Digital revolution
There has been a lot of attention lately on the digital revolution of textual content, and this was the subject of a talk at this year’s Brisbane Writer’s Festival. As someone who is getting increasingly involved in e-publishing of various stripes, I was interested in what professionals in the writing industry had to say on the subject.
Overall, I would say that the talk was a big disappointment. There was a lot of doom-and-gloom, nay-saying, and general bleakness with regard to the future of writing as a business as text is increasingly delivered digitally. I walked out feeling incredibly negative about the whole thing, which is not the best message to leave an audience with.
I don’t disagree with most of what was said by the speakers, but I don’t believe that the talk was representative of the ‘digital revolution’* or digital writing markets.
Most of the problem with the talk was the selection of the speakers. They were involved in literary publications, publishing, and journalism. In other words, they were involved in the areas of the business most likely to be hit hard by a move towards digital media. There was no representation of fiction writers or indie publishers, or anyone else who might offer a different perspective on this ‘revolution’*.
So, given that the talk was slanted in a particular direction, what did they have to say about the current climate for writers and publishers?
Publishers
The increase of the digital market is hurting publishers – namely, the big ones. According to one statistic given in the talk, traditional publishers are finding that their paper book (cutely known as ‘p-book’, I’m told) sales are going down faster than their ebook sales are going up. This is, naturally, a cause for concern.
Interestingly, however, traditional publishers’ profits are still going up. They are not losing money due to the digital markets or their overall sales going down. And yet the atmosphere among the publishers is one of doom and panic.
This suggests a couple of things to me:
- Traditional publishers do not know how to optimise the digital market yet, and don’t have the appropriate business models in place. Basically, they need to catch up with the times and figure out how to make it work.
- If their profits are going up while their sale volumes are going down, that means that they’re taking a bigger chunk out of the digital sales than they are out of the paper sales. This means that the cost savings of digital over paper books are not being passed on to the authors, and the authors are probably getting crappy royalties. (That’s what it looks like – I’d love to be wrong about this!)
The move from physical to digital media does mean a big change for traditional publishers, and I don’t know how agile they are being in this transition. From the things I’m hearing, their agility is elephantine!
Newspapers and Journalism
Newspapers are moving into the digital world and away from paper publications. The cost of printing newspapers is increasingly being seen as prohibitive, and it is believed that once the baby-boomers die off, the culture of reading newspapers in paper form will go with them.
It’s hard to know if these two things are true. I suspect that the second point is probably right: generations X and Y don’t have the same newspaper-reading habits that the older generations have. The culture is simply not the same, and moving away from it towards instant digital gratification.
The first point is, I believe, a misnomer. There are plenty of papers around who publish at a loss, compared to the money they receive from sales of the paper, and there are many free papers on offer. This is not a new phenomonon. So how do they survive? Pure sales revenue is not how they make their money; advertising revenue is where their profit lives. Like Facebook, they can afford to give their product away for free because their real customers are the advertisers.
The same is true for online content: there are lots of ways to monetise content without charging the reader for it. Newspapers are moving towards this model. However, in the process, there seems to be other changes happening.
A problem that was mentioned several times through the talk is the perceived cheapness of digital content. This perception is across the board; it’s not just readers, but vendors and publishers as well. No-one wants to pay much for it, because it is seen as quick and easy to deliver, and often of a lower quality than paper-published content. (Note: this is a common perception, not my opinion.)
This means that ‘serious journalism’ is at risk. Where (traditional) newspapers have journalists on staff and are willing to pay them for several weeks or even months’ worth of investigation for a particular piece, the belief is that digital newspapers won’t support this. They will pay for the content by the word (or similar length-based currency), not for the time it took to create it. Serious in-depth journalism will be too expensive to support, which means it will become impossible to make a living this way.
That is, without public help. In the talk, analogies were drawn between the digital revolution and the introduction of radio and television. In order to maintain material of quality and ‘cultural value’ in an increasingly commercial landscape, public (government) support was required. Hence, the BBC was born (or ABC, depending on where you are). It was suggested that the same will need to be done for journalism. (Doesn’t the BBC already have a serious news site? Isn’t this already catered-for to a degree? Questions I wish there had been time to ask!)
