Changes

Change is the only constant is an old saying, but one that seems to be a fixture in my life. BiblioBuffet is no different. A few months ago Lindsay Champion who wrote the column Memoirama, asked to leave because she wanted to concentrate on her novel and also had the opportunity to return to beloved New York and join the staff on a magazine devoted to another love, theatre. It hurt to lose her. Nicki and I worked with Lindsay for two years, and during that space of time we saw a naturally gifted writer grow into an experienced veteran of the written word.

Then last week, Pete Croatto, whose writing has been getting noticed in more publications, including the Christian Science Monitor, has asked to cut back to a monthly column. Of course I agreed even though I felt, as I did when Lindsay asked to move on, hurt. As his editor, I could do nothing less. I value BiblioBuffet’s columnists as much as I value my role in their careers. It is up to me to encourage the writers to become the best they can be. That also means I must face up to the fact that at some point I will gain some and lose some. And I cannot allow my personal feelings to intrude onto my professional responsibilities. Both the pride of nurturing gifted writers and the wounds in losing them to other gigs is part of being an editor. And so as Pete moves forward so do I. It is a learning process on both sides, and one I must value as much as I do the writers.

Thank you, Lindsay and Pete and all our previous contributors. You are the heart and soul of BiblioBuffet, and I wish you all the best in your future endeavors.

Seduction by Query

There’s no wondering why our newest columnist, Elizabeth Creith, won our editorial hearts immediately. Actually, except for Carl Rollyson who I invited to join the BiblioBuffet team, all of our columnists have seduced us with excellent query letters. Each was different, reflecting its owner’s personality. But without exception they were all enticing pieces of writing, showcasing not just the writers’ backgrounds and ideas but their personalities. They knew that we weren’t looking for “content.” They showed us they had things to say that would appeal to our readers.

Elizabeth’s was no different. It was obvious from the beginning that she had read our Write for Us page and followed the guidelines. You’d think this would be common sense for querying writers, but conversations with fellow editors and several years of experience have taught me that common sense is  . . . uncommon. Let me show you. Here’s Elizabeth’s letter:

I’d like to write a regular column for you. I see it as commentary in a light and drily humourous style, covering everything from the physical development of books (because it’s hard to take a stone tablet to read on the bus) to modern reading habits and the advent of electronic books (reading an e-book in the bathtub give a whole new meaning to “Kindle”) and everything in between. I’m a bookmaker as well as a writer and reader, and I have an author’s familiarity with the publishing industry.

Some ideas for columns:

• Basalt to bytes – a race through book formats in history
• How do you dog-ear a Kindle? – a technophobe muses on e-books
• Quarto, folio, elephant – the vocabulary of books
• Librocubicularists Anonymous – a twelve-step programme for those who read in bed
• The Breeding Habits of the Common Book
• The Dictionary Dance – descriptivist, prescriptivist, who cares? (I do!)

I have a track record as a columnist on radio. I worked for CBC as a freelance writer and broadcaster for about a decade, during which I had three regular features. One was slice-of-life humourous commentary, the second a folklore “column” and the third a humourous column about life as a shepherd in Northern Ontario. I also did a pet column for two online newspapers.

In addition I’ve been writing fiction and non-fiction for over twenty years, and have publishing credits both in print and online. I write horror and fantasy as well as humour.

I’ve never missed a writing deadline. You can find my references at my blog, Elizabeth Creith’s Scriptorium.

My reading interests are, in alphabetical order, animals, art, fantasy, history (military, social and scientific), humour, paper arts, physics, poetry, pottery, science fiction, textiles, writing and editing. I’ve also been known to indulge in mainstream literary fiction.

