The Write Scene

Book Review - Get Your Book off the Ground - The Australian Writer

noreply@blogger.com (anthony santoro) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:12:00 +0000

By Daan Spijer
From: The Australian Writer Magazine
Issue #364

As writers, we are (or should be) avid readers of others’ work. This gives us insights into howother (good) writers write. It does not, however, tell us much about the craft itself: what, apart from sweat and tears, went into creating this eminently readable piece of
composition.

We could, of course, attend writing groups and classes, listen to writers on the radio or on stage and read books about the craft. Many of us do. Get Your Book off the Ground is a welcome addition to the last of these options. It is written by two experienced and accomplished
practitioners of the craft.

Anthony Santoro is a professional writer with a number of crime novels and a ‘serious’ book under his belt, as well as experience in editing and, critically, experience in selling what he has written.

Suzanne Male is a journalist, writer, editor, publisher and marketing professional. She is the founder of Smink Works Books (publisher) and has written a number of books, including for children.

Together, they have put into this book (the first of a series) a wealth of advice and supportive information for all writers, whether starting out or already accomplished. They cover such topics as story planning, making characters believable, dealing with writer’s block, surviving rejection, and ‘The sure-fire way to get published’.

In total, there are seventeen very readable chapters and a comprehensive index for finding your way around the book, or returning to something you read earlier. Often in co-authored books, there is no indication of who wrote what. In Get Your Book off the Ground each author’s contribution is clearly identified, making digestion of the information and advice easier. The book is well organised, making it possible to read it from start to finish, or delve into individual chapters, or even in to well-identified parts of chapters. In this, it is in itself a prime example of how to write and construct a book aimed at assisting others to work towards all they are capable of.

The publisher, The Writers’ Resource Centre, is an Internet portal to link writers and writers’ resources. It also publishes books and articles on writing and runs a short story competition; .

The Australian Writer Magazine is a publication of the Fellowship of Australian Writers (www.writers.asn.au). We recommended you visit this site and read about their aims, which include bringing "together all those interested in writing for their mutual professional, cultural and social benefit, and to provide information and advice to them".

The Overlooked Writing Fundamental - Planning

noreply@blogger.com (anthony santoro) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:54:00 +0000

Don't cringe if you read this thinking..."hey, is he talking about me?" I'm not, don't worry. We've all suffered with the curse of the 'unfinished manuscript', there are few writers who haven't.

But, what's missing is the understanding of "WHY?" Why do some writers -- well many, many writers, actually -- begin writing a manuscript only to never finish it? Hands up who has done this very thing... If you did raise your hand, it's okay, you're not alone. There are few writers who could attest to not having a filing cabinet draw with at least one or two unfinished masterpieces in it, myself included.

Fortunately, the half-written story does have a cure: planning.

Other than a good grasp of the language in which you write, story planning is so key to story writing, so fundamental, that perhaps it has also become the most overlooked step in writing. Definitely, there are experienced writers who can write without a full plan, but their negligence of the plan is really a matter of their experience.

For the rest of us planning is a very, very important matter. Do not neglect it.

Planning must also take into consideration another point: the component parts of a novel. Naturally, any novel has a beginning, middle and an end. But, these can be further broken down in a book: firstly, any novel has an 'introduction', then an 'assemblage' of the characters and plot, then the 'climax', followed by the 'dénouement' and, finally, the 'conclusion'. The more accustomed you are to each aspect of your story, the more you will be able to negotiate and better handle the telling of it (We write more about these components in the book "Get Your Book off the Ground"; but we can at least discuss them briefly here). But most importantly, if you make a plan of your story you will prevent finding yourself, half-way through your story writing, wondering what you should do next or where you should take your story? With your story already 'planned', you've already worked that out. A writer's plan, encompassing what their characters will do in each part of the story - from beginning to end - will go a long way to preventing writer's block, something which generally precedes the packing away of an unfinished story into a filing cabinet.

So, how do you do a plan? Easy - it should not take more than a few hours, if that. You can do it on a piece of paper, or more thoroughly on a computer. You can make it as complex or as basic as you like. But, as advice, I would suggest that you make it as simple as possible. Remember, you're not actually writing the story...only planning it...roughing it out.

Some may thumb their nose at the above, saying that it's too simple, that no way could story planning handle writer's block or prevent the story from being completed. Well, my personal experience is, naturally, quite the opposite. Analogous to writing a story without planning it would be going on a day-trip without knowing where you are going. Sure, this is okay if you don't plan to end up anywhere in particular. But for a writer it's not this way - a writer wants, at least, to get to the end of the book. Best you, the writer, have some idea where the 'end' is and what basic shape it may take.

Story planning is not a rote process - so don't be robotic about it. The plan is only a thorough guide for your story - it's not set in concrete, ever. You may choose to change it as the purposes of characters become more clear to you. If so, change it; the plan is only there so you can keep your eye on the mountain which, for a writer, is the end of the story. The plan will stop you becoming bogged down in the jungle on the way to the top of that mountain; when you get stuck and don't know what to do next, simply refer back to the plan, find your path, then continue.

Sure, I've oversimplified the story writing and planning process. But then...this is only a blog. If you want to know more, you can...the catch is, you'll have to get a copy of our book: "Get Your Book off the Ground - What You Need to Know to Write and Publish Your Book". Planning deserves all the pages we devote to it, we even give you a complete example of one, start to finish.

Good luck with planning and story writing. I've never written a book without one!

Anthony Santoro's new book, 'Last Decent Man', is due in stores in September 2009. His first novel, 'The Deception' was published in 2005. He co-authored 'Get Your Book off the Ground' with Suzanne Male. Anthony is the founder of the Writers' Resource Centre. www.writersworld.com.au. To get a copy of 'Get Your Book off the Ground', click here.

Life before getting published

noreply@blogger.com (anthony santoro) — Tue, 05 May 2009 04:51:00 +0000

After I had my first book published, many people became interested in what I did before I got into writing. This amused me because, certainly I wasn't always a 'published' writer, but I was always writing and always considered myself a 'writer'. Retrospectively, I think, what they meant was, "what did you do before you were published?"

Now, this, I can answer. Before I was published, I was a contract debt collector. Aside from it not being the most glamorous career in the world, it was at least interesting. Companies would hire me to collect debts that they had tried everything to collect themselves, but failed - the really, really tough debts. I'd work on commission and an hourly rate. It was good because it paid well and it also meant I was my own boss. Being my own boss, I gave myself every Wednesday off to write my book.

The book would later be released as "The Deception". I like to think of it as a gritty, real Australian crime-fiction. But recently I read a critique of it that said something to the effect of "too many Australianisms and unrealistic swearing and language". I didn't ponder on it and decided that the critic wasn't from the same part of town I was from. Truthfully, the language was actually tame compared to what I was normal in my line of work, which the book reflected. I suppose she (the critic) is entitled to her opinion, too.