Whether there is government-funded papers or not, the business of journalism is changing. Digital content writers are already out there making money from this, and they will tell you how much the market is changing every day. One of the speakers at the talk mentioned that making a living from writing (meaning: journalism or non-fiction articles) will become impossible. Serious journalism will move into the hobbyist’s realm, and they’ll all have to get day jobs to put food on the table.
This sounds familiar. That’s because it’s the lot of 90% of fiction writers – only the very biggest sellers can afford to live off what they make from their books alone. It makes me sad to think that other types of writing might be sliding into the ‘hobby’ zone when I’d like to see the opposite become reality.
Literary Magazines
Literary publications in the digital realm have problems with the same cause as journalists: digital content and publication is seen to be cheap and easy, and so no-one is willing to put the same kind of money into it as they are for a paper publication. For literary magazines, which rely largely on donations and grants, this means that funding can be cut if they move online; apparently, they don’t ‘need’ as much money as they did pre-digital! Some publications have already lost funding in this way.
I guess this means that publishers of literary content are being forced to find other revenue streams to support their work. Is this good for the industry? It’s hard to say. It opens up a few questions:
- Is there enough money to pay for quality editing?
- Will literary fiction suffer by being commercialised?
- Will literary publications be forced to close?
The opinions at the talk seemed to be centred on the need for public (that is, government) support for the arts to ensure that quality, culturally-important material is still produced and published for the world to see.
Libraries
This is an interesting subject. Libraries are being forced to change by the move towards digital media, and it will be interesting to see exactly what that means in the long run.
Will the perception of ‘digital=cheap’ hurt them too? Will it lead to a reduction in funding for libraries? I hope not, as in this case, it could be particularly counter-intuitive. For libraries to keep stocks of digital media, they will need servers, archives, back-up systems, IT maintenance, and the power to keep it all running. Or might libraries become more centralised and ‘virtual’? Is that a good or bad thing?
Quality
One of the concerns that was raised in the talk was about the quality of digital content. The truth is that it is cheap and easy to publish online, especially if you forego professional aspects of writing. Namely: editing, formatting, and design.
In paper publications, editors and publishers are the gatekeepers of quality (and from many of the books I’ve read, they’re not that good at ensuring error-free text, either: I’ve been tempted to take to more than one book with a red pen and send it back to the publisher). In digital publications, there do not have to be any gatekeepers at all; that is both the appeal and drawback of the digital realm. So how is quality ensured?
Honestly, I don’t know the answer to that. I think that writers should take pride in their work and go to the effort to make sure that it is correct and professional, especially if they are charging money for it. I go to pains to edit and proof the work I offer for free, because quality matters to me. I’m also aware that not everyone cares about it as much as I do.
It’s a lot to think about, and going over it again leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don’t believe that the ‘digital revolution’ is as drastic or doom-laden as some would like to believe. Things are changing and the publishing industry as a whole needs to move with it. Old roles will change, and new ones will open up.
I believe that writers have a lot of opportunities in front of them right now. It’s not easy to find your way through the morass of information and speculation being thrown around, but I don’t think it’s as dire or as shiny as the various parties would like us to believe. There will always be writing; let’s embrace the new ways of delivering it to people and keep pushing forward.
* I put these words in quotes because, while they’re being bandied about at the moment, they always sound melodramatic to me. I haven’t seen anyone launching at paper with digital pitchforks yet. Perhaps that’s next month!
Apocalypse Blog now available at Amazon
After some shenanigans over the weekend, the Apocalypse Blog is now available through Amazon! You can get it direct to your Kindle from the US, UK and German stores.
You can find the books on my Author Page, or here are some handy links to the US store versions:
Enjoy! And don’t forget to tell all your friends about them!
When they get away
Warning: potential spoilers here. If you haven’t read (up to and including) this week’s Starwalker post, go catch up quick!
So, this week’s Starwalker post went a little sideways on me while I was writing it. Which is not to say that it went badly – on the contrary, the reactions have been very positive! It just wound up not being what I intended.
I’ve got a little list of the stuff that I need to cover in order to get the story to where it needs to be for the end of Book 2. Next in line was a discussion about the implications of time travel, but somehow, the characters didn’t want to talk about that. No, they decided that they’d get hung up on the issue of legally changing the starship’s ownership to escape prosecution.
