As long as I’m doing the mad crazy book pimp thing, let me not neglect Scott Westerfeld, whose concluding volume of the Midnighters Trilogy, Blue Noon, comes out tomorrow (but is available to order off of Amazon today). The Midnighters books are excellent YA, but you don’t have to be an angst-ridden teen to enjoy them (it just, you know, helps). Here in Scalzi-land we’ve been feeding the Midnighters books to our niece after we’re done reading them, you know, to hook another kid. It seems to have worked. Read them now before they’re turned into a TV series; that way you can say were into them when they were still in the “keepin’ it real, old school” phase.
And as long as I’ve pinged Scott, let me also ping his hubby Justine Larbalestier, who is also a fabulous YA writer and whose upcoming book Magic Lessons I will undoubtedly pimp here in another 17 days. Today, however, Justine’s thinking on self-promoting authors, and where the fine line is between appropriate and useful self-promotion and just being an annoying twit about it. This is indeed something that any writer with half a brain worries about — on one hand, how can you expect anyone to promote your work if you won’t promote yourself? But on the other hand, no one likes a jerk who can do nothing but talk about his or her own work, to the exclusion of every other topic.
I don’t want to go into this too deeply here because I think you all should visit Justine’s site and comment there, but I think here are three things I would say:
1. For everyone but authors: First-time authors/novelists get a pass. Because you know what? It’s their first time. For God’s sake, be just a little extra-tolerant and let them enjoy the moment. You can give them the “dude, you’re being a dick” speech if they’re still pulling the same stunts with book #2.
2. That said: First-time authors, try to have a sense of scale, or at the very least, keep your navel-gazing to a single, safe place — like, for example, your own blog. Some of you may recall that January 2005 was “All Old Man’s War, All The Time” here on the Whatever, which annoyed at least one other science fiction writer something fierce. But, one, it was my first novel and I was excited about it and anyone telling me to calm down about it could be invited to kiss my ass (see point number one above). Two, it was all on my site and not much of anywhere else. If you can’t do a little happy dance in your own home, virtual or otherwise, where can you? Out in the real world, however, I tried to keep the megalomania to a dull roar.
3. Authors on their second book and thereafter: If you’re worried about excessive auto-pimping, there’s a simple and equitable solution, which is that for every time you pimp yourself in any form, you pimp another writer before you pimp yourself again. Doesn’t have to be the same other writer each time, mind you. Spread the love around, friend. Also, of course, be sincere about your pimpage; don’t just name-check some random writer dude so you can start the conversational mad rush back to you, you, you. People aren’t stupid. They’ll figure that one out. Fortunately, most writers know other writers with whom they are friends and/or whose work they admire. There’s always someone to give writerly love to.
Pimping other writers does two things: first it keeps you from looking like an irritating egotistical git, and second it starts the virtuous karmic cycle of writerly regard, in which other writers will offer up the same consideration to you. So, in short, pimp onto others as you would have them pimp unto you (be very aware, however, that this should not be a “quid pro quo” thing — i.e., if you pimp someone and then keep score to see if they pimp you back, you lose all your writer karma points and in your next life you come back as a slush pile reader. Oh, stop with the screaming. You can avoid this fate).
Anyway, that’s how I think one deals with self-promotion.
Fell asleep at 8:30, woke up at 3am: Man, I don’t even know what’s wrong with me. Anyway, now that I’m officially not tired, I thought I might write up an “odds and ends” sort of thing. Looking back after having written it all I realize it’d probably read better broken up into at least three separate entries (it’s just that long), but I’m too lazy to do that now. Read a chunk, take a rest, have a light snack, and then come on back for the rest.
* One of the cool things about being of a certain age (which is, mid-thirties) is that one’s contemporaries have moved on from being flunkies and underlings and are now beginning to run things and do interesting stuff. For example, my old pal Erin McKean, who used to work at the U of C’s student newspaper with me, is now Editor-in-Chief of US Dictionaries for Oxford University Press, which I think is a pretty awesome job to have, because, dude, she’s in charge of all the words. During our discussions about another matter entirely, I somewhat pathetically hinted that I had accidentally dropped my personal dictionary into a tar pit (or something), which resulted in the arrival of The New Oxford American Dictionary, second edition, as well as the Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus, both of which Erin edited and/or oversaw production.
