Four day 50% off sale for Kobo readers in US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand!

For those of you who read on Kobo and live in the territories listed above, I have some great news! Kobo is running a short-term 50% off sale, and almost all of my books are eligible! Just use the following coupon codes on the following dates:

Canada
October 28th – October 31st
Promo Code: CA50SALE

United States/Australia/New Zealand
October 27th – October 30th
Promo Code: GET50SALE

United Kingdom
October 30th – November 2nd
Promo Code: UK50SALE

Here is a list of all of my Kobo books that are eligible. You can also check them out using the links from the book pages. Basically, the coupon code works on everything $2.99 (£1.99, C$3.99, A$3.99, NZ$3.99) and higher.

The cool thing is that Kobo will still pay me full royalties on every sale, so this is a great way to support your favorite authors and get a good deal in the process!

Thoughts on the new Star Wars trailer

OMG, guys! The feels, THE FEELS!

The new Star Wars trailer came out last week, and I have watched it at least half a dozen times every day since. It’s awesome. While I’m still ambivalent enough not to rush out and buy tickets right away, there are a number of things that I think look promising:

  • The major characters from the original trilogy are all there, but they seem to be more in a supporting role than the main one. The story has clearly grown bigger than just them.
  • The gritty used-future feel of the original trilogy is back, and it looks like it’s been done very well.
  • The CG doesn’t seem to be overdone, like it was in the prequels. It looks like they actually built a set for the Millennium Falcon and several other places.
  • There’s actually some blood shown—not all the kills are clean and “cauterized.”
  • The attention to detail on stuff like the Star Destroyer wreckage is phenomenal.

Of course, this could still be a case where the trailer is awesome and the movie is awful. That seems to happen a lot these days. But still, I definitely want to see this movie—the only question is whether I’m going to see it in the first couple of months when it comes out, or when it hits the dollar theater.

I can still remember when Episode I: The Phantom Menace came out. There was a lot of hype, and a lot of building excitement, much like there is now for Episode VII: The Force Awakens. All of my enthusiasm crashed when I saw the movie in the theater. Jar-Jar Binks, Midichloriens, way too much CGI, and a pedo-tastic love story—yeah, it was a disappointment. Episodes II and III weren’t quite as bad, but none of the prequels were good enough to be redeemable in my eyes. None of them lived up to the original.

I don’t know yet if Episode VII: The Force Awakens will live up to the originals, but it does seem that this is the Star Wars movie that we’ve been waiting for—the one that we wanted and didn’t get back in 1999. So yeah, I’m excited.

Also, I love John Boyega’s reaction to seeing himself in the trailer:

I reacted the exact same way after I saw the original Star Wars back when I was seven: jumping over couches flying my imaginary X-Wing, bouncing off the walls and freaking out from excitement. So it’s good to see that one of the new actors is also a huge fan.

As a side note, I just want to say that I love the fact that we live in a world where the next Luke Skywalker can be a black kid (or a girl for that matter—it’s hard to tell from the trailers whether Finn or Rey fills Luke’s role). I don’t say that to pander to political correctness or social justice in any way—I just think it’s awesome that the lead character is black, and the other one is a girl.

But speaking of Luke Skywalker, it’s telling that we don’t really see him at all in any of the trailers. So I’m going to call it now:

Luke dies.

That’s a hunch, not a spoiler. I have nothing to base it off of except the three Star Wars trailers and my own understanding of how story structure works. But based on that, I suspect that Luke plays the Obi-Wan mentor to Finn or Rey and dies just like Obi-Wan did.

So that’s my take on it. Definitely looking forward to Christmas this year!

What do you guys want me to blog about?

I’ve been around the blogosphere (is that still a word?) long enough to know that when a blogger says “wow, it’s been a long time since my last post,” or “I’m going to start posting more often!” it’s often a sign that the blog is about to fade. Plenty of my secondary blogs have met a similar fate. But I’ve been blogging here on One Thousand and One Parsecs for the last eight years, dammit, and I’m not going anywhere.

That said, I’ve totally been neglecting this place, and that needs to change. One blog post every couple of weeks is not enough.

But I’m wondering: what kind of stuff do you guys want to read? Discussions of story tropes? Thoughts on reading and publishing? General geekiness and just-for-fun weirdness? Politics and controversy? Or general updates on my current WIPs? Also, do you guys generally like reading longer, more thoughtful posts, or shorter, more concise posts?

When I started this blog back in 2007, it was mostly just for me. That gave it a more authentic voice, I think, because I wasn’t trying to please anyone except myself. However, now that I have something of a readership, I want to write for you guys too. Ideally, I’d like to keep that authentic voice while sharing something of value, not only to myself, but to you guys as well.

Either way, I need to be more consistent about blogging. I’ve installed a plugin that will help to schedule posts, and plan to post something every Monday and Thursday at a minimum. I’ll try posting mornings, see how that works out.

Some things I’d like to blog about:

  • Reviewing some of the books I’ve read, especially indie sci-fi books.
  • More Self-Sufficient Writer posts (don’t worry, I haven’t forgotten those).
  • Some tvtropes stuff, kind of like the old Trope Tuesday posts.

What do you guys think?

A blast from the past: predictions from 2011 on how the ebook revolution would turn out

While cleaning up some of the unpublished drafts on this blog, I came across this interesting post which I wrote in August 2011 but never published.

