Archive for the ‘Publishing’ Category
Twilight Times Books Welcomes Me, “Elfy” with Press Release
Well, now it’s official — the contracts have been signed and are in hand. Which is why I can now announce where my novel, ELFY, has been placed — at Twilight Times Books, a reputable small press located in Tennessee. The tentative date of publication in e-book format is October of 2013.
Here’s a link to the welcoming announcement:
http://twilighttimesbooks.com/News.html#publishing_notes
And here it is, in its entirety:
Barb Caffrey has placed her urban fantasy, Elfy, with Twilight Times Books. Barb is a writer, editor, musician, and composer. She holds two degrees and is an inveterate and omnivorous reader. Elfy: Bruno (né Jon) arrives in California from a parallel universe and is immediately confronted with problems galore. How can he rescue his mentor? What is a Dark Elf doing on Earth? Why is his new friend’s house haunted? Ultimately, Bruno learns that no matter how screwed up things are, life and love are worth fighting for, while becoming yourself is the most powerful gift of all.
And here’s a link to my author bio as it stands right now:
http://twilighttimesbooks.com/Authors.html#Caffrey
May the happy dance commence!
Changes Coming to the Elfyverse
Folks, changes are coming to the Elfyverse. The first is a very positive one: I now have a publisher for my novel, Elfy. However, as the publisher has not yet made this information public, I am going to hold off on announcing exactly where Elfy is going, for now . . . I promise that as soon as I am able to discuss where Elfy has been placed, I will do so.
Second, as long-time readers of this blog will undoubtedly note, I’ve taken down my links to e-Quill Publishing. There’s a reason for that; as of yesterday, I asked that my stories — and my late husband Michael’s stories, also — be removed from e-Quill Publishing’s offerings. I did this not from any feelings of ill will toward e-Quill Publishing or its publisher, Lawrence T., but because I now have a publisher for Elfy. The new publisher is willing to look at my late husband’s writing, and if this publisher indeed is interested in the two “Maverick” novellas (set in Michael’s Atlantean Union universe) or the three “Columba” stories (romantic fantasies, which I hope to show the new publisher down the line, too), it would be a big step up for me to place them with the new publisher.
That’s why, for the moment, I don’t have a Gravatar listing here at my blog, and it’s also why I no longer have stories offered at e-Quill Publishing.
Lawrence T. and I remain on good terms, which I think is a very good thing; he’s the first person in a long time who enjoyed my writing, and Michael’s writing, and wanted to showcase it at his small publishing company in Australia. Lawrence T., being a classy gentleman of the old school, wished me well in my new publishing endeavors, too — and told me that if the new publisher wasn’t interested in Michael’s work, or in anything else of mine save Elfy, he’d be glad to publish my work (and Michael’s work, too) any time, any place, anywhere.
At any rate, the projected publication date for Elfy is late in 2013 — that much I can share with you, thus far — and aside from that, I continue to work on An Elfy Abroad (the sequel to Elfy) and Keisha’s Vow (the prequel to Elfy, set in 1954) along with my non-Elfyverse urban fantasy/spiritual transgendered romance, Changing Faces.
Everything else remains on course, which just goes to show you that regardless of how it may seem sometimes, persistence does pay off. (And maybe the good woman wins in the end, too. Here’s hoping.)
Plagiarism, Pt. 2 — Zakaria Cleared, Reinstated by Time and CNN
Well, folks, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised — yet I am.
It appears that Fareed Zakaria, who blatantly plagiarised from a column by the New Yorker’s Jill Lepore for his most recent column at Time magazine, then got suspended last week from both CNN and Time (my earlier blog post about this is here), will resume his jobs in September.
Here’s tonight’s article from the Huffington Post, which states:
Fareed Zakaria is off the hook at both Time magazine and CNN after he admitted plagiarizing a New Yorker column last Friday.
The upshot of the article is, Time and CNN both have agreed to let Zakaria keep his jobs even though Zakaria most definitely plagiarised from Lepore. Zakaria’s employers view this as an “isolated” incident, even though Jeffrey Goldberg from The Atlantic pointed out back in 2009 that Zakaria had also plagiarised him without attribution.
Basically, Zakaria is getting away with doing something unconscionable, merely because he is a celebrity. This should not be tolerated, but apparently in today’s hyper-conscious celebrity culture, the bigwigs at Time and CNN just don’t care.
And by refusing to can Zakaria due to his plagiarism, it’s obvious that journalistic ethics — writerly ethics — have gone out the window at both CNN and Time. Despite the fact that they’re supposedly devoted to the news. Despite the fact that they should wish those who report the news for them will be honest, fair-minded, and at least have the common courtesy to properly attribute their sources.