But, my job would go something like this: I'd get a list of all the customers that owed my client money. I'd send them all a letter to say that a "Debt Management Consultancy" (AKA, take-no-sh#t debt collectors) was taking over the debt and that all measures would be taken to recoup the money. "All measures" really meant that I'd harass the hell out of them, within the confines of the law, of course, and if I couldn't collect it after a few months, I'd tell my client to write off the money and send the delinquent customer a letter saying "You are, and will always be, a loser and we hope you choke on the money you owe us!" but in more formal words.

One day, a sunny cold afternoon in mid-2003, I finished writing my book and started calling publishers to see if they could publish it. Naturally, they let me know there was a 'procedure' for getting published, one that didn't involve 'calling' up and asking publishers to 'please publish my book'. It was suggested that I become a member of a local writing guild and to get from them the details of what the 'procedure' was. Of course, I knew there was a procedure, but I was in a hurry, I wanted a new job.

Why? Well, a week prior to this day, I had received a death threat. The death threat, in itself, is worth elaboration. The guy that made the threat had tried me a number of times, each time calling me with a blocked caller ID. Being a debt collector, I didn't answer calls with blocked IDs for just this very reason. After a few weeks of missing me, this guy got frantic one day and called me...but forgot to block his ID. When I didn't answer, he forgot his standard protocol of hanging up without leaving a message and left a voice mail that said: "You're dead...you're as good as dead. I'm gonna kill you. You're stickin' your nose in someone else's business..."...blah...blah...blah. You get the idea. So, I listened to this message and to my surprise, at the end of it, my voice mail says: "If you would like to call this person back, please press 6". Which, I did.

Our conversation was brief, but went something like this: "Hello."

Me: "Hi. Who's this?"

Death Threat Guy: "Er...Who are you?"

Me: "You just called me, left a message that said you were gonna kill me?"

DTG: "Me?! Noooooooo I didn't!"

Me: "Yeeeeeeeeeees you did. But, idiot, you didn't block your number."

Fortunately, we both had a laugh about it and agreed to let bygones be bygones. Soon afterwards, I decided debt collecting wasn't really my thing anymore.

A bit of luck came my way and, in 2004, I signed my first publishing contract and the following year my book came out. I still kept working, just not in debt collection. See, to be a full-time writer, your book needs to sell in large, large quantities or publishers need to pay you large advances. Even if I had both, I'd still keep working. I had a family, expenses, etc, plus, I started in a new line of work, which I liked. No reason to quit my day job...just yet.

There are many other stories, this is but one...and not one of the funnier ones, either (I could also tell you about the day I was late for court and the judge made repeat after him, 'I am sorry for being late...').

A good article to read about working a day job and being a writer it by Scot Gardner called (http://www.scotgardner.com/woodandwater.htm) from the Writer's World Ezine from way back in mid-2006.

My advice to you is, never hate your day job. Enjoy every opportunity you have to be productive in whatever line of work you do.

Anthony.

On Getting Published

noreply@blogger.com (anthony santoro) — Mon, 04 May 2009 04:15:00 +0000

When I was signed up by a publisher, I remember telling a friend of mine about it and saying "I hope people like my book when it comes out". His response was, "Who cares, you're a published writer now!" Sometime later, I went to another friend's house, he'd just had a baby and was kind enough to let me have a hold of his little girl. As I held her, he stood back, folded his arms and smiled proudly. "There you are," he said, "Now, you can say you were held by a published author."

Don't gag, please. I could tell you more trite stories that would make you lose your lunch...but I'm not that cruel.

I'm trying to make a point: to some (not all, by a long shot), getting published is like the Mecca of all achievements. I thought it was, too, until I signed the publishing contract and felt exactly no different to the moment before I scribbled my signature on the dotted line.

My friends, bless them, were so proud of me; especially those that had tried, but failed to get their work published. To them, I was different. But to me, I was the same. The next day, I still had to go to work, I still had to pay bills, I still had to fill my car up with petrol, I still had to do the usual day-to-day stuff any other person at my job did. It was here, at my job, that I really noticed that things hadn't changed.

One day, I was introduced to a woman through a friend. She told me she was trying to get her book published but had been cut down by a very, very nasty rejection letter from a publisher. "What did it say?" I enquired and, after literally pulling teeth to get the answer, she replied, "(sniffle)...it said 'thank you but we're not publishing this genre at the moment'. Can you believe their cheek?!"

No big a deal, right? Obviously, by her long face, it was to her. "Well, why not publish it yourself and--"

She held up her hand. "Oh, please," she said, "no thanks." Naturally, I walked away shrugging. Incidentally, she is still 'trying' to get her book published. Actually, it's a good book.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's a hell of a lot easier to get published than many people think. Fortunately, people are starting to recognise this little gem called 'self-publishing' but it's a long way off total acceptance.

I actually tried to self publish my second book. But, if you remember that little thing I said I signed at the beginning of this rant - the publishing contract - well, in doing so I also gave my publisher the first right of refusal on my next work. When I asked to go my own way, they had me send my next novel through and, lo, they loved it. Now, please don't think I hate my publisher, quite the opposite, actually. They were great, and are great, but if you need to, there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. There are lots and lots of people who have tried every which way to get published and have found out some brilliant avenues for the newbie to travel down.

As a new writer, you need to 'get in the know'. I used to be one for thinking that writing groups, centres, guilds and associations and were...well, 'stuffy'. Fortunately, I've been disabused of this. Groups of writers are best and they don't have to be formal, either. Just a bunch of people who like writing is perfect. But, it's better if some of them have walked the road to publication so they can help you with some advice, if that's what you choose (not everyone strives to be 'published' either!).

Quite factually, I needed these groups and the help and services they provide. Instead, I did things the hard way
and re-invented the wheel on my way to getting a book published. It worked for me, but I was very lucky.

If you're just starting out, you don't need to travel such a hard path. In Australia, there are heaps of groups. You
only need to pick up the Australian Writer's Marketplace to see that there are hundreds of them from retreats to
centres.

I suggest to all that they get in a group. Online is a great place to start. Try our one: www.writersworld.com.au and sign up for the 'writer's community' (see the left tabs). The people on it are an absolutely great bunch of people.

Cheers.

Anthony Santoro
www.writersworld.com.au
Author: Get Your Book off the Ground; The Deception; Last Decent Man

Balance and the Economy - The Global Crises, a rant

noreply@blogger.com (anthony santoro) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:11:00 +0000

I started punching out this rant about a week ago and, since then, much in the social forum has changed but not by way of improvement. Over the weekend much my state was devastated by bushfires – the likes of which I have never seen.

For my part, I assisted where I could. But, there is no need to report more upon the carnage for that is the realm of the media who have canvassed almost all outlets with updates and figures and tolls.

Living in the city as I do, I too could not but notice the mood on the streets today: Numbness. A numbness that would become someone who, while already grappling with a terrible loss, was the then told of another. Literally, the midday streets of suburban Melbourne were Sunday-like quiet. At the shops, sales assistants all wore long faces.

The bushfires are just more ill tidings as we grapple with the fallout from the economic crisis. And, as the loss of the weekend is still too close and because I think that writing more on it will proffer little or nothing of value, I will continue on with the point of the economy, for that, at least, is something which can be addressed and handled.

