Case Study: The Five Worlds Website
Filed Under: SF Business, Web Design, creativity
…the Academy was founded to detail the story of how Fremont’s Children directed the outcome of the Making War. This is the incredible and unlikely story of how a brother and a sister, and other young heroes, created the balanced forces that drive us today. Although this is a tale of our past, it is still a story in the making. We uncover new bits of information regularly. We invite you to drop in from time to time to see it.
Brenda Cooper, co-author of Harlequin’s Moon with Larry Niven, contacted me a couple of months back, interested in how I might help publicize the release of the third book in her series, The Wings of Creation. I jumped at the chance to get involved.
The first thing I did was tackle the books. In this series, Brenda has built a strong cast of young characters and an interesting setting that is both recognizable and alien at the same time. They’re good “all ages” science fiction, and I really enjoyed them.
From reading the books, I suggested developing a website for the series as if the site was the digital presence of an actual institution in the world. The website would provide samples of the books for reading, and an encyclopedia of information–a kind of reader’s guide, if you will.
The Academy of New World Historians is the organization responsible for assembling the historical texts that make up Brenda’s series. Each book opens with excerpts of interviews conducted by these historians. The goal of the website is to share their publications with the rest of the Five Worlds.
The site is built on a WordPress framework, using a custom theme. It’s fairly straightforward in design and construction to reflect a culture that values simplicity and usability in interfaces. The design uses some jQuery effects here and there for some pizazz–I was really interested in trying out the “expanded navigation” method that I’ve implemented on the home page. You can hover over the section titles and see additional information for the section, such as links to specific topics.
Overall, Brenda has been a joy to work with. I hope you will all check out the site and her books. They’re good stuff, and I would recommend them even if Brenda were not a client.
To Rewrite or Not to Rewrite? That is the Flowchart.
Filed Under: My Writing, SF Business, Speculative Fiction, Writing Process, creativity
I recently received a rewrite request for a story I had submitted. Over my time as a writer, I’ve received rewrite requests that I’ve accepted, and rewrite requests I have turned down–for a lot of different reasons. I realized that my thinking that goes into the decision of whether or not to do so is somewhat complex, and I got to wondering if it was something that a flowchart could describe. After a little bit of playing around this morning, I have created just such a flowchart.
Click on the thumbnail image to view the full size chart. Did I miss any steps that you would have considered? Do you think I am insane for drawing up a flowchart for something like this? Share your thoughts in the comments.
BREAKING: F&SF’s Gordon Van Gelder Does Not Want to Drink The Blood of Your Children
Filed Under: SF Business, Speculative Fiction
Last week, we had a lovely mini-controversy over the poorly announced intentions of the Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction to launch a workshop for newer writers run by Gardner Dozois.
The details that we were able to gather were:
- The workshop will be online.
- The workshop will be limited at first to around 100 writers.
- Gardner will be able to choose up to 3 stories a year from the workshop submissions to appear in F&SF.
The details that we do not know:
- When will the workshop launch?
- How much will it cost?
- How much face-time will you get with the workshop admin with 99 other students?
The issues that weren’t clear to some:
- Whether or not Gordon would pay for the stories that come from the workshop like any other story
- Whether the cost of joining the workshop would in fact include the price of the soul of your first-born child?
- Whether this is a violation of Yog’s Law, in which money flows from the writer to the publisher? (“money flows to the writer”)
The controversy to me was exactly the same as Amazon’s screw-up a few weeks back regarding the database and adult/gay content being removed from listings. It boiled down to this: poor information control and release. It was a PR fubar.
Perhaps I assumed the bes in that workshoppers selected for the publication would be paid just like any new writer, that Gordon was not planning to sell my unborn children into slavery to the Mi Go and that Yog’s Law was perhaps simply bent, but not in a way that was unprecedented. Ultimately, I shouldn’t have to assume, nor should anyone else. Once again, the issue is that, in the absence of real information, the internet will invent a controversy. WhateverFails are spontaneously generating everywhere on the web because a rumor has gotten out of hand and real information has not stepped into to fill the void.
What could F&SF Done Differently?
Gordon and his staff probably should have acted quickly to correct any misinformation being spread (and to their credit, they did so, but I don’t think they did it comprehensively enough). He should have issued a full press release in the first place, outlining every detail of the project, from cost, to duration to “here’s the websites, go sign up.” The first anyone should have heard of this project should have been when every detail was sorted out and ready to go. If you are vague on any aspect, it just gives people an opportunity to see boggarts where there probably aren’t any.
