RLLauthor@outlook.com and @RLL_author GO TO AMAZON KINDLE STORE AND TYPE RLL. YOU WILL FIND MY BOOKS.

Thursday 30 October 2014

STALKING A BOOK REVIEWER: A REPORT FROM A FUGITIVE.

Creepy sexist dick authors...
   WHAT.
   THE.
   FUCK.
   DID.
   I.
   SAY.
   EARLIER?


FUCK.


*

September seems like a fucking lifetime ago. Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness. There was a change in the weather, and a winter wind crept up from the sewers to trouble the streets.

   I wrote about creepy sexist dick author behaviour. If you missed it, HERE'S A BLOG POST ABOUT THAT. I'll wait for you.


*

Okay. (It's very far from being okay.)
   I waited for you, as there was a link, inside that burrow, leading to another warren. All the regular and irregular authors I've spoken to? Yes, we've all joked about stalking.
   Some of my author friends joke about stalking me. (Too many of them. Most of them. Virtually all of them.) I joke that some of my author friends are my stalkers. Making fun of stalking is always couched in the same terms...
   We recognise that clicking a link on the internet carries the feeling, the sensation, of stalking. Even if it is done in the interests of legitimate research. (More on that, later.)
   That's just the way the internet feels. Our actions are separate from the feeling. Researching something doesn't turn us into stalkers. Stalking makes people stalkers. Clicking a link is not the same as standing on someone's garden path after clicking a link.
   We joke, nervously, on many topics. Stalking is one of those scary subjects. We don't stalk, and we hope we aren't stalked. Are fans, or other writers, lurking in the bushes?
   For starters, if you know whether or not there are any bushes...
   See. It's easy to joke about stalking.
   Stalking is wrong. It's a whole world of wrong. As authors, we joke about it with one eye over the shoulder looking to see if we are being stalked as we talk.
   Blogger sites with good advice on internet interaction often use humour to tackle serious subjects. HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF THAT. Work your way through the BLOGGER SUPPORT NETWORK entries at your leisure.
   (No lie. HOW TO CONTACT YOUR FAVOURITE AUTHOR is a must-read.)


*

So. If you read my September blog post on creepy sexist dick authors, and then went further down the rabbit-hole to a humorous take on dealing with stalkers...

   For you, the tone shifted in a potentially jarring way. Consider the posts in chronological order. We are nervous, and can't help but joke about stalking. What we can help is...not stalking, and not standing on some stranger's garden path for real after, oh, taking exception to that stranger's book review.
   All through this year, I've been in receipt of author-related stories on stalking, trolling, and cyberbullying. People on the receiving end of this bullshit still have a sense of humour about it.
   The sense of humour is necessary. It enables us to shrug off the pettiness and multiple inadequacies of these...
   Stalkers/trolls/cyberfreaks.
   Mostly, this crap carries the inconvenience of the fart. We catch a whiff, and we are on the lookout for that stench thereafter. A breath of fresh, and we are okay. We can laugh about it.
   Mostly.


*

That's what the blog post was about on the 1st of June, 2014. Mostly we can laugh about it. Then there's the blog post from the 13th of September, 2014. Bleaker territory.

   I stick to what I wrote there. If I am walking down a street and a woman ahead of me signals she is uncomfortable, I must turn down a side-street.
   It is not cool to run up to her and explain that everything is okay.
   This is not about my perception of how I am doing - it's about the other person's perception. So I don't run up out of a scary place to show that I am safe and harmless. (More on this, later.)
   Hell, when I've returned dropped cash to someone, I've always tried to avoid looking like a mugger coming in on the final run. It's difficult. How do you NOT look like a mugger?
   You'll have to insert your own witticisms there.


*

This is not one of those lighter pieces. You knew that, coming in.

   A story came to my attention. It's the story of a writer who stalked a woman, blogged about it, and turned his obsession into a novel. Later, the book was reviewed by a woman in Scotland. The book was not well-received.
   We are in the dying seconds of October as I type, and, believe me, September feels so long ago it might as well be part of another geological era.
   This month, the Scottish book reviewer was assaulted. It is believed that the assault was in response to a review she made.
   Ah cannae gie oot ony mair detail oan ma blog, fur, if ah dae, ah'll be huckled by rah polis ower contempt o' coort.
   The first thing people question when they hear stories like this on the internet?


   EVERYTHING.

   Absolutely everything. The main question that has been asked? Why have we heard nothing of this in the media? There is an obvious answer. The matter is now before the court, and standard reporting restrictions are in place. Nothing unusual in that - this is the norm.

   Even for a detail-devoid blog post of this nature, I researched the hell out of the story before commenting on it. And so...


*

I know the name of the alleged assailant.

   The victim is also known.
   And I am aware of the time of the attack.
   I know the location of the town where the attack occurred.
   An appeal for witnesses was made by a named Detective Inspector of the polis.
   The weapon was a blunt/sharp implement - a wine bottle.