As I was writing the scene, it reminded me of at the end of Book 1, in which the crew had to decide whether to stay on board or not. This week’s post came down to the same question, for a different reason. I’m not a fan of repetition but it was difficult to get away from – the decision had to be made in order for them to be able to move forward, and while the captain could have made it on their behalf, that’s not the sort of person he is. Not to mention that having a pissed-off crew would have caused more and different problems down the track.
Perhaps it’s a happy symmetry, instead. Both books have come to a point where the crew have to weigh up just how much they want to stay, points of no return for them to step over. Thinking about the projected arc of the third book, it’s likely that there’ll be a moment like that towards the end there as well (again, for a different reason).
I suspect that when it comes to editing the Starwalker books (into ebooks or for submission to traditional publishers), I’ll either shine them up into a more pleasing symmetry, or take one of them out. Having just got done with editing the first book of the Apocalypse Blog, the chances of me taking something out are fairly slim (I hate throwing stuff away).
There’s definite scope for improvement in there, though, once I can see the bigger picture. Writing the way that I do, it’s sometimes hard to keep the big picture in mind, especially as deep into the story as I am right now. I’m pretty determined that I won’t start editing this story until I have all three books written, so I can get that 1,000-foot view of the story as a whole.
Back to this week’s post, it wound up completely missing out on what I originally set out to achieve. I had written in the talk about time travel at the end, but that not only added almost 1,000 words to the post (and they’re getting way too long lately!); it also changed the tone of the post entirely. Starry’s giddy moment was quashed by the seriousness of what followed and wound up getting lost.
The more I looked at the post, the more it felt crammed and trying to do too much. It wound up muddled, particularly in terms of the emotions running through it. And, hell, I’m not tied to any particular deadline for the end of Book 2, so why rush it? So the serious bit at the end has been pulled out (and will be filled out/polished for next week’s post) and it just focusses on the crew’s deliberations and decisions.
I tend to write for and from character, and I’ve grown to love writing the conversations in Starwalker. The transcript-style format is fun to play with, and I enjoy the rapid back-and-forth nature of it. My cast have such different voices to play with, and often their perspectives surprise me.
I had expected Cameron to be the one to be most disturbed by the captain’s proposed course of action (due to the legal violations involved), but she was very calm and pragmatic about it. Elliott was quiet, which makes a change from his usual mouthiness, but he already knew about the proposal. Rosie got to be the outraged one for the most part, which amuses me because she’s also the one most likely to smack someone in the face.
Of all of them, Lang Lang was the biggest surprise. When I started the conversation, I wasn’t sure how she would react, but when it came time for her to speak, she knew exactly what she wanted to say. That was one of the easiest bits of the post for me to write (and I’d be lying if I said it didn’t make me a little emotional!).
I think it was Lang Lang’s statement that determined the subject of the post. Her quiet declaration and its affect on Starry fitted so beautifully into the starship’s evolution that I wanted to hug them both. Starry’s going through so many changes lately, stamping around in her processors like a rebellious teenager, and she needed this little gem to alter her perspective slightly.
Through much of this book, Starry has been a kid trying to work out who she wants to grow up to be. She has been searching for so many things, like safety, security, and belonging. Her homecoming and Is-Tech’s rejection damaged her more than she realises – they’re her parental substitutes – but it also gave her the strength to try to stand on her own. Lang Lang’s statement helped with that too, but in a more positive way.
I bandied names for the books around a while ago, and have roughly settled on Identity for Book 1, and Ownership for Book 2. The story is taking that idea into places I hadn’t originally planned, just like this week’s post didn’t quite turn out the way I had intended. But I’m far from complaining: I love where this is going. It’s so much fun to write!
Can’t wait to share it all with you. 🙂
Apocalypse Blog ebooks now available!
After a weekend of madly formatting, checking, proofing, and uploading, the first two ebooks of the Apocalypse Blog are now available on Smashwords! They are:
- Book 0: Before the End – free prequel!
- Book 1: End of the Old – the first of the trilogy, starting when the bomb went off. Now with new and extended content!