At the time, I had just published my second novel, Bringing Stella Home, and was very much committed to the indie career path. Self-publishing was still a very new thing, however, and most of my writer friends thought that I was crazy. Sometimes, I couldn’t tell if I was crazy or if everyone else was, and I was the only sane one. Because self-publishing had such a stigma, I actually lost a couple of friendships over this. That’s probably what prompted this post.

Looking back, this was the reason why online self-publishing communities like KBoards were so important. The ebook revolution was in full swing, and self-publishing still required a massive leap of faith. No one really knew how things would turn out. Writers who had chosen to stay the traditional route of querying agents saw us indies as subversives and heretics, and every week saw a new article go viral bashing either indies, or Amazon, or ebooks in general. It was pretty wild.

Those days are over now. We won. Self-publishing no longer has its stigma, at least in the mainstream, and it’s considered perfectly normal to forego submitting to agents and editors altogether. According to some reports, indies control more than 30% of the ebook market.

But back then, everything was still very much in the air. It was in that vein that I wrote this post.

================================

1) Ebooks will radically change the way we read, write, and think of books.

Nothing has demonstrated this more to me than owning a Kindle.  It is truly a revolutionary device.  Not only do I have instant access to practically any book I want to read, I can hold my entire library in the palm of my hand and take it with me wherever I go.  I can see what others are saying about any given title, and interact with them as well.  It’s incredible.

For writers, the changes are even more profound.  Printing, shipping, and warehousing costs are nonexistent in the digital realm, and with increasingly ubiquitous internet access, distribution is no longer a problem.  Put simply, ebooks are game changing–this is nothing less than a technological revolution.

Where are we going?  No one really knows, but I find that exciting.

2) Not all major publishers will survive the change.

For numerous reasons, the old publishing system is being rendered obsolete, and I’m not convinced that all the major publishing houses are adapting rapidly enough to weather the changes.

How many will go under, and which ones?  I have no idea, but since I don’t want my book rights to get tied up in a bankruptcy case, I’m forgoing traditional publishing for a year or so until I have a clearer picture.

However, please note: this is a business decision, not an emotional one.  I have nothing against any of these houses; in fact, I’m quite grateful to them for providing me with so many good books over the years.  I hope they make the necessary changes to succeed, but until they do, I’d rather go it alone.

3) To succeed, it is critical that we acknowledge and embrace these changes.

This is why I focus so much on issues that can be so controversial.  Change can be frightening, but I think that it’s important that we engage in an open, honest, and critical discussion about what’s going on.  Doing this will help us to adapt to the new world and take advantage of its many opportunities.

4) Writers and readers are more empowered than ever before.

This excites me more than just about anything else.  If I want to read a quirky science fiction story that most people would find strange and bizarre, I can find it.  I don’t have to rely on tastemakers to tell me what is literature and what is crap; I can decide for myself.  And frankly, for someone who loves science fiction as much as I do, that’s quite liberating.

Perhaps this is why I come across as antagonistic of traditional publishing sometimes: I tend to believe that they’re under-serving the science fiction readership.  But if I am upset, it’s more with the top-down corporate system than any house in particular.  I love what Tor, Baen, Pyr, and Night Shade Books are doing, and will keep reading their titles as long as they’re still around.  I just wish they’d put out more of them, and at lower prices.

5) The future is bright.

There’s a lot of opportunity for creative types right now–not just writers, but illustrators, game designers, programmers, and a host of others.  That’s why I don’t buy into the doom and gloom arguments, and perhaps I can be a bit overzealous about it at times.  However, if I had to err, I would rather be an overzealous optimist than an overzealous pessimist.

Well, this post is getting a little long, so I’d better end it soon and get back to writing.  I just want to say that if I come across as a jerk sometimes, it’s not because I’m trying to tear anyone down–quite the opposite.  My message to my fellow writers is to not be afraid, but to recognize some of the really cool ways in which things are changing, and what that means for you and your careers.

Goodbye KBoards, or how I was banned for the sake of social justice.

In 2011, I joined an online message board forum called Kindle Boards (later KBoards) where other self-publishers had joined to give each other support, share what works, and otherwise band together as a community. Back then, self-publishing was considered the kiss of death, and many of my former writer “friends” shunned me for starting down that dark path. Having a community where people could assure you that you weren’t crazy was really a big help.

Yesterday, I was permanently banned from KBoards. But from the way it went down, I doubt that I’m going to miss the place, because it is a very different community now from the one that I joined in 2011.

The brewhaha started when a new member posted a thread to announce a book promotion site that she had just started. These types of sites offer advertising opportunities to authors and curated book recommendations to readers. There are dozens of these sites across the internet, and they are an important part of the indie book world.

On the thread, someone noted that the OP’s promo site did not accept erotica or LGBT books, according to the submission guidelines. Immediately, people began to pile up on the OP, demanding an explanation and accusing her of being unfair. The pile-up had all the signs of a social justice mob:

  • Unsubstantiated accusations that get taken at face value and added to a laundry list of perceived wrongs.
  • The formation of a narrative that ties in with a much wider set of perceived injustices, making the accused guilty by association.
  • Calls for “justice” that make a peaceful and mutually amicable reconciliation impossible.