*

No, I didn't stalk anyone to learn this stuff. Details were willingly put on the internet. I cross-referenced. The story was confirmed via two separate sources. I could then blog about that story. Not comfortably, but you know what I mean. This was no hoax, spoof, or scam.
   Ordinarily, I wouldn't be able to gain so much data on an event like this. Regrettably, the book reviewer placed too much information about the incident online. She then had to backtrack for all the usual legal reasons.
   Caution. The book reviewer posted photographs of her injuries. She was photographed in her work clothes, confirming, by separate means, that she was the woman mentioned in the news report.
   Her story is true. She is a book reviewer. And she was assaulted in her place of work, by a man wielding a bottle of wine. In the interests of trying to find confirmatory detail, I looked at the photos.
   The phrase BOOK REVIEWER WINE BOTTLE ASSAULT is enough to take you to the story, if you desire more news. Digging deeper into that data is not for the squeamish. You were warned.
   This was a story in reverse. Once drawn to my attention, when researching it with a view to blogging, I tried to go straight to a news item on the event.
   That news item was a story about an unnamed assailant wanted in connection with an alleged assault on an unnamed victim. It was the last piece of data I found.
   The first piece of news I wanted was the last item I reached. I didn't stalk my way to that part of the story. Regrettably, I found out too much info on the tale.
   It was the book reviewer's choice, acting as a warning, to post photos of her hospital treatment for assault. And it was my choice to click the link.
   Nothing in my investigation turned me into a stalker. The internet's seeming default setting makes us feel that, though, in any case.
   Or does it? Do genuine stalkers feel like stalkers when they are marching up a stranger's garden path? Somehow, I doubt it.
   What to say of the incident?


*

The wheels of justice do grind, eventually. From charging to trial, and verdict, it is best to say little of exactly who did what, where, when, how, why, and to whom.

   In the interests of justice, the victim has asked people not to report details on the internet for fear of twisting the story. This is to avoid prejudicing legal proceedings and to steer clear of contempt charges.
   Let justice run its course, and we'll have one of the three verdicts in time.


*

I've already written about creepy sexist dick authors. Is there an alcohol test for the internet? I think the web would be arrested most nights and some mornings.

*

People like to discredit these stories. Poke holes in them. Where's the evidence? Well, right now it's in storage awaiting its court date as a production at trial.
   Do not be surprised at the lack of media coverage right now. The story was reported in the Scottish media. A man was arrested. As the legal process unfolds, more detail will emerge.


*

Time to talk about book reviewers. Is it ever okay to stalk them? Or, indeed, anyone? No. There. That was easy. How hard was that?

   It's not okay to be a stalker and lurk outside someone's house.
   Easy.
   It's not okay to be a stalker and turn up at someone's workplace.
   Easy.
   It's really not okay to stalk someone by getting a job at the same place just to be with your Immortal Beloved. That's stalking. Not feeling the love in the room? There ain't any.
   Creepy sexist dick authors...
   WHAT. THE. FUCK. DID. I. SAY. EARLIER?
   I recall holding the view that creepy sexist dick authors were unlikely to be swayed by a blog post. Also, I doubted that a few days in jail would make much difference either.
   Now, at the callow distance of no time at all...
   There's this deeply disturbing incident, aimed at a book reviewer. I'll deal with some questions.
   Is it okay to stalk? No.
   Beyond that, is it okay to defend stalking?
   There is a deep answer to that, set out in well-reasoned argument using all the powers of rhetoric you'd ever hope to display in making a point, and, for the purpose of clarity, I'll summarise that answer:


FUCK OFF.

   Glad we cleared that one up. (More on that, later.)

   Now I'll move to book-specific points. Is it ever okay for an author to leave a comment on a review?
   I've seen comments left on Amazon movie reviews. Want to buy a movie on sale at Amazon? Chances are, people left reviews. Other people likely posted comments on those reviews.
   There's nothing wrong in any of that. People comment on movie reviews for all sorts of reasons. Discussion of technical aspects of movie-making, requests for further info, purposes of comedy, showing fan appreciation, the inevitable trolling...
   What of books? Looking at Amazon book reviews with comments attached, chances are high that you're staring at comments by the author in question.
   Is this okay?
   So far, I've seen two examples that were okay. The rest were very far from being okay. I'll mention the two examples.


*

In a review of a historical non-fiction book, WWII-era, one of the participants was mistaken for another combatant in a photograph.

   A relative reviewed the book, and reviewed it well. He was in a position to make a correction on behalf of the man in the photo. So he did.
   There was a comment. By the author. Glad to hear the old fellow was still alive. Happy to correct the entry in the next edition of the book.
   Obviously, it would've been better to get it right first time. But that comment was reasonable. It provided a bit of banter. And it made the people in the story come to life.
   The example I just gave was exceptional.


*

Here's the second example. Fiction. A thriller. Self-published. The review was okay. Mainly, the reviewer's criticism hovered around the typos.

