ROBUST discussion

Would love to hear your individual stories about publishing your work--triumphs, travails, or otherwise. Look forward to hearing,
kb

How much time do you have?

You must be pretty new in the world of writers. There is nothing a writer loves better than to be asked to talk about his work, which he will interpret as talking about himself. This will soon be the longest and most detailed thread on ROBUST.

Forgive him, Lord, he knew not what he did.

I think you jinxed it. As for your question about how much time I have, two things: 1) I multitask quickly 2) graduate school erred mightily in allowing laptops to class.

Oh, I don't think so. Just sit back and wait.

Now, the most disgusting agent I ever knew was--

Hang on while I refer to the libel laws.

There are special libel laws for you, Andre, because you're way too clever with words and make people think you're simply being charming when you're being devastating.

Ken, if there's a jinx, I think it may be that writers have so many tales to tell, they get weary just thinking about starting to share them. That was my reaction.

Seeing topics posted above the introductions has caused me to have to rewire my brain. Not that it was well-wired to begin with.

Andre Jute wrote: "Oh, I don't think so. Just sit back and wait.

Now, the most disgusting agent I ever knew was--

Hang on while I refer to the libel laws."

Sigh. You think that's what my other post was about? Saying libelous things about agents?

Ken wrote: "Sigh. You think that's what my other post was about? Saying libelous things about agents?"

Not at all. In my entire career I knew only three truly bad agents, and one of them was simply incompetent, not vicious, while the other two were the victims of their own pomposity. No agent has ever stolen a penny from me, and several have been good friends.

Anyway, I was making a writer's mother-in-law joke.

Patricia Sierra wrote: "There are special libel laws for you, Andre, because you're way too clever with words and make people think you're simply being charming when you're being devastating.

Ken, if there's a jinx, I th..."

Ugh, 'you're way too clever with words', you see, that's the kind of throne-sniffing I'm not willing to do, even if it'll get me a few nice reviews or literary references in the future. If you're going to network, at least do it in some discussion group other than "Robust intellectual discourse" or whatever. And I'm sorry that my topic post was in the wrong place, I wished I'd colored in the lines so you would like me. You'd make a good editor, you know that?

Andre Jute wrote: "Oh, I don't think so. Just sit back and wait.

Now, the most disgusting agent I ever knew was--

Hang on while I refer to the libel laws."

Andre: I don't care if you're going to call me libelous, but at least do it in an interesting way: address the specifics of what I posted. I'd *love* to find out that I was dead wrong about publishing; maybe I was, as most of my information is second hand. But when you make vague accusations on par with the Anti-Defamation League, it's hard to carry the conversation on in any sort of grown-up fashion. I'll defend myself, would be glad to, but I have no idea what specifically you are referring to.

Andre IS clever with words. Haven't you noticed?

I must set off something in you since you like to come at me with such a snarl. I'll just stay out of your way so you can relax and enjoy the forum, but I won't be leaving despite your request.

Just for the record, I didn't say your post was in the wrong place. It's in a place that hasn't till now had posts; that's all I meant. Calm down.

Patricia Sierra wrote: "Andre IS clever with words. Haven't you noticed?

I must set off something in you since you like to come at me with such a snarl. I'll just stay out of your way so you can relax and enjoy the forum..."

My apologies then, Patricia (Pat? Patty?). It would probably be to the benefit of everyone to reveal here that I've always had anger and defiance issues. It's a big part (if not all) of what makes it so hard for me to accept the rules of publishing. It also means, though, stray intellectual bullets in discussion boards. Sorry again.

Andre Jute wrote: "Ken wrote: "Sigh. You think that's what my other post was about? Saying libelous things about agents?"

Not at all. In my entire career I knew only three truly bad agents, and one of them was simpl..."

Then I had your comments pegged wrong, too, and I owe you an apology. See the above comment.

Though I am familiar with no agents, I am familiar with the submissions process, which is laden with so many euphemisms that I figured, by extension, the editors behind such a process must also be full of shit. I guess fakeness just makes me angry as hell-- you know, like all the glib formalities? Maybe if you could share with me how the people aren't as bad as the process.

kb

Andre Jute wrote: "Ken wrote: "Sigh. You think that's what my other post was about? Saying libelous things about agents?"

Not at all. In my entire career I knew only three truly bad agents, and one of them was simpl..."

Right, I read that...but it's just hard for me to square the whole slush pile thing as being reflective of feeling human beings at all, you know? So maybe you could speak to how the process is cleaner than I seem to think it is...how these honorable agents you mention worked within that process.