That’s right, handled.

Words we hear to the contrary, that the economy is ‘out of control’ or that there is nothing anyone can do to prevent the loss of jobs or the decline of the economy are, in fact untrue. This economic crisis, whether intentional or unintentional, has been manufactured – make no mistake. And, hence, it can be repaired...though not easily.

The economic crisis is not like the weekend’s wild fires that roared and raged according to the whims of wind and weather. Rather, it is a social situation and one that was created by the co-relations of business and the regulations (controls) put upon the enterprise of the people by governing bodies.

The free-market and unfettered greed have been labelled the culprits of the fiscal collapse, at least by the PM and other politicians. And, perhaps many jobless men or women have found comfort in such statements for they give, at least, a reason for their hardship. But this is not wholly the case. For the culprit is far more devious and, as witnessed by the 600,000 job losses in the USA just recently, far more callous in its wrath.

The market is a natural thing suffering with an affliction: Unnatural elements have tainted it and corrupted it from its pure form. The market climate has been given haughty names like “neo=economic liberalism” and been made an esoteric thing only understood only by university graduates (who, yet do not truly understand it) and sent into decline.

And, just as forest can be killed by pollution or a sea can be killed by overfishing, the economy is being slain by overborrowing, overspending and very bad financial governmental policy. None of which are qualities of a free market. Essentially, the fundamentals of the market (discussed below), have been violated. Though the free market has been targeted as a thing of greed, overborrowing and overspending have been things sanctioned by governments, not free marketeers. And now, our PM advises us that tighter market controls are needed, intimating that the old system must go and a new regulated system must supplant it.

This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The forest and the lake, if left to its own devices, would flourish and require minimalist human intervention. So too would the market and the economy should only the impurities be eliminated.

Put simply (and very simply, because this is a can of worms I’m opening here and one which requires much more clarification on the subject) a businessperson could not operate his/her business as a government runs the economy and experience any sort of viability or longevity.

To be clear, this is not an anti-political or anti-governmental essay, either. I believe our government is intent on ending this crisis – it is only their methods of which I object.

Dabbling both in the fields of art and business has proffered me an interesting perspective of the current economic crisis that, right now, sweeps the globe like a flood.

To the naked or un-indoctrinated eye, art and business appear to lie at opposite ends of the creative spectrum. In art, there is of course creativity in some expressive form; whereas in business, there is creativity usually in a functional or structural form. An artist could be forgiven for describing business as ‘boring’ just as a businessperson may be excused for describing art as ‘airy-fairy’. Hence, the two fields rarely cross paths except, perhaps, in the form of management or organisation.

As I have had a hand in both fields, I am fortunate to have bridged the gap between the chasm of art and business...at least for myself, anyway. And, in the course of my travels over the last ten or so years, I discovered that these two seemingly polar entities – art and business – have one common thread: They are both philosophically based.

If you have ever had the good fortune to meet a successful businessperson, you will note immediately that they are very philosophical in their approach to the world and its affairs...even if they don’t admit it. Of course, there are always exceptions.

Particularly, at this time of economic crisis, these two fields are more closely related than ever before. It is within these two fields that common threads can interweave to provide some solutions to the doomed path our local economy is treading. For both the causes and the solutions to this situation are, in fact, philosophical and social and not scientific (though economics defines itself as a science, it is not of the order of physics and chemistry, but rather a social science like politics and history because it studies and defines the fluid [not rigid] rules of human exchange, distribution and monetary social interaction).

One key thing to understand is that economies (which are essentially organised markets) were founded by business and people, not by governments or by economists – they came later. Markets were created out of the necessity of people to exchange commodities with one another to enhance their own survival potentialities. However, the running of the economy, in Australia and most other states, is a governmental faculty. For example, last October, the Federal Government injected $10.4b into the economy to stimulate it.

But, though retail spending did increase, the IMF’s prediction as of January 2009 was that the Australian economy would shrink. Hence, presently, another package of five times the October ‘08 amount is being hurried through parliament.

Such figures give the impression that there is a federal bank account with an abundance of money in it...but, sadly, there is not. So, where does this money come from? If I said thin air you wouldn’t believe me, but it wouldn’t be too far from the truth.

Now, an economist would argue with me here. Perhaps they would say something in the order of: ‘But, this money is accounted for and is based upon the purchasing value of the dollar’ or ‘bonds will be created to stimulate investments...’

Naturally, people are chary about spending money that we don’t have and the opinion polls are now reflecting this. As I said earlier, a businessperson would not operate their business by spending money they didn’t have to boost viability. Rather, they would demand production increases while curtailing spending in every sector. So, what makes a country so different? Well, this is the billion dollar question.

Much more must be said about from whence this stimulus money came, but, sadly, not here. For your own investigation, ask yourself this question: If Australia’s foreign debt was $1 trillion as of June 2008, where would an extra $50b come from? Certainly not our national bank accounts.

To put it bluntly, this is money that the government does not have and that Australia does not have.
I am dramatically oversimplifying the situation here, of course, and you are invited to state as much on the blog (We also understand that there are many more words that could be written on this subject and, in fact, are writing a book on it right now for release next month).

So, what is the government’s job when it comes to the economy? It should be the protection of the rules of business where needed but, for all intents and purposes, to let the market proceed relatively unhindered. The market is not and never has been a thing of politics – so, politicians should leave it be.

The economists? In a way, they are scientists, however economics is not a laboratory science – although the manner in which interest rates, the Reserve Bank and such are talked about, you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise. Rather, it is a social science based upon the laws of human interaction and endeavour which, in the case of the economy, is business.

In its pure form, despite it being a social science, economics is an exact science. It is based upon the phenomenon of balance...and, you can’t get more arty than ‘balance’.

Like any such balance in this universe, of which nature is one, if one part of it is tampered with, another part of it will be affected in some measure (witness the introduction of rabbits, foxes, cane toads, etc – all such introductions created imbalances after which destruction ensued).

Economics is the science of trade and distribution of goods. These are the realms of business over which goes the economic umbrella. In a way, economics is a study of balance, just like the environment. For example, a person manufactures a car and, in exchange for that car, they are provided money to the value of that car. The car manufacturer works hard to maintain a balance within their workshop to ensure that cars are made at a lower cost than they are sold for. This way the manufacturer turns a profit and can continue to make cars.

And, thus, there is balance. The manufacturer receives money for their hard work and the buyer receives a car. One side is equal to the other – balance. People may argue that this is business and not economics, but as there is exchange and change of position of valuable products and thus, distribution, we’ll call it economics.

Economics goes one step further than mere exchange and enters the realm of money. Again, this is balance – money was once gauged against gold. Then, one day (mid last century) it was decided that money would be valued differently and not against gold, but against (and this is putting it very simply indeed) the amount that a nation could raise for its taxes...so, actually, how potentially rich the country was. As taxes were based upon production, this made sense: The higher the production of the country, the richer it was.

The maintenance of this balance is the key role of economics and central banks (like the Reserve Bank of Australia), but the maintenance of this balance, as well as being a science, is an art. How well the RBA and other central banks do this is determined by the state of economies. It would be fair to say that, presently, they may have slipped – globally, economies aren’t in that great shape.