   There was a comment by the author. He'd gone back in and fixed the typos for the updated edition, and he was glad to have any shortcomings pointed out to him.
   Further reviews noted the author's comment, and confirmed the updated version was typo-free.
   Obviously, it would've been better to get it right first time. But that comment was reasonable. Again, that's the exception.
   In both cases, these matters could have been dealt with away from the arena of the review. A letter to the publisher, or e-mail to the self-publisher...
   Two examples. Out of the many examples I looked at. The others? Train-wrecks, viewed through fingers. I don't want to look, but I can't look away.
   Is it ever okay for an author to leave a comment on a review? Answer: hardly ever, and probably not even then.


*

Should a reviewer ever be taken to task over a review? I mean specifically, by the author in any arena - whether in a review comment or elsewhere.

   If a defamatory statement has been made in the review, there are legal remedies available. Otherwise, an emphatic NO is the answer.


*

Is there anything worse than embarking on a one-man or one-woman crusade against a reviewer?

   Yes. Don't involve friends, family, or anyone you are fucking. There's one thing worse than a reviewer being picked on by hordes of deranged loons who all turn out to be the author in disguise.
   And that's a reviewer being picked on by hordes of deranged loons who all turn out to be members of the author's family.


*

What is my review policy?

   I do have one, even though I don't review books here or on Amazon. That is my review policy. If you are an author I've engaged in contact with, I won't review your books and you are barred from reviewing mine.
   Oh, I may plug your book, or show off your book cover, or, hell, even invite you onto the blog so that you can waffle. But I won't review your book. I may question your culinary taste.
   My friends and family are all banned from reviewing my work. Professional commercial sites bar that sort of nonsense.
   Amazon doesn't allow friends or family members to post reviews on the author's behalf. Of course, low trickery is employed by people who should know better. Book reviewers and book bloggers are savvy, and expose that nonsense. Quite right, too.
   I don't add comments to reviews of my work.
   And I was going to say, I just don't review books...
   Then I remembered something. A ghastly experiment.


*

Yes, goodreads.

   I don't like the site for one rather obvious reason. It's technical. I would probably manage piloting an Apollo spacecraft more easily than I can navigate the slurping mess that is goodreads.
   That's right. The user-interface clearly isn't.
   There you go. My view of the site is ill-tempered by the site. I can't say just exactly what the hell is wrong with it. There's a feel to the site that isn't a feel.
   When you sense that you are using a site through fire-hardened clay gloves, you are using a site that was probably designed by people who knew they'd never have to use the site themselves.
   I found signing up to the site so bad that I promptly unsigned. Then I relented and signed up all over again, only to find the signing-process was radically different.
   What had changed in the intervening hours? Probably nothing. This was merely another symptom of the ill-defined problem. Anyway, that's the reason I don't like goodreads. The site should be more, er, readable.
   However, in my attempt to experiment with writerly stuff, I made a go of it. The one appealing factor was the ability to rate a book without leaving a review.
   Why? Time. The site drains time as though the concept of the black hole went out of fashion. So the quick click process is a good thing.
   Still, I thought. It is better to have a go at leaving reviews.
   As I type, I've reviewed eight out of around two hundred books. That makes me a book reviewer. Well. Damn. Do I live in fear of being stalked?
   Fucking right I do.


*

In reviewing The Human Factor, by Graham Greene, I left myself open to being stalked by a decidedly deceased delineator of tales. No one is coming after me for leaving a review.

   And I'd like to say no one is coming after you for doing same. But I can't guarantee that.
   A stalker, published or otherwise, will go to extreme lengths. In the case of the Scottish book reviewer, I understand that her alleged assailant travelled from London.
   London to Glasgow by bus is at least nine hours of coaching hell. By rail, the journey takes half that. You can fly the distance in a little over an hour, but time reaching Heathrow, and hanging around in the terminal pre-flight, takes the hours spent back up to the equivalent of a train-journey.
   Who would invest the time and money heading from London to (A PLACE IN SCOTLAND), just to confront someone over a book review?
   Fucking hell.


*

As a Scottish writer, I'm shocked at the attack on a Scottish book reviewer. I'd be shocked were the book reviewer located in another country. And I'd be shocked if I weren't a writer at all.

   There are people out there who are very quick to blame the victims in cases like this. Too quick. To that sort of sneering, I can only say there is no protection against the dedicated attacker.
   If anyone is crazy enough to want to kill a president of the United States, he can do it. All he must be prepared to do is give his life for the president's.
John F. Kennedy.
   
*

You do nothing wrong. An opinion is yours to express, free and clear, without let or hindrance. Provided no law is broken in the creation of your opinion, go right ahead and opinionate.

   It's illegal to stalk people. As a writer, I sit here and think it is beyond creepy to stalk a book reviewer.
   Without naming names, speaking of another case, it is lunacy to take exception to a book review, gain the book reviewer's physical land address through a third party, pay for a background check based on that info, travel to the book reviewer's house, and then spin the experience into an article published in a national newspaper.
   The phrase STALKING A BOOK REVIEWER TO HER DOOR will lead you to more news on that topic. I make no mention of the stalker's name here, as, frankly, she's had enough publicity. Plug her on my blog?
   Hell, no.
   Yes, there are people who defended the stalker's article. Is it okay to defend stalking? I refer my audience to the summarised answer I gave just before the phrase GLAD WE CLEARED THAT ONE UP.