I had piles of fun editing through the first book of the Apocalypse Blog, and wound up extending a lot of the posts. A few gaps filled in here, some detail in there.
It feels great to finally have them up now, released into the wild! I have a little bit of work to do on the covers (they’re gorgeous, but the file size needs to be adjusted) before the books can go out to more stores, but it’s all good.
So far, the free Book 0 has had over 50 downloads. In less than 2 days! Wow. 🙂
For those of you who read this blog, you can get Book 1 for half price by entering this coupon: “ZY43T” Valid this week only!
Next job: edit up Book 2 for release!
On literary and popular fiction
I recently attended a talk on writing literary vs popular fiction at the Brisbane Writer’s Festival. When I signed up, I was hoping for answers to a number of questions, like:
- What is considered literary fiction?
- What is excluded?
- What is literary fiction for?
- Why is popular fiction classed as low-brow entertainment?
- How has literary fiction changed with the times?
- How does popular fiction become literary fiction?
- Who decides?
- Can fiction be both?
Sadly, the discussion was not what I had hoped. I don’t think they touched on any of the questions above, apart from a brief flirt with how literary fiction can move with the times (which told us little except that it cando it).
I had a far more interesting, pointed discussion about literary and popular fiction with my two well-read writing-inclined friends afterwards than I heard inside the auditorium.
Part of the problem was that the chair of the panel gave long, rambling monologues that had a question buried among his many, many phrases, and no-one had thought to bring a shovel. The panelists didn’t quite know what they were supposed to be answering, so tended to speak on their best guess about what they were there for.
Another problem was that the one popular author on the panel had come from a background of creating popular television, and the talk skewed towards her screen stories rather than her novels. It wasn’t a good examination of popular fiction today, because they didn’t spend much time actually discussing popular fiction writing. Comparing literary fiction to TV shows is like comparing an egg to a piece of cheese.
They didn’t once mention the place of different genres of fiction, or the struggle to get non-mainstream (or any fiction not classed by a bookstore as ‘literary’) viewed as quality or well-crafted writing. It is rare for a science fiction book to win a literary prize, for example (and until relatively recently, it was unheard-of). But nope, that didn’t rate a mention. Not even a little rant about trash like Twilight becoming so popular.
I’m disappointed by the talk because I don’t read much literary fiction any more and don’t tend to follow the big literary prizes. They’re not relevant to my life or my writing at this point; I don’t consider myself a reader or writer of literary fiction. However, I am interested in the distinctions that are imposed upon literature in the modern climate. Sadly, I have enough trouble squeezing in the things that I want to do right now!
I have a degree in English Literature and can decode literary fiction if I choose to, but it’s simply not the kind of reading that I enjoy; I prefer to read for entertainment rather than intellectual gymnastics. I like intelligent writing, but not the forced way that literary fiction often comes out. I prefer story over stylistic flourishes (though I enjoy literary techniques that enhance the story).
Plus, a lot of that stuff is aspirations to high-falutin ideals dressed in pretentious clothing, containing little of value except a reason for educated people to sound educated at each other. It doesn’t help that all the writers I know who aim to create literary fiction are pretentious, snobby twits who look down their nose at every other kind of writing. (Maybe it’s just the writers I know that are like this!)
To be fair, I don’t think that literary fiction is a waste of time. It has its place; the nature and purpose of that place is what I’m curious about, as well as how big it is (or could be). For me, it’s like the statue of David: important as a piece of art with the potential to be beautiful and instructive, but I wouldn’t want the sucker standing in my living room.
As a writer, I do take a certain pleasure in crafting words onto a page using literary devices. There is something beautiful about weaving text in that kind of way, the subtle layering of subtext and meanings.
However, it doesn’t always fit with what I’m trying to achieve; it might not suit the voice I’m using or the kind of piece I’m creating. First and foremost, I write for character and story (usually in that order). If I can work in devices, craft clever bits of phrasing or imagery, then I’m happy, but it’s usually subtle and not the point of what I’m trying to convey. I use them to support the story, not the other way around, whereas in literary fiction, the opposite is the norm.