However, economists and politicians are not necessarily business people and, rarely, economists and politicians are artists. However, in Australia, when there is a problem with the economy, it befalls politicians and economists to solve the problem of imbalance.

Recent events are illustrating for us the results of mishandling the economy and the misunderstanding of this ultra-fundamental term ‘balance’.

This is a very brief outline of a very, very complex problem. Perhaps, for the expert, this is too simple, but this was not written for them. This was never intended to be a thesis – only a blog. There is absolutely no intention to oversimplify the issue; of course I realise that I have made this error. Then, this was a rather hastily written piece.

An artist sees the universe as it is; even if distorted by imagination, there is still a foundation of reality to any creation.

Do not shy away from this crisis. Investigate it and get your own questions answered.

In a very short time, we will be releasing a book that dissects the recession in Australia – its causes and solutions. In it you will find the sources of items referenced in the above text.

If you would like to know more about the root causes of our economic crisis, written in terms anyone can understand, or to purchase an advance copy of the book, please contact us via the Writers’ Resource Centre: globalfinancialcrisis@writersworld.com.au.

Marketing a book when the Internet brings grief

noreply@blogger.com (Smink Works Books) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:43:00 +0000

When you think of what a writer needs to get published, you probably think that they need good writing skills and a good story. What comes as a minor shock to some first-time authors is the fact that a published author also needs strength and resilience and an unlimited reserve of positivity.

The ultimate reality for authors is that it is impossible to write a book that appeals to everyone, so there are going to be some naysayers. In the old days, before the Internet, this might have meant a few verbal negative comments and one negative review in a newspaper. But these days, it's an entirely different story.

With the anonymity and easy comment-publishing of the Internet, often the author doesn't only have to deal with one lousy review in a newspaper, but lots of comments, reviews and thoughts posted on the Internet. These are often ill-considered, flippantly administered, uninformed comments. But they are still there, and unfortunately stick around a lot longer than that one printed review in a newspaper or magazine.

You may think "but if my book is good enough everyone will like it", but the nature of the Internet has proved this a naive thought.

For people who have never put themselves out there - started a business, launched a new product, or made anything like a film, book or art exhibition, it's impossible to know what it's like to do such a thing. But it would be good if they did. For people wield their negative reviews, flippant comments and cutting remarks with abandon and little or no understanding or empathy.

The Internet has fostered this comment-without-responsibility situation. A derisive comment could come from a 12-year-old, an 'anonymous' competitor or someone who hasn't even read the book, or used the product, for all you know. And yet this 'customer feedback' can make or break a product. Plus, we often only hear from the critical. The satisfied often say nothing.

One way to counteract this, is to encourage people who say they like your book to post their positive comments on the Internet. You could also ask them for permission to put them on your own site.

A word of warning - never ever start a 'flame war' where you criticize a negative-comment writer. It is best not to comment at all in this situation. And, never ever pretend to be someone else posting a comment in response to their negative comments -writers have been exposed doing this and this is far from positive publicity.

If your book is the subject of some negative comments, try to think about them rationally. Are they worthwhile comments from people who deserve your respect? If so, perhaps the feedback is something you can take on board. Then dismiss those that come from anonymous commenters or the obviously uninformed.

Even despite all of this, you can feel proud that your book has gotten big enough to attract attention from the Internet version of a 'griefer'- the name given to a digital game player who plays a game simply to aggravate and harass other players.

Suzanne Male is publisher at Smink Works Books. She is co-author of The Writer's Therapist: Essential advice for the Author and author of A Year of Writing Inspiration: A Prompt a Day for the Creative Writer. Smink Works Books runs an annual short story contest. Deadline December 1.

Is the end nigh for the book business as we know it?

noreply@blogger.com (Writers' Resource Centre) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:18:00 +0000

This article is a take on the current state of the publishing industry from the New York Magazine. It's a must-read for authors and industry workers alike.

The End
The book business as we know it will not be living happily ever after. With sales stagnating, CEO heads rolling, big-name authors playing musical chairs, and Amazon looming as the new boogeyman, publishing might have to look for its future outside the corporate world.

Read the entire article on the New York magazine site

Time for a new book genre - Firality

noreply@blogger.com (Smink Works Books) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:04:00 +0000

When she wrote her book Sex, Scars and a Superheroine with Scoliosis, Kremena didn't even pretend the story was 100% true. She dubbed her style 'Firality' - the fusion of fiction and reality. That was okay by me – Smink Works Books published her story because it was a rollicking good tale, not because it was ‘true’, even though it is drawn from the author’s life … and the author has had a very interesting life.

With the popularity of the memoir in the past few years has come a flood of exposés about authors who have 'made up' their book or parts of their book. While I think it's wrong for a writer to portray herself as an Iraqi Muslim wife when she’s never lived in Iraq, I am getting tired of the latest tabloid news story about an author who has duped us into believing their tale when it is in fact ‘a lie’. The thing is, a writer who has penned a memoir has no opportunity to say that parts of it are embellished, or completely fictional, or they are not sure they remembered the events correctly, because it's being marketed as a 'memoir', which promises 100% truth. Yet as soon as it's dubbed 'fiction', it loses its marketing power as a true story.

Personally, I loved reading A Million Little Pieces and it didn’t matter one jot to me when James Frey got stamped upon for fabricating parts of his book by Oprah, who had previously selected his book as part of her Oprah book club, and others. Frey himself says he shopped his manuscript as fiction to publishers without success. It was only when he labelled it memoir that a publisher agreed to take it on.

If we look at this on a basic level, memory is a very individual, very subjective thing, and is often fallible, and therefore there is going to be a little bit of ‘fiction’ in any memoir. So the question is whether it really matters that there is fiction in memoirs. I read books for entertainment, to prompt contemplation about life and philosophy, or for self improvement, and I love a good story. If I can get any or all of these things out of a book - even if it is a professed memoir with 'fabrications' - then I am satisfied.

Perhaps the question then should be whether there is truth in the work. I am a firm believer that each of those books condemned for being fabricated has some element of truth within - whether that is something as simple as some new observation on life, or an insight into another world or reality.

It seems to me that there is a need for this new genre in the world of publishing ... if only so authors can finally publish their part-memoir part-fiction books without the fear of backlash.

Suzanne Male is the publisher at Smink Works Books. She is contributing to The Writers' Resource Centre's book The Writer's Therapist, due out this September.

Story writing wisdom from the marketer

noreply@blogger.com (Writers' Resource Centre) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:28:00 +0000

Seth Godin aims at the marketer when he writes, but his piece How to tell a Great Story has wisdom for every storyteller. Besides, if you look at it on a basic level, every writer is essentially 'marketing' his or her story to readers.

In his article, Seth says:

A great story is true. Not necessarily because it’s factual, but because it’s consistent and authentic.

Any story does need to ring true and make sense so that it resonates with the reader.

Seth says:

Talented marketers understand that allowing people to draw their own conclusions is far more effective than announcing the punch line.