*

Incidentally, I once had an author's address foisted on me by a third party during someone else's bankruptcy case. By coincidence, the author was someone whose books I'd recently read.

   Did I take advantage of this coincidence to contact the author? He was a writer who influenced me for about five minutes. I was probably into the sixth minute of that phase when the address flopped through my letterbox.
   No, I had no interest in writing to that author.
   I may be right in misremembering writing to two authors in the time-honoured fashion - through the publisher.
   These days, authors are contactable through blogs, the Twitter, Ouija Boards, and other arcane forms of communication including, though not limited to, smoke-signals, Ectoplasmic Writing, and heliography.
   Stalk an author? Hell. Stalk a book reviewer? Fucking hell. Stalk anyone? For fuck's sake, what a twisted reality. Seek help, Universe, before you end up in jail.


*

All authors are colleagues, and have my support, unless those authors cross the broad line into malice. At that point, those people cease to become colleagues.
   It's a broad line. Writers must trek many a mud-caked mile to cross that really broad line. Don't kid yourselves. There's no thin hazy blurred line or grey fucking area.
   I want you all to think about that massive fucking line that you should not fucking cross. Crossing that banned band sends you out of sight, and it's a long way back from that. The sickly green mud you pick up on the way sticks to you, even if you manage to return.


*

Writing is populated by characters. We are all tuned to our own particular frequency that no one else can see or hear. And there are always going to be people who are tuned to a dangerous frequency. It is deeply saddening to see that book reviewers risk their lives over honest opinions given freely.

   This is not what writing is meant to be about. Did you not like my typing? I won't be killing you over it. But I can't speak for others who may feel insulted at your reviews of their stories. So take care, folks.


*

Stalking someone to that person's home and/or workplace, whether you are a writer or not, is CREEPY. We're talking about whole levels of creepy down in the creepy bunker.

   This stalking of book reviewers is on a level so creepy that it has ten levels of creepy to slosh through before you reach the bunker's creepy heart.
   The creepy bunker is in a park called Creepy Park, and you must cross five miles of spooky shrubbery to reach the rusting wire fence.
   Before you even contemplate that, the first thing you see on your journey is a sign warning of CREEPINESS AHEAD. That sign sits at the start of a hundred miles of creepy wasteland you'll stumble over before you even reach Creepy Park.
   Don't stalk people to their homes, their relatives' homes, workplaces, or, when you get right down to it, anywhere. It's creepy. Don't do it, and doubleplusdefinitely don't turn it into an article for a national newspaper.
   Just do not record your stalking experience in an attempt to portray yourself as the victim of an evil book reviewer. Try not having a stalking experience, and save yourself the bother of writing about it. Don't write it.
   Not in a blog post, not in a personal diary, not in an article for a national newspaper, not even in shit daubed across a wad of toilet roll in the privacy of your own bathtub.
   Don't expect people to defend you if you do that, and, I implore you, take not one crumb of comfort from the news that some misguided fools did step forward to defend your article.
   Just don't, don't, don't, don't, don't stalk people home.
   Fuck. I thought September's blog post was a real low for writers. How wrong could I be? Scarily wrong. That's how wrong.
   I blogged in September about walking along a street and turning aside when my ordinary behaviour caused a stranger discomfort. The wrong thing to do is run up and say all is okay. It's not about how non-scary you think you are - it's about how scary the other person thinks you are.
   And I never thought I'd make a reference to that again. Certainly not in the next effing month, FFS.
   In the case of the woman who wrote the article on stalking, she persisted in the belief that she could still have some form of contact with the woman she stalked once the whole mess blew up.
   Yes. This author ran up from a scary place to say that things were okay. But things were very far from being okay.
   I've used a paid-for document research service. There was a piece of family history in need of settling. No documents were available, and I had a conversation with officials about why that was. The matter was settled to my satisfaction. Case closed.
   The only other time I considered using a paid-for tracing service was to locate a friend all my other friends keep asking about. That friend disappeared. By this, I mean fucked off and left. So that friend knows where to find us. For that reason, I let it go and never paid to find out more.
   I would never pay to hunt down a book reviewer.
   Now I'll run out of words. I'm just about done. Fucking hell.

*

I have no great point to end on. There wasn't anything profound to start on. Just don't follow book reviewers to their homes. How hard is it to simply not be a serial stalker or serial killer or...
   Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.
   Book bloggers and book reviewers do what they do out of the kindness of their kindness. They are almost always unpaid for voicing an opinion. I feel that they should not pay a high price for doing something they like doing as a service to others.
   Reviews are for potential readers. Not for potential stalkers.

*

My blog comment policy is straightforward. Comments are almost always posted. I don't post spam comments or defamatory ones.

   If you wish to comment on this post, in the interests of a fair trial, please refrain from naming names in your thoughts about this particular story.
   You may be scribbling and typing away in America, but the court case is happening along the road a good bit...and I have to live here without the polis kicking in my door.
   As for the other case. I'm not naming her here, and I'd ask you not to name her in the comments.
   There will, sadly, inevitably, be other cases in a similar fashion. I make no apologies on behalf of stalkers - but I will add that some of these people must have mental health issues that need to be addressed. There's no desire to stigmatise those with mental health problems. Tolerance, sadly, is tested.
   With that in mind, here are some links...