After the talk, I made a joke about starting up a review site for literary fiction, done from the perspective of someone who isn’t enamoured of the form. It’s very tempting! If I had the time and the will to do it, I would. Of course, that would mean reading at least some literary fiction, which sounds more like a job than fun to me. But if I had the time, I’d still do it.
Literary fiction remains an enigma on the periphery of my vision, a voice that expounds away to itself in a posh accent and has little relevance to my life. I am curious, and disappointed that the talk did nothing to illuminate the closed halls of literary fiction. I am left with my assumptions and knowledge from a years-ago degree, and can only consign literature to a corner of my world that I don’t look at very often.
One of the panelists quoted an author (in another talk), who was asked, “What would you prefer: a literary prize or high books sales?” Her answer was, “High book sales, because that means reaching more readers.” (This was the highlight of the talk.) It got a laugh from the audience, but I wonder if that’s because she’s right as well as mercenary.
I can’t remember her name now, but I completely agree with her. I’d rather be read than acclaimed. I write to touch people’s lives, share something with them and hopefully entertain them in the process. That’s part of why I (currently) give my work away for free.
I hope to craft my work well but I don’t need an academic (or a highly-educated critic) to tell me that I can write. It would be nice, I admit, but I’m already fairly confident that I have some skill. I’m constantly learning and seeking out new avenues to gain new insights.
I prefer to create more accessible art. I don’t want to produce some untouchable, coded thing that has to be unpicked like a puzzle box. And I write science fiction, because that’s where my heart lies and I don’t care about literary acclaim.
One day I hope to master both, as I suspect that many writers strive for, because it’s good for us to aim for the stars. I don’t know if it’s possible to get there, but maybe we’ll catch an updraft and fly a little way.
Writing about dangerous ideas
One of the talks that I attended at this year’s Brisbane Writer’s Festival was on ‘dangerous ideas’. It brought up some interesting points, and is a topic that I find fascinating. It’s like a shiny, smooth rock that you turn over in your hands and get the urge to launch through someone’s window.
The first question that comes up is: what is a dangerous idea? What kinds of things are dangerous to write about?
Let’s put aside for the moment the effect of location and what that means for a writer’s ‘safety’. There are many parts of the world where the wrong (right!) type of writing will land you in prison, or worse. The BWF always remembers these writers with an empty chair on the stage at each event, representing all those writers who can’t join us because their writing has caused them to be unavailable. I love this tradition in the festival and applaud their desire to keep these suppressed writers in our minds. However, it’s not quite what this post is about, so I’m going to leave it there.
In the Western world, what is considered dangerous to write about? What raises people’s ire, shakes fingers, or is simply viewed as risque? Should we write about these things? Should we restrain ourselves? All interesting questions, and none of the answers are simple.
The danger of silence
One of the most striking comments from the talk was made by Rachel DeWoskin. (This is badly paraphrased from memory, but this is the gist of what she said.) She said that when it comes to taboo topics – like underage sex, or abuse, or teenage desire, or cannibalism – the most dangerous idea was to not talk about it. The notion of shutting these things away and never looking at them is a terrible one for her, and I agree. Talking about dangerous things is less dangerous than not talking about them.
This reminds me of a conversation I once had with a Jehovah’s Witness on my doorstep. The woman opened the conversation by saying how sad it was that things were so terrible for children these days. How we couldn’t let them play outside on their own, how we had to protect them from the many dangers that surround them now. Wasn’t it awful how things had declined over the years and that things were getting so much worse?
I thought about it for a moment, then I said: No. She looked a bit shocked, so I explained.
It is terrible that there are dangers out there for children and the world is a frightening place. But I don’t think it is getting worse. The difference between the past and the present is that we are talking about it more now. We know about all those many things that might hurt a child, such as abuse, paedophilia, or bullying. It’s not new; we are simply starting to understand the size of a problem that was always there.
Yes, it looks awful, but better to look at it than pretend it isn’t happening. Better to be aware and protect our children. Better to be able to fight it. Awareness is the first step in being able to stop it, not a symptom of a decline into an abyss.
(The woman went away after that. This is something of a pattern with me and people who strike up conversations on my doorstep.)
Part of the purpose of any type of art is to reveal the truth. To examine, to provoke, to ask questions. To make people think about something, even if it’s an uncomfortable topic. Pretending that teenagers don’t have a sex drive might make some people more comfortable, but how does that help a teenager learn how to deal with it, or how to protect themselves from the issues that it brings? How does that help us improve anything?