Currently on my night stand – or, more accurately, the pile on the floor by my bed –

• Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink”
• Terry Pratchett’s “Nation”
• William Tapply’s book on writing mystery
• Richard Lederer’s “A Man of My Words”
• The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes
• Paul Jackson’s book on how to make pop-ups
• Creative Bookbinding
• How to Shoe Your Horse
• I just finished reading “Lavinia” by Ursula K. LeGuin

I don’t have a clip on reading or books, so I’ve written a sample column.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Elizabeth Creith

May I just say that this is a jewel of a query. I sat up. I paid attention. Then I promptly forwarded it on to Nicki for her opinion. And we had a new columnist.

Writing humor is hard. I know. I’ve tried it, and my results were so poor I not only have never attempted to publish any of it, I’ve never even tried to write it again. I’ll leave it to those who can do it well. Thankfully, for our readers, we have one of them. And the fact that she specializes in biblio-humor is fantastic. Where else but at BiblioBuffet will you find someone who knows how to shoe a horse and dance with dictionaries?

When Less is More

BiblioBuffet has changed its Write for Us page. The reason? We are now closed to those who seek to be regular contributors, that is, writers who want to have a column. However, we are still open to guest contributors who want to submit pieces to BibliOpinions.

As you may know, Nicki Leone and I have full-time day jobs. BiblioBuffet must be produced in our free time, and there is only so much of that to go around. Especially in Nicki’s case, as she works more than one job. Nicki is the content editor behind what you read on BiblioBuffet, and she works hard at it. She works hand-in-hand with the contributors to ensure that their writing, already top-notch, is flawless.

I focus primarily on copy editing, proofreading, and posting. I also pay the bills. Since we do not accept advertising (yet), the money comes out of my pocket; there is only so much to go around.

These are both important reasons for closing our application process at this point in them, but there is one more reason. And it may be even more important. We don’t want to get too big. We want to keep the spotlight on the writers we have now because we believe we have some of the best. The larger a site grows and the more writers it has, the less opportunity each writer has to shine. And we think that would be a shame.

We hope you enjoy reading the wide variety we do offer: Carl Rollyson on biography, Pete Croatto on sports, Lindsay Champion on modern memoirs, Laine Farley on bookmarks, Lev Raphael on anything that catches his literary eye, Gillian Polack on science fiction, fantasy, science, and Australia-iana, and Nicki Leone on, well, on anything except self-help.

We believe that by having less we actually have more. We give you a good look at some damn good books through some damn good writers and we don’t worry that we cannot cover everything. 

Still, we are open to many things we do not cover regularly through our BibliOpinions page. That’s where you’ll find things you won’t find elsewhere on our site, and where writers who are looking to share their work can still come to be part of our team. And when we do open up again to new regular contributors we will look to our guest contributors first.

It’s Not Just Us . . .

I routinely read several agents’ and editors’ blogs so I know that the editorial team at BiblioBuffet is not the only one who receives queries that leaves us scratching our heads. What I cannot figure out is why. Why do writers not do their homework about the publication if having their work published there is so important to them?

What homework? Well, please get comfy. This will take more than a couple of paragraphs. First, we publish writing about books and reading and related issues. Related issues can be subjects as diverse as bookshelves, book buying, weeding out unwanted books, the unexpected impact of a certain book, censorship, libraries, bookmarks, bookplates or bookish ephemera, a book festival or bookstore. It is in fact anything that might be of interest to readers—and that covers a wide range. What we do not publish is anything else. 

In addition, we expect a certain level of quality. High quality. The fact that we can pay very little does not mean we accept beginners’ writing attempts. We do not. Do you know that the best way to find out what level of writing we publish is to read several of our issues? If you do that, you will learn why Carl Rollyson or Lev Raphael are much published authors, and why they are treasured essayists. You will learn how Nicki Leone explores her relationship with her books, and why she doesn’t review so much as she intwines herself into her reading. You will learn how Lindsay Champion and Pete Croatto, each of whom has a review specialty, talk about their books so that their readers know whether that book will work for them too. You can see how Gillian Polack handles the Australian publishing and books scene with wicked Aussie wit. You can read how Laine Farley, my co-writer for the On Marking Books column, researches and shares her information on bookmarks in a passionate way that brings her readers into her world. In other words, if you are a writer looking to join BiblioBuffet please read what we publish and then sit down and ask yourself, honestly and as objectively as you can, if your writing comes close to what you see in BiblioBuffet.