SCOTTISH ASSOCIATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH.


END MENTAL HEALTH STIGMA.


*

Scottish-themed links to anti-stalking resources:


ACTION AGAINST STALKING.


ABOUT THE LAW.


STOP IT NOW.


VICTIM SUPPORT.



*


THIS ENTRY WILL HAVE A FOLLOW-UP POST,
PENDING THE OUTCOME OF A COURT-CASE.
IN THE MEANTIME, SEE THIS MINI-RANT.

Saturday 25 October 2014

WRITERS AND CLEANING: A REPORT FROM A FUGITIVE.

At the end of my previous post I trotted out the view that you should write your material at speed, edit, and publish.
   Though it seemed off at a tangent - the post was about clicking in the ear - I had a point. The point was...
   I wrote that blog post at speed, edited, and published. There was no room for faffing about. A short piece is a short piece is a short piece. Write it. Is it done? Yes. It is short. Cook it in the oven for a few minutes...
   Now that it is warm, remove the piece from the oven. You are done with it.


*

Something you are never done with is cleaning. Three tonnes of coffee particles? Swept away in the jumbo-sized dumper truck I employ for purposes of comedy. There'll be more particles to clear tomorrow.
   What am I really talking about, though?
   Paperwork, in the digital age. Yesterday, I shuffled books around and raised a shelf by one peg-hole. This dramatic change means more space for taller books on the lower shelf. I knew you were just bursting to ask about that.
   Today I recycle documents. Those in need of shredding go to a separate pile. This is part of office mismanagement. I've yet to lose the wrong piece of paperwork to the shredder.
   And I've yet to see the back of the paper-filled office, even in this Digital Age. An age, incidentally, that fell gradually on us with its casual snowflake-on-snowflake approach to insidious infiltration.
   Do I deal with more paperwork, now that the world is a digital place? No. I just notice more of the paper-based stuff. Or maybe I save it up into huge piles before dealing with it.
   Writers and cleaning. Not coffee. Though coffee must be swept away. Cleaning the office. And not the office. Not the paper that piles up. Routine.
   I'm talking about the routine of dealing with things. Shifting a shelf was about planning far ahead. I do that planning thing, sometimes.
   Not here, as I've run out of steam. This blog post just died. Maybe I wanted to let would-be writers know that the office is a living breathing thing that will fall over and squish you if you don't maintain it.
   Today, which is far from over, I went through the house looking for paper to throw into the recycling monster's maw. That bin was practically empty. It is now impractically half-full.
   No, I haven't finished going through the house. To my left, more chunky slabs of paper. Ah, but I see that it is Coffee o'Clock.
   I must away, to chivvy the scurvy knaves into setting the java-sails while I plot a course to the land of Caffeine.

*

Days pass. And still, I must see to this endless tide of paper. Where the fuck is this stuff coming from? It breeds in the night. And during the day.
   I have cleared most of the office and much of the library. But there are shelves stacked with unloved paperwork that I must now see to. That is a cheap way of saying I'll be taking a flamethrower to some more material shortly.
   Perhaps I am the only one left. No one else operates in this way. You all went digital, you swine, leaving me to glance belatedly skyward as piles of books topple and blot out what little sunlight there is.

Saturday 18 October 2014

CLICKING IN THE EAR: A REPORT FROM A FUGITIVE.

Last night, I heard clicking in my left ear.
   What the fuck is that?
   It's the non-right ear.
   Doesn't make it the wrong ear.
   Might make this the wrong sound.
   Have aliens hatched inside my left ear?
   Or bugs?
   Wait.
   The aliens could manifest as bugs.
   So we can't rule that out.
   This is what happens when a writer hears clicking in the ear.
   Just jump straight to thoughts of alien invasion.
   But wait a bit.
   Suppose I am the alien invader here.
   Somehow I have manifested myself on an alien dimension.
   And the clicking is the alien response to MY attack.
   Fucking hell.
   What should I do?
   Retreat?
   Yes.
   Retreat from that alien dimension.
   How?
   Don't know how I warped in.
   Pretty sure I don't know how to warp out.
   Anyway, insects had not planted larvae in my ear.
   I took that handy tool, the smallest finger, and investigated.
   Maybe a globule of soapy water caused all the bother.
   I suspected this was the case.
   The water dried out and the soap cracked and popped like dynamite in the fire.
   Or something.
   I don't know.
   What I do know is this...
   No clicking in the ear today.
   Or in the other ear.
   Write your material at speed.
   Edit.
   Publish.


Saturday 11 October 2014

THE TIRED IDEA OF DIGITAL PUBLISHING AS A GOLD RUSH: A REPORT FROM A FUGITIVE.

This blog post is on a long road, judging by the title alone. Where to begin? Define digital publishing. Then define gold rush. Sounds easy. (Mm.) Talk about the idea of linking the two, then mention the tiredness of same.
   There's a tired idea concerning the definition of a tired idea, but we'll leave that for another time.


