When She’s Right, She’s Right

Yesterday, I received an e-mail from a lovely woman named Megan who is connected with the upcoming Wisconsin Book Festival. (I love hearing from readers and new fans.)

Thanks so much for providing a comprehensive list of literary festivals around the US and around the world.  I would like to place a link to your lists on the Wisconsin Book Festival website but I noticed when I was setting up the international link that you have your International Festivals divided by alphabet into Africa-England, France-Wales.  The problem is that Africa is not a country, like England, France, or Wales, and you don’t list any of the other continents that way (Asia, for example, doesn’t get its own listing).  Thanks for hearing me out and thanks again for creating such a great resource.

I do know the difference between a continent and a country, but in setting up BiblioBuffet I made a few decisions that go against . . . would I call it common sense or accuracy? A bit of both, I guess. I made the decision to use this particular continent rather than the country because there were so few festivals. (I also made the decision to use “A” in “A Reading Life” (Nicki Leone’s column title) ahead of “BibliOpinions”—a technically incorrect editorial decision because I did not want a guest column to come ahead of a regular one on the home page—and I can live with it. It is not an error, but a deliberate choice that puts my reason for its choice ahead of Strunk & White’s. In this case.

So it also was with the decision to use “Africa.” However, Megan’s comments made me re-think that, and I decided she was right. Other countries had only one festival so why shouldn’t African countries get the same consideration? Well, now they have. Our International Book Festivals pages are divided into Australia-England and France-Zimbabwe.

I agree with Megan “that Africa and the countries in Africa are misrepresented and lumped together so often, I think it’s important to be careful about it.” And I hereby apologize to South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe. They now have their own listings.

In addition, I have updated most of the festival dates (a few even went back to 2009) to reflect the newest information. It took hours yesterday, and I am still not finished. I need to finish the dates, remove defunct festivals, add new ones, and then check every link to be sure it is still live. I hope to finish this afternoon.

If any of you know of a festival I am missing, please let me know. I would like this resource to be useful. And to that end I will be updating as I go. It’s tough because it takes a lot of time—but it’s worth it to know that it can be a reliable source of information for all book lovers. Thanks to Megan for caring. And I promise there will be no September 32 ever again. I still blush at the thought I never caught that.

Valid Criticism or Mere Anger?

It’s rather a shame we can’t share some of the e-mails we at BiblioBuffet receive. Some are absolutely wonderful, others . . .  less so. The most recent was one of the latter. It was addressed to Pete Croatto who, in “The Athletic Supporter,” reviews sports books. Not much controversy there, right?

You’d think so, but Pete’s current column combined a book review with the story of its author, Paul Shirley. Shirley had been a ESPN.com columnist when he made a couple of controversial comments on sites other than ESPN about the Haiti relief effort and the Haitian people soon after the  massive earthquake in 2010. The fertilizer hit the fan of course, and Shirley was fired. Pete addressed both issues.

Yes, what Shirley wrote was tasteless, insensitive, and mean, but that he got dismissed for it should give every professional writer serious pause. The man was fired for doing his job.

Shirley, who’s not playing pro ball right now, had the misfortune of being a dissenting voice on an issue that united the world. Maybe he didn’t express his thoughts in the best way, but it wasn’t wrong. It wasn’t right. It was his opinion, and for ESPN, a journalistic enterprise, to punish him is unconstitutional. . . .

Is it possible for writers to represent a company and be themselves? Shirley already had that question answered for him. He won’t be the last writer who is unable to speak for himself.

Pete’s words hit sore spots with several readers, but it was one reader who furiously responded:

1.  Your right to exercise free speech only guarantees that you can say what you want, not that what you say be rendered immune from critique or other consequences. What you propose is the palin [sic] definition of free speech. Firing him is unconstitutional? You are way, way off.

2.  You presume that in saying something objectively awful, Paul was “doing his job.” Paul doesn’t get to determine whether doing that is his job or not. His employer does. He was employed at will, correct? Its not a gov’t job. Paul being shitcanned doesn’t “chill” the exercise of free speech. It’s more of a place and manner restriction. Paul is totally free to bloviate on his exerable blog and twitter about his nursed grievances against Mark Madsen, Jamaal Tinsley, black players in general, his crappy love life . . . and tiny penis. It wasn’t “misfortune” that he chose to write that crap and then double down with a non-apology apology.  It was Paul’s choice. How about some accountability for that assclown?

3.  It’s dumb for ESPN to fire him? You make this assertion but do not say why.  You want to have the tail wagging the dog. Sorry but in the real world, your private employer can fire you for almost any reason. You seem to be saying that Paul’s “rights” trump the people WHO ARE PAYING HIM. . . . Who cares if its marketing or why they did it. They have the right to.

Pete’s brief but calm response to him only appeared to anger him further so I suggested the exchange be discontinued on the grounds that neither one was going to change the other’s mind. Nicki Leone, however, had a far more eloquent response, and I quote it in full because it clearly defines the original problem and the reason why the firing should raise alarms.