I’ve seen it happen many times, as I’m sure you have too. If the accused tries to make amends, it only makes the social justice warriors howl even louder. The only thing that can satisfy them is the complete ruination of their enemy—and sometimes, even that is not enough.

As a side note, I would like to point out that I have nothing wrong with people who write LGBT books. Should these books be allowed to be published? Absolutely! The book world is a richer place because of them. I have nothing against people writing them, reading them, publishing them, or promoting them. People should be free to write whatever they want, so long as it does not cause criminal harm (such as doxxing or child porn).

But that’s not what this social justice mob was about. They had taken one line from the submission guidelines (which has since been removed) about not accepting LGBT books, and twisted it in every possible way to skewer the OP. For example, people took it to mean that books of any genre with LGBT characters would not be accepted, when original intent was pretty clear that genre LGBT would not be accepted. There is a difference. They then went on to say that LGBT is “not a category” (though according to Amazon, it most certainly is), and to accuse the OP of all sorts of other things.

When I saw this social justice mob forming, I decided to step in and stop it by deflecting some of the attention onto myself. The idea was to tank their attacks, rile them up just enough for the moderators to take notice, and leave it to them to stop the bullying.

Until this point, my opinion of the moderators at KBoards was pretty good. Even though I’d been on the receiving end of the “cattle prod” a couple of times, I’d always felt that they were more or less fair—or at least that they gave fair reasons for everything that they did. On the KBoards forums, the mods are generally praised as one of the main reasons why the place is so friendly and welcoming.

Part one of my plan worked out perfectly. I poked the SJWs just enough for them to show their true colors, and the thread was predictably locked. The OP and some other KBoards members sent me private messages thanking me for standing up to the bullies. When the mods re-opened the thread, however, all of my posts were gone, but the pile-up that had started the mob from forming was still in place. And predictably, the bullying began again in earnest.

I was disappointed in the mod’s decision, and stated as much, but tried to exercise restraint since there wasn’t much else I could do. Then someone openly accused the OP of being “discriminatory” because their site didn’t promote LGBT books. In response, I started a new thread:

Can we please stop calling promo sites “discriminatory”?

On another thread announcing a new promo site, a bunch of writers are piling up on the OP for stating in their guidelines that they do not promote LGBT books. Rather than derail that thread even further, I figured it would be better to start a new thread to say my piece about it.

It really galls me when anyone accuses a promo group of being “discriminatory” because it doesn’t promote their particular kind of book. By turning their rejection into a social justice issue, it flies in the face of the obvious: that readers aren’t morally obligated to like every kind of book equally, and that promo sites have to pick and choose which books they promote according to (among other things) the tastes of their readers.

Look, I have no problems with people writing, reading, publishing, or promoting LGBT books. If you’re an LGBT author who writes LGBT books, rock on and more power to you. But as a reader, I probably wouldn’t subscribe to a newsletter that promoted them—not because I hate gays, but because it’s just not the sort of thing that I read. Does that make me evil and discriminatory? Am I having “wrongfun”? Should I be forced to read a book that I don’t want to read? No? Then why say all that of promo sites that don’t carry those kinds of books?

My BS test for this sort of thing is to replace the allegedly oppressed minority group with Mormon Texas Czech (I defy you to find a smaller minority group!). If a promo site rejected, say, religious historical fiction, would I get all huffy and accuse them of discriminating against my Moravian Mormon heritage because they rejected my novel about a 1920s Czech immigrant who ran away to Utah and started a kolache shop? No—I’d shrug and figure my book probably wouldn’t do all that well at that site anyway, since their readership obviously isn’t into that sort of thing, and look for a promosite that would be willing to carry my book. And if that site doesn’t exist, I would create it!

Behind these knee-jerk accusations of discriminatory behavior is an implicit call for a new regime of gatekeepers to ensure that the “right” books—the ones that promote the accuser’s particular brand of social justice—are entitled to premium placement. But the fact is that no one is entitled to anything in this business, nor should they be. Besides, we tore down the gates years ago.

I knew that the thread would ruffle some feathers, but I did not predict the response—though in retrospect, it wasn’t surprising at all. Instead of trying to engage with my ideas, the SJWs reported the thread to the mods, who promptly locked it. Only two responses got through, both of which came within spitting distance of Godwin’s Law (“What if a promo site refused to accept books with Jews in them? Huh? HUH?”).

A lot of people were upset that the thread got locked. It accumulated more than 400 views before it dropped off the front page, and I got several PMs saying “I totally agree, these people have gone too far,” and “I was in the middle of my response when the mods locked this thread,” etc.

When I got back to my computer, I posted on the first thread, where I basically said “I find it telling that instead of engaging with me, you got the mods to lock my thread. Since when did disagreement become tantamount to hate speech?” In response, I got the following PM from the moderators:

Joe,

even before the blow up in the My Book Cave thread, you had been pushing the boundaries in your posts here and many had to be edited or removed.

In the My Book Cave thread, it was the tone of your posts that was the problem.  I advised you via PM that people who appreciated the restrictions posed by My Book Cave were welcome to post their support in a civil manner.  You have refused to do that, instead choosing to make more than one inflammatory post or thread.  I refer you again to  my most recent PM.

Accordingly, you are placed on post moderation.  I note that this at least your third significant moderation action.  As you indicate in your most recent post, now deleted, perhaps you need to think about whether KBoards is the place for you.  Hopefully this period of post approval will give you that opportunity to think about it.