One of the most disturbing trends Nicki and I see in queries these days is the focus on “content.” Because that’s what much of what is seen online is considered ephemeral or fleeting as is the payment for it. BiblioBuffet is an online publication, yes, but we do not publish content. We seek to engage our readers with passion, with excitement, with excellent writing. We use as our role models magazines like Harper’s, The Atlantic, and The New Yorker. We rarely utilize links in most columns, the exceptions being my editor’s letter and to a lesser extent, On Marking Books. Columns should stand on their own; our feeling is that if one cannot say what one wants to say without relying on crutches links then one has nothing to say.

Another point I want to make is that BiblioBuffet’s reviewers like to search out books that are bypassed by larger publications. We don’t eliminate any books because if a reviewer is passionate enough to want to write about it she or he should be able to do so—and will in fact do so in new ways. But our goal is to help our readers find books that may otherwise go nearly unnoticed. And good books that sink unnoticed are a loss to all good readers. So please do not e-mail us about wanting to review *bestseller*. It’s a waste of our space and of our readers time.

Queries generally trickle in here and there as writers find us. But whenever BiblioBuffet’s guidelines get posted on a writers’ site we tend to get a deluge within a few days. Out of the last batch of around thirty-five queries we chose to keep working with two of the writers. That’s not unusual. Writing may be a matter of putting pen to paper or fingers to keyboard, but publishable writing for good publications demands much more. The writers we feature on BiblioBuffet demand a lot of themselves. They are talented, no question, but talent is only the beginning, They spent years, decades, honing their skills until they considered themselves “writers.”

For hopeful writers, the only advice I can give is to say that just because you can get your writing published online early in your writing process does not mean you should. If you enjoy writing “content” then follow that route. There’s nothing wrong with that goal. But if you want to write prose worth thoughtful reading then know that the best thing you can do for yourself is to skip the quick and easy detour. Stay on the Road of Hard Learning while you read those publications—not necessarily ones you agree with but those that issue fine writing—to which you aspire, and the columns and writers you admire. They are never so far above you that you can’t see them; they are merely in the place you are moving toward.

More Contributor Birthings

Last week I talked about an e-mail fluke that resulted in our newest contributor, Carl Rollyson. More commonly, though, we hear from writers who find our website through various means. Some are referred by current writers. Others appear to stumble across it. These are mostly single applicants. But when it is listed on a writers’ blog or website as a paying market we tend to get a slew of applicants all at once. That happened about three weeks ago.

It must have been posted in the evening because I received two interested queries that night. The next day brought about a dozen  more. And the day after that another dozen or so.

When we receive a number of applicants at once, the winnowing down is a multi-step process. In this case, I sent responses to almost everyone requesting more time though I did quickly review the submissions. The level of writing from five applicants was not even close to what we require; they received a form rejection immediately.

This still left me with more than twenty queries for one or at most two openings for regular columnists. About a week later, I read the remaining queries more carefully, separating the applicants into three folders: Yes, Maybe, and No. I then let myself think about my decisions for a couple of days. The rejected applicants in the No category received semi-personalized rejections.  Another seven eliminated.

The third step was breaking apart the maybe category into Yes and No folders. This is where the real difficulty began. “With sufficient editing . . .” I’d hear in my head as I read a piece, so  I had to repeatedly remind myself that I already had more than enough strong applicants, and that we didn’t want to take on applicants who would need a lot of editing. Out of necessity most of them received rejections. End result: one Yes folder, five semi-finalists.

So last night Nicki and I had a phone meeting to discuss the candidates. It was a long conversation but not because we disagreed. We rarely do. But we had reasons and expectations—not just of the candidates but of ourselves and of BiblioBuffet—to discuss.

