realized what the conversation was really about: most writers get paid crap.

Hewson and Doctorow discussing what path to success works best is a bit like Bruce Springsteen and Lady Gaga arguing over the way to run a music career. One cultivated his audience over time. The other made a nice big splash. They both ended up behind desks with enough to live off their writing. Lost in their discussion is that both their positions beg the question of publishing success: "I am successful because I am successful." That's not a luxury 90% of writers can argue from.

Let me address this whole "multi-stream income" issue. It sounds hip and sexy and new. It speaks to innovation and bold ventures. It's none of those things. It is, quite frankly, a tarted-up way of saying you freelance or have a day job and write on the side. That's it. Nothing new. It's new economy jargon applied to the same old realities.

Some will say I’m missing the point of the discussion, that juggling multiple jobs is a necessity if you want to write. But, I would posit that isn’t the real point. The point is writing isn’t a live-on career for most people--not because they don't want it to be, but because it simply doesn't pay enough. It hasn’t since its inception as a career choice and all this “multi-stream” talk is not about a writing career at all. It’s about paying the bills any way you can. If, in fact, you have to work other jobs and those other jobs make up more than half your income, you do not have a writing career. You have a vocation that occasionally pays you some money to redo your kitchen.

Calling it "multi-stream income" may sound sophisticated, but I can't help but feel it's snake-oil talk. You're not struggling to make ends meet because you work in an exploitative industry that doesn't value its main source of material--you're multi-streaming your income! Please, spare me the smoke and mirrors.

Monday, April 11, 2011

My Mind or My Money

So, in case I haven't mentioned it (yeah, right), the next Connor Grey book, UNCERTAIN ALLIES, is coming out on April 28. Here's what happens to me when a book is about to be published.

First, I've been fortunate to get multibook contracts, which means that I have books scheduled to be delivered to the publisher. As it happens, I am given a year to produce a book, and they tend to be due about the time the last book is about  to be published generally around February or March. Sounds nice and orderly, doesn't it? Well, if you are me, order produces chaos.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Romancing Teh Gay

I’ve been struggling with my thoughts on the recent Running Press/Trisha Telep debacle with Jessica Verday. In a nutshell, Telep asked Verday to change her gay romance short story to a heterosexual one. Verday refused and pulled the story--as did half the other contributors when they heard about it. Details here and here.

In lots of ways, this situation is not unique to the LGBT community. All minority groups suffer at the hands of the majority in one way or another, particularly in publishing and movies. Stereotypes abound, as do the justifications. What I think makes the romance anthology situation unique is sex. Not orientation. Not gender. Not sexuality. Sex. Gay sex.

I haven’t read the story, but Verday reports it contains three kisses, one use of the word ‘f*ck’ and is sexually ‘g-rated.’ Did Telep ask her to remove any of those things? No. She asked her to change the gender of the characters in order to make it “light on alternative sexuality.” That’s a reaction that LGBT people know pretty well.

Straight couples have romance. Gay couples have sex.

That’s what the underlying issue is here. No sex is pretty light on the sexuality. Why, then, the gender change if no actual sex occurs in Verday’s story? Because in mainstream publishing—and other forms of entertainment—“light on alternative sexuality” means you can have a gay or lesbian character but 1) he or she cannot be the main character 2) cannot be in a romantic relationship (unless it’s for cheap laughs) and 3) cannot express any physical affection of any kind to someone of the same sex (unless it’s for cheap laughs). You know, the sassy gay pal. Extra points if they’re single but not lonely since they’re not interested in dating. In other words, sexless. This, btw, is actually progress. Gays and lesbian used to be depicted solely as psycho, sad and suicidal.

Telep has claimed that she’s not anti-gay, and, to a certain extent, she probably isn’t. But that’s just it—to a certain extent. While Verday apparently wrote a romance, Telep’s imagination, like many others do, leaped to the bedroom. LGBT people are always viewed through a sexual lens. A gay romance inevitably leads to gay sex, even if it isn’t explicitly depicted. Someone might not want to have gay sex. Someone might not care if other people do. But a lot of someone’s draw the line at having their imaginations take them somewhere they don’t want to go. Yet, LGBT folks somehow manage to read straight romance all the time without getting all swick about it.

Ask yourself, when was the last time you saw a gay kiss in a movie that wasn’t accompanied by at least one hiss or groan from someone in the audience? Now try and recall that happening with a straight kiss. The idea that a kiss might merely express affection applies to straight folks. Gay kisses are not affection. They are sex.

Three kisses are porn, I guess.

Friday, April 1, 2011

Saving Time and Cross-Posting to Livejournal

As some of you might have noticed, I've been active online this past week--updating the website, creating a facebook fan page, etc. The intent has been to simplify my online presence while broadening it.

For years, I've had a livejournal account for blogging and like it, but being a cheapskate I use the free version of lj because a) I would only upgrade to match the lj design to my website and b) I have never grokked lj's design language and don't feel the need to learn it.

Enter Blogger. With almost no learning curve, I was able to create a blog page that mimics my website quite nicely. I also like the UI on Blogger better than lj. Now, having said that, I do like the lj community--it's one of the few places online that discussion proceeds in comments without always degenerating into snarkery and trolling (tho I do love me some snarkery) and there's lots of interesting book people there.

I figured out how to cross-post my Blogger to LJ so I don't have to manually do it. The only problem is that the post title is always going to start with [Mark Del Franco], which is the name of my blogger blog. In the short term, I'm not going to tinker with the html to fix because I need to focus on other things.

LJ users: what do you think? Is it intrusive to see my name in every single blog post? Or is it no big deal?

For non-LJ users, here's the link to my livejournal so you can see what I'm talking about.