Traditional Royalty-Paying Publishers

Ah, those traditional royalty-paying publishers... Thanks to my wife's TRPB, we finally were able to replace our 18-year-old leaky fridge with a modern one. And it makes ice cubes too.

Posted November 15, 2006 7:22 PM by Serge

Mazeltov. May your word-of-mouth sales ever prosper.

Posted November 15, 2006 8:04 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Just last night I was talking to someone whose friend was getting published...with Publish America.

*slaps forehead*

Then I get asked, "How did you get a traditional royalty-paying publisher (tm)?"

Answer: Six years, three trunked "practice" novels, a lotta rejections and a lotta waiting.

Then they say, "But that sounds like...work..."

*slaps forehead again*

Posted November 15, 2006 9:02 PM by Carrie V.

Carrie V: Your friend should try getting work placed with an academic publisher. My first book got $0 in royalties, I was, however, content with the reward of having it in print (since that's a step up the academic ladder). Now I'm shopping a second book around, and suffering conniptions.

Posted November 15, 2006 9:07 PM by Fragano Ledgister

Teresa,

It seems to me that if Airleaf waives their commission on a sale, that must be because they don't expect to sell. Who in their right mind is going to sign up with a group that only gets paid if it fails?

Posted November 15, 2006 9:07 PM by Chris Lawson

And now that I think about it, how can you call it a commission if it isn't on a sale?

Posted November 15, 2006 9:09 PM by Chris Lawson

The name Airleaf seems about right for the company, given that their services seem to be about as helpful as randomly scattering manuscript pages in the wind and then hoping they land on a buyer.

Posted November 15, 2006 9:10 PM by Pantechnician

They're preying on the uninformed, unpublished authors who crave to hear those six magic words: "We want to publish your book!"

New authors believe it will be hard to get published, and indeed it is, because you have to be willing to put the time and sweat equity in to learning to write well and learning to market your manuscripts to agents or editors. None of that is easy. The first rejections are frustrating, and they leave newcomers with the uneasy feeling that there's a secret handshake out there that they haven't learned yet, and if they could just learn it, they'd pass beyond that magic door and become a Published Author.

Airleaf is selling then an ersatz secret handshake.

Months later when they've discovered they've been duped, they'll either throw their manuscripts away and give up in frustration, convinced that the whole publishing industry is a scam, or they'll find their way to a writer's discussion board or writing group or other source and perhaps get the truth.

Unless they wander into PA's discussion board, of course.

Posted November 15, 2006 10:31 PM by Writerious

Oh dear god.

The Google ads in the sidebar right this minute:

Fiction publishers
We want your book, not your money Publish with Ease for Free.
www.publishamerica.com

Free Publishing Guide
Get your book published & available worldwide in as little as 6 weeks!
www.trafford.com

Publish Your Own Book:
Through BookSurge, Amazon Offers Self-Publishing Options. Learn How.
www.BookSurge.com

Christian Book store
Official site of Christianbook.com Books, Bibles, music, gifts & more.
www.christianbook.com

Looking for a Publisher?
Stay in charge. Keep all the rights Your belief in print at AuthorHouse
www.AuthorHouse.com

Posted November 16, 2006 1:16 AM by Julia Jones

And on refreshing the page, Airleaf has come in at number two...

Posted November 16, 2006 1:18 AM by Julia Jones

I stopped seeing ads like that a long time ago. They're ubiquitous on the Bewares Board at Absolute Write.

Posted November 16, 2006 6:50 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Teresa to the rescue again! I just got a spam from these guys. Thanks for the post

:)

Posted November 16, 2006 6:59 AM by John Farrell

And here's what I get reading Making Light in the UK:

Quality Self Publishing
Top quality self publishing and marketing with Matador
www.troubador.co.uk/matador

Print Your Book
Professional book printing for self publishing authors
www.think-ink.co.uk

Why pay to publish?
Get Published & get paid Send us your Manuscript today!
www.pneumasprings.co.uk

New York Literary Agency
Literary Agency seeks new authors. No fees, fast, submit online.
www.newyorkliteraryagency.com

Writers Nexus
Your work targeted sensitively to the right Agents and Publishers
www.WritersNexus.com

Posted November 16, 2006 7:03 AM by Gag Halfrunt

And now I've reloaded, AuthorHouse has popped up.

USA Publishing Company
Get published in just 30 days. Keep your rights. Earn 50% royalties.
www.AuthorHouse.com

Posted November 16, 2006 7:04 AM by Gag Halfrunt

An acquaintance whose blog I read is looking for a vanity publisher - fortunately, she looked on the web and found that this is not the way to get published by a publisher... She also has all these ideas of why she isn't published; I'm going with the fact that she can't write, myself.

