Inspiration & a Chance to Win Money

Personally, I'm in bad need of inspiration these days. While the editing I'm doing for DMS (recently changed their name to Demand Media Studios) isn't exactly enlightening, watching those dollars roll in twice-a-week is addictive. However, I found a competition that's right up my alley--the WritersWeekly 24-Hour Short Story Contest.

I've always been my most productive, not to mention my most creative, in workshops or online classes where I've been given an assignment and required to produce something in a short period of time. Usually it's about a week, but at Kenyon it was overnight. Sure, those stories have flaws, that's expected when writing fiction under a short deadline. Maybe that's exactly what makes it easier for me.

The 24-hour contest is just what it sounds. You sign up to get an email notice at the hour the contest begins--yes that's hour, not day--and you have 24 hours to write and email in your story based on the prompt and word count posted on the website. You are limited to one submission and sending it once in the body of the email. So, in addition to creative considerations, there are technical ones as well, like making sure your submission doesn't show up as a bunch of unreadable hieroglyphics.

The fee is $5.00 with a chance to win $300, $250 or $200 for first, second, and third prize respectively. In addition winners receive WR's Freelance Income Kit and publication on the site. Twenty Honorable Mentions receive a year's subscription to The Write Market Report and an eBook of their choice.

The contest runs four times per year. As I see it, that adds up to four chances to win for what it would cost for one entry to many other literary competitions.

But for me, really, winning isn't the thing. I found the challenge exhilarating, but unlike other situations where I've written on the fly, theres a chance, outside, true, but a chance of winning a nice sum. If that unlikely event does not occur then I have, as with pieces I've written on assignment for workshops and classes, a good start that I can polish and expand.

For me, that's a win, no matter how you look at it.

Social Networking: Do You Do It? Where, Why, and How?

Do you frequent social networking sites?  If so, which ones? Why, and how do you use them? To keep up with friends? To make professional contacts? I'm curious because this is one aspect of the Internet I just can't warm up to.

My readers must know by now that while I am old, I am not an old fogey. I have embraced the internet from the days when it took its first baby steps beyond the world of cyber-geeks. I joined the very earliest reviewers on Amazon back when they sold only books and public reviewing made them unique. I jumped into discussion forums in a big way, and I'm sure I don't need to mention how I championed online publications long before they cut into print's bottom line. I would also say I do a lot of networking online, but not at networking sites. I blog and visit and comment on other blogs. I've gone through several different website formats. I advertise my editing business, CROSSxCHECKING online, but there's something about those social sites I just can't get into.

First there was Facebook, begun by college kids to help other college kids stay in touch with high school friends and meet new people. It began just around the time my daughter left for college and remained the purview of the younger set until about a year ago when it suddenly exploded with adults posting profiles and searching for old friends. MySpace is pretty much the same though my daughter tells me it originally attracted the younger or non-collegiate set. I hadn't quite gotten used to either of those when everyone, young and old, started using Twitter, where you can gab the day away by keeping it down to 140 characters.

I have a profile on all these sites by default. Some group, organization, or publication I was associated with posted a profile and in order to become a follower or friend I needed to join. Search my page and you will find, almost exclusively, messages about political causes I support where the organization sent me an e-mail where all I needed to do was click on the link for the message to appear on my site for my handful of followers to read. Or at least I think that's how it works. For all I know my Tweets may be going out to the entire world.

It really isn't that I have anything against these sites per se, but there are several things keeping me away. One is the learning curve. They never seem to provide simple instructions on how it works. Mostly you learn through trial and error. When the Rose & Thorn went on Facebook I sent out more requests than a needy kindergartener to become a friend thinking it somehow didn't take because I wasn't informed immediately. And Twitter, don't even get me started about how arcane that system is.