Betsy
KB Moderator

In response, I wrote the following:

The question is not whether Kboards is the place for me, but whether KBoards has become the sort of place where people can be bullied in the name of social justice. In the last couple of days, I have received multiple PMs thanking me for taking a stand against these bullies, which tells me that this problem is much larger than just me. The fact that your response is to put me on post moderation tells me everything that I need to know: that disagreement truly is seen as hate speech in this community. I won’t be the only one who leaves KBoards because of this.

The final message that I received from the moderators was this:

Joe,

Please tell me where I equated disagreement with hate speech?  In the My Book Cave thread, to the best of our ability, we have removed and continue to remove posts on both sides that attacked other members or the OP in the thread and left those that stated their reason for not using the service or asked more questions about it.

I refer you again to my prior PM.  You, and others, are more than welcome to state your support for My Book Cave in a civil manner.  Instead, you have attacked your fellow members for stating their reasons for not wanting to use the service and for asking questions to clarify the restrictions.  There were also questions about the erotica restriction and the restrictions on language.  These are reasonable questions.  It would also be reasonable for a member to state (as you did, in one bit of your locked thread), that you would appreciate a site that had restrictions.  Posts that stated a different point of view in a civil manner without attacking your fellow members would have remained and have been protected.

You chose not to do that, but to instead start yet another thread that attacked your fellow members.  While we were discussing that thread (which had not been permanently locked at that time–we were still in discussion), you chose to make yet another post continuing the same discussion in the original MBC thread.

Refusal to accept moderation is a bannable offense.  You have been previously banned and placed on post moderation and tonight have refused to accept post moderation.  Immediately after posting this, I will ban your account.  KBoards is clearly not the right forum for you.

I wish you the best in your future endeavors.

Betsy
KB Moderator

There are a number of things that I found disingenuous about this exchange.

First, I never attacked anybody. I never singled anyone out. I never engaged in personal insults, though personal insults (now deleted) were directed at me. And while I was aggressive in the way that I engaged, I also endeavored to be as intellectually honest as possible. I cannot say the same of those I disagreed with.

Second, it’s pretty clear that the mods were not treating me with the same benefit of the doubt as the bullies. SJWs have a way of rewriting history, and that’s exactly what they were doing by claiming to ask “questions to clarify the restrictions.” There were no attempts to clarify the promo site’s submission guidelines: as soon as one person suggested that any book with an LGBT character would be rejected, everyone assumed that it was true.

Third, it seems quite clear that the mods were waiting for an excuse to ban me. They locked down my thread within minutes of posting it, based solely on reports from people who disagreed with it. With the phrase “perhaps you need to think about whether KBoards is the place for you,” they issued a veiled threat which they followed through on within minutes. Their claim that they hoped “this period of post approval” would help me turn around was duplicitous on its face. So was the question “Please tell me where I equated disagreement with hate speech?” because my account was locked and my IP was banned, making it impossible for me to respond.

Looking back on what I could have done differently, I suppose I could have toned down my rhetoric a bit, or refrained from engaging. But at what point does silence become complicity? If I had let the social justice mob run its course, and the OP had been attacked outside of the boards, would I have done the right thing? When it became clear that the mods were going to let the bullying continue, what was I supposed to do?

Honestly, I feel like I came out of that exchange with my integrity intact. If that means I got banned, so be it.

And to be frankly honest, if KBoards is the kind of place where social justice warriors can dominate the discussion and drive out anyone who disagrees with them, then I really don’t feel bad about getting banned. There is a war going on in our culture today, and I would rather pick a side than be complicit through my silence.

A glorious fisking and what it means to be a real man

Oh my heck, I just read the most glorious fisking of my life over on Larry Correia’s blog. The subject is a New York Times article titled “27 Ways to be a Modern Man” (is it just me or is the NY Times taking its cues from Buzzfeed?), and Larry pulls no punches. Glorious. Absolutely glorious.

It got me thinking, though, about what it means to be a real man. Jokes about meat and action movies aside, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the subject these days. It’s actually getting to be a serious problem with our society, as evidenced by the fact that a list as pathetic as Brian Lombardi’s can be taken seriously enough to be published in a major national newspaper.

So without further ado, here’s my list:

1) A real man provides for the needs of his family.

The traditional role of fathers is to provide, or to supply what is wanted or needed. There are many good reasons for this. Families have needs, some of which women are uniquely suited to fulfill, others of which men are uniquely suited to fulfill. Individual circumstances necessitate adaptations, but a real man knows that his duty is to his family.

A real man provides his family with shelter and security, with material support and protection. He makes his family feel safe, both from evil and from want. He provides them with love, with advice, with a positive example and role model for them to emulate. He provides his children with everything they need to grow up healthy and have families of their own.

A real man is not an absent father—unless, of course, the State steals his children from him and makes that impossible. Misandry is a far greater problem in our society than misogyny, especially within family law, but that’s a subject for another time.

2) A real man respects women and girls.

To respect someone is to regard them as being worthy of admiration because of good qualities, and to treat them in a proper way. A real man respects and values women, and treats them accordingly.

He does not see them as objects for his lusts, but as human beings. He recognizes the importance of their contributions to society, especially as wives and mothers, and helps them to feel wanted and appreciated.