*

Digital publishing: the publication of work, factual or fictional, by electronic means - the material is readable on a variety of electrically-powered devices.

   Electronic books may be published via print simultaneously or at a later date. It's possible to regain rights to a paper product long-vanished from shelves, and resurrect work digitally.
   The publisher might be as huge as the largest conglomerate, or as small as one person. Height is not a factor.


*

Gold rush: dream-based migration to fresh fields and pastures new.

   I must elaborate, lest I mislead readers into thinking I'm writing The Digital Devil's Dictionary.
   Gold, or silver, lead, take your pick and mine a bit...
   A commodity is discovered. (We may have problems with this word. Good.) Commodity. We'll go with gold, in this example. Toil is required to extract the material. Selling that stuff on at a profit, nugget by nugget, is the start of things.
   Expertise is required to get at the good stuff. Finding gold on the surface, via panning, is laborious. Your panner lacks the resources to set up a full-blown mine.
   The cry goes out. Money is lying around, waiting to be swept up. Gold for all. Hooray!
   I'll repeat myself.
   Toil is required to extract the material.
   People rush in from all over. Small concerns sell out to larger ones, and industry steps in. Individuals make fortunes, it's true. A gold rush is a complex thing.
   First, you have gold. Then there's a rush. After that, things are skewed.


*

I had to stop and think about the awkwardness of using a gold rush to describe digital publishing. It was pointed out to me, on the streets of San Francisco, that many old ships went to landfill.

   Chunks of San Francisco teeter atop the bones of ancient hulks. How did that come about? Gold fever. Ships landed in the port and crews jumped ship to make easier fortunes. (Cough, splutter.)
   Many a time I found myself on a street named for John Sutter. His agricultural empire was doomed when an employee found gold at Sutter's Mill.
   James Wilson Marshall was mentioned a few times when I wandered the bay. He found the gold. Sutter wasn't happy. Gold fever is a rancid phase, turning minds to thoughts of panning, nuggets, and wealth.
   Cynically, with a nod to Ambrose Bierce, the other phases of that game are just as rancid.
   Sutter and Marshall didn't gain from the gold rush of 1848. Who did? Hoteliers. Laundries. Tool manufacturers. Bawdy houses. Legal eagles specialising in mine litigation.
   A prospector's prospects weren't great.


*

Detour. Just to show you more of the same. Howard Hughes was a wealthy fellow. He studied law. The man knew the value of a patent. He filed patents for a two-cone rotary drill bit.

   Then he leased the technology instead of selling outright. Hughes made a fortune out of the oil industry. Not by hunting for oil. And not by selling oil.
   Hughes came in and made money out of the tools used for the job. Technically, he made money out of patent law. When he died, his son inherited most of the family business. A tangled tale. That Howard Hughes became a billionaire. This is not his story.


*

A commodity is discovered. The masses flock to the locale, to obtain that commodity through work. Prospectors hope to earn a fortune. The rush itself becomes as important as the gold.

   Why? Laundry. Law. Tools. All the extra things that go with the industry. The drill bit that digs for oil has a great value to it.
   Panning for gold?
   You'll want lanterns and picks and all sorts of things. Tents. Enter Jacob W. Davis and Levi Strauss. Strauss sold the canvas. Davis provided the rivets and orange thread.
   Their later work came out of the gold rush in the 1850s. The patent for a distinctive style of jeans went through in the 1870s when Davis filled a demand for railway workers.
   Gold led Strauss to California so he could sell goods to prospectors. Davis ended up there and tailored. Their business association, forged in the gold rush years, created Levi's.


*

A gold rush goes through phases. Discovery of the gold. A cry in the night. Gold fever in all who hear the cry. True gold fever in those who heed the cry.

   Side-businesses spring up. Gold seams are mined and mined out. Other metals are mined thereafter: silver, lead, or whatever is geologically associated with the location.
   When truly mined out, what's left? Other industries may spring up down the decades. Hell, there's always tourism.
   Discovery of the Comstock Lode, bearing silver, came a decade after California's famous gold rush. Cue silver rush. Same story. The men who discovered the find didn't benefit from it.
   Ancient history? The Comstock Lode is still there. There are mining concerns. But it's the tourism that features heavily.
   Same story, I was saying. I meant something by that. Gold in California. Silver in Nevada. Rush. Fortune. Small business turns to big business. Travel is the ultimate winner. People in Levi's jeans take the tour.


*

Digital publishing. You can pick and choose features of the gold rush and apply those to digital publishing. I see why people speak of a gold rush in publishing.