When writing a story, most of the time you don't need to spell things out like a Hollywood movie. Explain things using metaphors or anecdotes, or use a character's mannerisms or body language to explain their reactions. Try alluding to the ending or finishing your story on a slightly cryptic note. This is also useful for leaving a seed in your reader's mind. This thought seed stays and the reader will continue to come back to the unsolved conundrum.

Seth says:

Great stories are rarely aimed at everyone ... If you need to water down your story to appeal to everyone, it will appeal to no one. The most effective stories match the world view of a tiny audience—and then that tiny audience spreads the story.

This is true. Don't aim mass market with your story. You can't and won't please everyone.Write something original and unique and it will resonate with someone.
Read the entire post here.

Can Facebook Save the World?

noreply@blogger.com (anthony santoro) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 05:13:00 +0000

Okay...stop laughing. This is a serious, nay, deadly serious topic! I'm talking WORLD PEACE here. I'm talking PLANETARY SALVATION!

We don't ned to plunge into highbrow rhetoric of world starvation, domination, population explosions, globo-economic 3rd-world fiscal trade deficits, etc., etc., ad infinitum. To pretty much every 'normal' human being, that's all blah-blah stuff for the studious people that didn't sleep through their lectures. That talk is for your Michael Moore's and Alex Jones-types, not for me...not for us. I write crime novels about guys that steal stuff from other guys and the guys that had the stuff stolen from them, well, they get upset and shoot at the guys that stole from them... you get the idea. I'm not a politio-economic wordsmith, so, I'll leave that to the big boys.

But, this is a serious question: Can Facebook (because of it's poplurity, in this text I'm really using Facebook as a metaphor for the internet in general) save the World?

"What's a crime-writer writing about war for, anyways?" Well, according to a recent (albeit, arbitrary) poll I conducted, quite a few writers among us are rebelling against this idea that "writers shall be poor and beg pennies for their existence" and wanting to become writers so they can make money out of doing something they like and can do well. Notwithstanding the fact that a writers got to live, writers should, wholesale, be tackling issues like this. Whatever happened to the days when people wanted to change the world with art, the '60s...you know? I'm not saying let's get all political as was the norm back then, but let's not avoid confronting the fact that there's a lot more necessity for world peace now, than there was in the days of free love and paisley.

The Basics of War:
As far as I can tell, in a war, at the very least you've got to have two sides (or more. Look up 'Poland WWII' Wikipedia and you'll know what I'm talking about). They need to have some basic disagreement with one another. For example: Germany says, "Hey, Poland! We are invading you!" and, say Poland says, "No you're bloody well not!" One thing leads to another and you have a situation where either country has substituted diplomatic exchange for an exchange of weapons. Other countries join in, the conflict expands and the confrontation can become a global one: WWI, WWII, etc.

Generally, however, wars begin much earlier with politicians failing dismally in their art of diplomacy, for example: Germany says, "Hey, Mr. Poland, we're interested in invading your country and using your resources for our own, and then, possibly staging an invasion of all of Western Europe from your land." And Poland saying, "Well, Mr. Germany, thanks for including us in your reasoning. But, on this occasion we shall have to decline" (As far as examples go, this is a little ludicrous, but then so is war). Now, when this cannot be worked out with diplomacy, to cut a long story short, then you can have a war...basically. (Relax you students of international law and politics, it's obviously fragile as far as examples go, but it's not the point of the text so, please read on.)

Yesterday, the good Mr. President George Bush said words to the effect of: "People of Iran, do not be afraid. It is not you we have a problem with, it's your government. We want to get rid of your government for your own good." Mr. President Bush, however, overlooked a very key point: the government of any nation is there because of the people, good bad or indifferent. If the people really didn't like it, they would remove it.

"But," Mr. Bush may argue, "they are 'oppressed'. How can they possibly do that? We can only save them by invading their country, overthrowing their government and taking control of their economy!"

Well, it's easy, they, like, all rise up as one and, like, take over. Proof of this is that no government in the history of the universe has survived by opressing its people. The people always rise up and the governments always come undone. Another idiocy that humanity (and Mr. Bush is included in this sweeping comment) has overlooked is the fact that an oppressive government, forced from office by armed uprising, tends to be replaced by another oppressive regime. You can bust out the history books for proof of that; and there are always exceptions to any rule. The worrysome thing is that, historically speaking, aggressive countries have always failed to create and maintain peace in the countries they invade (witness Poland 1939-'45, China 1933-'45 and to present, Vietnam 1845-'73, all the countries invaded by Napoleon, etc, etc.). Based on this, it's a fine line the Coalition of the Willing is walking in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, this is not new news.

So, going back to it all: for any armed conflict of any size you must at least have two parties throwing bombs, bullets etc. at one another. That's a rough, but fair description of a war. Of course, there are complexities, like (and almost every armed conflit fulfills this criterion) a third side antagonising both warring parties into armed conflict for their own profit. But, these are the basics.

Now, Facebook (or really any internet-based mass-communication system) threatens this in a big way. See, it is 'people', not the government, that actually do the 'fighting and dying' part of any war. Now, the closer those people are in terms of communication, the harder it'll be for the government to incite the violence necessary to facillitate actually killing other human beings, i.e war.

In a war, there's also a very key ingredient that is added to the equation before the violence can begin: difference. I'm not the first to discover this by any stretch of my imagination, but it is a fact. In any war, one warring party must be utterly convinced that the other warring party is very different in everyway to them. Men, being fundamentally a social creature, would find it very dificult to take a knife or gun to another human being if they had not been first indoctrinated into believing (falsely) that their enemy is different, insane, animal-like, has lower morals, etc, when compared to their own ideals.

In the times of great conflicts last century, it was purported that the Germans killed kittens on French doorsteps, that the Japanese were a bloodthirsty race. It came as a shock, then, to Australian soldiers fighting the battles of Kokoda, that they were puzzled to feel empathy, or even sadness when they opened up the wallets of Japanese soldiers they'd killed and saw photos of the dead man's family, wife, kids. They weren't that different after all.

A more modern example is, of course, the treatment of Islam by western media. To quote an old phrase, don't beleive what you see on TV; Muslims love Jesus Christ just as any good Catholic does.

The internet has the potential to prove false the lies purported as being excuses to go to war. War is a massive distraction to the real issues that are affecting our planet, therefore, anything that would disabuse us of the distraction would be a good thing. The fact that Mr. Bush directed his comments at the Iranian government would suggest his advisors and speech writers are becoming savvy to the same fact - the Iranians may also be using the internet, may have American friends, too. You can't go to war with your friend, only your enemy.

But, the internet is a vehicle for anyone and everyone. It is being put to good use by the enemies of peace and the purportors of global violence, too. It a method of spreading, like a weed, falshoods and lies. The belief of one can become the belief of millions in several minutes. So, always take with a grain of salt anything you read on the net.