A real man never lashes out at or physically abuses a woman. If a woman abuses him, he does not abuse her back.

3) A real man is someone that others can depend on.

A real man is dependable. He keeps his promises. He does what he says he will do. He understands that people are depending on him: his spouse, his children, his family, his parents, brothers, sisters, and friends. Inasmuch as it is within his power, he does not disappoint them.

4) A real man takes care of himself.

A real man understands that he cannot help others unless he first helps himself. For that reason, he strives for independence and self-reliance, so that he can better serve those who depend on him.

A real man does not need to be mothered, especially not by his wife or girlfriend. He cleans up after himself. He showers and keeps himself clean. He knows how to do his own laundry. He knows how to clean his own dishes. He knows how to eat healthy and how to exercise. He knows how to manage his time.

In short, a real man has his shit together. He may be a child at heart, but he is also a responsible adult.

5) A real man knows how and when to lead.

A real man does not wait for his parents or his wife to tell him what to do. He does not leave the decision-making to other people when it’s his responsibility to step up and lead. He knows how to take charge when people are looking up to him, and how to inspire confidence in those who look to him for direction.

Because he knows how to lead, he also knows how to follow. He does not his drag his feet or grumble about the tasks he’s assigned to do, but fulfills them to the best of his ability. He knows when to take charge, but he also knows when to step down. He also knows when to get out of the way.

6) A real man knows the difference between taste, quality, and value.

This was the biggest issue that I had with the NY Times article: 80% of the stuff on Lombardi’s list were merely matters of personal taste. A real man understands that different people have tastes that are different from his, and is perfectly willing to accept that. He does not condemn others for having “wrongfun.”

That said, he can also recognize quality and value. He understands that a $10 knockoff tool may, in the long-run, be more expensive than a well-made $50 tool. He knows how to use the right tool for the job, and how be efficient and do quality work.

7) A real man strives constantly to learn, grow, and improve.

At the same time, a real man recognizes that he is not an expert in all fields. When out of his area of expertise, he is able to admit what he does not know and to accept counsel from those who know more than him.

Life is a process of constant growth. Just like a muscle will atrophy if it is not exercised, so too will our minds and spirits deteriorate if we do not constantly strive for self-improvement. A real man recognizes this and does all he can to be a better man.

8) A real man faces his fears with courage.

Courage is not the absence of fear: it is the strength to overcome fear. The difference between heroes and cowards is often no more than the decision to stand up and do. A real man understands this, and overcomes his fears to do what is necessary. From the outside, he may appear fearless, but the truth is that he simply knows how to face his fears.

9) A real man helps others to achieve greatness.

A real man is not interested in petty infighting or drama. He does not keep score or hold grudges. He does not feel that he is diminished in any way by the achievements of others. Instead, he inspires and lifts those around him, often without even realizing it. People naturally look up to him, because he brings out the best in them.

10) A real man’s greatness is measured by the way he treats those he loves.

A real man is not overly concerned with titles or awards. He knows that greatness is not bestowed upon him by those in positions of authority, but is attributed to him according to how he treats those whom he loves. Because of this, he has developed a tremendous capacity to serve his fellow men, and exercises that capacity daily.

“Greater love hath no man than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends.” That is the true measure of a man: how much he gives of himself. Some men literally give everything, dying to serve and protect their loved ones. Others give their lives by living, giving freely of their time, talents, and love.

Regardless, a real man does not live for himself alone. He always lives for others.

A short rant about simultaneous submissions

TL;DR: If you run a short story magazine and it takes you longer than six weeks to respond to submissions, you should allow simultaneous submissions as a courtesy to your writers.

A simultaneous submission is when the writer sends the same story to multiple markets at the same time, instead of going down the list one-by-one and waiting for a rejection before submitting it to the next market. Multiple submissions are when the writer sends multiple stories to the same market at the same time. Generally, most sci-fi magazines do not accept simultaneous or multiple submissions.

I can understand why you don’t want to open the door to multiple submissions. A lot of us are fairly prolific, and if you allow us, we can swamp you with manuscripts in very short order. But simultaneous submissions are completely different.

Of course it’s frustrating to find a great story, only to learn that the writer has sold it somewhere else. But you know what’s even more frustrating? To watch your stories languish in slushpiles for months and even years while you know that you have readers who would eagerly snap them up the moment you publish them yourself. When you don’t allow simultaneous submissions, you are effectively demanding exclusivity for the length of the submission period, and exclusivity hurts readers and writers alike.

See, the publishing world has changed. The magazines aren’t the only available option for publishing our stories anymore. It is entirely possible for us to publish those stories ourselves, and to do quite well by them. In fact, if we have a story that’s ready to go, we’re putting off the money that we could be making if we decide to submit to the magazines instead.

The current status-quo regarding simultaneous and multiple submissions was made back when publishers held all the power, and writers could not realistically be their own publishers. It’s a holdout from the era of the gatekeepers, before the golden age of self-publishing. But that era is over, and we’re no longer as dependent on you as we used to be.

Which is not to say that the magazines have no value. On the contrary, you provide a great deal of value, and we want to support you with our content. That’s why we’re still submitting our stories to you instead of publishing themselves. When you publish our stories, it allows us to reach new readers and boosts our reputation in the field. We’re all in this together, and we want to support you just like you want to support us.

