..suck. No really, I’ve always thought so. Sting submissions are when a person or persons submits a purposefully fake submission in order to prove some point. The most famous is Atlanta Nights, a purposefully horrid, repetitive and nonsensical novel submitted to PublishAmerica to prove they’d publish any work sent to them. You’ve probably also heard about someone submitting a classic novel, critically acclaimed to “prove publishers suck”. (Okay, so maybe the suck is me paraphrasing, but that’s still the point.)

So what’s the problem? It all comes down to why you did it. Let’s break it down.

Case 1: Atlanta Nights

Why: Did it to prove PublishAmerica accepts everything.

The Problem: We already knew that. I mean, yeah in a way it’s funny, and you called them on their crap, and it’s become a legend in the online writing world. But now everyone else wants to do it at the drop of the hat. Also, we already knew PublishAmerica was like that. It’s like the local cops witnessing a guy standing on the street, dealing drugs on surveillance cameras for weeks, then setting up a sting with the sole purpose of catching him. You don’t need the sting. It’s a waste of effort.

Case 2: Disgruntled writer (or MFA student) send in Pride and Prejudice or another classic, even award winning novel published at least twenty years ago to a mess of agents to prove agents don’t know good literature anymore.

Why: There’s no pussyfooting around it, this comes off as a “They don’t see my genius so I’m going to prove they wouldn’t know good literature if it bit them on the ass”.

The Problem: There are so many and there is no way to tell which one the submission got rejected for.

1. In all the reports of this sort of thing published the “writer” sent out a huge mess of queries. NO details are ever given if they followed guidelines, or even bothered to query agents who handle the genre of book they were submitting.

2. Also, they don’t publish their query letter, so if it sucked they never even got their foot in the door.

3. Also, editors and agents don’t waste time with BS like this. They aren’t going to initiate a potential fight with a querier by pointing out their book is already published. They’ll just form reject it and hope the author figures it out on their own. Just because they didn’t say they regocnized it doesn’t mean they did.

4. Also agents and editors deal with “tricks” like this all the time. The old hair in the manuscript trick, the “turn a page upside down so you know they read it” trick, the textured/odd colored/scented paper to grab attention tricks, the print it and bind it so they know what it would look like as a finished book trick, the include a head shot trick, the slide the unasked for manuscript under the bathroom stall door trick…you get it. Every agent has been through these things and they know the best thing to do is to minimize the experience. If you don’t give the author a way to argue back, don’t argue back, don’t even acknowledge their idiocy then they get bored and wander off to fight some new windmills.

5. Readers want different books now. The kind of stories, the kind of topics, the kind of characters, even the form and language what is being published NOW is not the same as what was being published THEN. This doesn’t make the classic less good, it makes it not appropriate in the current publishing market, and you know what, LOTS of great books aren’t getting published because they aren’t right for the current publishing market.

Case #3: Sting submission to Harlequin/Dellarte

Why: Do it to see whether Harlequin is funneling people to Dellarte (Harlequin’s VERY expensive “self publishing” branch)

The Problem: Again, multiples.

1. You have no way of knowing whether the editors were in on the Dellarte decision or not. If they weren’t (which is very likely) you’ll be basing your information on a barely-related source, punishing someone who was likely horrified by the move not to mention wasting their time.

2. There are plenty of people who submit to Harlequin every day. Ask them to share their rejections with you.

3. Oh wait, there are communities, like you know, that massive, literate, very verbal romance community, that are already doing this.

4. Also see my reason for Case #2 because they apply, particularly the ones about editors knowing writers tricks and not responding to them to prevent drama.

5. Because this whole proposition is not about helping anyone, or stopping anything. It’s about the drama of Dellarte having died down and a bunch of people, who are not bad people and who don’t have bad intentions, wanting to kick it up (maybe to get a more satisfying conclusion than RWA’s backing down). It’s about Atlanta Nights being idolized and cool and you wanting to be a part of it.

Like arguing with editors, agents and reviewers this is an instance where the people doing sting submissions cannot escape the perception that they’re just bitter and wasting their time trying to prove point that doesn’t need to be proven. I just don’t see the point in wasting your time and the editor’s time just to say “Haha I’m right!”

Anyone else?

So if you haven’t heard by now publisher Bloomsbury AGAIN put a white girl on the cover of a book starring a dark skinned woman. They’ve done it before with the excuse that “covers with black people don’t sell” (I’m sure there are many AA fiction authors that beg to differ, and Bloomsbury, what about not putting a person on the cover at all if that’s an issue, like the Twilight covers?)