What About the Writer?
Obiously, this is a forum for writers. So, where does the written linguist fit in to this equation? Well, that's for you to decide. But, I will tell you this, if you're writing with the purpose of buying a house, living the lax life where you can work your own hours, spend time with the kids while earning a passive income from the sales of your books, think again. Sure, you can do this. I'm sure many a writer does, too (or at least dreams of it). But, this is not your purpose. In the words of Arthur O'Shaughnessy, "We are the movers and shakers of the world forever, it seems" and this is the responsibility with which we are charged now and well into the future.

If we're not banging the drum (however annoyingly to the common onlooker), stretching ourselves by means of time and wherewithal, working the fingerprints off our fingers by punching away at a keyboard, then, what are we doing? If we're doing other than this, than pushing the boundary of what is accepted and considered 'normal', than we too have been decieved into thinking that 'things are okay' and that 'we needn't worry because everything will work out just fine'. We don't want to be mild successes in the working worlds, as soon as we chose to be artists, we chose a pretty well trodden road, littered with the bodies of the fallen who trod before us. What an adventure we chose.

I don't want to be the wowser, but unless we are activively doing something about it...it won't be 'fine'. It'll be pretty damn crap, actually.

So, please make use of this thing, the internet and combine it with your skill with the written word. Start a blog and go nuts writing what you think - soon, people will start reading it. Technically, that's publishing, too. Don't hold onto your precious thoughts for, although they may be precious, they are neeed, whatever their gramatic quality.

It's rediculously corny, but, I'll say it: become friends with the world!

But, Aren't We the Movers and Shakers?

noreply@blogger.com (anthony santoro) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:52:00 +0000

What's happened to us? The writers and artists of the world?

I understand that we don't want to be poor and indigent, but...come on!
What's that...what am I talking about? I'm talking about the changing purpose of writing and art. You hear me bangin' on about it, but it's true.

We've been corrupted! Well, not all of us, but a good number of us. Corrupted by the MTV/Gangsta/International Idol-ness of the modern plasma-net era into believing there are more important things than impinging upon the human conscious with art. Just the other day, I was talking to this guy and he said he really wants to become a writer because it would provide him with a passive income and allow him more 'down time'...you know, 'me time'.

I looked at him and I think my acknowledgement was more of a raised eyebrow than a really understanding gesticulation. But, it was appropriate - I thought what he said was nuts. He wanted to write books to get rich. Stuff the content, he'd write what people most wanted to listen to, even if he thought it was garbage.
If this was an isolated incident, I'd be fine with it. But, I talk to a lot of writers and it's becoming more prevalent. This idea of becoming an artist for the purpose of making money is one that would make the struggling trail-blazers of eras before us turn in their graves (or upon the posts they were burned upon; art used to be dangerous stuff). They didn't do what was 'accepted', they cut and hacked their own dangerous path through the jungle of society and civilisation.

See, we artists now may not think this unprivileged life is not necessary. Life's pretty cruisy in the 21st Century, and besides, we need to buy a house, a car, and purchase an investment property, do some negative gearing and maybe even get another...

Whoa! Man, you wanna do that, you need to get a real job!
(I can hear you all collectively groan...) Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not living in a cardboard box. But, I haven't forgotten the purpose of my craft - that's to make people think, question the 'usual' and 'normal' ways of life and show them another perspective to it. One Arthur O'Shaughnessy said about artists: 'We are the movers and shakers'. We don't walk the straight and narrow; we work long hours, write, paint or make music a helluva a lot while never neglecting our responsibilities of family and work. We move and we shake things - as artists, that's what we do. Work, then, is a necessary part of the writer's life, it's a part of life in general. It would make sense, then, if one is writing about life that they should be living it, too.

So, no, an artist's life will not be a cruisy one. Money will not be your motivation because it is not the return given for our work that we find most valuable. Money keeps a roof over our heads, the lights on and food on our plates; but what we receive in return for our craft it the shock, awe, sighs, relief, grief, cheerfulness etc., that comes when people see, hear or read our work. That is our exchange; that is what we swap for our craft. Not money.

Don't believe the modern 'get rich or die trying' motto; this is a mockery of what we're doing. Don't accept being poor, but don't tailor your work so you can become rich by altering your responsibility as an artist.

That said, I think I should get off my high-horse now that I've ridden it to near death.

Anthony.

Calculated Perversion of Viewpoint

noreply@blogger.com (anthony santoro) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:57:00 +0000

Art, whether it be in the written, canvas, digital or audio/visual mediums, is a form of expression. When seen by someone, a viewpoint is created in the viewer's mind of what they are looking at. This is a subjective cultivation in response to art, which is objective (music: sound waves, digital: electrons, writing/painting: photon). But, we don't need to translate the laws of physics, however. Art is...well, it's 'art'. But what is happening in the field of art deserves comment - for there are controls and balances being installed into this medium that, given that artists are the movers and shakers of the globe, will reduce the freedoms of expression and corral the purpose of art (one being to change civilisations) for other more devious purposes.

I know, I know...I'm suffering from a severe bout of 'conspiracy theorism'. Perhaps I don't know. Perhaps I'm paranoid. I don't care. But, if you hear me out, you'll see I'm only making comment - my comment - upon the direction of art in our civilisation. Perhaps this comment should be reserved for some heavy, protracted book written by a philosopher or political revolutionary theorist or something-or-other, and not a blog. Being neither of those, I'll just say 'stuff it', this is my blog and I'll write what I goddamn want to.

9/11, as it has become popularly known, was an event that stained my thinking and that of a whole generation. Several generations, in fact. It shook the ground as far away as the streets of Melbourne. If anyone recalls walking deserted city streets the following days after the towers fell, you'll know what I'm talking about.
Since then, nearly seven years have passed, but 9/11ism hasn't been totally warn off. If you remember, almost the entire western world went to war (well, the 'Coalition of the Willing' or COW, anyways) with a idea: "Terrorism". The problem was, Terrorism was nowhere to be found. COW, couldn't find this Terrorism and searched the globe for the country of Terror... couldn't find it and, of course, we all know what happened next (Afghanistan, Iraq, Weapons of Mass Distraction...I mean Destruction, etc). But, I needn't go into it, this isn't, after all, a political article.

The point is, something happened that day. Something changed. If we don't change the course of events soon, in a thousand years our ancestors will look back and remark how September 11, 2001 heralded the beginning of the Modern Dark Age when art became decadent, where spirituality was mocked, where the way we looked at art and what we thought about it was governed by politically correct undertones mores that made us uneasy to 'feel' how we did when we looked at something aesthetic. That made us change our spoken viewpoints of art and made us conform to the accepted opinions of the governed world.

Witness the recent lambasting of Australian photographer, Bill Henson. Even the PM had a swing at him for taking photos of a parentally consenting, yet underaged naked girl. The work was definitely artistic, and no malice was intended, however he was even the subject of a police investigation because of it. Fortunately, a certain sanity finally prevailed and all charges were dropped. However, this was only an opening volley of fire, an early skirmish in the war that has begun on the freedom of uncontrolled expression. But the proverbial 'line in the sand' has been drawn.

You will note that things will become politically incorrect to say or do, we will become more precious about our own safety and what we do and see will be more and more policed as time goes on. The laws passed will be for the few who transgress the good laws of our society but will blanket us all (analogous to this is the fact that it is illegal to carry even a pocket knife after an incident involving samurai swords some years back).