The main reason though is, I haven't quite figured out why I should. In the past months I've received messages from acquaintances or former acquaintances who want to be my friend on Facebook. Some of them have my e-mail or phone number, so, um, why do we need to go to some other site to communicate? As for those with whom I've lost touch, like maybe there was a reason? Now I'm reading all the time about how Twitter provides a great tool for writers. You can advertise your own work, and it's supposed to have taken the place of classifieds for finding jobs. But I can't figure out how my ads are going to stand out in the cacophony, and as for the search end, that's another whole thing to figure out. I'm sure I could if I spent enough time, but, frankly, I don't know that I particularly want to. As a writer I already spend enough time I could otherwise use writing on Internet activities someone has convinced me are necessary like, yes, blogging and maintaining my website, and chatting in forums.

But there's a side of me that feels a little guilty about this. Am I falling behind? Have I really made a  reasoned decision or am I just afraid of the unknown? Is shunning Tweets the middle-aged equivalent of my Mom shunning e-mail? Am I turning into a curmudgeon or simply trying to make better use of my time?

So, what do you think?

Money Matters: FanStory.com

Money Matters is a series of not so regular posts on this blog that reviews advertised sites or services for writers where some payment is required for participation.

Lately I've been reading a lot about FanStory. I guess I'm a little slow as the site boasts they've been around for nine years. The details of how it works, from rankings to awards to member cents, are pretty complicated, so I'll leave it to you to check out if you are interested. The site charges subscription fees that run from $67 for two years, or $2.80 per month, to $6.95 for payment on a monthly basis.

While they advertise that you can get started for free, they don't tell you what the free subscription (or is it a trial) covers. Right there a red flag went up as that usually implies one of two things. Either the site will entice you with a free subscription you will find provides next to nothing, or the free trial automatically feeds into a paid subscription unless you take some action to terminate your agreement before that happens. As I was loath to get roped into either of those for a community in which I have no interest in participating, I can only review FanStory based on what I read on the site.

FanStory appears very similar to a group I joined several years ago when I was a naive new writer, only use of that site was free. It was run, if I recall, by AOL/Time-Warner and there the reward for good ratings was the possibility of being picked up for publication. Of course, that was a long shot, and with all the writers posting, I found myself in a constant struggle for ratings and feedback. This particularly involved rating others work and hoping for reciprocation.

FanStory looks much the same with participants earning member cents for reviews that they then use to entice others to review their work. The highest reward, though, doesn't appear to be publication but a "Seal of Quality", some feedback to "help" writers get published, and for the annual top five, a trophy that looks like the offspring of an Emmy-Oscar marriage. They do run some "free" contests with prizes of as much as $100, but if you consider the subscription fee that is far more than you would pay to enter any other reputable writing contest.

Before you sign up for a site like this, even if it were free, there are some things you should seriously consider. First, how much time are you going to spend reading other writers' work and trying to get them to read yours? Could that time be better spent on your own writing, researching markets, and submitting? Say you receive the "Seal of Quality" or get that nifty little statue to set on your mantle, what will that mean toward your chances of future publication? It isn't exactly a Pushcart. What it does get you is the ability to sell your work on the FanStory site for "member dollars." These are not real dollars but the currency of the FanStory site that allow you to buy certificates for more reviews. (If you're still with me on this, I give you credit.) Some writers rave about the great feedback, but there are plenty of sites where you can get feedback for free and have the opportunity to determine ahead of time if the posted work and/or the feedback is of the quality you are looking for.

If you view your writing mostly as a hobby, and you aren't aspiring to anything higher, joining a writing community like FanStory could be fun. The writing prompts and contests might inspire you, and you can interact with other writers about their work as well. If you are in any way serious about your writing, this site is probably not for you. Whatever awards you receive will be meaningless in getting your work published anywhere else, and the time you put into reviewing and trying to get reviewed could be better spent writing, reading, and researching markets.

Networking on the Net

Posting about fellow blogger l. lee lowe's most recent online novel got me thinking what a marvelous boost the Internet has been for networking among writers. Writing has often been called a solitary undertaking, and it can be even more solitary for those of us who labor away in middle class suburbia, where we can go years at a time without making contact with another writer. There are only so many pricey conferences one can attend, and a 45 minute commute on a crowded train is a lot to go through for the privilege of running into someone in a center city coffee shop.