I think your letter-writer is hiding behind technicalities. It’s true that freedom of speech is a constitutional right, and therefore, narrowly interpreted, means simply that you can’t be arrested for expressing your opinions. But a narrow interpretation of freedom of expression is a philosophically lazy position. I’d say that Shirley’s situation is more analogous to that of a whistle-blower. The question is not whether Shirley has a right to say something. But whether ESPN has a right to fire him for saying it. In our current near-laissez-faire capitalist culture, corporations work hard to maintain absolute control over their image, and since thanks to the Internet there is no longer a line between the “public” and “private” life, companies feel entirely justified in firing people over things they say on Facebook, for example.

Our collective response to this has been troubling: we self-censor ourselves in public forums because we know that now these are no longer places for personal freedom of expression. They are de facto public statements for which we will held accountable, and which will have farther-reaching repercussions than might be expected for a simple amusing post of the photo of the night you spent hanging out in a bar with your friends. We have ceded, almost without a fight, the encroachments of corporate interference into our social lives and their right to enact judgments upon us when our personal inclinations run against their perceived corporate interest. In its own way, it is not dissimilar to living in a religious state.  Somehow being a “good citizen” means being a good company man.

But freedom of expression shouldn’t be interpreted narrowly. Its power is in its universality. At the heart of the First Amendment is not a simple guarantee that you won’t be thrown in jail, but a promise to the country that an individual’s opinions will always be honored, and a recognition that in diversity of opinion is strength. And the First Amendment is founded on the assumption that we can judge for ourselves who is and isn’t worth listening to. Any governmental—or corporate—attempt to make those judgments for us violates the fundamental principle of Freedom of Expression.

Shirley’s case is a little more nuanced, because he is a reporter for a news organization, which by definition holds itself to certain standards of neutrality and objectivity. ESPN would never, for example, decline to report on an NFL team just because the team owner or manager cussed out the organization on THEIR Facebook page. They exist to report, not to judge. And in the case of Shirley, it sounds like ESPN is on even shakier ground because he was hired as an opinion writer—he was a blogger, with a specific abrasive style which the powers that be certainly knew about when they first offered him a contract. So unless that contract stated “thou shalt not give thy opinions upon any subject but basketball,” they didn’t have grounds to fire him. He wasn’t giving false information, he was giving his opinion. He was doing his job.

I think ESPN displayed a corporate cowardice in firing Shirley. They should have relied on the universal caveat I’m sure is printed somewhere on their site—that the views and opinions expressed by the writers do not necessarily reflect those of the organization. That is all they needed to say.

This country is on a disturbing road. Our constitutional liberties, which have defined the freedom America stands for, are under relentless if fairly quiet attack. I am not going to get into a political discussion, but the issues brought up here by Pete, by the letter writers, and by Nicki highlight what should be of concern to everyone. Certainly, Pete has the right to express his views. BiblioBuffet is not going to tone them down, or nor will the editorial team suggest that he stick to a straightforward review of a book and an author/commentator he cares about. Is the issue worth talking about? It’s up to you and me and Pete and ESPN. But it is not one BiblioBuffet is going to sweep under the rug.

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.

The Writer’s Toolbox or Grammer It Ain’t

Of course I know how to spell the word “grammar.” I know the word “ain’t” isn’t a word in the world of proper English. I also know the difference between “its” and “it’s,” and when you use “who” rather than “what.”

All writers should. Possessing proper English skills is a writer’s foundation, similar to knowing how to properly wield a hammer would be to a master carpenter, or understanding the nature of fractions would be to a mathematician. Those are pieces of basic knowledge that must be mastered before you can go on to anything else in the field.

Serious writers use this basic tool in all their communications. Yet, surprisingly, what some of us editors are seeing are writers who feel that they can save their tools for their formal submissions and go “casual” elsewhere—in their blog posts and comments, in online forums, and even in e-mail inquires. This is mistaken thinking.

I would no more “go casual” in any written communication than I would add Red Mountain wine the high school boys I knew used to drink at parties—a gallon for $1.49 if I remember correctly— to my Boeuf Bourguignon. You know why? The impression is not good. Fortunately, the idea of sending out a written communication that does not reflect well upon the writer is anathema to most. But not everyone.

Two queries from two different writers showed up just a few days ago.  But they had a lot in common: both arrived on the same day; both were from women; both used lowercase letters all the way through.

Did you hear me screaming?

Misspelling words or using textspeak or all lowercase or uppercase letters when querying an editor is like walking into an interview for a Wall Street firm with a purple Mohawk, a t-shirt that advocates impolite actions, and neon-orange pants that would burn the eyelids off an alligator. No one is going to say you can’t do that, but then no one is going to hire you either. If you are okay with that, then wear what you want. If your goal is to get a serious job at a serious firm, you need to follow their style.