But look, can we meet in the middle here? When our stories are locked up in your slushpile for five months at a time, it makes us think twice. If you’re going to take your time, let us send our stories elsewhere while we wait to hear back from you.

I’m not going to lie: when it takes you three or more months to respond to our submissions, demanding exclusivity all the while, the word that comes to mind is “unprofessional.” I don’t care if your magazine has been in print for longer than I’ve been alive, or that you published such-and-such big name author before he was famous. It’s 2015 now, and that’s what it looks like.

I understand that you might not have the resources to respond to every submission in a timely way. That’s totally understandable. But if that is the case, there is no good reason why you can’t allow simultaneous submissions as a professional courtesy.

There are a lot of magazines that I would love to be published in. Many of these are semi-pro and token paying magazines that still want to support, in spite of the fact that they don’t pay very well. But even the pro-paying magazines make me think twice when my stories are locked up with them for months at a time. If your goal is to keep your slushpile manageable by getting me to self-reject, the best I can say is that it’s working.

If you run a short story magazine and you aren’t able to give us a timely response to our submissions, then please, do your writers a favor and allow us the courtesy of simultaneous submissions.

The Decline and Fall of Fandom and the Hugo Awards

Lately, I’ve taken a serious interest in family history. A huge amount of records have gone online in the past decade, making it far easier to trace your ancestors. Before that, my father was able to trace the Vasicek line to the Czech lands (places with cool names like Frenštát, Vratimov, Trojanovice, Staříč, etc), but that was as far as he could go. Just a couple of years ago, however, my sister found the parish records for that region. They’re mostly all scanned and online, and they go back as far as the late 15th century to the start of the Hapsburgs. The pieces are all there—all we have to do is put them together.

Needless to say, this has got me really excited. It also made me wonder: how far back is it possible go? According to my sister, who is also a certified genealogist, the European records start to get really sketchy around the 7th or 8th century. Only the royal lines go back that far, and since they were all trying to connect themselves to mythical figures and Biblical characters, the records are not very reliable.

So I went to Wikipedia to look up the period of Late Antiquity leading up to the 7th century, and soon became completely absorbed in it. This is the period when the Roman Empire collapsed, leaving Europe in a hot mess. The Vandals, Franks, Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Huns, and Saxons were running around all over the place, sometimes fighting for the Romans, sometimes fighting against them, constantly fighting each other, and migrating clear across the continent in their search for new homelands.

As clear as I can make it out, this is how it basically went down:

There once was a tribe on the Italian penninsula that built a city called Rome. Through innovations in engineering, warfare, governance, and philosophy, they conquered virtually all of the known world and built a mighty empire. Rome became legendary as the center of it all.

Over time, however, the Romans became decadent and corrupt. The empire slowly began to disintegrate and fall apart, though great pains were taken to preserve the appearance that all was well. By the end of the third century, it had effectively split into two halves: the eastern empire and the western empire. This division fell roughly along cultural lines: the Greco-Roman culture in the east, and the Latin-Roman culture in the west.

Around this time, a barbarian tribe (or alliance of tribes) appeared on the northeastern frontiers of the empire. Known as the Huns, these barbarians launched an invasion of Europe that completely shuffled the deck. They only briefly threatened the Romans, but had a much larger impact on the barbarian tribes of Europe, displacing them from their homelands and forcing them to seek a new home. This launched what is known as the migration period.

There were a lot of barbarian tribes seeking a new homeland: the Franks, the Saxons, the Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and the Vandals. With the Huns at their backs, they invaded the Roman Empire, which was the weaker of the two.

…except “invade” isn’t quite the right word. Many of these tribes became allies or foederati of the Romans (often after defeating them). Even some Hunnic tribes were absorbed into the empire in this way, and were often employed as mercenaries to fight against the Frankish, Gothic, and Vandal tribes that hadn’t allied with Rome. The salient point is that Rome had become weak, and thus had to make concessions to these barbarians who were starting to flood the empire.

At the end of the fourth century, a tribe of Visigoths that had settled in the eastern empire became upset with the way that the Romans were treating them. After being starved, taxed, and treated as sub-human, they took up arms under a leader named Alaric the First. They were unable to make much headway against the eastern empire, so instead they went west and invaded the Italian penninsula.

Over the course of the next two decades, the western empire vacillated between accomodating them, backstabbing them, and declaring outright war. This was mostly due to internal power struggles that had little to do with the Visigoths. Even though Alaric threatened the heart of the western empire and laid seige to Rome three times, they treated him with outright contempt, blatantly violating previous agreements and going so far as to ambush him under a flag of truce.

In 408, the internal power struggle eliminated the faction that was willing to accomodate the Visigoths. Shortly thereafter, Alaric decided that he’d had enough and marched on Rome. In 410, he sacked the city, shocking the civilized world.

Up until that point, Rome was considered sacrosanct. Sure, the barbarians were overrunning the frontiers and threatening vast swaths of the empire, but Rome was the cultural and spiritual center of the world. How could it possibly fall? But it did, and following the sack in 455 at the hands of the Vandals, the Roman Empire never regained its former glory.

Reading up on this history at the same time as the 2015 Hugo Awards played out has made me notice a bunch of similarities between the two events. Obviously, the decline and fall of Rome is not a perfect analogy for the decline and fall of the Hugo Awards, but there are some very interesting parallels.