Thanks to the Internet, I am now in touch with other writers just about every day, in forums, on their blogs, or through e-mails where we exchange news and ideas about our work. When a writing friend has a novel published or a new story coming out in a literary publication, I always link to it here on zine writer. And they do the same for me. If I want input on something I'm working on, I always have a few names I can call on.

Then there are the friends who provide ideas and inspiration like Kimberly Davis who writes Kim's Craft Blog. An accomplished writer and instructor, Kim never fails to provide me with food for thought. Of course, the blogs of my friends and former R&T colleagues Angie Ledbetter (Gumbo Writer) and Kat Magendie (Tender Graces) are always a nice place to take a break. There are others I've mentioned often here, and you can find them all in the sidebar of my favorite blogs and favorite sites.

Some of us share other things in common as well as writing. For example, my blogger friend Cashew Elliott at Open the Vein inspired me to start my other blog Cross-Examine on a topic that is extremely important to me both personally and politically––healthcare reform. That and canvassing for signatures has taken up a lot of my time lately and caused me to post less here and neglect visiting some of my friends' blogs. I hope you'll forgive me. I'll be back when this d--d thing is passed. In the mean time, if you live in the US, I hope you'll stop by Cross-Examine. I make a point not to spew empty rhetoric and I know enough about the subject that you just might learn something you are not getting from the media––then, that's not hard to do.Okay, I'm slapping my own face.

Back to the point. The Internet is a great place for writers to self-promote and to promote others. Do unto others benefits us all, so I hope all of you also frequent other writers' blogs or post their successes. You'll get it back three times over.

"One Lovely Blog" Award

Many thanks to Kimberly Davis of Kim's Craft Blog for awarding me the One Lovely Blog Award.
I agree it is a great way to bring attention to our favorite blogs, and I especially appreciate being nominated by one of my very favorite bloggers.

So, in keeping with the tradition, following are my nominees:

Gumbo Writer

Tender Graces

Open the Vein

Innovative: A Word for the Writeen

These are the blogs, in addition to Kim's, that I frequent regularly, because they are fun, informative, and have a clever twist.

Creativity Drained: Try the Op-Ed

My creativity is drained these days from dealing with the illness of my elderly father and keeping a watchful eye on my Mom who is now in her apartment alone. While I've heard many writers say writing provides a release in times of difficulty and stress, I'm too distracted to think outside my own situation and too deep in the forest to write a story or essay about my situation that doesn't sound whiny or vitriolic.

Enter the op-ed piece. As David Shipley notes in the explanation of op-ed in the New York Times, the term comes, not from the word "opinion," but because the page appears opposite the editorial page. The idea is to collect opinions from average citizens not employed by the paper, though having "standing" on the topic you write about helps.

I published my first op-ed in the Inquirer following a year that started with shuttling my uncle to chemo/radiation treatments every weekday for eight weeks. Shortly after my father was hospitalized and then in rehab for nearly three months with a broken hip.Three months later that same uncle went into hospice care for cancer that had spread to his liver. Following the funeral lunch where my boomer siblings and cousins decided we did not want our lives prolonged past 85, I submitted "Boomers may choose not to prolong their lives." (One note about op-eds, the paper always chooses the title.)

Writing an op-ed was much easier than fiction because it required no creativity, only expressing my thoughts in an organized manner and quoting some statistics I found on the Internet. At the same time it was cathartic as it allowed me to work through the feelings I'd been struggling with the past year and more. I actually didn't care whether it was picked up, though I was pleasantly surprised when it was. Especially as it paid.

This brings up an important point about op-eds: it's hit-or-miss. While the ingredients that make a good op-ed piece, like timeliness and focus, aren't nearly as nebulous as fiction or creative nonfiction, much will depend on whether your piece happens to fit with the other editorials and op-eds being published that week. Editors receive so many submissions, they rarely hold them for future. They read them and if they fit––both in topic and length––your piece will be considered. If not, that's it.

The good news is that lower profit margins are causing many newspapers to include more average citizen op-eds because they cost less than a syndicated column or something by a famous ex-pol. They have probably also guessed that those who submit op-eds to newspapers are also the people who still read them with their morning coffee, and they want to hold onto those folks as long as they can.

