I can't really say I knew who he was, though his picture does look familiar, but it was a top headline this morning: Clay Felker, the editor of New York magazine and other publications, has died. Apparently all of us writers have him to thank for the way magazines are today:

New York’s mission was to compete for consumer attention at a time when television threatened to overwhelm print publications. To do that, Mr. Felker came up with a distinctive format: a combination of long narrative articles and short witty ones on consumer services. He embraced the New Journalism of the late ’60s — the use of novelistic techniques to give reporting new layers of emotional depth. And he adopted a tone that was unapologetically elitist, indefatigably trendy and proudly provincial — in a sophisticated Manhattan-centric sort of way. The headlines were bold, the graphics even bolder. (Excerpted from the New York Times article)

Labels: news

I heard a story today on KCFR, our local public radio station, that I thought would interest other writers because of its connection to the most important tool we use in our trade: a computer. It was a short radio story that was (I think) done by the BBC and syndicated.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find the story online, but basically it was about how software companies are beginning to use automatic updates to hijack our computers. Apple/iTunes, Windows, and even Google are all apparently succumbing to the temptation to get their proverbial feet in our doors — in most cases, without us even noticing.

I can think of one example in the last year. When the iPhone came out, hackers discovered a way to convert songs in their iTunes to ringtones without paying the extra one-dollar conversion fee. Apple found a way to block the hack in iTunes, and sent around an automatic update to fix the problem. I think this went round a few times. When I found out what all the updates were for, I stopped installing them — not because I have the iPhone, but because of the principle of the matter. If the song is already paid for (not stolen), and converting it to a ringtone is as easy as changing the file extension, why should iTunes essentially be making people pay for the song twice?

The reporter recommended that people look at updates before installing them, and I completely agree. Never install anything on your computer without making sure it's something you want on your computer, no matter who it is from!

Labels: news

Not very long ago, I mentioned to a friend that the only thing my stimulus payment would be stimulating was my bill-paying activities. Evidently I'm not the only one:

Consumers Lean on Rebate Checks for Bills and Gas

I don't understand why they sound so surprised, as I have been predicting this for months. Most people I know are behind on their bills, or have credit card debt they want to pay off, or both. Our culture already allows people to live far behind their means by racking up credit, so by the time this stimulus payment was even discussed, most people were past the point of being able to spend it on frivolous shopping.

Labels: news

Did anyone see this headline?

Craigslist faces off against eBay

I knew that eBay was part-owner of Craigslist (according to this article, 28 percent). What I didn't know was that it was against Craigslist's wishes: A former Craigslist employee had sold the stocks to eBay.

Now eBay is apparently trying to strong-arm Craigslist. They are complaining that Craigslist is "trying to dilute its [eBay's] stake to reduce its potential influence over the company's board."

Knowing how eBay operates, I don't blame Craigslist one bit. Craigslist strives to create community and provide services for free, while eBay (who also owns PayPal) has the ultimate goal of raping users for every penny they possibly can.

Despite the problems with low-paying and non-paying writing gigs, I have found many of my best gigs — and longtime clients — on Craigslist. I hope they can continue to hold out against eBay!

Labels: news

A little over a week ago, I posted about Rolo the German Shepherd, a dog that had been sentenced to death for scratching a woman.

Rolo's owner, Laura Hagan, contested the decision. Rolo was still found guilty of being a "dangerous dog" at his retrial, but — thankfully — his sentencing this time around was much less harsh.

Here's Rolo and Laura's new sentence:

1) Rolo and Laura must continue behavioral training.
2) Laura must have her fences inspected.
3) Laura must keep $100,000 in liability insurance.
4) Laura has a suspended jail sentence of 90 days. "Suspended jail sentence" means that as long as there are no further incidents involving Rolo in the next year, Laura won't serve any time.

I think most of the sentence is fair. The liability insurance is kind of high, but I'm too glad that Rolo was spared to complain too much.

What I think is unfair is the dangerous dog ruling. Once again, I have to say that a dog Rolo's size has the potential to do a lot of damage, and very quickly. If all he did was scratch the woman, that's because he didn't want to do anything worse. And if he didn't want to hurt her, doesn't that mean he's not dangerous?

Unfortunately, I think there are a great many non-dog owners in this world who are very ignorant about dogs. And I think that the jurors probably fell into this category. Many people are afraid of dogs because they understand that they are big, strong, and potentially dangerous animals. What they don't understand is that just because there is a potential there doesn't mean a dog is dangerous.

In fact, doesn't it speak volumes that even though the potential is there — instinct, size, strength, teeth — something in Rolo's nature or training resisted all of those factors, and stopped at merely scratching the woman?

Labels: news

Sorry I haven't blogged much lately. I have been especially busy lately.

I did want to call everyone's attention to a dog-in-need story in the Denver area. A German shepherd named Rolo has been sentenced to death — wrongly, I think. Evidently he got away from his owner and "attacked" her neighbor, but all that he did was to tear the woman's dress and leave two scratch marks. For this, the courts have ordered him to be put down, but his owner is appealing the decision on February 25th.

I just don't think this is something a dog should be murdered over. He didn't hurt the woman or her child, and he certainly could have — anyone who thinks a ripped dress and two scratches is the worst a dog could do is naive about the strength of a dog's jaws. In other words, if this dog were really dangerous, a couple of scratches would be the least of the neighbor's worries.