Information about this seemed to leak via hearsay on one blog, and the controversy built rapidly in this infovoid. Damage control would have been to immediately release all information. Unfortunately, I think not every aspect of the project as nailed down, so it seemed that they were rushed to release what they knew so far, which wasn’t and as far as I know, still isn’t everything. I put my name on the list of interested parties and I look forward to learning more.
In general, I think F&SF needs to control its online public relations better (I imagine Gordon might think ‘great, yet another new job I don’t need and didn’t sign up for.’ Sorry, man. ). The problem is, and justifiably so, they see relating with the public online to be an antagonistic thing. n this posts, I am careful not to say ‘Gordon should do…” which is way too easy with F&SF. I’m trying to say “the organization should do…” Because I know F&SF has a team of people, primarily driven by Gordon. Being the only editor-owned magazine of the Big Three in the field, its easy to place the blame or put a face to any perceived problem with the ‘zine. Gordon, for better and for worse, is F&SF in the public eye. You can’t necessarily do that with the Dell Magazines. Their editors generally aren’t making the business decisions. So the criticisms of F&SF often come across as too personal.
That’s unfortunate. F&SF is a good magazine and Gordon is a great editor. The organization needs to reset their interactions with the online world entirely, and designing a good PR plan would be a nice place to start, in my opinion. I have some ideas of how to go about that which I will go into in more detail at a later date.
What Could We the Public Done Differently?
We should be better at realizing when we have partial information and we should be less eager to jump to conclusions based on that partial information. Perhaps our first instinct should not be to write a blog post or to start a comment thread on a forum. Perhaps, when we have suspicions or are considering casting aspersions, we should contact the parties involved over email or phone and ask our questions. If we don’t get satisfying answers, then maybe that is the time to scream from the rooftops. Also, apply some common sense. What in Gordon or Gardner’s long career would ever make you think they weren’t going to pay writers? Yes, it’s important to make sure you get paid as a writer–but these guys are NOT the enemy. I have disagreed with Gordon on matters electronic in the past, but I know that he is a consummate professional.
This latest controversy is made up of mistakes on both sides. The burden of providing clear, accurate, and complete information rests with the publisher/project runners. The burden of the rest of us is to not jump to assumptions without asking questions first when we receive only partial information.
This Week’s Editoral Advice: Do Not Reply to Rejection Letters
Filed Under: SF Business, SF Podcasting, Writing Advice
This is still happening from time to time with my work for Escape Pod. I had kind of thought by now that arguing with an editor over their comments in a rejection letter was commonly considered a bad idea to be avoided at all costs, but I’m still getting these at Escape Pod. Let me put it to you all straight.
Nothing makes me more disinclined to purchase your work than you arguing with me about me not buying a story.
There are a lot of minor mistakes you can make as a slush writer. I overlook most of them. For instance, we get sent things as attachments when our guidelines call for them to be in the body of an email. I might mention it briefly to the submitter, but I don’t hold it against them much. There are so many differing e-submissions systems that I can understand why this happens. No big deal.
But when you decide to quibble with an editor over the points of his or her rejection letter, you’re crossing a professional line. You are entitled to your opinion. It’s a good thing if you have enough faith in your story that you will continue to send it out, because one editor’s opinion doesn’t amount to much, which is why I say my editorial comments are not intended as writing advice.
The main thing it will lead to is an editor not providing you any detailed feedback at all. We will simply write form rejections for your work from then on out. Because nothing is more annoying to me, at least, than someone deciding to bicker over a rejection. It’s not going to change our minds. It’s only going to make you look worse. So we’ll stop giving you points to quibble with. This is not good for you. We don’t want to do this.
It is a no-win situation for the writer.
So just don’t do it. Stick to creating your editor voodoo dolls and slagging us off to your cats. Take out your frustrations another way, even if the editor is dead wrong. It doesn’t matter.
And another thing– I would rather not see replies, even short thank yous, at all. It clutters up my inbox, which I work very hard to keep organized, and your continuing submissions with us is thanks enough. Tack what you want to say on to the cover letter of your next submission. I would prefer that.
Also, Machine Gun Submissions
Oh, and finally, one last thing– it does you no good to send me story after story after story when I’m reading them quickly, when you get rejected every time. You should cool it and wait a bit between submissions. Probably want to wait and let me forget about how I rejected 3 stories in an hour. Because I do notice, and I know other editors do too, especially with e-submissions at ‘zines with relatively fast turnaround times. Nick Mamatas even had a submissions limit. I’m considering implementing one if this keeps up. At the very least, you’ll stop getting such rapid replies.