It seems, in a way, easier to be an academic writer: you find a publisher, you find a grant that will pay for publishing your book, you often sign away your copyright and you never expect to make anything on that book - it's just there to help you to a better-paying job anyway. But (whistfully) it would be nice to write books that anyone reads...

Posted November 16, 2006 7:19 AM by lalouve

And now the Google ads show PublishAmerica at #1, with Airleaf at #3! "It's either going to be a photo finish or an oil painting."

Posted November 16, 2006 7:20 AM by Bruce E. Durocher II

I spy a Google ad for the New York Literary Agency.

That printing company should be regarded with suspicion, in this context, but I suppose they could be honest. (Checks website.) Sells quite a few different sorts of printing, at least.

Posted November 16, 2006 7:43 AM by Dave Bell

I expect that Google and other keyword ad systems are a long way from being able to filter based on the context of the keyword. I chortled mightily the first time I noticed an article being supported by the very thing it was attacking (a WaPo piece on credit counseling services).
I've been heeding our hosts' request from sometime back to help support Making Light by clicking on the ads.
Step right up! See bottom-feeding scum in their native environment! For just one thin <click>!

<Kerching!>

Posted November 16, 2006 7:59 AM by John Houghton

Then I get asked, "How did you get a traditional royalty-paying publisher (tm)?"

Answer: Six years, three trunked "practice" novels, a lotta rejections and a lotta waiting.

Then they say, "But that sounds like...work..."

. . . . . . . .

New authors believe it will be hard to get published, and indeed it is, because you have to be willing to put the time and sweat equity in to learning to write well and learning to market your manuscripts to agents or editors. None of that is easy.

It's true that getting published is usually a long slog of hard work. And it's true that a lot of people getting suckered don't want to do the work.

It's also true, though, that the large majority of aspiring writers don't have the talent to succeed no matter how much work they put in. Many of them work as hard as the folks who succeed. Some of these people persevere for decades. The evillest thing the fake publishers do, in my opinion, is sell these people false hope. It isn't (ever) just the weak in virtue who get scammed.

Posted November 16, 2006 10:27 AM by Scraps

#11 They're ubiquitous on the Bewares Board at Absolute Write.

No, they aren't. Because the board's owner can block ads from given URLs.

You should look at the Google ads on various of the ML posts dealing with agents -- it's wall-to-wall Robert Fletcher.

Posted November 16, 2006 10:30 AM by James D. Macdonald

They've put together a mailing list of 400 people who work in publishing and have "senior editor" in their titles.

Oh joy.

You know, every so often I get a letter and sometimes a partial from someone who clearly saw the title "Senior Editor," or "Managing Editor," and thought "This person will make me famous!!!!one!"

Unfortunately, they missed the important adjective in my company's name--"Educational."

Either that, or they think that their memoirs-thinly-disguised-as-fiction are educational.

And Scraps @19: It's true that getting published is usually a long slog of hard work. And it's true that a lot of people getting suckered don't want to do the work.

It's also true, though, that the large majority of aspiring writers don't have the talent to succeed no matter how much work they put in. Many of them work as hard as the folks who succeed. Some of these people persevere for decades. The evillest thing the fake publishers do, in my opinion, is sell these people false hope. It isn't (ever) just the weak in virtue who get scammed.

My seniorest-editor and I were just talking about this--she calls it the American Idol phenomenon: apparently the early episodes of the show feature numerous people who think they can be pop stars, but can't sing or dance. There's this myth, however, that if you want something badly enough and you're willing to work hard for it, that thing will happen. I think it's a very sad thing.

Posted November 16, 2006 10:56 AM by jennie

#21: Jennie:There's this myth, however, that if you want something badly enough and you're willing to work hard for it, that thing will happen. I think it's a very sad thing.

The terrible and tricky thing is that for certain values of "you", "thing," and "work hard," it's absolutely true. e.g., I don't think Tiger Woods got to where he is by reclining on his couch and merely thinking about becoming a professional golfer. Golf is something he worked extremely hard at (from practically birth).

Of course, this is coming from someone who got The Speech from his voice professor in college. That is, she could train me to have a perfectly respectable voice. She thought I certainly wouldn't be embarassed when I sing in public. But she also thought I should consider making my living in another field. I trained in voice anyways, of course, and spent hours and hours in the practice room. As a result, I do have a perfectly respectable voice, and perfectly competent musicianship. However, I make my living in microprocessor design. I still sing, but it's as a part of a perfectly decent amateur choir and I envy the (professional) soloists, whose voice and musicianship I'm simply not able to reach.

The point is I don't know how you can know whether or not hard work will get you where you want to be besides putting in that hard work. So whether it's a myth or not, for me anyways, turns out to be irrelevant so long as I enjoy the work.