The policy for simultaneous submissions varies. Some newspapers are fine with simultaneous submissions as long as the piece wouldn't appear in the same geographic area. Others, like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, want an exclusive, but you also know pretty quickly if your piece has been accepted, so unless the topic is extremely time-sensitive, you can shop it somewhere else within the week.

I'm already running some ideas through my head regarding the ups and downs of our healthcare system. It will be nice if it gets into one of the major newspapers, but even if it doesn't, writing it will provide an escape valve for all the frustrations I've dealt with these past weeks.

Useful Sites for Writers

Here are some useful sites for writers I've come across lately.

BookFox ranks literary journals by competitiveness. As the blogger notes, this isn't exhaustive ( I didn't see Salmagundi the lit journal of my daughter's alma mater, Skidmore) , and one could argue with some of the rankings, but it's a start.

Needless to say I wouldn't necessarily agree with his zine rankings. It's been my experience with the Million Writers Award that winners usually represent print journals that have either moved totally online or have an online counterpart.

From the Writers Relief Newsletter, scroll down to see the average submissions some of the better-known journals receive. I found these numbers a little surprising since Emily Thorp, Managing Editor of Sotto Voce mentions over 1,000 short story submissions for their first issue, and I know it has been going up steadily as she recently needed to hire more reviewers. Barbara Quinn of The Rose & Thorn always estimated at least 400 submissions per month. So if you've been accepted to a zine, you may not be competing against the biggest names, but don't let anyone have you think you didn't compete against big numbers.

If you think you'll never make a penny on your writing, check out Funds for Writers and consider subscribing to one or more of Editor Hope Clark's free newsletters (if you get the one for small markets in the next month, you'll see my cool new add for CROSSxCHECKING). These include nonfiction as well as fiction markets.

Back to the literary scene, a great site I discovered (forgive me if I've mentioned this before by it's worth it), reviews Literary Magazines for fiction writers. Click on one of the mags listed in alpahbetical order and get some great info including the type of story they usually publish. This can save loads of money on sample issues. Not that I wouldn't suggest reading a journal before submitting, but this helps you eliminate the ones that aren't a match for your style.

If you have sites you find helpful in your research or that have helped you achieve success, let us know in a comment.

Britanica Going Wiki: What Does That Mean for Wikipedia

At the end of January the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica announced it was going wiki. However, unlike Wikipedia, edits to Britannica would be vetted and approved before being posted. They are promising a 20-minute turn-around time. So, is this a problem for numero uno in the Google search? Unfortunately, probably not, for the following reasons.

Note: I promise to make this my last Wikipedia-bashing post. Or at least I'll try, if they just stop giving me such great material.


Speed of Posting
According to this article and the forum discussion it links to, die-hard Wikipedia users would rather fight than switch. One reason is the cost, which I will discuss later. Another is possible backlogs in the approval and posting process.

Now I may be an old fuddy-duddy, but I can't see the necessity for an encyclopedia site to value speed over accuracy. Yes, I think that internet encyclopedias are a huge improvement over the expensive many-volumed sets updated once per year at a stiff price. I'm glad my kid can look up Ronald Reagan and not be told he is still president (for more reasons than one, but that's not my point here). However, I'm not sure why I need updates within 20 minutes or even 20 hours. For that I go to CNN or The New York Times.

The only people who really care about immediate posting are the contributors who have this weird drive to be first, even if there is no monetary or other compensation for it. Thus the fracas that caused Wikipedia to threaten a review process when one hasty poster claimed Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd had both died at Obama's inaugural luncheon. However, as long as there are people out there regularly hitting on and updating Wikipedia––accurately or not––it will remain number one in search engines.

Desk-chair experts
In addition to being first, there are a lot of folks out there who love the opportunity to play desk-chair expert. Even as paying employers require ever more advanced and specific degrees to qualify for jobs, and print magazines and newspapers often require journalism degrees to write for them, Wikipedia requires nothing of you––not even accuracy. True, someone can come along and edit your inaccurate input, but you won't, like an employee, be allowed only a certain number of errors before you are barred from the site for good. Best of all is anonymity. Unlike the college professor or researcher who will have to face the wrath of her peers, you can make all the stupid mistakes or malicious posts you like on Wikipedia and still maintain your good name.