Even though we pay relatively little, we offer our writers some things they have difficulty finding elsewhere. A “writer’s playground,” as Pete Croatto once phrased it, is one because the columnists have the right, indeed, the obligation, to write what they want, how they want, and when they want. As long as they say it well, we will run it. It’s a heady freedom for most of them, but for us, it’s simple common sense. Hire the best and then get out of their way. And at BiblioBuffet we do get out of their way.

Of course, that doesn’t mean a lack of editing. On the contrary, we are committed to excellent editing, which means that we, Nicki in particular, help the writers find their best writing while keeping our voices (and opinions) out of their work.

Our newest potential contributors haven’t experienced that yet. They are going to be providing individual pieces to BibliOpinions, our guest section for a while. This gives us a chance to see how they write, how much editing they need, and how they meet deadlines. It also gives them an opportunity to learn what it is to work with us and to see if they like it.

While I am always honored to hear from writers who wish to write for BiblioBuffet, it has its difficult moments. I hate sending rejections, especially to those who might make it with more experience. But because it is the readers who come to BiblioBuffet with high expectations—we do promise “writing worth reading, reading worth writing about”—we must adhere to our own standards much as we expect the writers to meet them.

The Birth of Contributors

Electronic spam is never welcome, but on rare occasions—okay, once, recently—it turns into gold.  Was this some kind of twenty-first centory alchemy? Not at all. But it was an extraordinary event nonetheless.

Two weeks ago I was skimming the e-mails caught in my spam filter when, just as I pushed the Delete key, I noticed the name of Carl Rollyson as the sender. It was instant recognition from the long-gone days of the now-defunct readers’ forum, Readerville. Carl is a serious biographer and reviewer of biographies (as well as a professor of journalism) with even more serious credentials to his name. He writes for the “big boys,” currently including the Wall Street Journal. I have always admired his writing from afar but never had the courage to even consider approaching him about BiblioBuffet.

Then the spam showed up. I desperately tried to reverse the deletion. No luck. I couldn’t recall the subject line but I knew it had not struck me as a personal one. And the main question in my  mind—why would Carl be contacting me after all these years?—was one I couldn’t answer.

So I googled him, found his university address, and e-mailed him. He responded quickly, saying that since it was probably a Viagra ad sent by a hacker I was fortunate in that I did delete it. My answer was a quick note of thanks and a (very) brief comment that if he ever did want to consider writing for BiblioBuffet we would be honored.

E-mails flew back and forth over the next two days. He said he hadn’t been on the site since its early days because he remembered we didn’t pay much and straight reviews simply did not allow him to stretch his writing wings in the way he wanted. He was trying to get, he said, a column about biography. A column where he could “write reviews from a biographer’s perspective, drawing on my experience in order to discuss the biographer’s sources and methodology, and, most importantly, addressing the question of where a particular biography fit into current practice, as well as in the history of the genre.”

Well.

It sounded like he needed a writer’s playground.

We made one for him.

Nicki Leone and I are firmly committed to the idea that when you hire excellent writers you should give them the freedom to do what they do best instead of insisting that they corform to your ideas. The necessity of imposing word counts in an online publication is moot at least as far as formatting is concerned. (Audience attention spans are still a consideration.) BiblioBuffet gives its writers complete freedom to say what they want, review the books they want, write about subjects that interest them. They just need to say whatever they choose to say well.

Both of us knew Carl’s writing from our Readerville days so when I peaked his interest with that heady editorial freedom he agreed. His first column went up this week, and it’s a goodie.

So what am I doing here? Hoping, finally, to write about biography and the practice of reviewing it from a broader perspective than is available in a book review, exploring what I expect from biographies, and commenting on how other reviewers and critics treat the genre.

Every two weeks, I will deal with how biographers are treated in the press, while doing some name dropping and perhaps even purveying gossip about the world of biographers—a cosmos I inhabit that includes the NYU biography seminar and BIO (the newly formed Biographers International Organization), as well as reports from friends and run-ins with colleagues in what has come to be called the life-writing business.

