Category: Writing

Just writing

Categories
Writing

Truth and authority

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Joi Ito points to an article by a reporter talking about the untrustworthy nature of Wikipedia. It would seem that a school librarian wrote to this reporter saying, that Wikipedia is …not an authoritative source. The librarian, Susan Stagnitta then continues:

“Anyone can change the content of an article in the Wikipedia, and there is no editorial review of the content. I use this Web site as a learning experience for my students. Many of them have used it in the past for research and were very surprised when we investigated the authority of the site.”

Phil Ringnalda also wrote on this (a post that did not show up in Bloglines–is it real, then?), and I gather that Morbus Iff has been mixing it up with the reporter, a gentleman by the name of Al Fasoldt.

(I liked Morbus’ question at the end: “Tell me dear readers, is Morbus Iff anonymous?” We could extend this already complex topic to include the concept of authenticity, as well as authority and truth, but my head would implode messily from the effort.)

What makes this even more interesting is that it would seem Fasoldt wrote the article warning of the dangers of Wikipedia under his name, Fasoldt, but wrote in support of the wiki, previously, under a pseudonym, Dr. Gizmo:

In a column published a few weeks ago by my companion Dr. Gizmo, readers were urged to go to the Wikipedia Web site at www.wikipedia. org/wiki/Main Page , an online encyclopedia, for more information on computer history. The doctor and I had figured Wikipedia was a good independent source.

Leaving aside the ramifications of refuting one’s own story, and doing so in the third person, the topic of trust, truth, and authority is a compelling one.

For instance, I do find the Wikipedia to be a good resource. Do I trust the information written there? Let’s say that I trust it to be ‘a’ good source of information, but not the only one. It makes a good start when one is investigating a topic because the material at the wiki usually contains new perspectives, new avenues to explore on a specific topic. So yes, I do trust it to be a good resource…just not the only one.

A case in point of what the wiki can provide can be found in the recent discussions on the Japanese Internment camps. The Wikipedia entry on this topic provides facts that can be verified, such as the name of the camps, bills passed, and major participants in the internment process; or photos taken during this time, such those from this collection of photos of Manzanar by Ansel Adams.

(Though I personally found Adams formal style and obsession with creating ‘beautiful works’ resulted in photos that border on characterization at times.)

The site also reflects opinions, including those categorized as ‘dissenting’, mixed in with the facts. It is the opinion that usually reflects the changes the most, and I imagine it is this that caused much of the consternation with the librarian. But it is this that makes the Wikipedia just such a valuable resource.

The material in the articles can be fascinating, but no more so than that found behind the scenes. You only have to look at thediscussion or view the change log associated with the article to not only see how the topic has evolved, but the justifications for evolving the topic given by those who have made edits. You can learn as much for the reasons changes were made as you can by the changes themselves.

As for the more traditional works on the Japanese Internment, people have discarded the more researched and scholarly writings as the work of fusty out of touch historians with only a partial understanding of what was really happening. Even when a the work was considered ‘authoritative’, and annotated with thousands of pages of documents and the testimony of many who participated in the camps, the work is rejected.

The reason, according to those with more modern views, is though the authors could be considered ‘authorities’ on the topic, they don’t have the ‘truth’ because the truth, in this instance, is held by those who have new, and fresh insight into the existing material–they have reached an epiphany the others, weighed down by the mass of research material and outdated ideas, can’t hope to achieve.

According to these blessed with such insight, they have truth without authority, while the historians have authority, but can’t possibly understand the truth. Who you trust then, depends less on authority or even truth than it does on who you want to believe–literally whose interpretation rings your bell the most.

So much for authority and truth.

That poor librarian’s students would have a difficult time with this topic, as they discover that finding a source that can be trusted isn’t a simple matter of finding an authority who has the truth’; but they couldn’tcould do worse than to start at the Wikipedia, which at least promises to be interesting, if neither truthful nor authoritative.

Categories
Books Writing

Free of the toothless sharks

Now that the book deal I had spent four month wrangling over has fallen through, I pulled the about page until I can figure out what it will say.

(Oh, did you miss that particular rant? You’ve got to move quick in the Burningbird world, or you’ll miss the good stuff. You can, however, still catch the link in Bloglines.)

After spending over a year with two publishers that have beat me about the psyche, eating away at my inspiration and enthusiasm like old, toothless sharks desperate for human juices, I don’t know if I want to consider myself a ‘technology writer’. Once I was a technology writer. Now, all I know is that I’m not a Wal-Mart worker.