   It's the rush that's being talked of. The movement of writers who turn to self-publishing an electronic book on Amazon, or wherever. A surge of a shift in behaviour, not just a shift in behaviour itself.
   But it's not an electronic gold rush. For a number of reasons. Okay, there are people like Howard Hughes (Senior) and Jacob W. Davis and Levi Strauss who make money from side-businesses related to publishing electronically.
   I'll give that much.
   But gold is used very weakly in an attempt to describe a model that just isn't there with books. I see why people say authors turn to self-publishing in the hope that those writers strike gold.
   It's a catchy image forced on the digital world. A prospecting author doesn't have the wherewithal to set up as a major publisher, so the prospector turns to panning gold - self-publishing - in the hope of hitting a major seam. An audience.
   On a side-note, let us deal with that audience. Prospector discovers gold. Wants a team to help mine the seam. So he goes into a deal with big business and takes his cut.
   That's a self-published author gaining an audience and attracting the attention of a major publisher. Big business buys up the small profitable claims that could lead to bigger bucks.
   The big business that steps in cannot guarantee that outcome. If there is a gold rush in digital publishing, are loads of prospectors left by the wayside as big business comes in to do deals with the lucky few?
   Fuck off.
   I say that, as big business would have you believe it. The story of a self-published writer who makes it big and then signs a deal with an "authentic" publisher who is there to foster culture, and curate books, and promote talent...
   Just. Fuck off.
   Yes, that is the tone of my view. Damn if it ain't eloquent.
   If there's a gold rush, the big professionals are left to muscle in and take over. Right?
   Yes. But in digital publishing? Wrong. The model does not exist. It's the big publishers who are scrambling to deal with the digital world, even at this late stage.
   And the stage is late. They should have adapted more, and more swiftly. There's no gold rush here. No grabbing of land. But I have veered off, and not in enough depth to satisfy the roots of any point.
   My real problem with this whole thing is the product. A book is not a commodity. It is not universal in application. That's the main feature of a commodity.
   At this point you may wish to investigate the word fungible. You might hold to the fervent belief that a commodity is simply a thing. Something to trade. And you may say that every product is a commodity. We part company on that point.
   You are in the oil business, and produce barrels of oil. The customer wants oil. And the customer isn't in a position to reject the oil on the basis that the oil is cheese - that it's in the fiction category, instead of the biographical oil the customer was looking for.
   The commodity has universal use. Gold is gold is gold. The most money I saw in one place was on display in a case of coins. The Brasher Doubloon seemed lost...
   You can read about that in The High Window, by Raymond Chandler. The movie is called The Brasher Doubloon.
   That expensive coin seemed a little lost in the same space as a Double Eagle. No change from $8 million if you are thinking of buying.
   Look at that. Coins. The most money I've ever seen in one place.
   Then I went downstairs to the gold vault and stared at billions of dollars. Undercover Treasury Agents are easy to spot outside New York's Federal Reserve Bank. They are, quite simply, everyone on the street. Including dogs and one or two hydrants.


*

Gold rush. The desirous end result of mining gold is gold. Just as the wished-for end result of drilling for oil is oil. Farming wheat most likely produces wheat. But writing, though it produces text, creates something that isn't a true commodity.

   You may argue, and argue successfully, that there are aspects of the e-book business which make writing seem like a commodity. Okay, argue about seeming. Is seeming reality? No. It merely seems so.
   At some basic level, you can say a fictional/non-fictional work provides a story. The story is the commodity. Only if you treat every story as being the same.
   So, again. No. Stories aren't the same. Some of them don't even have beginnings, middles, or endings. Many are middling. Not all.
   Processed gold sits in a vault. The purity is established. It matters not where the gold was mined. And it little matters where the gold is stored, bought, sold, or moved.
   No apologies to bankers for that last sentence.
   It's gold.
   Processed oil is stored, waiting to be used as fuel. It matters not where the ancient creatures settled in the mud. In the end, their remains were converted into oil. Fuel is a commodity.
   The reader of a book may turn his or her nose up at a western. Comedy. Horror. Tragedy. Romance. The book, fictional or non-fictional, isn't a commodity.
   Though aspects of a gold rush model are often applied to digital publishing, there is no gold rush in the world of creating books. Yes, people may offer services related to book production.
   Editing. Formatting. Cover design. Publicity. Legal advice. Let's throw in laundry and prostitution while we're here. Rent your drill bit from Howard Hughes. Buy a tent. Set up camp. Wear jeans.
   But rush for gold? You have to write the book. Skill? Useful. Determination? Also useful. Talent, whatever the hell that is? Let's not deny it could come in handy.
   You are creating a product, not a commodity. A peculiar product, that depends on taste. On liking, on leanings, on whims...
   And on the language used. The book is not as universal as is metal. Gold requires no translator. It's a commodity.
   Gold is gold is gold. We've given it a globally-accepted value. As far as a book goes, the sense of value is set up by the consumer. Was the book worth the time to read? And the financial cost, was that worth it?
   Oil is oil is oil. You can use oil as fuel.
   A book may serve to waste your time instead of serving to enrich it. It can't have universal gold-like interchangeability. And by hell, it shouldn't. Therein lies the fun.
   Sadly, a book can be used as fuel.
   Yes, you have to strike it lucky to find gold. But once you've found that fucker, it's GOLD.
   Hell, you can write a book. But there isn't a trading price for it on the Exchange. You can get nothing for it. But you'll always get something for gold.
   Oh, I hear you. Your story strikes it lucky and sells and THAT is the gold to you. But only to you. It isn't gold.