And you know what? They’re both actually delightful, which is not a word one generally uses with dictionaries and thesauri. But it works here. Both books are really well-designed books in a visual sense, which makes it easier to use them intelligently. For example, the dictionary highlights word usage in grey boxes to alert you when there’s an issue or controversy with a word. To use a recent example from this very blog, here’s what the NOAD, 2nd ed has to say on “alright”:
The merging of all and right to form the one-word spelling of alright is first recorded toward the end of the 19th century (unlike other similar merged spellings such as altogether and already, which date from much earlier). There is no logical reason for insisting that all right be two words when other single-word forms such as altogether have long been accepted. Nevertheless, although found widely, alright remains nonstandard.
I’m not at all fan of “alright” myself, but this dovetails into my thinking that the word had the misfortune of being popularized in an era during which books on grammar and usage became the rage and found itself on the wrong side of the proper usage fence. I suppose this makes makes the “all right”/”alright” thing like a secret club handshake, i.e., if you know how to use it correctly you can get into the Grammar Club, which is like Mensa, except with watercress sandwiches rather than Cheetos for snacks.
The Writer’s Thesaurus, in addition to all the usual synonyms and antonyms one finds in such a book, has a very cool feature in which an eclectic group of word users which includes David Foster Wallace, David Auburn and Stephin Merritt (yes, music fans, that Stephin Merritt) contribute little essays on the word usage; it’s quite a thing to have David Foster Wallace warn you off from using “utilize” (“using utilize makes you seem like either a pompus twit or someone so insecure that he’ll use pointlessly big words in an attempt to look smart”) or to have Erin herself — Mistress of All Words, remember — explain how “classy” is a self-defeating words because “anything described as classy generally isn’t.” This is appallingly true if you think on all the women you know who have described themselves to you as classy, usually through lips from which dangled a Virginia Slim (men don’t use the word to describe themselves; indeed, if a man were to use the word to describe himself, a group of other men would spontaneously appear from offstage and proceed to beat the holy living crap out of him).
In short, both the NOAD, 2nd and the Writer’s Thesaurus are fun to read, as well being excellent reference texts powered by the unfathomably large database of words known as the Oxford English Dictionary. If you’re looking for a new dictionary and/or thesaurus, these two really are excellent, and I recommend them. My hat is off to Erin on these. They’re great. I’m glad she’s in charge of all the words.
(as an aside, read this story from the New Yorker about the word “esquivalience,” which is to be found in the NOAD, 2nd ed and in other dictionaries, much to the amusement of Erin and her staff.)
* Good news for people who don’t want to pay $60 for a hard-to-get copy of Jeff VanderMeer’s City of Saints and Madmen: Today marks the release of a new trade paperback edition, which is rather more reasonably priced. Also to entice you, the book has its own site devoted to it, on which you’ll find book-related music and art, and selections from the book itself. Jeff writes both more artfully and more weirdly than I do, so if “weird and artful” is what you want from your reading experience — and I don’t know why it wouldn’t be — you’ll want to check out this book.
* Also recently in the mail: a big-ass package of books from Pyr, which is tearing things up with some really excellent SF releases. In the package were two books I’m particularly interested in: Ian McDonald’s River of Gods and Keith Brooke’s Genetopia, the former of which was nominated for just about every award possible and the latter of which just got a nice starred review in Publishers Weekly (“impressively conceived, poignantly drawn”). River appeals to me particularly because I am researching India at the moment for one of my own books; I cracked open the book yesterday to check out a few pages and lost an hour and a half, which was no good because i’m behind on a couple of things — damn you Ian McDonald! But once I get squared away I’m looking forward to diving into River more fully, as well as Genetopia.
* Conservative blogger Joseph Tranfo reviews The Ghost Brigadeshere, and sees parallels between my discussions of choice in the novel, and a historical concept called “contingency,” which has a champion (or so Tranfo suggests) in a conservative historian named David Hackett Fischer, and in which history can be seen as “a series of real choices that living people actually made.” Says Tranfo: “As a conservative, Scalzi’s ‘choice’ theme resonated with me, and that might very well be why I enjoyed the book as much as I did.”