Wikipedia is free
As one person in the forum discussion points out, Britannica requires a premium subscription of $48.98 to read certain detailed articles. That is nothing compared to what it used to cost for an entire set of encyclopedias, but I can see how it would seem a little steep for someone who is just interested in checking out birth and death dates, and maybe a short bio now and then. As I've said many times in posts about everything from newspapers to literary journals, the biggest drawback of the Internet is that everything started out free and so everyone believes it should remain that way. On the other hand, maintaining a site like Britannica, with great graphics and expertise behind it is going to cost more than most users are willing to pay.

Simple ignorance
While there's a cadre out there who stand behind the whole philosophy of Wikipedia, I am amazed at the number of people who don't have any idea what it is, except that it shows up fist in most Google searches and so they click on it. Wikipedia bills itself as "The Free Encyclopedia." If you simply go from your search to an article on the site, thus skipping their homepage, you will find nothing there indicating that anyone can edit articles at any time, and that the changes will show up immediately without undergoing approval. For those who don't know what the term "wiki" means (and there are more than you know), it's easy to assume it works the same as any other encyclopedia except that it is simply updated more often and doesn't cost anything.

Accuracy doesn't matter
For the cyber generation accuracy is becoming one of those nebulous words like "truth," to be argued philosophically but having no relevance to the real world. They run on a very basic understanding of democracy, where the more people who contribute to and hit on a site, the better it has to be. In that forum I mentioned where Britannica going Wiki was discussed, one poster noted an error in the spelling of "Brittanica." Another poster asks, "Does it matter?"

I guess that says it all.

Not quite, though, because I'd like to make one final point. I'm really not backing any horse in this race. I think encyclopedias, wiki or no, are an anachronism in the internet age. Any fourth grader can do research from cursory to in-depth on anyone or anything without ever once going to Wikipedia or Britannica. There is such a wealth of information online that was once found in only the largest libraries and archives, and then mostly on microfilm or from searching through files to which you needed special access. Why even bother checking an encyclopedia first?

My suggestion is to skip the wikis and the encyclopedias and scroll down a couple entries to the really meaty stuff. That's the really valuable side of the Internet.

Holiday Story Contest

Since the inspiration to write about the holidays usually comes during the holidays, holiday stories can be tough to submit and sell. Well here's a contest for a holiday story that is running right now.

***Note: this is primarily a review site so you'll have to review three stories on the site. This also looks like the kind of site I blogged about in my last post where your story would probably not be eligible for submission to journals and contests that require submissions to be unpublished.

Still, if you have a holiday story you have no idea where to submit, you may win a $100 Amazon gift card.

***See Clark's comment below. Apparently submitters have the option of keeping the post "private" so it can be reviewed and considered for the contest, but would not, for all intents and purposes, be considered published if you wanted to submit it elsewhere. I never cease to be amazed at the great ideas people come up with online.

Craft of Writing: It's About Time

Much is written about the need for writers to outline every aspect of their characters, down to the breakfast cereal they prefer, even if it never shows up in the actual story. To a slightly lesser extent, setting is also emphasized, but, to my mind, not nearly enough attention is paid to the aspect of Time in our stories. Time comes into the writing in two ways: The period in which the story/novel is set and the time that elapses within the story. I feel very strongly that, just as with character and setting, writers need to know the details about Time, even if they are never explicitly set out in words.

Setting the Story
Broadly speaking, all stories take place in either the Past, Present, or Future, but this can be broken down even further. The Past can be historical fiction or a story that takes place within the writer's lifetime like Sue Monk Kidd's The Secret Life of Bees. The Future is most often associated with Science Fiction, but in Jimi Hendrix Turns Eighty author Tim Sandlin takes us no more than 20 years hence when the Baby Boomer generation will be elderly. This was not a future of intergalactic travel and metallic underwear, but he did need to add a few touches to make it believable.