Sensitivity
So, bringing these issues out into the open is a good thing. That said, when you talk about taboo subjects, how do you avoid sliding into voyeurism, cheap sensationalism, or pornography?
The panel agreed that this was largely a matter of taste (the panel being: Rachel, Tim Richards and Cory Taylor). For some, the mere mention of a subject is pornographic, while the bar is much higher for other readers. As writers (or artists of any type), you cannot guarantee that you’re not going to offend someone.
That’s not to say that you shouldn’t try to avoid offense. Treating the subject matter with respect, sensitivity, and empathy is the best perspective to start from.
Do your research in the area you’re discussing, and talk to the people that you’re writing about. Rachel’s book Big Girl Small is about a girl with a form of Dwarfism, and she consulted hundreds of Little People (I believe that is the correct term) to make sure she got it right. Cory made a short film about a Down Syndrome teenager and spoke with many families with Down Syndrome members about their experiences; afterwards, they thanked her for getting it right.
I think these are good rules of thumb, no matter what subject you’re writing about (taboo or otherwise). Coming from a place of empathy is especially important when you’re dealing with a sensitive topic, though. Again, awareness is key.
Morality
Sadly, the talk didn’t get into the moral side of the issues for writers. This is a part of this topic that I find interesting. While the panel agreed that art should bring taboo topics out into the open, should ask questions, I believe that writing does more than that and cannot avoid morality entirely. The way that taboos are presented makes a difference, and that’s where the moral issue comes into play.
If you have ever had to write a questionnaire, you will know that there are many ways to phrase the same question. The wording that you choose influences the answers you’re likely to get. Someone skilled in this can present a survey and get exactly the results that they’re looking for. As writers, we should be aware of this, especially when handling a sensitive topic. Wording, presentation, and perception matter.
So is there a moral imperitive for writers? Should they only present things in an ethical manner?
I find those questions hard to answer. My instinct is to say: no. Writers do not have to be driven by high moral rules in order to write about taboo subjects. We do not have to present every murderer as a blackhearted demon or a mentally unstable drooler, or every rapist as a violent underachiever.
But writers should be aware that their presentation will colour how a reader views that subject. Is presenting a sympathetic paedophile the ‘right’ thing to do? Is, perhaps, the horror that such a thing presents to a reader the point of such a presentation? Is it possible for a piece of art to excuse it?
What about murder? Look at the Dexter series (books or TV) and how a serial killer becomes the hero, even while he’s exercising his serial killing desires. Look at (the dreaded) Twilight and how it presents a violent stalker and a passive, weak girl, as if they are an ideal for others to live up to.
I find some of these presentations insidious and repulsive. To me, they present a talking-point as something to object to – and this, too, can be the point of an artistic presentation. Prompting talk (sometimes of any kind, even negative) can be a worthy purpose. Sadly, with the more popular examples, too few look at the details and take the surface on faith. Too few question it. The writing slides under their skin and they don’t look any further.
Morality is like taste; it varies between readers and you’ll never satisfy everyone. So should you seek to satisfy anyone?
Like I said, I find these questions hard to answer. Personally, I try to stay true to my own morals and go from there. I suppose that that’s all you can ask of an artist. That, and be conscious of what you’re presenting and how it might be read. That is something that I suspect gets lost much of the time.
Awareness. Sensitivity. Empathy. With these three things, I don’t think that you can go wrong when dealing with controversial topics. But keep dealing with them, because we are the world’s window to the truth, whatever flavour we choose to suck on.
Weekend of writing and awesomeness
It’s been a hell of a weekend, and though it’s Tuesday, it has only just finished for me. Why, you ask? Well, let me explain…
On Friday, my Creative Writing Group met. I decided to do a session on first lines, and took along a list of first lines from novels across a range of genres and periods (many thanks to my friend who helped me to compile the list). Then we discussed them blindly (that is, without knowing what book or author they were from), to see what we thought of them as first lines on their own merits alone.