A red flag for me is that the neighbor kept adding more "bills" to her restitution claims. If you read the trial transcript, she was claiming $1,327 in restitution, including $500 in physical therapy charges — yet the owner says that her neighbor never showed her any bills to back this up. It sounds to me like the neighbor is being vindictive, trying to milk her "victim" status for all that it's worth.

This story really concerns me. Our white shepherd often nips at the air when she greets new dogs, and plays with her mouth open. She's never harmed another dog and I don't believe she ever would, but what if someone takes a look at those big teeth and decides that she would? Furthermore, I've gotten scratched and had my clothes ripped just from our dogs jumping up on me in greeting.

In other words, this could happen to any dog owner.

I believe that dogs are capable of accidents, just as people are. To put this dog down over a couple of scratches and a ripped dress is an atrocity. Please sign the petition and help to save Rolo from the gallows.

Note: After signing the petition, you will be asked to donate to iPetitions. It's not required. Just hit the back button, scroll to the top of the original petition page, and click the Signatures tab to make sure your signature made it onto the petition.

Labels: news

News from the writing/publishing world: The Los Angeles Times got rid of their top editor, James O'Shea, because he was refusing newsroom budget cuts. Pretty much the same thing happened last year, when the L.A. Times fired former publisher Jeffrey M. Johnson for refusing to make newsroom layoffs.

According to the article, this is "the fourth time in less than three years that the highest-ranking editor or the publisher has left for that reason."

Journalists aren't exactly a highly-paid bunch, so I have to say I respect O'Shea and Johnson for standing up for their writers and other newsroom employees.

Labels: news

Listening to NPR this morning, I heard a short spot about a new study regarding wine and pricing. Essentially, a bunch of people tasted a bunch of different wines, for which they knew (or thought they knew) the prices. The study found that the price was linked to people's enjoyment of the wines.

Here's the trick: Some of the wines were the same, just with different prices on them. Even so, people enjoyed the wines more if they thought they were more expensive.

I find this interesting on so many levels. One, it demonstrates the power of the mind. It's obviously related to the placebo effect, where people report feeling better just from taking a sugar pill or getting some other phony treatment that they believe is going to cure them.

In this case, they believe the wine is going to be exceptional, and as a result their brains show more enjoyment of the wine.

Two, it demonstrates the importance of pricing your product appropriately. (Which is why I'm blogging about it on my freelance writing blog.) Think about it. When you buy something for a very cheap price, you expect the quality to be cheap — perhaps it's subconscious, but you do. When you pay good money for something, on the other hand, you are more likely to be satisfied with the product.

By spending a lot of money, you have essentially committed yourself to being happy with the results.

This is a good lesson for freelancers, particularly those who waffle on raising their rates. When you write articles at bargain-basement rates, you are essentially ensuring that your clients will perceive your work as lesser quality. However, if you charge more along the lines of the standard industry rates, your clients will see your work as at least as good quality as the established professionals in your industry.

As I'm sure my husband and sister would point out, this proves that there are all kinds of things you can learn from wine!

Labels: news

The Denver Post ran an article yesterday about the money to be made in the blogging business. As usual, the article cites the unusual cases: the folks who make $1,000 or more every month by selling ad space on their own blogs.

However, to its credit the article does note that this is the exception and not the rule:

That doesn't mean bloggers are suddenly flush with money. For every blogger earning a decent side income like Brooks, countless others will never earn a cent.

What I thought was interesting and useful about this article is its discussion of different companies you can use to make money selling ad space on your blog. Here are the services mentioned in the article:

* Google AdSense
* PayPerPost
* BlogAds

Honestly, the only one of these I am familiar with is Google AdSense, which I use on my own blog. And though I am one of those bloggers that earns only peanuts, those peanuts do build up after a while, making a nice bonus for something I'd be doing anyway.

Does anyone have any information or personal experiences with either PayPerPost or BlogAds? I am interested in how they compare to Google AdSense, and I'm sure it's probably a subject of interest for many other bloggers as well.

Labels: affiliate programs, blogging, news

For years, horseback riders' rights to trail ride have been slowly chipped away. Many wonderful horse trails have been closed — at least to the horses.

In response, a new bill, S. 2283, has been introduced to protect our "right to ride." I urge you to read the bill, spread the word, and write to your senators and representatives. Even if you do not ride yourself, no one can deny that horseback riding is a historical tradition in our country, and an important pastime for many Americans.

Labels: my horse Panama, news

We're getting more snow here tomorrow: another 4 to 8 inches in Denver (though if they are as far off as they were on the last storm, we may be in for a downright blizzard). Michael is planning on taking public transit to work, and I'll forego my visit to the stables in order to stay home and work, all warm and cozy.

Which brings me to another reason tomorrow is important: It's technically my first day back to work after Christmas, assuming Michael goes to work. (If it's bad enough, his company will close, though that's a rare occurence.) I have work lined up already, of course, so I won't be able to stretch my vacation any longer — though I do have a light enough load to allow me to take it easy until after New Year's.

Labels: freelancing, holidays, Michael, news

Just like last year, our white Christmas made national headlines.