The majority of stories take place in a nondescript Present or immediate past (he says/he said). Even so, it's important for the writer to have some sense of the year, the season, even the day of the week. My story, "The Foundations of Churchill," is about a once-rural community that is being developed into an exurb of a major city. While this theme is being acted out in real-time across the country and the world, it soon became apparent that in order to ground my story in reality, I needed to decide exactly when it took place. Since I was writing about my own community, I set it back in the 80s, when many of the events it was based on actually occurred. It took a little extra effort working out details like the cars people would drive (SUVs were not nearly so ubiquitous so driving one implied upper middle-class status). I might have gotten away with some generic time period, but getting specific made it feel more real.

Elapsed Time
I'd say nothing screams amateur like unrealistic timing, but I've read published books, particularly thrillers, where the protagonist couldn't possibly have accomplished that much is so little time. Still, I happen to believe that the more parameters a writer places on her work, the more disciplined and well-crafted it will be. If your protagonist leaves home for the city at 10:00 PM, meets up with friends, visits three or four bars, and plays a game of pool, she'd better be returning home in the "wee small hours of the morning" and not sometime after midnight.

The same applies to non-linear stories, for instance, "circular" stories where something triggers a flashback and at the end, the protagonist remains in the same place (or only slightly advanced in place and time). In Fellow Travelers, a book I reviewed for Roses & Thorns, the entire novel, covering several decades of the protagonist's life, is told as a memory exercise while tying his tie––all 300+ pages. On the sublime end of that spectrum is "Bullet in the Brain" by Tobias Wolff, where the author masterfully slows down time to take us through the protagonist's past.

Follow Through
As with other aspects of a story, once you pick the time, there must be follow through. Say your story opens on Saturday, then make sure your protagonist is doing Saturday things. That is, he's not dressing for work unless he's a work-a-holic and he's not going to church, unless he's particularly pious. And it should go without saying––though sadly it can't––that you need to be careful about changing the day or making the next day Monday instead of Sunday. You'd be surprised at the number of sloppy submissions I've read where the writer didn't pick up on this glaring error.

If you add seasonal specifics, make sure to follow through with that too. In Joyce Carol Oates' "Gargoyle," the main character is driving at night in a wintery mix of snow and rain. At some point it changes to all snow, and the character slows her speed when her car begins to skid. Oates is a pro who realizes that, if the weather/season is to play a part in the story, the reader needs to be reminded throughout. Unfortunately, less professional writers might mention the season or the weather as a plot device then never mention it again.

Finally, of course, if your story is set in the past, make sure to get the details right.FDR going on TV to talk about the market crash is a pretty obvious flub to those of us of a certain age, but in these days of rapidly advancing technology it's easy to forget that as recently as the early 90s a character could not pull out a cell phone when her tire went flat or IM friends about meeting up later at a club. Luckily part of that advancing technology is the Internet. So, when in doubt, look it up.

It's about time.

Writers Conference: Summing Up

Last week I posted about the upcoming Push to Publish Conference sponsored by Philadelphia Stories. (If you look at the photo from the conference currently on the website, you can see a wee little me in the second row behind the woman in lavender.) Yes, I attended, and I think it is always helpful to sum up the day, not just for writers in the Philadelphia area who might consider attending next year, but for all writers considering attending a conference because they tend to have a lot in common. So here is my evaluation of how it went. Note that as the name suggests, this was more of a business conference with an emphasis on getting published. There were no workshops or lectures on craft.

Keynote Speaker:

In this case the keynote speaker was local writer Beth Kephart. Full disclosure, I often skip the keynote speaker at conferences especially when they start very early. This time, as it took place on a college campus I thought it better to arrive at the same time as everyone else, making it all the easier to follow the other cars in order to find the building. The speeches usually run along the same lines––I've been rejected just like you––only their rejections were followed by great success. Otherwise they wouldn't be asked to speak. Nothing against Ms. Kephart, who was as good as others I've heard, but I could have skipped this one too.

Speed Dating:

Many conferences offer 10 or 15 minute meetings with agents and publishers for those with books or book ideas to sell. The best prepared arrive with a synopsis and an excerpt. This conference included magazine and journal editors in the speed dating and provided one free pass with additional passes going for $2.50. I decided on only one speed date, because getting three different opinions in thirty minutes promised to have my head spinning.