Today the author made a statement which essentially was “Yes, it’s not good, but I’m just happy to be published so I’m not going to say anything else”. Worse the people commenting on the blog who did point out that there are options for outrage that won’t damage her bottom line were told that their “ball was in the wrong playground” and were told to debate the issue elsewhere.

Where else is there? No, really. Last week an incident that happened involving me that I consider to be racist and disrespectful. But the only witnesses were myself and the perpetrators. I want to stand up for the PoC who were dismissed and judged against, but I was told my opinion didn’t matter because I wasn’t black. I was warned that no one would listen to me because I wasn’t the one the racial offense occurred against.

Does a lack of a direct PoC victim make something less racist? I’m not talking slurs, I’m talking a judgment made based on race. If we, as advocates and allies, are commonly told to just duck our heads and don’t mess with the status quo, how does that change anything?

Many years ago I was also told I had no place in GLBT activism because I was dating a man, which meant I was somehow no longer “one of teh gays”. This has only gotten worse as my relationship became more serious and as I had my children.

How are these things less wrong and less offensive just because I’m not a PoC and not currently in a lesbian relationship? How is my anger, and my support of what’s just plain right on a human level less valid because I’m the only witness and I’m white, so I don’t count?

And how is it okay for an author to writer a book using a PoC as a main character, yet not allow even a discussion of the racism that white washed her cover? I can’t help thinking that race is good enough of an issue for her to use to make money, but not important enough to fight for. Likewise, Bloomsbury is putting forth the image that the book is good enough to publish, but not be honest about.

And furthermore I find the whole idea in publishing that African American fiction/covers must be in their own separate section offensive and demeaning on a base level. Do publishers fear I am too stupid to relate to a story just because the lead is not white like me? Personally I feel issues like this should offend all sexes, colors and genders.

As for this most recent book, yes, maybe boycotting isn’t the best answer, especially if it could damage the author’s future career. But there are alternatives. Personally, I like the idea of buying the book anyway, removing the cover and sending it back to Bloomsbury with a note of refusal or complaint. There are other ways to make a point and still not hurt the author, who had no choice on the cover. But ducking your head down and refusing to support the dignity and rights of the very people you’re writing about shouldn’t be one of them.

ETA: No sooner did I post this than Bloomsbury announces they are changing the cover. See, no boycott needed. And I think this is a statement that makes me feel that perhaps Bloomsbury did not intend to be insensitive or offensive.

Updated with more links.

If, for some reason, you haven’t heard yet romance megalith Harlequin announced this week that they are opening a self-publishing branch of their company. This is so very wrong, but don’t just believe me. Here’s a short index of who is saying what:

• Mystery Writer Allison Brennan
• Writer Beware
• Nora Roberts
• Ashley Grayson Literary Agency
• Jackie Kessler
• Suvudu
• Mystery Writers of America
• Lee Goldberg
• SFWA
• Smart Bitches
• How Publishing Really Works
• Ann Aguirre
• Agent Kristin Nelson
• Dear Author
• Preditors & Editors (who now lists Harlequin as a vanity publisher)
• Teddy Pig
• Emily Veinglory
• Absolute Write’s Thread on the topic
• Shiloh Walker
• Agent Jennifer Jackson
• Nathan Bransford
• Paula Guran

My issues break down like this:

1. The cheapest package is $499 and you still only get 50% of net profits. If I am going to pay someone to publish my work I am going to also get all the profits myself.

2. Harlequin is billing this as “Be published by Harlequin” which is deceptive, predatory and a slap in the face to the authors who fought through the slush pile to be “traditionally” published by Harlequin.

3. Harlequin has included in their announcement that when they send rejections they will include flyers for or special offers for their self publishing program. This skews the business to the point where Harlequin could easily make more money from rejecting and funneling would-be authors to the self publishing imprint than from publishing books as a legitimate book publisher (rather than just a book printer). This is the kind of BS that led to reading fees for agent being deemed scammy.

4. Harlequin has stated that the self publishing imprint won’t have Harlequin anywhere on it, and the distribution, book quality and such will depend on what you pay. This is a bait and switch as they are using the Harlequin name to draw in writers, but the people buying the books will NOT see Harlequin products. In fact, since most bookstores do not order or stock self published books consumers aren’t entirely likely to see products at all.