It was an interesting exercise and prompted a lot of talk. Curiously enough, even though someone didn’t like the first line, they would usually read on to find out the answer to the (annoying) question that was posed. It turns out that grabbing your reader doesn’t have to mean grabbing them in a good way. Boring first lines came out the worst of all, and I think that’s a good rule of thumb: never bore your reader.
After the meeting, there was dinner and bookish chats with my writing-friends. Always good to do that!
Saturday was the day of my RedFest talk, which I have squeeped and babbled about recently. It was my first appearance at an event like that; I’ve done plenty of talks and so on for my CWG, but this was different! And, for the record, I hate public speaking. I’m getting better at it (slowly), but I still got horribly nervous.
Big thanks to my friends for supporting me at the RedFest (you know who you are): helping me set up and giving me tea and sitting through the talk to bulk out the numbers. I didn’t get many attendees (probably about ten in total), but that was fine by me. I hadn’t expected a lot of people to come to the talk; it’s a local fair, and I guessed that most of the people who were seriously interested in writing would be at the Brisbane Writer’s Festival. Why do all of these things have to coincide?
I had some good questions from the audience and managed to cover all the material I had written out for publishing online. Overall, I was happy with how it went, and learned some things to use for next time (should there be one!).
After we had escaped the clutches of the RedFest, I got all dolled up with some friends and headed out for dinner to celebrate my birthday. Had a great time: too much food, cocktails, and ice cream; and much talking and silliness.
Sunday was an early start – we had to be on a train by 8:15 – which was awesome after the night before. Luckily, I was without a hangover (I hadn’t drunk anywhere near enough for one of those, despite pouring Baileys on my ice cream). I was heading to the Brisbane Writer’s Festival, determined to get in at least some of the events before the whole thing was over.
I managed to get to three talks in total, none of which were exactly what I was expecting. They were on the digital revolution in writing, writing about taboo or ‘dangerous’ ideas, and literary vs popular fiction. I was left largely disgruntled with how the talks turned out (apart from the middle one). I plan to write up blog posts about each of them, so I won’t go into detail here – more soon!
In the middle of all of that, I snuck up to the Queensland Writer’s Centre and collared a couple of the lovely, helpful staff. Some more of our NaNoWriMo plans have been sorted out, and the QWC will be supporting us again this year. I’m currently working with them to arrange a write-out in November: writing out on a lawn by the riverside, in shade and sunshine.
I also took part in a writing race at the QWC, captained by the lovely Trent Jamieson. An hour of writing intensively, in a scarily quiet room! I went in with not a clue about what this week’s Starwalker post should be, managed to write almost 2,000 words (!!!), and won the race! Excellent.
I’m still not sure what this week’s Starwalker post will be, but I have a pile of material to massage into something coherent. Whether it will make the post easier or harder to construct has yet to be ascertained.
After such a packed weekend, I took a day’s holiday from work to recover (yesterday). A sleep in, a lazy day on the couch with games and DVDs, and nothing pressing to do was just what the CFS ordered. Then my folks took me out for beautiful slow-cooked steaks (another birthday dinner), and we stuffed ourselves with way too much food.
I’m back at work now and definitely feeling brighter for the break. It’s been crazy but so worth it! Some of the stuff that was talked about over the weekend is ticking at my brain, and once this weeks Starwalker is sorted out, I’ll be turning my attention to capturing those thoughts into posts and sticking them up here. Don’t hold your breath; it might take a while.
Thanks to everyone who made this weekend awesome. Best birthday I’ve had in a long time. Here’s to surviving another year, and to lots more to come!
RedFest talk confirmed
After some back and forth with the organisers of the Redland Spring Festival following my initial squeeing post, I am a confirmed part of the festival program. Terrifying!
I now have my own Writer’s Corner, and a slot to do a talk (4-5:30, 10th Sept). The subject is ‘online publishing’. Now all I have to do is figure out what I’m talking about (it’s a very broad topic!) and try not to get too nervous. I’ve started getting some notes together, from a session I did with my writing group and some more recent material I’ve come across.
Fingers crossed, it should all come together nicely. Less than two weeks to go. Wish me luck (and that people turn up to join in)!