Of course, when shopping a novel the goal isn't so much to get feedback as to have the agent ask you to send your manuscript. As an editor myself, I knew no one would commit to accepting a story after just perusing it, and even with the piece I brought that was under 1500 words, ten minutes was not enough time to read it, let alone provide good feedback. I did learn that the "type" of story was selling, and did get useful feedback on a quick transition paragraph. So it was helpful, but I'm glad I didn't spend the extra $5.00.

Panel Discussions:

The remainder of the day, after lunch, was devoted to three break-out sessions. There were about four topics to choose from during each time period. As often happens, not every session offered a topic that I found useful, and the one that did was, of course, the last. Meaning I had to pick discussions for break-out #1 and #2 that only marginally interested me. In the end though, as also often happens, I did learn something. 

The topic of the first session was, "Is the short story collection dead?" I'm still trying to get individual stories published. A collection doesn't even come up in my dreams, and I suspect I was not alone among the audience. However, it eventually morphed into a session about submitting to magazines and how to get published.

The topic of the second session was "Marketing yourself," which, again is most useful to those with books to market. The panel comprised a lively and knowledgeable group of women, so I enjoyed it even though I am not a novelist. In fact, it confirmed for me all the reasons I don't want to write a novel.

The final session, and most useful to me, "How to succeed in submissions." I almost chose another topic, because I feared a rehash of the usual writing mag fare. Make sure to send a clean copy, format correctly, don't send a romance to a literary journal. There was some of that, but there was also some useful and more targeted information, like using submission services. All the editors were connected with well-respected but small, local publications, and their advice was extremely helpful.

In general, I've come to view local conferences (as opposed to workshops)  as something akin to a professional convention only shorter. The greatest value is meeting and talking to other writers in your area and some networking where possible. You are not likely to come away with any guarantees for publication and you won't improve your craft. Writing is a solitary existence and especially for those of us who reside in the suburbs, it's nice to get together from time to time, with those who share our interests.

Writer's Conference: If You Live in the Philly Area

Philadelphia Stories

Push to Publish

October 18 at Rosemont College

$75 until October 15 ($85 after)

Includes breakfast, lunch, and one speed-dating pass.

Missouri Review Editor's Prize Closes Oct. 1

What I like about this contest is, simultaneous submissions are accepted. That's pretty rare. The reading fee is a little steep, $20 per submission plus an extra $3 printing fee if you submit online. (I found that a little odd since many sites now encourage you to submit online.) However, that covers a one-year subscription which would normally be $24 so you really can't lose––money-wise that is.

While a contest win can be a big boon to your future publishing prospects, normally they do not accept simultaneous submissions and so tie up your work for a very long time with minimal prospects for publication. However, I plan to submit to this one regularly.

BTW, they've added for the second year, an audio and video prize as well.

Beginnings: Say It Isn't So

According to my most recent newsletter from Duotrope's Digest, Beginnings "went on hiatus over a year ago with the intention to return in August 2008; website dead and emails bounce; we are declaring this a dead market."

For years Beginnings functioned as a print publication where new writers got their first break. Not all new writers––my first submission that received rave reviews at a writer's conference wasn't accepted––but my second, Dora's Memoir, since reprinted in The Rose and Thorn, was. The thing about Beginnings was, you could only publish with them once. After that you weren't a new writer anymore. I think of all the publications claiming to publish "new and emerging writers" along with more experienced one. Beginnings didn't just talk the talk; they walked the walk.

I'd hate to see them go.

Money Matters: Writing Classes: Are They Worth the Money

I wrote this post in June for Roses & Thorns, but I receive so many questions about this and see it come up so often in forums, I thought it was worth re-posting.

Click on the title to read the entire article.

Kindle: A Review of Sorts

I've been looking for someone to review Amazon's Kindle for me here. This is the closest I can come for now, but if anyone has one and would like to go into the pluses and minuses, please let me know.