E-mails from potential contributors are always exciting. There is such potential, and it is wonderful to hear from someone who thinks BiblioBuffet is worth writing for. That is how all our excellent writers came to us. What is extraordinary about Carl, though, is that he came to us through the magic of alchemy. If spam could be spun into gold, that is.

The Dark Side of Reviewing

What happens when a book comes in and proves to be (a) badly written, (b) boring, (c) error-ridden, (d) all of the above? Often it’s just tossed aside. There are far too many fine books that will never get reviewed due to space limitations, and there’s no point in wasting needed space.

Frankly, it’s easier and better to ignore them. Our goal at BiblioBuffet is to provide you, our readers, with our honest thoughts on the books we read so that you have the information you need to make a buying decision. Books are no longer inexpensive, and you want to be sure that what you are buying is worth your spending hard-earned dollars on them.

But sometimes, as Pete Croatto once pointed out, for a reviewer “there’s nothing quite so cathartic as writing a review full of vitriol, something that gets agents nervous and fans riled up. It’s like working over a punching bag for two hours. Plus, those reviews are easy to write, rage being an easily identifiable, uncomplicated emotion.”

Pete hit the reviewer’s nail ont the head. Such writing is cathartic but it should never be malicious. In a civilized world there would not be nasty reviews. There would be critical reviews. And there would be negative reviews. But meanness really has no place in the world of reviewing. Even if a reviewer hates the book because it is poorly written, the professional reviewer is morally obligated to tackle the review with strength and grace.

One of BiblioBuffet’s reviewers, for example, is currently struggling with an upcoming review of a “bad” book. Here is a brief excerpt from our  e-mail correspondence concerning why and how:

If a work is bad enough from beginning to end, I may savage it. I start off, you see, being really angry at all the things a book could have been. All my first notes are negative. It would be dead easy to turn into a kind of Dorothy Parker. Except that’s not who I am. The anger stems from concepts or abilities that are wasted, or writers who aren’t quite educated enough to pull off their magnificent plan. This means I spend a lot of time working out what the writer was trying to achieve and who their audience is and measuring them against that, or considering their work in the light of a broader concept. I still put the worries it . . . but I will very, very seldom (and then only with outstanding reason) go apply all those negatives I thought of at first. When I read reviews that do that, I always wonder why the reviewer bothered.

I’m always honest, but I also try to be pleasant.  So there is criticism in the article, but it’s worded as pleasantly as possible—and besides, the idea is to find the right readers for the right books, not to tear careers to pieces!

As far as I am concerned, this is the perfect description of a good book review regardless of what it says about the book. Its focus is the audience of the book. There are no personal attacks, no viciousness, no anger. Because there is no need for that. The work we at BiblioBuffet do—from the reviews that our reviewers write to the brilliant editing that Nicki Leone provides—is geared to and focused toward providing insightful, thoughtful, critical reviews of books we believe are “reading worth writing about.”

Seeking Writers

BiblioBuffet has openings for regular columnists coming up in 2011.

If you are an experienced writer who enjoys writing about books, reading, or related issues please let us know. We are definitely interested in book reviewers with personality especially if you want to specialize in a given subject (cookbooks, young adult, history, etc.), but we also want to hear from generalists. And we are open to your ideas if you have a specific subject that interests you.

What do I mean by personality? We like reviewers who go outside standardized book reviews, adding themselves to the mix. Your opinions, feelings, relationship, memories and more are important when writing for us. We like you to be you!

One column I would love to add would be about libraries. Whether they are public or private, large or small, unusual or common I believe that there are stories there. Are you a writer who can talk to people about their bookshelves—regardless of what is on them—and then share the experience? Could you make any library, even one composed solely of John Grisham novels, and its owner interesting to BiblioBuffet’s readers? Would you be interested in being part of a widely-scattered team doing that in your own part of the country? Would you like to do the same for bookstores? Or maybe follow literary censorship wherever it may rear its head?