Do you see what is happening? We are having our viewpoints cultivated, slowly, almost below our awareness. Many of us now think things we used to partake in liberally as a severe offence. I will not provide you with a list here, but ask yourselves, what did you do 10 years ago that your would not do now? What would people think of it at the time, what would people think of it now? Some of these things are dangerous and have been duly frowned upon or outlawed, however, many of them are not.

For example, thirty years ago, my mother could take photos of me learning to swim at the local pool without the consent of anyone but herself. Now, however, she would require express written permission from the pool owners before she does so. Recently, I took out my phone camera to take a photo of my daughter and two of her friends from creche, but was stopped before I did so by a carer who imparted to me the fact that I would need the permission of the parents of her two little friends before I did so. You see, this is a law, now - one that is agreed upon thanks to the fear imparted by mass media, a form or art, that one must beware of men taking photos of children. It was made to stop people using the photos for wrongdoing, but the law also applies to me, who would only print the photo for my daughter to display in her room.

I think Bill Henson and other photographers will now think twice before they publish photographs of the naked human form of any age, something that was done by the greats as far back as Ancient Greece and Rome (who's culture and technology was extinguished by the first Dark Age nearly a thousand years ago).

We have had a neat trick played upon us, haven't we? The laws for the few have been cast over us all and, most importantly, with the consent of the people. In a most sneaky way, by the very medium we have used to change the world and the ideologies of the civilisation, we have had art turned against the populace and had the viewpoints of the culture slowly altered. The mainstream media is, of course responsible for this, we say. But, who runs the mainstream media? What about the so-called 'independent' media? If you look, this 'mainstream' sanitised ideology is working its way through here, too.

Before you take aim at me, please have a look for yourself. It's not the laws we need to be afraid of. The laws will only work with widespread agreement of the people (the mistakes of countless despots and dictators have taught the lawmakers that a government can't control a populace by force. Only with the will of the people can a government do that). No, laws need to be agreed to, first, before they can work. And, this is being done via the most cherished medium that has always worked to change civilisations for the better in every Earthly millennia: art.

So, next time you see artists being attacked, think twice before you draw your sword as to whom you will draw it upon.

Anthony Santoro
www.writersworld.com.au

Everyone's an Artist

noreply@blogger.com (anthony santoro) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:31:00 +0000

Writing is most probably the most common form of expression, next to, of course actual vocal expression. Hence, alternate to vocalizing one's disagreement with a political or social climate, one can always write it down and post it on a blog. The beauty of the internet means that it can be done with relative anonymity while still getting your point across to millions.

Notwithstanding the fact that your blog may be viewed by a total of zero people (unless you're a little savvy with internet marketing), never before has the potentiality existed for one person to reach so many millions of people. Never before could a man in Uganda make known his thoughts so far and wide and garner support for a viewpoint or, even, a fad. Of course, this can be abused, but those abuses (whether in the form of internet garbage, spam or "Nigerian Lotteries") can be easily overlooked when it comes to the point of the good effects that can be created via the internet. But, for argument's sake, let us just hypothesize what would have happened if Jesus or even the early Catholic church had access to such a broad medium as the internet. Needless to say, our world would look very different.

This is not a new hypothetical proposition, however. Countless internet devotees have, no doubt, made such suggestions and the internet has been the forum for many varied conversation topics for years. But harnessing that, and using that energy for good rather than evil, I think is the trick. You only need to type in something derogatory on a search engine to know what I'm talking about (I will not specifically name them here given, how the internet works, it would only garner more support for them). As well as being a gleaming light in our culture, the internet also casts its beams incidentally on some pretty morally base nooks and crannies or our society. But, these debased nooks are merely well planned and executed distractions to the purpose of life and communication. They will always be there, true. But the busy ones among us will ignore them, being more interested in the art and business of living.

I think an artist has a purpose greater than their bank account, although that is no reason they should be poor or struggling. An artist (particularly a writer) can upload, type, show almost anything at all on the internet and it is now time for them to jump on these lines of communication with vigor and tenacity, but wholesale. Communication lines (like the internet, book stores, magazines, etc.), are, after all the conduit by which any artist gets his/her voice heard or pictures seen. The time is nigh, then, to get onto blogs, websites, etc., and type and upload your points of view, your experiences, your prophecies, etc. ad infinitum. Sure, there are people doing it already, but far out of proportion to how many of us there really are.

You will note one important thing in all of this, too: anyone can do it. Which would, as a corollary, mean that anyone has the potential to be an 'artist'. Or, rather, is an artist. See, 'artist' is merely a self-consideration. You either 'think' you are or 'think' you're not. It's not a club, but (to quote an old, overused cliché [sorry]) a 'state of mind'. There is so much that can be done; actually, there is so much that has to be done to really 'change the world' (yes, sorry, again. Quoting another old cliché, I know), because, it really does need changing!

Artists, after all, are the movers and shakers. The dreamers of dreams; dreams that, at some stage, become the future. If you count that we are, all of us, to some degree an artist, that's a hell of a lot of moving and shaking.

If you would like your article circulated, no matter the topic, go to www.writersworld.com.au and contact us to find out how to submit your article to our monthly ezine.

Anthony Santoro

The Write Zine

noreply@blogger.com (Writers' Resource Centre) — Tue, 13 May 2008 00:16:00 +0000

One of the great things about an event like the Small Press and Zine Fair at the Emerging Writers' Festival on Sunday is exposure to the captivating limited-edition curios and largely underground talent.
"I'll Poet You" was the tagline of the zine of poetry by young poets on the table next to the Writers' Resource Centre. Their "pretty much free" black-and-white copied and stapled zine was sometimes sold, sometimes given away along with badges emblazoned with Anne Sexton and Sylvia Plath.
Further down in Federation Square's Atrium, an artist sells her matchbox of 'Nudies' - small versions of her life drawings in a matchbox-type container. She's also immortalised her favourite shoes, including some precious red work boots, in a series of framed artworks. Across the way a Ugandan writer sells a book of his songs not yet put to music. As soon as he learns an instrument, he says miming guitar-playing, these words will become songs.
The people are as interesting as their offerings. On another table Chay-ya is flanked by her travelling exhibition of paper cups that now show her penned artwork; kept in a pocket and whipped out to engage random 'attendees' of her unusual exhibition. Meanwhile, Damuj wonders through the fair with his own zine, full of poetry and short pieces telling of pain, drugs, divorce. A way of explaining things to his young daughters, he says.
The entire festival is imbued by a wonderful sense of self-expression and creativity. And it's certainly a message to other writers yet to put their work out there about what is possible.
The Emerging Writers' Festival is now an independent festival. The curios and new talent will appear again next year, but until then, and after having a sneak peak at an unusual Erinsborough zine inspired by Neighbours TV show and bandied about by a fan, I'll be checking out the Sticky Institute Zine store in the Degraves Subway in Melbourne.
*
Incidentally, the City Library is running an eight-week group for anyone interested in street press (anything from zines to comics, magazines and blogs in any genre). It's open to everyone, regardless of level, including budding writers, designers, editors, artists, programmers or photographers. The idea is to meet like-minded people, exchange ideas and learn new skills. www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/libraries

