
Last night I was lamenting the fact I had no idea what to blog about today. I've spent this week butting heads with a short story that doesn't want to be short. It wants to be a novel. Worse, it is dictating itself to me and refused to be corralled into anything manageable. I finally gave up and wrote about 5k on it and then did a general outline. Hopefully it will now murmur quietly in the back of my head while I finish the current projects on the front 50 burners. The problem, though, is the story kept me from figuring out what to do for MGC.
Thank goodness -- in oh so many ways -- for the internet. I got up this morning and began surfing the blogs I generally follow and found topic overload. So, with your indulgence, I'll link to a few, comment on a few and, hopefully, make a bit of sense.
On the Harlequin/Harlequin Horizon/DellArte Press ongoing debacle,
agent Kristen Nelson comments not only on
Mystery Writers of America (MWA) issuing a statement regarding the removal of Harlequin from its list of approved publishers, but also on her own thoughts and comments to Harlequin editors about this new venture of theirs. Check out her blog for MWA's full comment.
By now, you've probably figured out that one of my favorite blogs is
Smart Bitches, Trashy Books. Friday's post entitled
HuffPo Disses Romance, Stupid-to-Solar-Power Conversion to Come was guaranteed to grab my caffeine deprived attention this morning. Basically,
Alan Eisner's column for the
Huffington Post dissing the romance genre for taking the romance out of, well, romance, had the Bitches up in arms. It seems Eisner went to his local library, checked out 10 romance novels and decided
"The true disservice that the "romance" genre does is that it sucks all the oxygen out of the room." There's more, but you get the drift...he doesn't like it or what it does to literature, real life, etc., etc., etc. SB Sarah, on the other hand, doesn't mince words about her feelings for his column or his method of coming to his conclusion:
"I had higher hopes for HuffPo’s book section but wow, they were dashed against the rocky shores of sweeping generalization and people who don’t know diddly squat talking out their asses. I mean, how else am I to judge the entire offering of a diverse selection of writers discussing all things book except by judging the whole on a limited and asinine sample, right? Right! Of course!"Marjorie M. Liu has a great post about how writers need a routine. Check it out.
As for the future of publishing, a nail was hammered into the coffin with the
closure of Borders UK. The reading public is changing how it wants to buy books -- both dead tree versions and e-versions. It's time the publishers and booksellers quit trying to hold onto old models and adapt to new technologies and new marketing plans. If not, we're going to see more and more headlines announcing failures such as Borders UK.
J. A. Konrath announced his
2010 Ebook Predictions on Tuesday. Among them are Amazon adopting Epub standard format, more publishers getting savvy to e-publishing, print versions packaged with e-versions of books and author exclusivity contracts. If he is right on even half his predictions, I think we'll see the industry start to claw its way out of the hole it's in now. At least I hope so.
Finally, the most eye-catching headline this week, for me at least, was from
Dr. Syntax --
What Publishing Needs More Of: Failure. Admit it, that would make you read on. It did me. Basically, the post was about the "failure" of Rick Moody's experiment to write and post in Twitter-sized snippets a story over a three day period. The project apparently brought out a lot of negative comments and brought up the issue of whether or not Twitter can be an effective tool for book promotion. Dr. Syntax comments:
Maybe the Moody project was a failure. If so, my reaction is: HOORAY! What we need in publishing today is much more failure. The one thing people in the industry can agree on is that the current methods of doing business are showing diminishing returns. The only way we're going to arrive at new methods is by trying dozens, scores, hundreds of new ways of reaching readers, building awareness, and ultimately selling content. Of course, some, probably most of these won't work, but it's through large-scale, repeated failure that we're going to find out what succeeds. As Clay Shirky puts it, "Failure is free, high-quality research, offering direct evidence of what works and what doesn't." 
So, what do you think? Does the industry need to try out new, possibly strange, methods and have a few failures along the way? What about the e-publishing predictions? Agree or disagree. Do you have a writing routine and, if so, what is it?