The Hugo Awards were founded in the 1950s, back when SF&F fandom was a tiny community of geeks on the fringes of society, and not taken seriously by anyone in the cultural mainstream. Over the next several decades, the geeks took over the world, dominating the popular culture with things like Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, etc.

But somewhere along the way, this happened:

Fandom (with a capital F) became decadent and corrupt as the Truefen jealously guarded their turf, creating all sorts of weird Hugo categories (“related work”? “short-form” editor vs. “long-form” editor?) and pushing back against the mainstreaming of the SF&F field. As a result, Worldcon went from the premier SF&F convention to a second-tier convention that falls well short of Dragoncon, Gencon, San Diego Comic Con, Salt Lake Comic Con and Fan Ex, etc, all of which are 1-2 orders of magnitude larger than Worldcon now. The once-prestigious Hugos were now decided by mere hundreds of votes.

Around this time, a tribe (or alliance of tribes) of cultural Marxists began to invade the cultural space. Also known as Social Justice Warriors (SJWs), they began to dominate multiple forms of media, pushing out many of the more conservative readers and viewers who resisted. Fandom (with a capital F) gradually embraced them, using them as mercenaries in their internal power struggles.

By this time, Fandom had split into two broad divisions: Baen and Tor. Baen books were more about action & adventure, while Tor books were more about social issues (though of course there was some overlap). These two houses dominated the field, but it was the Tor side of Fandom that had more ownership in the Hugos than the Baen side.

The SF&F fans who had been displaced by the SJW invasion formed the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies. To Fandom, however, they were all just “wrongfans”—essentially, barbarians. And it wouldn’t exactly be right to say that the puppies “invaded” Fandom, because many of them were already there or were willing to coexist and make alliances. Others, of course, were not.

Vox Day entered the scene as one of the disgruntled puppies who had had enough of Fandom. The Tor side was far more susceptible to his machinations, responding to him in knee-jerk fashion at every turn, so he went after them. In 2015, he sacked the Hugos, causing “no award” to sweep five categories (and place in eight more).

To an impartial observer, Vox Day was the only clear victor of the 2015 Hugo Awards. How else can you explain all the “no awards”? His stated goal was never to win the Hugos, it was to destroy them, and he accomplished that spectacularly. When an esteemed professional such as Toni Weisskopf loses to “no award” purely out of guilt by association (on a ballot decided by less than 6,000 total votes, no less), how can anyone possibly take the Hugos seriously anymore? What was once considered the most prestigious award in the SF&F field has now proven to be a narrow, exlusivist club of politically like-minded elitists.

Fandom (capital F) accomplished many wonderful things back in the days before SF&F entered the mainstream. In a very real sense, they conquered the world. But by doggedly trying to hold on to their turf and refusing to let others play with their toys, especially those who see the world differently than them, they are declining. Like the sack of Rome in 410, the sack of the Hugo Awards in 2015 was a watershed moment that demonstrated just how much the old order had decayed.

Can the Hugo Awards be saved? I seriously doubt it. The “truefans” will jealously clutch it to their chests until they die, and with the graying of fandom, that will probably be accomplished fairly soon. But just as the Renaissance rose from the long-cold ashes of the Roman Empire, so too I hope that something good will eventually come out of all of this. Because really, there is a place in fandom (lower-case f) for everyone, and that has never changed.

Sad Puppies 3: A Play in Three Parts

PART THE FIRST

Sad Puppies: Wouldn’t it be great if the Hugo Awards weren’t about identity politics anymore? If conservatives and libertarians weren’t shut out by the blatantly liberal bias? If we didn’t care about a writer’s skin color, or their gender, or their sexual orientation, but about the quality of their stories?

Social Justice Warriors: EVIL RACIST CISGENDER SCUM! You only say that because you’re WHITE, MALE, and PRIVILEGED!

Sad Puppies: Actually—

Puppy Kickers: Haha! We beat you wrongfans last year, and we’ll beat you again this year! Sad puppies suck!

Sad Puppies: Oh yeah?

Sad Puppies sweep the 2015 Hugo nominations.

Puppy Kickers: What the hell, puppies? You violated the gentleman’s agreement that has governed the Hugos since time immemorial!

Sad Puppies: Of course we did! Your “gentleman’s agreement” was elitist and wrong.

Puppy Kickers: Oh yeah? THIS MEANS WAR!

PART THE SECOND

Flashback to before the nominations. Enter Vox Day.

Vox Day: Fear and tremble, denizens of fandom! I will wreak vengeance on my enemies and destroy the Hugo Awards for all time! BWAHAHAHAHA!

Social Justice Warriors: Vox Day is EVIL! THIS MEANS WAR!!

Sad Puppies: No, don’t destroy the Hugos, Vox! There’s still a chance they can be saved.

Vox: Hmm, very well. But I shall not march in lock-step with you.

Vox Day organizes the Rabid Puppies slate. Return to present.

Puppy Kickers: Look, the Sad Puppies slate is almost identical to the Rabid Puppies slate! The Sad Puppies are really just followers of Vox Day!

Sad PuppiesThat’s not true. We were actually the ones to convince him to—

Social Justice Warriors: RACISTS! NAZIS! MISOGYNISTS! RACISTS! NAZIS! MISOGYNISTS!