The article comments that by mid-morning we had already gotten as much snow as had been predicted for the entire day. Actually, I'd say we surpassed the original forecast by mid-morning: As of yesterday, they'd still been predicting 2 to 4 inches of snow. This morning they decided it would be more like 4 to 8 inches, but by mid-morning we'd already gotten that.

It didn't stop snowing until mid or late afternoon.

Michael and I have taken it easy today — we're watching movies, and for dinner we'll have the sweet potato soup we were intending to take to my sister's house. Tomorrow we'll try to make it to the stables to see Panama, and to my parents' house to visit them. (My sister and her boyfriend are taking his mother skiing tomorrow.)

I haven't been working the last couple of days, but I've used the time to get caught up on my blogs. It's been nice to do some writing that is entirely for my own pleasure.

How have you spent your Christmas?

Labels: family, holidays, Michael, my horse Panama, news

Who says news has to be negative in order to sell? Michael found this article about the Saguache Crescent — a local paper in a small Colorado town that specializes in good news.

I found the article interesting because it operates on the exact opposite premise of big newspapers and newstations:

"There's plenty of media that will center on anything bad, the crime, accidents," said Coombs. "Doesn't sell papers. Good news sells papers."

It's sad, though, because as wonderful and wholesome as that sounds, it sounds like the paper actually isn't bringing in enough money to continue on to the next generation.

I've thought about it before, but this story is a reminder of how focused we (as a society) feed on gossip, drama, and stories of other people's misfortunes. We're so focused on the negative that a positive publication like the Crescent no longer has a place in our world.

Labels: news

Please excuse the off-topic post, but I want you to watch something: a video on animal testing.

Evidently, PETA has discovered that the Mars candy company is testing on animals.



Learn more at MarsCandyKills.com.

Can't handle watching the video? Then why on earth would you support animal testing?

SUPPORT PETA — BOYCOTT MARS!

Labels: miscellaneous, news

NPR reported Thursday on the Hollywood writers' strike, which hasn't changed very much since the last time I blogged about it. The report is an audio clip from NPR's Morning Edition, so be sure to click the "Listen Now" link.

What was interesting about the NPR report is the discussion of how the writers have used the Internet to get the word out about the strike and what they're asking for. The point was that the writers have done better with the PR work than the producers have, and as a result, only 4 percent of the public supports the producers.

Personally, I'm not at all surprised that the writers have succeeded in rallying the public via the Internet. While these are screenwriters and not PR writers, most writers (of any kind) understand the power of the written word, so it makes sense to me that the striking writers would know how to use words to generate support for their cause.

This situation reminds me a little bit of Laray Carr. (For those who don't know the situation, basically Laray Carr/LCP was hiring writers to write articles for 30-some magazines, which it seems they never had any intention of launching. To my knowledge, no one ever was paid, and at this very moment Quincy Carr is probably running a new scam under a different name.)

Although Laray Carr was obviously on a much smaller scale than the Hollywood writers' strike, it's another example of how writers use the power of words: We discussed LCP on forums and blogs, despite bogus legal threats, and eventually informed enough people that Quincy Carr had to shut LCP down (though he just set up shop under new names).

The message is the same in both instances: Don't mess with the writers.

Labels: marketing, news, other writers, payment issues

Thanks to a MySpace friend request (one of the few useful friend requests I've received), I discovered a new podcast for writers: Will Write for Wine. It's recorded by two romance authors, Samantha Graves and Lani Diane Rich. You can download it on their site (maybe — I've been having trouble with it) or subscribe to it on iTunes.

Michael and I listened to last week's episode — "Unscripted" — today. (I'm a writer, and Michael loves wine, so I figured it would be of interest to both of us.) In the episode, Lani gave the best explanation of the screenwriters' strike in Hollywood that I've heard yet. Basically, writers are getting the same royalties for VHS and DVD sales that they negotiated almost 20 years ago: 4 cents per $20 DVD. They were promised at the time that their percentage would go up, but the conglomerates apparently have conveniently forgotten their promise.

The writers, who are now striking, want a raise to 8 cents per DVD — not unreasonable, considering it's been two decades, and the conglomerates' excuse then was that they didn't know how well VHS (a new technology at the time) would sell. In fact, they are parroting that excuse now in their refusal to pay writers for online sales, such as downloads through iTunes and other virtual stores. The fact remains, though, that digital sales are pure profit — whether digital media takes off or not (which it will, of course, just as VHS did 20 years ago), they can certainly afford to give writers their cut.

To put this into perspective, this would be like you contracting a book to a major publisher, and having them turn around and start selling an ebook version without paying you any royalties for those sales. The ebook version competes with the hardcopy version, and since it is cheaper and easier to get, many readers might opt to go digital — which deprives you of the royalties you would usually get, at the same time as it saves the publisher considerable money on printing, storage, and shipping.

You'd be pretty pissed, I imagine.

In the podcast, Lani asks listeners to support the strike. She specifically asks us not to buy or download TV shows and movies online, since the writers are — as of this writing — not getting paid for them. I checked out the official site, and you can also support the strike by buying pencils: The pencils get sent to the conglomerate, and the money goes into a fund to help the striking writers.

I'm joining Lani on this one. Although I'm not buying pencils as of right now, I am pledging to not buy or watch TV shows or movies online until the writers start getting their cut. As of right now, negotiations are to resume, but the strike is not over. The writers still need our help!