NaNoWriMo plans in motion
This weekend has been busy with a very good friend and fellow NaNoWriMo ML (Municipal Liaison). In between hanging out, watching movies, shopping, and getting nails done, we’ve managed to get some more of our prep done for this year’s NaNo craziness.
We are trying to shake things up a little bit this year. While most of the things we’re organising are following the tried-and-true patterns of the last couple of years, it’d be no fun if we didn’t try to do something a bit different.
Every year, we give out lanyards or hipsters to our writers (or Wrimos), full of useful info, cheat sheets, and hints and tips. We’re redoing the pack this time around, with a bunch of new stuff in there for Wrimos to enjoy.
We’re also doing something a little different for our Kick-Off Party this year. We don’t have Halloween to play with, so instead, we’re doing a scavenger hunt through the parklands where we’re holding the KOP. I’ve never done a scavenger hunt before, but it seems like fun so why not, right? Right.
Yesterday, my co-ML and I went on a scouting mission to the park, armed with maps and pens and a camera. Some wandering around, a pile of photos and some scribblings on a map later, we had the start of a plan for the hunt.
Today, we went through the photos and tried to remember where everything was (and how to get between it all). We now have several sets of semi-cryptic clues (it would be no fun if everyone had the same route to run down) and a setup that should work.
All we need to do now is test out the clue-sets to make sure that they do, in fact, work the way they should, and sort out prizes for the winning team.
It’s all coming together! We have our write-is all booked for the whole of November (at the central cafe we always use, who let us plug in and stay all day), and the party bags for the KOP are all ready to assemble.
I have no idea what I’ll be writing for this year’s NaNo, but the ML stuff is coming along nicely. Can’t wait to get into it all! In the meantime, I should probably start writing this week’s Starwalker post. Onwards!
Starwalker’s 100th post!
This week, Starwalker reached post number 100!
Wow. On the one hand, that’s a startling amount of posts to have up. On the other, it’s taken over a year and a half to get this far.
In 2009, it took my a year to write all three books of the Apocalypse Blog, using over 340,000 words. It was hard work and a hell of a ride, but the best fun. I wouldn’t trade it for anything, but I don’t think I’ll ever attempt that again, either.
In February 2010, I started Starwalker. Now, over 18 months later, I’m over 170,000 words and moving into the final section of the second book. It’s a big change of pace, but one that I definitely needed.
I’ve gone from 7 posts per week to 1, and from 3 books per year to 1. That’s not a bad ratio, I think.
Let’s have some fun stats (because spreadsheets are a great way to procrastinate when the creativity bug isn’t biting). I’ve also been pondering names for the books – they’re below, so tell me what you think!
Starwalker Book 1: Identity (complete)
- Total wordcount: 99,734
- Total posts: 64
- Average wordcount per post: 1,558
Starwalker Book 2: Ownership (in progress)
- Total wordcount: 73,447
- Total posts: 36
- Average wordcount per post: 2,040
In a continuation of my usual pattern, the posts are getting longer as I go on. I’m okay with this! It’s hard to keep the post length down sometimes, but that’s much easier to manage since I abandoned the real-time posting (I can spend three weeks writing a single event if I want, and just have the log posts run on from each other).
This is the kind of milestone that is a good time to take stock. See how far I’ve come and how much story I’ve got still to tell. I’m proud of the body of work I’ve built up already, and I’m looking forward to exploring the plot I have yet to spin into words.
I’ve lived with this story for a couple of years now and it still excites me. At this point, that’s a relief as well as a pleasure! I can’t wait to share the end of book 2, and the third book is snapping at my heels, eager to jump out. There are so many changes coming, and I’m looking forward to seeing how the characters shape up (or fall down, because I’m cruel).
And that’s just the main Starwalker run I have planned out. Don’t get me started on the spin-offs that are taking shape in the dark corners of my brain.
Starwalker isn’t easy to write. It’s challenging and sometimes a struggle to get down, but it’s worth it. Sometimes I grin at the characters; sometimes they make me want to cry. I love all of them, and I adore the readers that have joined me on this journey.
Every writer says that they have the best readers (and they mean it!), and so do I. They’re wonderful to have supporting me, and they’re a big part of why I write. Thank you!
So here’s to 100 posts in, and to the next 100 to come. I hope you’ll all join me and enjoy the ride!