***


Hell.
   I wasn't going to publish this rambling chat about the non-fungibility of books. Fungible things? What are those?
   They are interchangeable things, to the extent that the exchanged things are of equal value or use.
   Similar-sized paper books are fungible only when burnable. Not to go all Ray Bradbury on you. Doesn't mean burnable books qualify as a commodity.
   (Go and write your own sci-fi dystopia in which this is the case. I'll read Ray Bradbury while I wait for you.)
   There's no commodity worth talking about, when it comes to a so-called digital gold rush and e-books. Even though aspects of the business take on some of the symptoms of gold fever.
   I've made more money editing fiction than I've made writing it. In addition to panning for gold, I sold tents and picks and lanterns. See how easy it is to create this imagery? But I don't see that as participating in a gold rush.
   By all means, gauge and denigrate my views based on your opinion of a number reflecting my book sales. I'll be over here laughing at you, because, if you'd do that, you'd do it if I wore a purple suit.
   You want to hunt for gold? Yes, you might just find it lying around. Meanwhile, in the world of writing, you don't have a commodity.
   By the sweat of your brow, a novel is formed. Well done. It isn't gold. You may think it is. I should probably end on a witty punchline about iron pyrites. Google it.
   By using a very loose definition of commodity, you may say that a book as a product and as a thing is also a commodity. The word has moved on from earlier times and meanings.
   Raw mined materials turned to processed materials, and agricultural products, are commodities these days. Those potato mines are damned busy.
   To get through this blog post, I am saying all commodities are products - but not all products are commodities...I'm going to talk about the non-fungibility of books as a way of shooting down a tired idea of digital publishing as a gold rush, and I want the readers to get what I am saying when I use the word commodity.
   Now you may add that a digital gold rush exists in publishing. But to accept a book as a commodity is to walk down the path of accepting that a book is fungible - exchangeable, tome for tome.
   If you don't read Russian, is that Russian book of readable use to you? That exact tome? For the translated volume is a different book. It carries a different level of value and of use, at least, to me. Probably to you, too.
   Books are not fungible. Not a commodity in the sense applied here. There is no gold, and no gold rush, in digital publishing. As with any business, there are aspects of business that carry from one to another. But I'm just not keen on this gold rush cliché, hence the blog post.
   Also, there's the end. The seam is mined out. In digging for precious metal, that is the way of things. But with stories, different stories, non-fungible stories, fiction keeps on going - even over the same ground, in different ways.
   Prospectors sell out to larger concerns and the small operator vanishes. Not in digital publishing. It's the large business that is struggling to continue, in digital publishing. No gold rush here.
   There's only so much gold in them thar hills. But fiction's seam seems endless...
   The day that seam runs out, our species is gone.


*
   
Did you get any of the rant splashed on your shoes? There's no commodity to mine. So what are you rushing to? Not gold. Our world is digital. Should there be special pleading for the world of writing?
   (All businesses have their own peculiar tax arrangements. Let's leave it at that.)
   Prospectors pan and sell out to mining conglomerates. Is this happening in publishing? No. Seams are tapped out, in the end. Is this happening in publishing? Only in the sense that all writers hang up their boots or die in them.

Saturday 4 October 2014

WRITERS. THE BEST AND WORST CRITICS OF OUR WORK: A REPORT FROM A FUGITIVE.

This piece I wrote was great, though that piece I wrote was shit.
   Opinions change.
   That piece I wrote was great, though this piece I wrote was shit.
   And so on.
   One of the influences on this blog was the broadcaster Alistair Cooke. I well-remember a talk he gave on the Supreme Court of the United States and its sloth-like struggle to set views down in law.
   (The internet tells me Cooke's talk was from the 25th of June, 1999.)
   Cooke spoke of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Tom Clancy did not give us the phrase clear and present danger. Step forth, Oliver, and be recognised.
   Wendell Holmes, a Civil War veteran to whose name we must add Junior, was in the habit of writing profound statements. His words would affect the good and bad citizens of the USA.
   He found that writing the piece and leaving it for a few days was no good. Other judges on the panel wondered at the effectiveness of a decision written in unseemly haste.
   Holmes was in the habit of writing his legal decision at one sitting. Letting it lie overnight or across a weekend was good enough for him, if not for his colleagues.
   To get around this problem, Holmes changed his routine. Oh, he did the same thing as usual. He penned the decision in one go - not letting the next dawn rise on his efforts midstream, as it were.
   Then Holmes changed tack. He let the piece lie in a drawer for three months. This allowed the decision to age in the wood.
   His colleagues, let in on the work further down the line, must have thought Holmes possessed of the wisdom of Solomon.
   What's my point?
   As soon as you write a piece, you might love it to bits or hate it to pieces. So shove it in a digital drawer for a little while. Return to it. Read over what you've written. Fix any obvious blunders. And then release the piece to the world.
   The world will form its own views. And those may change with time. So don't concern yourself overmuch with opinions. You write the story you were meant to write...
   Don't let your best and worst critic get in the way of that story. Be there when you write it, and walk away when you are done.