Labels: news, other writers, payment issues

The Nobel Prize for Literature was just awarded to Doris Lessing. I hadn't heard of her before, but I've already requested a couple of her books from the library: The Grass is Singing and The Golden Notebook, both mentioned in the article.

I have quite a backlog of books to read right now, but probably in about a month or so you should see these books pop up on my book blog, Livre du Jour.

Be sure to read and/or listen to the NPR story on Doris Lessing and the Nobel Prize — it is quite interesting!

Labels: books, news

Please scroll down for important corrections on the original post.

NPR had an interesting headline yesterday about what it means to be a bestseller. Although when you pull up the page it displays an article about the reader gender gap, do listen to the radio spot — it's quite interesting.

One of the things the radio spot discusses is the New York Times's recent decision to expand their bestseller lists, basically so more books could achieve that all-important label. It also discusses the rather arbitrary means of deciding which books have achieved bestseller status.

This reminds me of something that was big on WritersWeekly.com a couple of years ago: Amazon.com was running a bestseller program, where authors would sign up, pay Amazon.com (see below for corrections) somewhere in the range of two grand, and they would run a special where — for one weekend — your book would be featured with some freebie giveaway. The idea was to get your book to sell lots and lots of copies in a 24-hour time frame, and therefore "become" a bestseller. No matter if it never achieved the same sales rate — as long as it got there once, authors could claim they had an Amazon.com bestseller.

Obviously, Angela Hoy didn't have much good to say about that. It's a clear-cut case of working the system, and doesn't necessarily say anything about the true rate of sales of the book. Angela also didn't have very nice things to say about taking advantage of writers that way. (Two grand? Good grief!!!)

The current story — the New York Times adding another bestseller list to increase the number of books that make it to bestseller status — reminds me a lot of that. Definitely some working of the system going on here. Another book I read once (the title of which I can't remember now) talked about how even the NYT list is worked: The titles are chosen ahead of time by the paper, which then sends a list out to the booksellers to confirm or deny. Well, of course they always confirm those titles, because those are the ones whose sales they are suddenly paying attention to!

To come full circle, I think NPR's radio spot on what makes a bestseller — while it doesn't discuss the NYT's hand in determining what titles make the list — does accurately represent the mystery of what, exactly, defines a bestseller.

Corrections:

Thanks to fellow freelancer Kathy Kehrli, I was motivated to check the WritersWeekly.com article after I wrote the above post, and discovered that I was wrong on my facts.

1) Amazon.com was not directly involved in this marketing scam. The scam itself is marketed via a teleseminar.

2) However, Amazon.com sets themselves up for this by calculating the bestseller list every hour. I think all of us agree that a book needs to sell consistently well over more than an hour's time in order to be considered a bestseller. Unfortunately, Amazon.com's system allows books to get on the list due to nothing more than an hour's unusually high sales.

3) The scam's time frame is an hour, not a weekend or a day as I had said in the post.

You can see the original WritersWeekly.com article here.

This little incident is a good lesson to me as to why I should check my facts before I post, rather than writing on something based on memory — especially a two-year-old memory.

Labels: books, news

We know how much J.K. Rowling is worth. But how much is Harry Potter worth?

Because I am an amateur book collector, the following story caught my eye: "Signed Set of Harry Potter Books Due for Auction." As a donation for a book charity, J.K. Rowling has signed a special edition of each of the seven books, and they will be auctioned as a set on eBay on September 24th.

The charity is hoping to get about $40,000 for the set. For that amount, I could buy this: an extremely rare, first edition/first issue copy of my favorite Brontë book, Anne's The Tenant of Wildfell Hall.

Before I go off to ponder why a set of seven signed modern books are worth as much as a pristine 150-year-old treasure, I should mention that Rowling's donation was to raise money so that the charity, an organization called Books Abroad, can provide books for children overseas. Although I am still indignant on Anne Brontë's behalf, I have to admit that it is a very worthy cause.

Labels: book collecting, news, other writers

I just found out that Robert Jordan (a.k.a. James Rigney), author of the Wheel of Time fantasy series, died yesterday.

As I was taking a hot bath, Michael suddenly said from the office, "Robert Jordan died." He'd read the news on George R.R. Martin's blog. After my bath, I did a quick search and found an article on Yahoo! announcing his passing.

I also found Robert Jordan's official blog, which has a post that was written yesterday by his brother. Just two or three posts previous, Robert Jordan himself had posted to reassure fans he was still alive. That was nearly a month ago. Reading those posts after his death, almost a month after he had written them, was erie and saddening.

Just a month or two ago ago, an old friend had told me that Robert Jordan had been pretty sick for a while. I hadn't known, but then, I don't always follow that kind of thing. This friend -- my very first boyfriend, actually -- had introduced me to the Wheel of Time series in high school. I read The Eye of the World back then, but didn't care much for it. About three years later, though, I reread it -- and all five or six of the other books that were out at the time.

I haven't followed the more recent books, more's the pity. I don't think I've read past book six, actually. I've been meaning to, but just haven't made the time. Robert Jordan wasn't finished writing the series when he died, but I am going to have to catch up and read the rest anyway.