5. Harlequin hints that they *might* pick up a successful self published title for their normal lines. This preys on those people looking to circumvent the slush pile, or those who have well received but still unpublished novels. It gives them false hope and again Harlequin gets paid to reject people rather than getting paid to publish, market and sell books. And, because of #1 they also get paid TWICE to reject people.

This whole deal is like a strip club. Harlequin is selling the fantasy of being a published, Harlequin author but the price is high and in the end it’s just the fantasy they’re selling. They ain’t gonna sleep with you.

Does Harlequin, in this corporate age, have the right to do this? Well some of these things are a little fuzzy and definite fall into “Read the fine print and know what you’re getting” category, but yes, they have the right to do this. And MWA, SFWA, and RWA are all absolutely right in saying “If you want to go down that path you no longer qualify as a non-vanity publisher to us”.

So a local church has ordained an admitted, convicted child molester as a pastor in their church, with cries of “Oh well he won’t be around children.” I ranted about this earlier this week and today I came home to a comment on my blog from one of the church members. Allow me to quote:

Seriously? September 13th, 2009 EditSuch language! And using fabricated scripted FICTIONAL television shows as the basis for your expert knowledge? REALLY? We at the City of Refuge are FULLY AWARE of Mark’s past, and now the world is! So what kind of idiot do you think would leave him alone with children. As a matter of fact, he has EXPRESSLY BEGGED that we NOT leave him alone with children. So it’s vulgar, irresponsible people like you who we have to worry about that would clearly be neglectful enough to leave your child alone with someone whose history you don’t know cover to cover! There is NO NEED to leave your child alone with ANYONE! These are things you teach your child from a VERY early age! It’s a shame so many parents fail at that, and their children resultingly fall prey to this illness!

And to make sure my commenter (who I’m willing to bet thought I wouldn’t approve the message) has a good chance at seeing my response I’m posting it here:

Ma’am, my expert knowledge is based on being molested as a child myself and having family members blatantly tell me I was a wicked, evil child for even suggesting that my father was that kind of a person, because he was the decon of the church, so of course he must be innocent. No matter than twenty years later he was fired from a volunteer position for sexually harassing teenage girls.

My point about Law & Order and CSI is that even they seem to realize that children abused become stuck in a cycle of violence. Unsure of how to deal with the pain of abuse, the guilt of abuse and the later fears that they might have wanted it, or done something to deserve it they either lead lives trying to hide from the pain via addiction, trying to conquer the pain by doling abuse out to others, or punishing themselves for the actions of AN ADULT WHO KNEW BETTER. Very few people ever manage to come to terms with their abuse and live healthy lives, a tragic statistic that is clear even to the the writers of TV crime shows. So why doesn’t a church of adults seem to see this?

It’s not about leaving him alone with children, it’s about putting him in a role of guide and authority to children. This man is no spiritual adviser, he clearly can’t even keep himself from committing vile, evil acts on defenseless children. Pastors and adults lord over children in the Christan faith, and putting a man who has abused children in the past in this position of authority is disgusting.

That you say he begged to not be allowed around children only reinforces my opinion as a man who desperately puts the responsibility for his own actions on the shoulders of others, and who seems to fear his own actions so much, well this is not a man in control. This is not a man who knows he will not offend again.

As for your asinine assumption that vulgarity equals irresponsibility it clearly shows that your priorities are so misplaced that Madam I fear greatly for YOUR children. Before making assumption on my personal life perhaps you ought to do a little research, because I assure you I have a laundry list of people I could refer you to whose opinion of my parenting is best summed up as “If only more parents were like her”.

Finally, ma’am “illness” only gets a person so far. Alcoholics that kill people in DUIs sill go to jail for it. Addicts who steal, still go to jail for it. Mothers who drown their children because of postpartum depression still go to jail for it. And sex addicts who rape still go to jail for it.

The illness is the psychological and chemical workings of the brain. The CRIME is in acting on it, in this case the evidence I know of suggests that this man that you hold so hallowed anally raped a ten year old boy multiple times because he thought it was his right because he wanted to do. He thought it was his right to violate the mind, the body and the life of this child just because the child was present.

Do not dodge the truth of what happened with words like “illness” and by siting bible verses that urge one to forgive sins. The bible says FORGIVE the sinner, not put him in a position of authority over yourself and your children. You would never vote a convicted rapist mayor, or president. Yet in your microcosm of Louisville you have done just that and shame on you.

There are times to promote and times not to promote. Leaving your shitty blurbs for your shitty, completely unrelated to the topic book on my reviews or worse, on my posts asking authors and editors to donate books to the Books for Troops Program is a complete and utter fail.