Wikipedia: Finding Your Way in a Wiki World

Generically speaking, Wiki is a piece of software that allows general users to create and edit webpage content. That is, not only can someone come along and add a post or comment, but they can edit the original to correct it. I'm regularly finding new Wikis, like the the NativeWiki I discovered a few months ago while researching another blog post. But by far the most popular and ubiquitous Wiki is, of course, Wikipedia, which for many has come to replace those venerable multi-volumed encyclopedias of my youth as well as online versions like Britannica.

Wikipedia, as the About page explains, "is written collaboratively by volunteers..." It goes on to explain, "visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge."[emphasis added] I'm honestly not sure what that qualifier "existing" means, and why that makes Average Joe any more qualified to write about it.

In the past year or so Wikipedia has risen to the top of the search engines for just about any topic. Even Googling Britannica brings it up just under the entry for the actual website (including a page which purports to catalog "mistakes and omissions" from the encyclopedia). This top billing has the psychological effect of implied authority. In fact, top billing has absolutely nothing to do with authority and everything to do with SEO (Search Engine Optimization). As someone who once worked for a site attempting to outdo Wikipedia, I know there are a variety of ways, like repetition and linking, to make a site rise above the competition, and none of these has anything whatsoever to do with accuracy.

The idea of information by plebiscite is alluring, especially to a gal like myself who gained, through self-study, as much or more knowledge of US government relations with Native Americans past and present as any PhD. Why shouldn't I be qualified to write an encyclopedia entry on the topic?

The problem is, you as the reader don't know what I know. That is, my entry could be pure fact or pure dribble, and if my entry is the first you've read on the subject, you have no way of determining that. Now the idea behind Wikipedia is that someone will come along, see that my entry is pure dribble (or that they just don't like my slant?) and edit it. Lucky you, if you stop by after the correction, but what if you stop by before? Or what if my entry was correct and someone makes it wrong? It all supposedly comes out in the wash, but your problem is knowing whether you came in on the rinse or the spin cycle.

Encyclopedias certainly aren't the end all and be all of information. As the Wikipedia entry points out, Britannica can get some things wrong too. (Though from what I saw they were of minor significance like the birth date in an actor's bio and his actual birth date.) But encyclopedias weren't meant to be the sole authority. Somewhere after fifth grade we all learned they should provide no more than a jumping-off point, providing "just the facts, ma'am."

As best I can tell, Wikipedia wants to appear as more than that. For fun I looked up the entry for Crazy Horse, a historical figure I've read quite a bit about. In fact, I've read just about everything cited and more. For his early life, the entry pretty much lays out the same story every biographer tells based on the original by Mari Sandoz, but when I read the entry under "Family," I immediately thought it read like some movie version. Since even Crazy Horse's exact year of birth can't be pinpointed, I doubt anyone, even among the Lakota would claim to know the birth date of his mother, let alone who her parents and sister were. Sure enough, the citation is a DVD. This information is not preceded by "may have been" or "could have been" which is probably appropriate for most of what we know about Crazy Horse, but stated as fact.

So, I suppose what Wikipedia means by "existing knowledge" is repeating and citing other sources. Only even that doesn't qualify Average Joe, because he needs to know enough to discern which sources are reliable and which aren't. This takes time and a certain ability to evaluate sources not just in their current, but also in their historical context.

Which leads me to the point of all this. It's tempting in a Wiki world when doing quick research to click on the top link in the search engine. In the case of Wikipedia the shear amount of information looks like you hit pay dirt, but you didn't. You hit on a bunch of information that could be right or could be wrong. In fact, the more detailed the entry, the more likely that a good bit of that information could be disputed by reputable scholars. Use Wikipedia the way we used encyclopedia's in the old days, as a jumping-of point for dates and chronology. Then go to the original sources (lots are now available online). Otherwise you risk simply repeating inaccurate information, and citing Wikipedia won't get you off the hook with a good editor.

Kenyon Review Writers Workshop 2008

Here's blog post by Kristen Ogden, a participant at the Kenyon Review Writer's Workshop I attended this summer. Even though I was in Chris Tilghman's workshop instead of Brad Kessler's the experiences had a lot in common, mainly a wonderful week away from work, family, and even the internet, focusing on ways to improve our writing.