I can't say Robert Jordan was the biggest influence on me as a writer, or anything momentous like that. He was, however, a talented and prolific writer, not to mention one that I took for granted and assumed would always be there.

Labels: news, other writers

Some of you may already know of my background in childcare: I have been babysitting since I was little more than a child myself, and spent 6+ years working in a formal preschool/child care setting. (In fact, I still babysit regularly for a family that I've known for three years.) In addition, my minor was in psychology, focusing on child psych and development, and I have taken a number of early childhood education and children's literature classes.

Okay, you probably get the point -- I have experience. Anyway, I have also developed several little pet peeves -- things I see parents do regularly that drives me nuts. One of my biggest pet peeves is when parents buy into the idea that listening to Mozart or watching colorful shapes fly across the TV screen will make them smarter.

If you are a parent, you probably realize that I'm talking about products such as "Baby Einstein" and "Brainy Baby." Well, it turns out that I'm not wrong for despising them. A study recently found that babies' language development decreases the more they watch these baby programs. In fact, a single hour a day of "Baby Einstein" means six to eight fewer words (on average) than other kids of the same age.

As far as I'm concerned, it's no grand revelation that parking kids in front of the TV slows their language development. Television -- even educational programs -- is a passive activity. Your baby isn't listening to you talk to him (which is infinitely more pertinent to him than what a disembodied voice on a baby video has to say), nor is he trying to communicate back to you. Chances are that he probably doesn't pay attention to that disembodied voice much at all -- all the visual stimuli is most likely monopolizing his attention. (Anyone who has ever tried to talk to a small child when they are watching TV knows exactly what I mean.)

My opinion is that watching educational programs on TV is never going to be as good as reading a book or learning about something hands-on -- language-related or otherwise. Baby videos about finger painting can't teach your child that fingerpaint feels cool and slimy and slippery, anymore than the narrator can teach her what the words "no" or "mommy" or "more" feel like to her lips and tongue.

As for the notion that playing Mozart for your baby will make her smarter... Well, that is the unfortunate result of a psychological study that the media reported incorrectly. The original study demonstrated that college students performed marginally better on spatial tasks immediately after listening to Mozart, as opposed to other classical music. This doesn't mean listening to Mozart makes you smarter. It might temporarily make your brain more alert -- or it might just mean that other classical music makes your brain less alert.

In general, I think the moral of this story is to take miracle products with a grain of salt. If it seems too easy for your kid to learn everything they need to know from a baby video, that's probably because it is.

Labels: child development, diatribes, news

Like many others, I was shocked and horrified to hear about the bridge collapse in Minneapolis just the other day. The headlines today, however, are almost as upsetting.

The structural integrity of the bridge was apparently suspect before the collapse, and the tragedy has sparked widespread concern about the condition and possible design flaws of our nation's bridges. As a result, Congress is suggesting a raise in gas tax prices to fund bridge repairs.

And Bush opposes it.

Bush is claiming that the increased gas tax -- which, as I understand it, would be about 5 cents a gallon -- would hurt the economy. Never mind that gas prices are now more than twice what they were when he took office... He's going to pick a fight with the Democrats over 5 cents a gallon.

Would you pay 5 cents a gallon to keep further accidents like this from happening? I know I would. And you have to ask anyone who wouldn't (such as, say, Bush) whose side they are on -- the people's side, or the oil companies'?

Labels: diatribes, news

Want a good laugh this Tuesday morning? Check out this article about this Thai police force's use of alternative punishments to keep their officers in line.

Labels: funnies, miscellaneous, news, plain ol' fun

I think I've mentioned before that I love to read children's and young adult fiction. In fact, some of my all-time favorites are for young readers. Although the idea of reading children's fiction may seem strange to some people, I urge you to think about J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books -- living proof that books written for kids can often be better (and more popular) than those written for adults.

Just the other day, I found an article and audio clip on NPR about one of my favorite childhood authors, Ann M. Martin, who has recently started a new children's series called Main Street. is the creator of The Babysitters' Club series, which I practically devoured when I was younger.

(Incidentally, that series was my first source of information about diabetes, and one of the reasons why I was so freaked out when I was diagnosed. In one of the books, the diabetic girl eats a lot of sweets and desserts -- which she is not normally allowed to have -- and ends up in the hospital. When I was diagnosed in 2002, it never occurred to me that treatment might have progressed beyond where it was in the late 1980s, and I tearfully imagined a life without ice cream.)

Listening to the broadcast, I learned one thing that surprised me: Ms. Martin only wrote about half of the books in the series The Babysitters Club. I don't know why I was surprised, as I know about syndication -- that, for instance, Carolyn Keen (the supposed author of the Nancy Drew books) never actually existed at all -- but it never occurred to me that someone would create her own series and then not write all the books herself. A little later in the broadcast, though, the answer came: she had to produce a book a month.

The Main Street series isn't quite so strenuous -- Martin will only need to produce three books a year. The interviewer, though, seemed to think that was quite a lot. I was quite amused, remembering my stint with NaNoWriMo in 2006. If I wrote that novel in a month, which was longer than a children's series book would be, while keeping up with my freelance work... Well, producing a skinny children's series book a month would be cake in comparison. In fact, immersing myself in fiction like that would be nothing short of heaven.

At any rate, I think I am going to have to check out Martin's new baby, the series called Main Street!