I’m shocked that Time and CNN have chosen this course. They’re both news-oriented organizations. The people who work for them should be above reproach.
Yet Zakaria no longer can be considered above reproach, if indeed he ever was — which is why he should’ve been fired without delay no matter how high-profile he is and no matter how much of a celebrity, either.
By retaining Zakaria despite his blatant plagiarism, both of Zakaria’s employers have proven that the almighty dollar matters far more to them than the truth. Or ethics. Or even common sense.
Even in this day and age, wrong is wrong — and we all know that what Zakaria did is plain, flat wrong.
Usually, committing blatant acts of plagiarism is the one thing that can get a reporter, host, or “basic writer” fired without an appeal. It’s utterly wrong that Zakaria didn’t even have to sweat a little bit before he found out that he would, indeed, keep his jobs.
Instead, it appears he got what amounts to a “get out of jail free” card from his employers.
That’s wrong.
That’s shameful.
And it should not be allowed to stand. Period.
Writer Fareed Zakaria Suspended from Time and CNN for Plagiarism
On August 10, 2012 — two days ago, to be exact — Fareed Zakaria, a writer for Time magazine and a host at CNN, was suspended for plagiarism. Something like this happens only rarely to top-level, nationally-known pundits, which is why I wanted to see what the fallout would be before I wrote about it.
Here’s what happened. Zakaria wrote a column on gun control for Time that used a number of passages from a similar article by Jill Lepore that appeared in the April edition of the New Yorker. Here’s a copy of what Lepore wrote back then:
“As Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A., demonstrates in a remarkably nuanced new book, ‘Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the ‘mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.’”
Now, see Zakaria’s version of the same thing from his recent column in Time magazine:
“Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. “Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the ‘mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.’”
As you see, there’s little difference.
What’s worse, there’s no excuse for this — none whatsoever — because Zakaria did have other options than to simply lift a passage from Lepore’s piece without proper attribution.
The first and easiest thing Zakaria could’ve done is this — give Lepore her due. Say, “Recently, in the New Yorker, Jill Lepore wrote an excellent article on gun control. As I cannot improve upon her words, here’s what she said back in April:” and go on from there.
But Zakaria had a second option available as well if Time wouldn’t go for that. He could have either used a different source, or if he really liked Adam Winkler’s book, he could’ve interviewed Winkler directly, thus getting different words but getting at the same thing. This would not have been plagiarism because Winkler, as an author, is allowed to cite his own words whenever he feels like it. And if Winkler wanted to point out that Lepore had written an article back in April that was really good, Zakaria could’ve mentioned that without using any of Lepore’s words, too.
And do you know what else shocked me? This isn’t even the first time Zakaria has been accused of plagiarism. Because as an article by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic back in 2009 points out, Zakaria lifted some of his words, too!
So it appears that Zakaria has been lifting quotes from other people and not giving proper attribution for years. However, this time, he lifted a whole paragraph, which is why he got caught.
So what did Zakaria do after he got caught? He apologized, which is here:
Media reporters have pointed out that paragraphs in my Time column this week bear close similarities to paragraphs in Jill Lepore’s essay in the April 23 issue of The New Yorker. They are right. I made a terrible mistake. It is a serious lapse and one that is entirely my fault. I apologize unreservedly to her, to my editors at Time, and to my readers.
The problem with the apology is, it’s too little, too late. Zakaria knows better than this. Writers, reporters, journalists, and even hosts — like he has been on CNN for years — know that the only thing we have going for us, ultimately, is our bare word that we’ll tell the truth as we know it. Any writer worth his or her salt knows that. And we know that if we plagiarise, our credibility is completely and utterly blown. Forever!
And as I said before, Zakaria had other options. He did not have to do this. He should not have done this. And he deservedly got suspended for doing it anyway.
What’s truly sad and shocking about all of this is that Zakaria still has the potential to go back to work, when so many other writers who would never have done what Zakaria just did either aren’t working at all, or are working far below their capacities. No other writer I know would catch a break like this, yet it appears Zakaria just might due to his celebrity status.
And that’s wrong — so wrong that I do not have the words to explain just how wrong it is.
Look. Writers write. But we don’t crib from other writers intentionally, then refuse to give proper attribution. Because it’s ethically utterly wrong, and we know this, so we just don’t do it. Which is why Zakaria should not have done this, period.
So what comes next for Fareed Zakaria? My guess is that he’s going to have far fewer speaking engagements, he’ll be closely monitored at CNN, and if Time allows him to write any more articles, they will be extensively fact-checked so that no repeat performance is possible.
That’s better than what he deserves. Because after doing something like this, he really should be fired, celebrity or no. Because he’s proved he has no honor.