I’ve not read Fischer nor am acquainted with the “contingency” school of historical thought, but I certainly see it as axiomatic that history is the result of individual choices. I can see the argument that a focus on individual choices could be seen as a conservative thing (particularly if viewed in opposition to a Marx-inspired view of the power of the masses in a world-historical sense), but I don’t particularly view it through a political filter. My fundamental view of individuals and the importance of the choices they make actually comes from Einstein, via one of my great teachers, Larry McMillin, and his Individual Humanities class at the Webb School of California. Einstein, who thought a great deal on education, wrote that the aim of education should be the creation of “independently acting and thinking individuals who see service to their community as their highest life crisis.” Humans are capable of acting individually and making choices; therefore humans should be encouraged to act individually and make choices, and also taught that choosing to make a positive difference in the world through their own actions is a critical thing.
This conceptualization of the importance of the individual is rather immutably a part of Western thought, and an integral part of the American character, although the “service to the community” aspect gets lost from time to time, whether in a 70s “looking out for #1” way, an 80s “greed is good” way, a 90s “what do I care, I have shares in an Internet company” way, or in the top-down “the hell with anyone making less than $100k” way of the current moment. One somewhat recent American leader who did memorably crystalize the idea of the individual in service to his community was John Kennedy, when he said “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Now, whether Kennedy’s implementation of that sentiment was effective or not, it’s still a galvanizing line, and reflects the idea that we, as individuals, have to make choices and have to act on them for the betterment of ourselves and others.
The power of the individual — and of the importance of individual choice — probably is a conservative idea, in a very old school definition of the term, but it also gave birth to liberal thought — again, in a very old school definition of the term. So in the end, as a purely political matter, it’s probably a wash, particularly in current American politics, in which the terms “conservative” and “liberal” have been unmoored and are now free-floating nonsensical terms whose definitions are relative to loci of power. George W. Bush, for example, is conservative by any sane definition of the term exactly as much as I am a bicycle; if a liberal politician had tried to do the things he’s done during his presidency conservatives would have met up in their think tank parking lots to fire up their torches and then marched down Pennsylvania Avenue to light up the White House — and they would have been right to do so.
As it stands American politics today is as philosophically coherent as a rugby scrum of orangutans; it’s not actually politics, it’s just some weird variant of team sports played by the same wonky people whom the high school football defensive line would kick the shit out of during lunch (this explains how someone like Ann Coulter managed to get on the political cheerleading squad). It’s a bad enough situation that for the forseeable future I’ve decided to avoid content-bearing descriptors to describe political positions, because it’s simply inaccurate usage. George Bush isn’t conservative or Republican, he’s just on the right; many of those who oppose him aren’t liberals or Democrats, they’re just on the left. The current politics of the right have to do with genuine conservative thought as much as Beggin’ Strips have to do with thick-sliced hickory-smoked pork bellies, and just as dogs can’t tell it’s not bacon, so Fox News viewers can’t tell it’s not actual conservatism. The politics of the left… well, that’s just a pile of incestutous snake breeding at this point and I don’t want to bother with it. None of the politicians right or left seem especially engaged in the idea of the American citizenry and electorate being anything more than a well of votes to be cast with no more thought than one would give to mashing buttons to get one’s vote in for American Idol. And you know, I think that’s bad.
Bear in mind this is not a cri du coeur for a return to a simpler, golden time in American politics when all politicians were statesmen and all voters stalwart free-thinkers, because that never happened; hell, Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton over dirty politics, and they were Founding Fathers (let’s not even mention what went down between Adams and Jefferson, or Jackson and the other Adams). And they were all the top card; what was simmering down in the Congress was an even more dingy stew. And if you think people are ill-educated today, introduce yourself to the average frontier voter of 1836 sometime. It’s bad today, but it’s always bad to a greater or lesser extent; people are what they are. (It’s also always good to a greater or lesser extent, which gets lost in the shuffle.)
Nevertheless, from time to time in American life there are people who either individually or in groups call on Americans to think for themselves, make their choices and serve their country. What a genuine delight it would be to have people on either side of the arbitrary right/left divide that exists in politics today do that very thing — and what an even greater delight if people listened. If this were to happen there would still be a right and a left, but their differences would be a matter of actual philosophy; which is to say there would be actual conservatives and liberals, with political philosophies that legitimately tracked with their nominal descriptors. That would be a change, and it would be nice.
* Finally, happy birthday to my friend Deven Desai, who is now old enough to run for President, but can’t, as he was born in India to (then) non-American citizens. A loss for us all.