Labels: news, other writers

Earlier I wrote about an article that talked about how moms are beginning to prefer part-time work to full-time. This article also interests me for one other reason: what it suggests about the gains the women's movement worked so hard for. Of course, it is worth noting that the women's movement wanted women to have the right to financial independence. However, I don't think they had in mind women that work 40-50 hours a week, then come home and still have to clean the house and take care of the kids. Faced with the "double shift," as it was called in my women's studies classes, women are starting to wish they could go back to staying home. They probably figure that they have to take care of the home and the kids anyway, so why complicate things with a job?

I think this article shows two unfortunate things: 1) that the women's movement may have succeeded in changing stereotypes that kept women out of work, but it failed to change the stereotypes that made women responsible for cleaning and the kids; and 2) that the few gains the women's movement did make have been deteriorating over the last two decades.

A book I recently read, Are Men Necessary? by Maureen Dowd, talks about this backwards sliding. She talks about how, in many ways, the current condition of women has returned to what it was in the 1950s. She talks about how women are dropping out of politics; she even hypothesizes that the only reason Hillary Clinton has been so successful in politics is because she was first publicly humiliated by her husband's infidelity.

So where do I stand on the work vs. raise your kids debate? Personally, I won't ever put my kids in daycare. I have worked at too many, and I can tell you, I don't believe for a second those studies that say daycare doesn't hurt kids, or that it actually helps kids. The part-timers -- the ones who were there only for the preschool experience, or while Mom worked part-time -- were invariably better adjusted than the kids who were there 10 hours a day.

So, yes, I would say it is very important to me to raise my own children. At the same time, though, my decision is easier than most women's, as my work can be done from home, while I'm raising my kids. So I don't think my personal decisions can be used as a model of motherhood.

What I do think is that the debate is not an equal one for most moms. Regardless of whether she works, Mom is usually responsible for the kids and the home. Only the most modern of Dads clean house, do the grocery shopping, and take the day of when their kids are sick.

Ultimately, though, we have missed the biggest point of the women's movement -- that "women's work" is undervalued. How many times have you heard a stay-at-home mom say something like, "Oh, I don't work. I'm just a homemaker." Newsflash, guys: cleaning the house and taking care of the kids is work. In fact, in many ways it is harder work than a full-time job.

The problem that the women's movement had was that staying home was not being appreciated as work. Instead of recognizing that their wives contributed equally to the household and therefore deserved an equal partnership in the household's finances, men were using their wives' lack of income to control the finances. Meanwhile, society was supporting this by making it difficult for women to get work that paid a living wage.

Which is when the women's movement stepped in. However, I don't believe the women's movement ever intended women to be responsible for half the family's income and all the cleaning and the child-rearing. And I believe this dramatic inequality is overworking women, and probably at least one of the reasons society is reverting to the way it was prior to the women's movement.

Labels: diatribes, news

There was an article today in the Washington Post stating that more moms prefer part-time work now than they used to. I couldn't help but thinking how being a freelance writer -- part time or full time -- is really ideal, because you get to be home with your kids around the clock. Even if you have other things to do, you're still there.
I know there are a lot of write from home moms who get really irritated when employers' ads say, "Perfect for stay-at-home moms!" Granted, this phrase in an ad usually means, "Since this is so perfect, and you wouldn't be earning any money at all otherwise, I'm actually doing you a favor. Therefore I'm not going to pay you." But the truth is, freelance writing is a good arrangement for moms.

Don't get me wrong -- I think it is incredibly dirty of those employers to use a writer's motherhood to justify lowballing her. I am a big-time champion of living wages for writers -- regardless of whether a writer has a spouse, she needs to be able to pull her own weight at home. In fact, if anything the argument ought to work the other way -- after all, kids are expensive!

However, I've always thought that freelancing is ideal for a mom who wants to be home with her kids. I have never wanted to put my kids in day care -- having seen firsthand what that is like -- so I have always gloried in the fact that my chosen career and my passion would also enable me to stay home when I'm a mom. I'm aware that it'll require some creativity in finding time to work, and that I'll have to get used to the distractions. But to me, it is well worth it.

Labels: freelancing, miscellaneous, news

I try to keep this blog mostly writing-related, but every once in a while I see something in the news that I just have to comment about. Today that is Bush's flagrant dismissal of our country's justice system: Instead of providing subpeonaed information, Bush is taking advantage of the "executive privilege," which I'm sure was never put into place to allow a president to break the law without consequences.

Apparently, the White House was subpeonaed earlier this month to provide information regarding the firing of several lawyers. There's reason to believe the firings were motivated by "improper political considerations." So Bush is now demonstrating his administration's right not only to ignore the law, but also to ignore the legal repercussions of their actions.

They are making this really ridiculous statement that they aren't going to obey the subpeona, but that they are perfectly willing to provide non-subpeonaed information. There's a catch, though. According to the article in the Washington Post,

The White House has said it would allow current or former White House officials to speak to the committee only under strict limitations. Specifically, Bush has insisted that the officials not be compelled to testify under oath, that their testimony not be recorded or transcribed and they speak to a limited number of lawmakers in private.

In other words, sure you can talk to them, but you can't use anything they tell you.