Sad Puppies: Actually, if you look at our slate, you’ll see that—

Puppy Kickers: RACISTS! NAZIS! MISOGYNISTS! RACISTS! NAZIS! MISOGYNISTS!

Rabid Puppies: It’s no use to try to reason with these people. Sinistra delenda est!

PART THE THIRD

Puppy Kickers: Slate voting is EVIL! We must defeat the puppies at all costs to prove that vote rigging has no place in the Hugo Awards!

Social Justice Warriors: Here is a voting guide for how to make the puppies lose.

Sad Puppies: You hypocrites! How is that not rigging the vote?

Puppy Kickers: Haha, we don’t care! We’ll vote the way the SJWs tell us to, and brag about how we haven’t read any of the books on your crummy slate.

Sad Puppies: But—but there are a lot of good people here that are overdue for recognition! Toni Weiskopff, Kevin J. Anderson, Jim Butcher… and there are a lot of great new authors too, like Kary English. Our slate isn’t remotely racist or sexist. We’ve got people from all across the political spectrum too, because all we really care about is telling good stories!

Social Justice Warriors: We don’t care! If we can’t have the Hugos, NO ONE CAN!

The 2015 Hugo Awards. “No award” sweeps five categories.

Social Justice Warriors: VICTORY!

Puppy Kickers: Um, yeah! What they said! Uh… guys?

Vox Day: BWAHAHAHA! You fell for my Xanatos Gambit, you pitiful mindless fools! I HAVE DESTROYED THE HUGO AWARDS!

Rabid Puppies: All hail Vox Day, slayer of worlds! Sinistra delenda est!

Sad Puppies: Wow. Just… wow.

Rabid Puppies: Join us, Sad Puppies. Yield yourselves up unto us, and unite with us and become acquainted with our secret works. Sinistra delenda est!

Social Justice Warriors: Next year, we should give Anita Sarkeesian a Hugo!

Why my books are not in Kindle Unlimited

Last year, Amazon came out with a book subscription service called Kindle Unlimited. As a reader and an Amazon customer, I’ve noticed that they’ve been pushing this service quite aggressively. As a writer, I’ve been following it quite closely, especially with some recent changes with how they compensate their authors.

However, if you check my Amazon catalog, you will find that none of my books are available on Kindle Unlimited. And if I had to tell you why, I could sum it up in just one word:

Exclusivity.

In order to enroll your books in Kindle Unlimited, Amazon demands that the content of your book cannot be available anywhere else. Not on competing retailers. Not on your website. Not on a site like Wattpad or posted on social media. It’s KU and KU only, take it or leave it. And you can’t get around that by doing separate editions, since it’s the content that must be exlusive, not the book.

Recently, Hugh Howey argued that KU’s exclusivity doesn’t really hurt writers or readers, because all of Amazon’s competitors in the ebook market suck so hard that it’s no big loss to lose them anyways. I disagree, though. Different readers have different needs, and as great as Amazon is, it isn’t the best choice for everyone.

I believe that readers should be empowered to make their own choices, not only in what they read, but in how they read it. Some readers would rather sideload their ebooks, and don’t want to deal with Amazon’s proprietary .mobi format. Others would rather keep their books native to their device and not deal with Amazon’s apps. Others live in parts of the world where Amazon tacks on an arbitrary $2 USD surcharge to every kindle store purchase, and that obviously doesn’t work for them.

Put simply, I believe that exclusivity is a bad deal for readers—and that because of that, it’s also a bad deal for writers. The less control that readers have over what they read, the less they are going to read. The more control that middlemen have over the market (and for all the wonderful things that it does, Amazon is still a middleman between readers and writers), the less pressure there is for them to innovate and improve.

On many of the indie writers forums and communities that I frequent, it appears that other writers are more interested in short-term monetary gains than in doing what best serves their readers. And that’s unfortunate, because Kindle Unlimited is structured in such a way that it pits writers against each other in a zero-sub game. Instead of paying a fixed rate for each page (or KENPC) read, Amazon sets a “pot” and pays each author a share of it, in proportion to how many borrows/pages they got. Thus, if one author gets more reads than another (or games the system to make Amazon’s algorithms think that he had more reads), that means less money for the other author.

A lot of writers argue that it’s not really a zero-sub game because Amazon usually adds to the pot after the month is over, thus manipulating the borrow rate to hit some undisclosed target. Even if that’s true, though, it makes things even worse. If Amazon has a target borrow rate in mind, why not tell authors up front? It basically amounts to not telling authors how much they’re going to be paid until after their books have been sold. In any other supplier relationship, this blatant lack of transparency would be insane.

From what I can see, it’s all about control. Exclusivity gives them a great deal of control, not only over the marketplace but over authors as well. The lack of transparency and ever-changing borrow rates make it difficult for authors to gather the data they need to decide whether to stay in KU or to publish their books widely. And authors who decide not to opt into KU are punished by having their books rank lower, thus achieving less visibility in the Amazon ecosystem. In the year since KU came out, my Amazon income has fallen by at least 60%.

Even with all of that, though, I would be happy to enroll all of my books in Kindle Unlimited if Amazon dropped the exclusivity requirement. There are a lot of readers who prefer Amazon’s KU subscription service, and I would love to make my books available for them.

But exclusivity is a bad deal.