Ken wrote: "Andre: I don't care if you're going to call me libelous, but at least do it in an interesting way: address the specifics of what I posted. I'd *love* to find out that I was dead wrong about publishing; maybe I was, as most of my information is second hand. But when you make vague accusations on par with the Anti-Defamation League, it's hard to carry the conversation on in any sort of grown-up fashion. I'll defend myself, would be glad to, but I have no idea what specifically you are referring to."

WTF are you talking about, Ken? The chips on your shoulders are absolutely bristling.

If you want to know about publishing within living memory, read the slush pile articles on my blog. They explain the four distinct modes, with attendant shifts in power, in a comprehensible manner. Start here:
http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/ar...
and then read passim or read the other articles here for a general feel:
http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/?s...

Andre Jute wrote: "Ken wrote: "Andre: I don't care if you're going to call me libelous, but at least do it in an interesting way: address the specifics of what I posted. I'd *love* to find out that I was dead wrong a..."

Thank you. Re my chipped shoulders: wanna know the sad part? All my rage is informed by the short story process; can't even imagine how much worse getting a novel published is.

'WTF are you talking about, Ken?' Sorry again--another case of stray bullets.

Thanks for the links, I'm checking them out now.

You can also get a very good idea of what I've been up to by reading my blog http://jordanscroft.blogspot.com

BTW - 'throne sniffing?' WTF? Play nice, most of us are unarmed and unarmored. Life is easier when you are amongst equals. Stand down, son, you are amongst potential friends.

Patricia wrote: "There are special libel laws for you, Andre, because you're way too clever with words and make people think you're simply being charming when you're being devastating."

That's a most acute observation, Sierra. There's a class of person in Britain and France whose first defense is to reach for libel lawyers. There was a time when not a month would go by but one or two of them would try to shut me up by trying on libel charges. But then they would discover, from my lawyer, something their own lawyers should have told them, viz that what you say in a court is under the protection of the judge and cannot be made the subject of a libel case. My lawyer would leak a little tidbit that I'd held back, and they'd start worrying about what else I would say under the protection of a court, which could then be reported in the papers as stated in court, and suddenly they'd be offering me money instead of demanding it from me. Though it has been tried on me a couple of dozen times, I've never seen the inside of a libel court.

The Northern Echo also noticed that my novels "walk right up to the line, and then halt, hurling accusations across the line like a speed bowler" (a cricket ref; you really, really don't want to ask); they gave a full page to discussing whether I should be permitted to get away with exposing members of the Queen's Household, no less.

From the viewpoint of people who couldn't get a handle on me, and who sometimes ended up paying me large sums (which I gave straight to my favorite charity) instead of collecting large sums from me, it must indeed have seemed as if there is one libel law for me and another for everyone else.

Now that I see them through your eyes, I even feel sorry for them.

Come back, Captain Bob, all is forgiven! (For the Americans, this is a reference to the crooked publisher Robert Maxwell, who drowned himself rather than go to jail. He was the leading British proponent of using the libel laws to shut up critics; he tried it three times on me.)

Ken wrote: "Patricia Sierra wrote: "There are special libel laws for you, Andre, because you're way too clever with words and make people think you're simply being charming when you're being devastating.

Ken,..."

Actually, trying to get along with people is not "throne sniffing," and frankly, thrones are not what stink about your recent posts.

Will wrote: "Frankly, thrones are not what stink about your recent posts."

Well, are you going to to say *what* "stinks" about my posts? You might want to look up the definition of the word 'frankly', big guy.

See, that attitude is not going to help you at all. I'm out of this discussion.

Will wrote: "See, that attitude is not going to help you at all. I'm out of this discussion."

Now that Will's demonstrated my point that publication depends upon passing a socialization process, anyone want to field guesses as to what 'attitude' writers are supposed to have?

And Will: You could be a perfectly honorable person for all I know. Don't take my repartee so seriously. How else could I have responded to what you said? My point was that you offered nothing specific for me to address; in these cases you get the kind of response I gave.

Addition: Seriously, I want to know what attitudes writers are supposed to portray. I probably won't adopt them, but I am curious to know.

Life is a social process. Life skills, the ability to get along with others is, are required in EVERY profession. (With the possible exception of high-level computer programmers who do not usually interact with humans. They tend to live in basements, rather like trolls.)

Being a person amongst equals requires a measure of humility (humanity) as in 'we are all in this together.' As equals we can share information that is useful to the group - as well as to each individual.

Civilized, polite discussions are the best way to have these relationships. 'Assertive' is preferable to 'aggressive' which most people find offensive. 'Arrogant' behavior implies superiority - which is contray to the social process.

IE - shooting you mouth (or fingers) off is going to shoot you in the foot. It will not get you what you want.

GOOD Manners are the grease for the cogs and wheels of driving ambition.