With this in mind, I wonder how Bush is going to deal with the other subpeona -- the one regarding the investigation into Bush's illegal wiretapping program. Methinks he'll sidestep that one, too. It is so infuriating how he seems to think he is above the law. He is not king or dictator, he is president, answerable to the people who (theoretically) put him there!

Someone please remove Bush from office before he makes an even bigger mess out of this country!!!!

Labels: diatribes, miscellaneous, news

I clicked on this headline because it was something about a fashion writer, but as it turns out the article has little to do with writing, except for the fact that it makes male fashion writers look like creeps: The former fashion writer Peter Braunstein has been sentenced for sexually molesting a former colleague.

Apparently Braunstein posed as a firefighter, entered his colleague's apartment, drugged her, tied her up, drugged her some more, and then sexually molested her for hours while videotaping the whole thing.

For this crime, the judge gave him five years. For the crime of burglarizing his victim's apartment, Braunstein got fifteen years.

Now, I know that the point is supposed to be that it all adds up to twenty years. But would someone please tell me why the burglary is viewed as comprising three-quarters of this crime?

The judge didn't give the maximum sentence, and in his defense, he claims, "I have seen enough sentencings with victim impact statements delivered by grieving mothers to know the type of case that truly deserves a maximum sentence."

Excuse me? So, because the victim's mother didn't come in and cry, the sexual molestation -- which lasted for hours, I might remind you -- only deserved five years, while breaking in earned him fifteen?

Personally, the only reason I can imagine a grieving mother's statement being considered relevant evidence is if the victim has been maimed or killed -- which gets a whole different range of minimum and maximum sentences. And regardless, why should it require a tearful mother's testimony to determine that the victim had been impacted by being tied up to her bed and sexually abused? Who the he!l wouldn't that impact??!!

In the end, this really has very little to do with writing, except that it pissed me off and made me want to write about it. According to a book I recently read, Are Men Necessary? by Maureen Dowd, feminists are a dying breed. Does this judge's sentence reflect society's values when it claims violating someone's property is three times worse than violating a woman's body? If so, Dowd is wrong: Women's rights, and not just feminism, is on the verge of extinction.

Does anyone else feel, as I do, that making a premeditated attack on a woman, tying her up, and spending hours sexually abusing her deserves more than just a five-year sentence -- at least as much time as he got for merely breaking in? If so, I hope you'll speak up, online as well as offline. Society obviously needs to be reminded that even if the women's movement is no longer moving, that does not mean we want to lose all the ground we've already gained.

Labels: diatribes, miscellaneous, news

A new study discounts the anti-abortion camp's claim that having an abortion increases your chances of having breast cancer.

According to the study, having babies before you turn 35 lowers your chances of having breast cancer. So does breastfeeding.

Inversely, this means that if you haven't had kids by age 35, you're at a higher risk for breast cancer. There is no link between having abortions and having breast cancer. The article doesn't say by how much having babies lowers your risk of breast cancer.

Does this mean that women should run out and have babies like mad to avoid having breast cancer? No, of course not. The anti-abortion people are taking it one step further, though, by lying and telling women that abortion increases one's risk of breast cancer.

In fact, according to the article, laws in Texas, Minnesota, and Mississippi actually require doctors to warn women that abortion increases their risk of breast cancer, if the doctor feels that current research supports that claim. What?! Why is that law at all, especially considering current research refutes the claim? Basically, that law could be rephrased to say, "Doctors, if you believe that abortion is wrong you can tell women that it will increase their risk of breast cancer, just as long as you can find some research to back up your claims."

Law should not permit doctors to use their personal opinions to justify giving women false information. Abortion does not increase your risk of breast cancer, ladies. Saying that it does is just another attempt of the anti-abortion camp to undermine the power we currently have over our own reproductive systems.

Labels: diatribes, news

I apologize for not having written a lot lately. I've been busy getting ready for the wedding, but I've also been a bit troubled by the Cho controversy, and haven't felt much like blogging.

I ran across another story supporting my view that Cho's creative writings should not be seen as "warning signs." You can listen to the short blurb on NPR here.

Labels: news

I received a very nice email from a reader, agreeing with my opinions regarding Cho's creative writings, and recommending to me another article on the subject. Having recently gotten involved in a rather heated discussion on the Writers Weekly forum about whether Cho deserves any sympathy for being bullied, I ranted a little in my response. Below is an excerpt from my email, as well as a link to a very well-written article I found on the subject:

I cannot believe how unable some people are to separate what Cho did from what he endured, and condemn his actions at the same time as they sympathize with his experiences.

There is another very good article that I ran across, an in-depth discussion of school shootings and where we ought to be placing the blame. Shooters like Cho are easy scapegoats for people who don't want to see the larger problems in society.

Labels: diatribes, news

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush's 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. The ruling was close -- 5 to 4 -- and so contentious that one of the dissenters, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, read her statement to the court.

"For the first time since Roe," Justice Ginsburg said, "the court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman's health."

As Justice Ginsburg noted, the Bush ban does not allow abortions even in cases where it is necessary to save a woman's life. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, you should be outraged by the court's ruling. No politician or lawmaker should have the right to intervene between a woman and her doctor -- in my mind, not at all, but most certainly not when the woman's health is at stake.

If you agree, click here to sign the Planned Parenthood Pledge.