These are not the only ideas we want to see. Tell us what turns you on and why. Because if you have a love of words, a strong command of English, a desire to work with an excellent editorial team, and a passion for writing about literary subjects we want to hear from you. Managing Editor Nicki Leone can be reached at nicki . leone {@} bibliobuffet.com. Editor in Chief Lauren Roberts can be reached at lauren . roberts {@} bibliobuffet.com. (Be sure to put the addresses into the proper format before sending that e-mail.)

While the pay is not high—we offer $20 per column—we do have several excellent benefits: the opportunity to work with a brilliant content editor, maximum editorial freedom, and regular appreciation. For more details, please see our Write for Us page here. And if you want to contact our current contributors for their experiences with BiblioBuffet, feel free. We pride ourselves on keeping them happy. And our readers as well.

Saying Good-bye

My favorite movie of all time is Casablanca. I’ve probably seen it more than a thousand times. I can quote every line in it, and I know the biographies of each of the actors very well. One time I even had a boyfriend who upon discovering my love of the film took to quoting the famous line—Here’s looking at you, kid—to me periodically whether that was over shared orange juice in the morning or over a glass of champagne in the evening. I fell hard for that man.

Casablanca is very much about saying good-bye in many ways and to many things. But I always remember the courtliness that accompanied each one and try to incorporate that into my relationships. (I’m not always successful, but I do try.)

So when Lauren Baratz-Logsted e-mailed me late last night to inform me that she needed to stop writing for BiblioBuffet due to her other commitments I mourned for a brief time. It’s hard to lose a writer. It’a harder to lose a writer you respect and like. But I took a deep breath and wrote the response that was right. I told her she was welcome to write for us at any time she liked, and that I wished her the best with all her books.

Lauren is an astonishingly prolific author of tween and young adult novels. She is what is termed a “mid-lister,” meaning she isn’t a NYT bestselling author but she is one who regularly produces books that sell respectable numbers. This is not an easy level to reach. It requires not only producing good books but constant efforts to keep one’s name in front of the book-reading public with social networking and other tools. And those take time.

So while she moves on, her current column, Writer-in-Residence, comes to an end but it will remain available to our readers in our Inactive Columns section. I going to miss it, especially the Disrespectful Interviewer pieces, but even more so I am going to miss her gentle sense of humor and her wonderful support. Good-bye, Lauren, and good luck!

Damn, er, Praise the Reviewers, and Pass the Credit Card

Pete, damn … er, thank you! That’s how my e-mail to Pete Croatto began when he sent in his current column. The reason? He made me want to buy yet another book.

Sometimes I think the contributors to BiblioBuffet should be called book enablers rather than book reviewers. After all, the proof is on my bookshelves, which now sport (so to speak) three books that Pete has reviewed recently: Big Bill Tilden: The Triumphs and the Tragedy, The Billion Dollar Game, and Mint Condition. Because I have no interest in most sports I would never have known about these books had Pete not talked about them. But now I do, and I am very pleased. They are not sports books per se, but fall into categories I like: biography and American culture.

And then there are the books I’ve bought based on the reviews by Nicki Leone (I’m not sure of the count so let’s just say “a lot”), Lev Raphael (4 or 5), Lindsay Champion (2), and David Mitchell (2). Oh, and although she doesn’t review for BiblioBuffet, Lauren Baratz-Logsted got me interested in the series by Susan Beth Pfeffer—Life As We Knew It, The Dead and the Gone, and This World We Live In—because they are based on a rather intriguing scientific idea, that is, what would happen to life on earth if an asteroid collided with the moon shifting its orbit closer to Earth. Ooh, an intriguing science-based idea! Need I say I added those to my shelves too?

That is not the best news for my groaning shelves, but it’s all good news for the authors, publishers, and booksellers of these volumes. But it is you, our readers at BiblioBuffet to whom our recommendations  are directed. You are the reason we exist, and the people to whom we write. So if you ever feel the need to blame your newest credit care bill on someone, feel free to use us. Oh, and enjoy your new books.