That’s no less true for writers seeking to join a publication that takes itself seriously.  I don’t know if the proliferation of “content” sites is responsible for writers thinking they can “go casual” in their queries. But at BiblioBuffet writers who choose that route are dead in the water. If you want to write for us, it’s good to keep these rules in mind:

• Be sure you have read and absorbed the guidelines we have on our “Write for Us” page. Then follow them. We are not out to torture applicants; what we ask for is exactly what we want—and we have reasons for it.
• Begin with a formal style of address. My name is on the e-mail form so opening your query with “Dear Ms. Roberts” is an excellent start.
• Always, always, always use correct spelling and punctuation. I can overlook a typo, but when I see “i” at the beginning of  a sentence I will kick your little “i” out on its serif.
• Do not—ever!—use any version of textspeak. I hate that more than words have the power to convey.
• It is not in your best interest to question me over the course of several e-mails about our payment rates (especially when the information is clearly posted on our website) and only after I have answered to your satisfaction to say, “when do we get started?” That is not a proper query. Adding a smiley face does not reverse the bad karma you accumulated in my eyes.
• Closely related to the above is telling me you have a good article for me on “Bulgarian business.” Do I look like I’d be interested in Bulgarian business?
• Ask yourself if you are you sure you understand what we do. And what we don’t do. Show me you read our site with a comment or two on a particular article that excited or angered you. Make me want you by making yourself so good I will immediately forward your e-mail onto Managing Editor Nicki Leone and say, “We need this writer!”

But regardless of who you query, be sure your toolbox is in the best shape possible. If grammar, punctuation, or spelling is not your forte, learn it. Take an English class. Buy a seventh-grade English textbook. Read Strunk & White until your eyes fall out. Own at least two dictionaries and use them regularly. Subscribe to some of the sites below and follow them.

A Way With Words: National Public Radio’s language show

A Word A Day: Be sure to subscribe to the newsletter and learn a new word every week day along with its history and usage.

Fun With Words: Games, games, and more games all centered on words.

Luciferous Logolepsy: You may not use these obscure words (though you never know) but you will certainly enjoy learning about them.

Oxford English Dictionary: Word of the Day: The king of dictionaries offers a daily e-mail with a word and its definition. 

The Vocabula Review: This publication strives to “combat the degradation of our language” as well as celebrates “its opulence and its elegance.”

The Word Detective: Language with a dose of humor is found on this site, which is the online version of the newspaper column.  

In addition to the above, and absolutely essential to any writer: read. Read books and  serious newspapers and magazines. Keep your online reading to less than fifty percent—one-third is even better—of your overall reading because studies have repeatedly shown that reading online affects our brains and our concentration levels much differently than reading books.

And if all that’s too much trouble, then you really don’t want to be a writer.

Thank you!

Every day, my e-mail brings me book review requests and notices, queries from potential columnists, press releases, copies of e-mails between BiblioBuffet’s contributors and Managing Editor Nicki Leone, updates from blogs to which I’ve subscribed, return comments from e-mails I’ve sent out, and more. I consider myself lonely if they number less than two dozen. But that’s rare.

Regardless of how many I receive I answer all of them, excluding only spam. Perhaps I learned old-fashioned manners, but I have never considered not answering. I intensely dislike the trend toward not answering if the answer is “no.” To me, that’s rude. If someone has taken the time to contact me, I owe them a polite answer. This is especially so in the case of working publicists who, in my opinion, have one of the toughest jobs in the industry.

In-house publicists like Yen (who works for a major house) have overwhelming jobs. They are responsible for gathering as much publicity as possible for their assigned authors, not an easy thing to do when trade books—those published by commercial houses and geared to a general readership—are published to the tune of perhaps 140,000 per year. There are certain trails the marketing and publicity departments follow: trade publications, book review and magazine book sections, and in the last several years, book bloggers, literary websites and forums, and even book clubs.

In addition to in-house publicists there are freelance ones ranging from single entrepreneurs like Lisa Roe to good-sized agencies. (Even a few literary agencies who sell manuscripts to publishers now have in-house publicists to work with their clients.) Some specialize in genres, others in types of publicity (television, blog tours, article placement, etc.). Most are hired by authors looking to supplement their house’s efforts, and their livelihood depends on being able to produce results for their clients.

And they are all looking for publicity for their books. This is where BiblioBuffet and other literary concerns come in. And these generate a substantial amount of my-email.

They often take different approaches. Some like to develop a relationship so that they know what you like. Others pitch more diversely. Most are efficient, nice, and even funny on occasion. Only a couple have been rough to the point of near-rudeness. But in all cases, I have treated their e-mails with politeness and sensitivity. Their jobs are hard, and in the case of their current client the results they get foretell their own future and livelihood. I understand and appreciate this. Even the publicist who expressed a strong preference that a review of his current client’s book appear on the date of publication was gently albeit firmly notified that we would let him know if we reviewed the book at the time we reviewed it. BiblioBuffet does not, after all, cater to publicists, publishers, or authors. We are there for readers.

But responding to him quickly and politely was the right thing to do. It helped him to get on with his work. It maintained our image as a literary site that believes in respecting other people’s time and work. It is good manners. And perhaps it made his job just a bit easier and his day that much more pleasant.

So to all the publicity people out there who have us on their speed dial (or in their address book), thank you. You have our respect. I wish I had a hundred more reviewers so more of the great books could be reviewed. Alas, it may never be. But our size will never affect our goal of being a place of quality, decorum, and a damn fine place to learn about good books. Thank you for your work.