Labels: diatribes, news

Most of you probably know about Monday's school shooting, where Virginia Tech senior Cho Seung-Hui killed 30 people before shooting himself in the face. I've been following it pretty closely, as it reminds me a lot of the Columbine shooting in my own town eight years ago.

Just as with Columbine, I'm noticing the media's tendency to point out "warning signs" and draw connections. With Columbine, they recognized (somewhat) that bullying and ostracization had something to do with why the shooters had developed such a hatred for other kids. Sadly, though, everyone spent most of their energy fingering everyone else for not seeing "the signs."

I'm seeing a similar thing going on with Virginia Tech and Cho Seung-Hui. The media is making a big deal about the "warning signs" -- that Cho was introverted, a loner, etc. The fact that he wrote two "disturbing" plays in a creative writing class is especially getting a lot of attention.

I read both of Cho's plays, "Mr. Brownstone" and "Richard McBeef", and I have to say I don't think they are all that significant. Realistically, they contain nothing worse than what I grew up reading in V.C. Andrews, Anne Rice, Dean Koontz, etc. "Richard McBeef" is a little disjointed, like something he just threw together, but "Mr. Brownstone" contains some rather clever literary devices... And like I said, the imagery is no worse than what is fed to much younger readers on a daily basis. Would someone read these plays and automatically think, "This kid is going to kill lots of people someday"? I don't think so.

The entire situation reminds me of something that happened to me in middle school. Back then I used to carry a spiral-bound journal to school, and I wrote in it constantly. Being rather bullied myself, a couple of girls once thought it would be great fun to steal my journal and read it. Eventually the school counselors intervened (though it took a while, since they were always convinced I was doing something to deserve being bullied).

When the counselors got the journal from the other girls, they wouldn't give it back to me at first, because of a rather dark poem I'd written and attached to the front cover. They thought that the poem signified that I had some rather serious problems (although as much as I was bullied, and at that age, did it really surprise them that I suffered some angst?). I remember being surprised, but I stubbornly maintained that it was just a poem I'd written, and that I wanted my journal back. When they finally returned it, they had removed the poem -- as if holding my writing hostage would banish my feelings of being ostracized.

If, sometime after that incident, I had taken a gun to school and massacred a bunch of other students, those counselors would have told everyone that they "saw the signs," and pointed to my poem as evidence. And perhaps if Cho Seung-Hui had grown up to write bestselling horror novels or screenplays instead of shooting up a school, "Mr. Brownstone" and "Richard McBeef" would have been hailed as early explorations of his natural talents.

Obviously, of course, Cho did shoot up a school. However, from what I can tell there was likely a lot more going on in that kid's life than just writing violent plays. All I'm saying is that let's not forget that in hindsight, we often read meaning into things that simply wasn't there. In other words, let's not start using these "warning signs" to make assumptions any time a kid writes something dark. And before you tell me that won't happen, remember that after Columbine, trench coats were banned in schools nationwide, simply because of Harris and Klebold's affiliation with the (rather harmless) "Trench Coat Mafia."

Labels: diatribes, news

While browsing some of the top headlines this evening, I spotted this article, about the IRS's recent push to reclaim taxes. It's probably unsurprising that the amount of unreported income is so high. I know that I've heard a range of comments and excuses from people, from the misconception that PayPal income isn't taxable to the reasons why a personal car should be written off as a business expense.

Lying about your income is a shady thing to do, in my opinion. Deliberately writing off expenses that are completely unrelated to work is even worse.

Judging by what this article says, though, if you are not already honest with the IRS, you had better reconsider your evil ways. It sounds like the IRS is going to start cracking down on self-employed individuals and small businesses. Getting audited is a hassle, but it's even worse if you've been naughty.

There's really no excuse for not keeping good track of your income and expenses. My personal preference is to keep an Excel spreadsheet for income and another one for expenses. Anytime I receive payment or spend money on something work-related, I just enter it into the correct spreadsheet, copy the check if it's a payment, and file the receipt if it's an expense. That way, not only do I have a running tally throughout the year, I also have a paper trail to back up the income and expenses I report to the government.

If you're interested in more about doing taxes as a freelance writer, you might be interested in several articles I wrote for Write-From-Home.com:

How to File Taxes as a Freelancer: An Overview
Filing Taxes as a Freelancer: How Deductions Work
Taxes for Writers: Paying Your Estimated Tax

I really hope for your sake that you're not still working on your tax return at this late hour, but if you are, maybe these articles will help. Even if you have already filed your taxes, perhaps you might want to be better prepared next year -- or perhaps you still need to figure out your estimated taxes. (You know about that, right?)

Either way, good luck -- and remember, be honest!

Labels: advice for writers, freelancing, freelancing admin, news, tax info for freelancers

I haven't been blogging as much lately, due to my busier schedule. I've had a full work load lately, not to mention a lot of wedding-related things to take care of. As a result, blogging has not been among my priorities.

However, I ran across this article about a writer realizing his dream at 96 years of age. What a heartwarming story! I hope it doesn't take me that long to successfully publish a book, but it's always good to hear about the writers who refused to give up.

Labels: news, other writers

I don't know why I found this so funny, but I did...and I wanted to share.



Note the forecast for Thursday: Breakfast Flakes. Is anyone else thinking of cereal?

Labels: miscellaneous, news, plain ol' fun