Unlike the sharks, I’m not starving to death, thanks to contract PHP/MySQL and other work (helped in part by recommendations of a friend made through this weblog). I guess that makes me a member of an endangered species, a Woman in Technology; but it doesn’t make me a Technology Writer.

I could go elsewhere, look for another other publisher. I could also pull my fingernails out one by one, or have a dentist drill my teeth without Novocain.

I’ve talked about quitting the comp book biz before, but in the back of my mind, it was always there. Writing computer books isn’t just part of my income, it’s part of my identity. I feel like I’ve lost part of my identity, but I don’t know if this is a bad thing.

Without worrying about a computer book, there’s more time for walks. More time for pics. More time for my balcony garden, or bookbinding, or other interests. More time to write just for the fun of it. And no worries about offending–or trying to attract–any publisher or technology group, so I am free to write whatever I want.

No more sucking up to the toothless sharks.

Categories
Books Writing

Book publishers suck

I’ve been in negotiations for over four months with a publisher on a book. After the last book deal fell through with negative reprecussions for me, I’ve been more wary when it comes to contracts.

One issue with the new publisher has been about a clause in the contract that the publisher could bill me for royalities paid out if the books are returned.

With my previous books, the publisher holds a percentage of royalities aside for coverage of book returns; or hold royalities for 3-9 months for the same reason. They also keep most of the profits from the book. In exchange, the author isn’t suddenly presented with a bill when they’re expecting a royalty check.

I’ve earned out my royalities and advances on all the books I’ve authored or co-authored but Developing ASP Components, second edition (because Microsoft came out with a new architecture just as we went to print), and the recent Practical RDF (I have hopes I’ll earn out the advance on this one, but slowly). Both of these books have been with O’Reilly Publishing (who has an uncomplicated contract without a lot of ‘gotcha’ clauses about billing the author, may I add).

However, the publisher I’ve been dealing with not only wanted to hold payouts for several months, reserve 25% of the royalities for return, but they also wanted to bill me for any returns beyond that. Paired with very low royality–eight percent–I had to decline. Disappointing, and discouraging, but these things happen.

Now it gets good.

I didn’t hear anything more for about a month or so. Then, out of the blue this last week the publisher came back and said they would strike this clause, in addition to paying half the indexing fee (having me pay all the indexing fee was something else I wasn’t happy about). It wasn’t a great deal, but I’ve spent so much time on this, I said I would agree and asked to see the new contract.

Well today, I heard that the publishing company has decided to keep the clause in after all, but that they “never invoke it, so it doesn’t mean anything”. If a clause in a contract doesn’t mean anything, why keep it in the contract? Do they think me stupid?

Needless to say, that’s the end of my relationship with this publisher.

This is two bad experiences with publishers in a row trying to get a book out, and spending over a year in the process. Frankly, the news today was like getting sucker punched.

Categories
Books Writing

If it’s so bad why do we love it

Michael Blowhard at 2Blowhards provides a detailed discussion about why you wouldn’t want to write a book. Among the reasons given, such as only a few hundred people make a living at it, he says that writing a book just isn’t fun:

Many people imagine that they’d “fullfill themselves” (whatever that means) if they wrote a book; or that they’d get a deep pleasure out of the craft elements of the job. In fact, writing a book is a lot of work, and often work of a very tedious kind. It’s heavy labor, more akin to building a house than puttering in your basement. (And no one builds a house purely for the pleasure of it.)
…
But writing a book isn’t something that can be done in a week or a month. It weighs on you; it’s a bear to wrestle into submission, and it’s followed by the (generally) no-fun publishing process. And then you’ve got to endure the almost inevitable commercial disappointment. Imagine going to all the trouble of building your dream house (by hand, naturally) – and then people ignore it.

I do agree with Michael – book writing isn’t done in a week or a month. And during a deadline, or if you’re having trouble with your subject, it can weigh on you. But he’s focusing exclusively on the darker moments of writing.

Sure there are times when the words feel as if they have to be dragged out of your very soul; but then there are other times when your fingers can’t move fast enough in order to keep up with your thoughts. Sometimes you get a good editor, sometimes you don’t, but when you have a good one, the editing process can be enormously satisfying.

And when you get your first copy of the book, what a feeling of accomplishment. The same feeling you get when someone is kind enough to write you and let you know how much they enjoyed the book, or how much the book helped them.