People I love are out there putting their lives on the line for stupid fucking politics and leaving ads for your legal fucking thriller (ETA: Self Published!!)  on a request to support them is a massive fucking fail and earns you a special place in my “No Fucking Way” Pile.

Also ETA: Oh, Strategic Book Publishing AKA Writers’ Literary Agency, look who’s on the Writer Beware Warning list. I wonder why you might have a shitty reputation pulling stunts like this.

Tags: strategic book publishing, writers literary group

I started reviewing in part for selfish reasons. No, not the free books, by the time those started showing up I’d already been reviewing for a while.

When my story <i>BloodWalker</i> came out in Read by Dawn volume 1 I was incredibly excited. My second official sale, and it had huge distribution (six countries!). It’s sold better than I imagined, the other stories in it were ones I still beam about (I was in a book with Lavie Tidhar!) and overall it was everything a writer could want from a beginning sale.

Only no one seemed to be read it. Well, someone was because the sales figures said so. But no one was talking about it. A year later there were four reviews. One was my own, pointing out my favorite stories from the book. One was another RBD author who briefly mentioned my story reminding her of Laurell K. Hamilton. One other one mentioned my story.

I swear the only thing worse than horrible feedback is no feedback. It was a lesson, for sure, about how writing (like blogging) often feels like you are blindfolded and yelling into an echoing stadium. I know people read RBD. I know people read my blog. But there’s very, very little feedback.

So I started reviewing to be a voice talking back to that poor blindfolded author.

I didn’t realize how big of a part of my daily life it would become. I really love books and reading, and BookLove gives me an outlet for that, and a way to feel like I’m accomplishing something, which is always an underlying problem for writing careers.

But reviewing is a political move for some people. There’s a whole backwoods world of “You give me a 5 star on Amazon and I’ll do it for you”. Or “you rejected me so I’m bashing everything you put out”. For some people reviewing is a weapon, and some places, like Amazon.com, have given these people a field to play on.

There’s a recent stir up in the field about a publisher who pushed friends and authors to give out 5 stars mindlessly, and to report all negative reviews as violations. I’m not sure how well that worked, seeing as Amazon has left up some brutally offense bashing reviews by people with personal vendettas. I’m not linking to the controversy because, well honestly I’ve seen it before. Quite a bit.

Ann Aguirre on her MySpace blog asked if reviews really need to be all criticism or praise. Well no. Much criticism is lost on readers and is only attacks on the writers. All praise, even when it’s sincerely meant, comes off insincere.

IMHO, what it takes some reviewer quite a while to realize is that reviews are not for or against the author. They’re for the readers and potential readers out there.

Recently I bought Rogue by Rachel Vincent. I read a review of it that was really hard the book. The reviewer labeled the lead Too Stupid to Live, among other things. And yes, maybe for some people it’s true. But I’m over halfway through it and still loving it. The same points that the other reviewer said made the character TSTL I think show the character as uncertain of her own instincts. So do a lot of other people because the series has a find fan following for a new series.

The site that posted the negative review (which, for the record wasn’t by any means a personal attack or an attack on the book) forms their review as a letter to the author. But even they know that the review isn’t for the author.

Yes, I’m dismayed at the number of people who game the review system. Often it’s covering for poorly composed works. Of course, I suspect that is going to become it’s own little rant for later. I’m also dismayed at those who use reviews as an outlet to “get revenge”.

But I’m not surprised anymore. Like nearly all aspects of publishing, technology is making it easier for anyone to get in. This can be a good thing, but it is a bad thing (it’s both at once, really), because it’s allowing people who would normally never have gotten close enough to spatter their mess around to get right into the heart of things, and of course, our internet-loving society loves snark and a fight.

But it doesn’t equal respect or “professional” Just something to remember.

Dear New Concepts Publishing Authors,

GET OUT NOW!

-Michele

Dear Ellen Ashe and the NCP Bad Apples,

My heart goes out to you. You have my deepest sympathies for your current situation and my best wishes for the quick, favorable releases of your books and the resolution of this situation. Personal aside to Ellen; Thank you for having the giant brass balls to fight for what’s right.

–Michele

Dear New Writers, Someday I want to be a Writers and everyone else,

Read*. Memorize*. Do NOT Repeat.

Seriously. Study what’s going down with NCP. Before you even send your first query or submission. Look. Memorize. And then you’ll know what to avoid.

*There’s more than one post. Read them all to get the full scope of the situation.

Best wishes on your futures,
–Michele

Tags: epublishing