Suzanne

Launching mistakes on an unsuspecting public

noreply@blogger.com (Smink Works Books) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:20:00 +0000

Today I was reflecting on being published -- not the proud joy of seeing your name in print, but embarrassment when you realise your name is on an article or a book that contains mistakes, or a mistake. It doesn't have to be a huge factual error; even a spelling mistake, typo, or misplaced apostrophe can inspire that feeling of dread.
It is one of the risks of getting your writing published. Your mistakes can't be buried or forgotten; they are just there in print for everyone to see, deride and tut tut over. Certainly, sometimes these mistakes aren’t even your errors, but appear thanks to the editor or a publishing process; but they become yours when the piece comes out with your moniker.
It happens more often, of course, in magazines and newspapers with quick recurring deadlines, rather than in books where several people have read over the text during a long editing process. Although, many would recall Lonely Planet publishing a version of their Western Europe travel guide emblazoned on the spine with the misspelt title WESTEN Europe.
My introduction to that feeling of dread was at my first job fresh out of university, at a newspaper. It's not that my writing wasn't edited by the senior journalist; it's just he had happened to miss the fact that I had written "open to the pubic" instead of "open to the public".
It certainly taught me to read over my own work more carefully and be more responsible for what I have written. But the most important lesson to learn is that everyone makes mistakes and it's not the end of the world to find that you've missed the 'l' out of public (and perhaps made a few older people gasp at the rudeness). It certainly shouldn't stop you from going public (see!) with your writing in the future.
Perhaps one approach is to make light of it. Lonely Planet managed to turn their mistake into a humourous anecdote, including a funny self-deprecating bookmark with the book (click on pic to read) rather than bin their entire 40,000 copy print run, and as a result I know a couple of people who have held on to their erroneous copy of WESTEN Europe as a collector's item.

Anyway it's not the only thing that can go wrong. Later I’ll tell about what happened with the newspaper’s designer whipped up a cartoon about the circus to accompany a police report I had turned into a front page article (not recommended).

Suzanne Male is the publisher at Smink Works Books. She is contributing to The Writers' Resource Centre's book The Writer's Therapist, due out this September.

Chomp chomp Grammar Bytes

noreply@blogger.com (Writers' Resource Centre) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:11:00 +0000

Some of the grammar sites on the Internet can be quite dry and difficult to read, but Grammar Bytes is a refreshing change. It is self-professed "grammar instruction with attitude".
The site features interactive exercises as well as explanations of grammar terms. It is well laid-out, easy to navigate and the text is clear and easy to read. It's useful for once-off grammar checking, polishing up your rusty grammar, or becoming that apostrophe-obsessed grammar grandma you've always wanted to be ;)

Why do You Want to Write?

noreply@blogger.com (anthony santoro) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:07:00 +0000

By Author, Anthony Santoro

Tell me – what sort of writer do you want to be? A good writer? A great writer? A rich writer or a famous one? Indeed, why are you writing? Do you write simply because you like to write? Is whether you’re good, bad, rich or famous just peripheral to the fact that you like to write and enjoy the craft?

Working out why you write and what makes you want to write is not a bad place to start. Truthfully, it’s better to just get on with writing; but if you ever get off track from that and get caught up in the perils of wondering “will anyone publish my book? Am I a good writer?" etc, you can fall back on this, get it sorted out and get back to writing, quick-smart.

Some writers start their book by imagining their manuscript as a film or TV series. There’s nothing at all wrong with focussing on the end product. It’s only a problem when this idea of the end product gets in the way of your own creative writing.

There are many writers (and I, myself, was once included in this bracket) who sit on their manuscript for years, too scared to send it off to a publisher. Yet, if you asked them they would tell you they were desperate to get published. This equation, unfortunately is problematic: you can’t get your manuscript published without sending it off to a publisher! Unless you’re planning some sort of “miracle-publishing” where a publisher calls you up and says, “Hey, I just had this amazing sixth sense that you have written a manuscript that is absolutely awesome and which I believe I would like to publish!” or you’ve chosen to self-publish, there’s simply no other way around it.

You have a manuscript. You want to get published. You have to send it off!

Now I know that you can quote me all the statistics on the likelihood of being published, such as “but only one in one-billion manuscripts given to publishers actually make it to print!” (I know those stats aren’t right but I’m parodying the point here!) The important thing to realise is that a writer simply needs to steer clear of such emphatic nonsense. Really such things are even less important than what colour socks you’re going to wear today. The odds, to say the least, are overwhelming in favour of you not giving up your day job. For that exact reason they don’t matter and, as a writer, are not your concern.

The main point is: don’t worry about getting published. For a writer, getting a book into print is the least of their problems. Getting published can appear – but is not by a long, long, loooooong country mile – the end in itself. On the other side of getting published, there’s a whole new world called ‘marketing’ and, a writer busy putting their imagination down onto paper should be even less worried about that when they’re writing their book. I know, I’ve been through it all!

Look at it like this: a publisher will publish your book if they think it’s marketable and you’re marketable. Essentially, they want something that people will go into a bookstore and buy, preferably, a lot of times. It is a business decision and not necessarily a reflection of the writer’s skill. They’re not heartless; but, to have a business at all publishers need to make marketable decisions, otherwise they will not be able to print anyone’s works at all and there will be no books in bookstores, whatsoever.

So essentially, all a publisher is saying when they say, “We are interested in publishing your book”, is, a) they think you’re a great writer and, b) they are willing to invest money in it to see if the general public agree. Truthfully, publishers would love to publish more writers’ works but, are bound by market pressures not to.

If you’re not getting my point, I’ll say it: Don’t worry about getting published, not getting published etc, etc. Concern yourself with being happy with what you have written. That’s the most important thing; it has to be. Why? Because, if you’re not happy with your story you certainly won’t be giving it to anyone else to read and asking for their opinion on it. No, no, no, no…

Then, there’s rejection. Don’t worry, again. Rejection doesn’t kill you. And, truthfully, if you’re happy with your own writing, confident of it, a rejection will have minimal, if any, effect. You will be writing away, sending off manuscripts, but, really, not giving a damn either way if they are rejected, praised, published, etc.

If you think about why you’re writing and what you’re trying to achieve, I doubt it’s fame, friends, praise, fortune or a book on a shelf in a bookstore. More likely, it’s that you’re trying to tell a story – yes? So, tell it. Someone may want to read it. Good.

Well, then, time’s ticking away – stop wasting time worrying about getting published and start writing!

Anthony Santoro is an author of fiction and businessperson. His first novel was published last year and his second is to be published later this year.

The above article was extracted from Issue 1, Writers' World, the official ezine of the Writers' Resource Centre - http://www.writersworld.com.au/ . It will featured in the upcoming book, The Writer's Therapist, due out in late 2008.

Welcome

noreply@blogger.com (Smink Works Books) — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:56:00 +0000

Welcome to the new Writers' Resource Centre Blog