According to Michael, the only reasons why people would consider writing books are:

  • Some hope to hit the jackpot despite the odds
  • Some have a dream about being an author, or taking part in “literature”
  • Some are obsessed lunatics – ie., they feel they just gotta
  • Some don’t know better (these usually never write a second book)
  • Some have other ambitions, and writing a book is a step along the way
  • A handful are determined to be trade-book authors as a career, and know what the game consists of, and have (or think they have) the tenacity, toughness, talent, luck and energy to succeed

I am guilty. I am an obsessed lunatic.

Seriously, Michael Blowhard has good points: writing books is not an easy thing to do; it takes time, discipline, a certain kind of writing ability, and most people who write don’t make a living at it. As for being part of the literary world, well, for most of us, writing a book might get us a cup of coffee at Starbuck’s, but only at one located in a Barnes & Noble. But still, there are some of us tenacious, tough, determined, hopefully talented people who keep at it. Because in the end, the writing’s the thing. That’s one Michael forgot to include in his list.

Categories
Political Weblogging Writing

A Missouri woman heads to American Streets

Starting this next Sunday, I’ll be writing a weekly essay at The American Street–my first time as contributor to a group weblog. Each essay is a longer writing, and may or may not include links. Though the topic will vary from week to week, I hope to bring a unique perspective to each that reflects, among other things, being a woman living in Missouri. Since it’s been said by those who say such things that women prefer facts over theory, you might say I’m providing the show me sex in the show me state viewpoint.

(Speaking of which, Missouri, an important swing state in the upcoming election, is also the site of one of four presidential debates scheduled for this Fall. It’s also a popular campaign stop for both parties, as witness President Bush’s visit today.)

I’ve resisted group weblogs in the past, preferring to keep all my writing here in my own space. What changed my mind in this case–aside from the other excellent writers at The American Street, not to mention my respect for Kevin Hayden–is that I want the discipline that comes with writing in another’s space, and at specific times in the week.

I’m writing on impulse too much lately. Writing impulsivly is not the same as being fresh and spontaneous. There is an element of ‘knee jerk’ reaction to impulsive writing, and I end up regretting such writing, more often than not.

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of material lately that leads to reactive behavior, much of it political in nature. I’ve been reading the top linked stories the last few week and I’m seeing a new element entering into weblogging; we’ll call it the “Fox” element for want of another classification. You can see it with the relatively new weblog written by Michelle Malkin, who happens to be, among other things, a Fox News Contributor.

Malkin has looked at weblogging and seen what it’s done for Wonkette and others, and has enthusiastically jumped in. She’s a real pro, too, having written for the New York Post and National Review Online, as well as being trained by that media maw that is known as Fox. Though we can laugh and sneer at Fox’s lack of credibility, make no mistake–it is the highest rated news station in the country now. Fox sells here in Missouri. Fox sells in a lot of places.

Malkin has, quickly and efficiently, demonstrated how to push the right buttons with her writing. Though I am pleased to see a woman gain such immediate attention, I am less than sanguine when I read her form of journalism.

Malkin succeeds by generating impulsive reactions. Whether they are reactions for or against (primarily for, at this time), there is something about her writing that makes me, at least, want to sit down in a heat of anger and write a blistering refutation.

However, the problem with this kind of reaction is all we’re doing is responding to having our buttons pushed; instead of providing a counter-point, we’re providing a chorus. It’s somewhat comparable to Fox News and that new documentary, Outfoxed. Is Outfoxed outfoxing Fox? Or will it be outfoxed itself as Fox’s audience increases rather than decreases over the next several months, thanks in part to this documentary. The documentary and that foolish MoveOn challenge of Fox’s slogan, “Fair and Balanced”, I should add.

Rather than immediately respond to Maltin’s writings, or other events just as heated and reactive, with many postings barely controlled, I’m hoping that by picking one specific topic, thinking about it carefully and calmly and then writing about it on a specific day, to a weblog shared with other people, my writing will not only be more disciplined, but more effective. The writing can still be as passionate; hopefully, though, it will also be thoughtful, cohesive, and coherent.

(Not to mention spell checked, and carefully edited for grammar. Not, toomany, comma’s or other punctuation an grammar errors other other typos in the writing of it.)

My appreciations to The American Street folks for inviting me in.

Now, I may be more thoughtful with my political writing at The American Street, but I’ll still blather incoherently about everything else here, or in Practical RDF. Just in case you were worried.

Unfortunately, reading popular political weblogs from all sides of the fence, I have a feeling my approach is not going to gain The American Street any fans.