Quick Writing/Editing Update
Right now, I’m still ensconced with the nuts and bolts of a lengthy non-fiction manuscript that I’m editing for two other writers. So very little fiction writing has been done in the past month or so.
That said, I did get about 1100 words into a new story, which is of all things a YA dystopia. (No, I’m not trying to follow today’s market trends so much as just figure out where this story leads me. Tomorrow’s market trends may be much different than today’s, and every writer worth her salt knows this.) So that’s encouraging.
Otherwise, I sent two different stories (the second only after the first was rejected) to a well-known anthology. Neither story was picked, but I’m pleased that I was able to format these stories properly for the market and get them out despite the otherwise heavy workload.
I also have two other stories out, plus a third at a place that’s part writing workshop, part market. (This latter is for Universe Annex, and that particular story will likely need to be revised for this particular market if I’m to have any hope of selling it there, which is fine.) And three poems are currently sitting at a different market altogether, so at least I’m getting my completed short fiction and some of my poetry off my computer and out to various markets.
All of this is important, because you can’t possibly sell anything if you aren’t willing to take the risk. I know this sounds basic, and it is. But you still must take that risk.
Now, I need to get back to editing. Just know that unless something really interesting happens between now and Saturday, it’s unlikely I’ll post much except to get a book review out the door at SBR due to the ongoing work that must be completed — and soon — lest I risk the wrath of my writers and their publisher.
Monday Odds and Ends
Today’s post contains a number of quick updates. (Ready, set . . . go!)
First, Milwaukee Brewers SS Alex Gonzalez, after being placed on the 15-day DL on May 6, 2012, found out that he tore his anterior cruciate ligament (ACL); Gonzalez will now be out for the entire year. This might not seem so bad, except for the fact that Gonzalez is the third Brewers player to go down with a season-ending injury, joining first baseman Mat Gamel and pitcher Chris Narveson on the long-term disabled list.
Second, the Wisconsin recall primaries are tomorrow, May 8, 2012. Please get out there and vote; remember that in the 21st district, the only real Democrat is former state Senator John Lehman. In the gubernatorial primary, the four real Ds are Tom Barrett, Kathleen Falk, Doug LaFollette, and Kathleen Vinehout.
Third, I’m attempting to broaden my horizons regarding digital publications, as I’ve joined a workshop toward that end. While I still hope to find a publisher (or at least an agent) this year, it’s important to learn everything I can about e-publishing in case I do decide to go that route.
That’s about it — now, I’d best get back to editing (as a non-fiction manuscript I’ve been working on with two writers is due to be turned in later this week).
Women Writers Get the Shaft (Again); Vida Study Points Out Gender Bias in Literary Mags
As a woman writer, things like the 2011 Vida study of how literary magazines still have far more male writers working for them than female writers make you go “Hmm.”
Oh, you haven’t heard about that yet? Take a gander:
Here’s the deal: more men write for literary magazines than women, by a wide margin. At many magazines, male writers outnumber female ones three to one, while the ones that “beat the curve” do so by having “only” sixty-five percent of their articles written by men rather than seventy-five percent.
And it gets worse; most of the books being reviewed by these publications are also written by men, so there’s a double-jeopardy sort of thing going on that I truly do not understand. (As a prolific book reviewer, I defy anyone to tell me that I’m not the equal of a male book reviewer. Yet most of these books, written by men, have male book reviewers. For shame!)
This is unacceptable and inexcusable. Don’t these magazines (Harper’s, The Atlantic, and The New Yorker among them) realize it’s 2011? And that women writers are surely the equal of men? How can something like this continue, especially considering that women read just as much, if not more, than men?
Only Granta, which had a few more female authors than male, and Good magazine, which is evenly split among male and female authors through its first three issues of 2012, have made inroads on this problem — because make no mistake, it is a problem.
And these literary mags can’t even say they were unaware of it, because Vida also published a study in 2010, yet nothing was done. There has to be a reason for it, and Vida believes they’ve found it: gender bias. As Erin Belieu, co-founder of Vida, pointed out in the Yahoo blog post:
“Gender bias is pretty ingrained–this is a expression in the literary world, but it happens everywhere.”
Amen, sister!
I have news for these literary publications, folks: writers write. It’s what we do. And last I checked, having writing talent has nothing to do with your gender — why should it?
There is an obvious answer here that most of these literary mags are missing: hire more female writers. Because believe you me, we can write, and we’re not afraid to say so.
My guess is that around this time next year, I’ll again have to talk about the literary mags that would rather hire male writers than female ones to write articles, book reviews, and more, because change is glacial in publishing. (As we have already seen!) But I would love to be proven wrong — someone? Anyone? (Bueller?)
Barb Caffrey's Blog 