Posted November 16, 2006 11:57 AM by JC

As the Editor-in-Chief of various periodical science-fiction publications, which have had a small and carefully selected readership, it goes without saying that my work has been influential in the field. I am, therefore, surprised, that these people have not seen fit to inform me of the remarkable works which they wish to sell.

(I suppose I ought to see if I can get the Enchanted Laserjet working again.)

Posted November 16, 2006 11:58 AM by Dave Bell

I weep with you, Dave. On the other hand, my Editor-in-Chief's pseudonym doesn't use her email address in public, so it's still spam-free after nine years.

And in the GoogleAds bingo, I've just got Tate Publishing. It's so nice of them to advertise the fact that they're scammers. [clicks] Yes, it's selling "being published" to authors, not books to readers. This one's a Christian-orientated scam.

Posted November 16, 2006 12:29 PM by Julia Jones

Full disclosure - I committed self-publishing. (It was more interesting then re-organizing my sock drawer).

But these guys are Exhibit# 12,452 in the case of "you'll never go broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public."

Exhibit# 12,453? I was on a Lulu forum and somebody posted "yeah! I got a real publisher!" Her publisher - Publish America.

Posted November 16, 2006 12:51 PM by Chris Gerrib

#22 ::: JC wrote:
The terrible and tricky thing is that for certain values of "you", "thing," and "work hard," it's absolutely true. e.g., I don't think Tiger Woods got to where he is by reclining on his couch and merely thinking about becoming a professional golfer. Golf is something he worked extremely hard at (from practically birth).

"The year was 2081, and everyone was finally equal."

The point is I don't know how you can know whether or not hard work will get you where you want to be besides putting in that hard work. So whether it's a myth or not, for me anyways, turns out to be irrelevant so long as I enjoy the work.

I'm finding myself presuming that "where you want to be" means "damn'd good at " - and that's just not possible without talent and aptitude, along with plenty of hard work.

Posted November 16, 2006 12:58 PM by xeger

JC @ 22:

Sure thing, hard work, correctly applied will almost always lead to improvement in one's chosen area. And there's no denying that talent without hard work will only take one so far.

The ballet dancers I saw on stage last night had to combine years of training and trying and working with natural aptitude and a certain body type. I'm certain that they all attended classes with dancers who were equally hardworking who will never tread a professional stage. I'm equally certain that there are other people out there who might have been dancers if they'd had the opportunity to study ballet or been willing to practise.

The problem comes not when people continue practising in order to get as good at something as they can be, and enjoy it. The problem comes when people believe that hard work is all they need in order to reach an arbitrarily selected goal, because sometimes, it doesn't matter how hard you work, you're not going to get there.

This doesn't mean you should stop singing, or dancing, or writing, or playing golf, or whatever. It doesn't even mean you should be content with your current abilities in singing, dancing, writing, playing golf, or whatever. It does mean that you can't blame other people, or decide that the industry's broken, when you don't get to be a professional singer, dancer, or golfer, or when your book doesn't get published. (Which you didn't, it sounds like. And I too envy those of my former choral colleagues who have gone on to careers as professional singers, even while I'm happy to make my living as an editor.)

Posted November 16, 2006 1:03 PM by jennie

I can only wonder if PublishAmerica's "senior editors", and others of their ilk, appear on Airleaf's mailing list...

Posted November 16, 2006 2:33 PM by badducky

#26, #27: xeger, jennie:
Wow, did everyone read Harrison Bergeron in high school?

I thought that the second half of what I wrote made it clear that I do not think everyone has or should have equal opportunity at success. (i.e., I didn't mean to come off like I was complaining about my lack of opera career.) I certainly don't think the talented ought to be hobbled. So I'm not sure what a reference to Harrison Bergeron is supposed to rebut. My apologies if I wasn't clear.

I'm finding myself presuming that "where you want to be" means "damn'd good at " - and that's just not possible without talent and aptitude, along with plenty of hard work.

All I'm saying is that I don't know how you find out if you have the talent and aptitude without putting in the hard work first. It's totally possible to put in lots of hard work to find out that you won't make the cut. (cf. my illustrious career in opera) But until I devoted a chunk of my life to finding out, there was no way for me to know one way or the other. I found out, and I continue to sing because I enjoy singing. I'm certainly a better singer than if I hadn't found out.

So if you enjoy doing something, I don't see any reason not to do the hard work. The worst case scenario is that you've gotten better at something you love doing. That's not bad. If you need to know that you're going to be a big success before you even start, then you're probably better off doing something else instead.

I'm not disagreeing with either of you. I just want to rule out the notions "oh, you shouldn't bother doing something unless you're talented at it" and "hard work won't get you anywhere." I'm sure no one has expressed that point of view, but no one had ruled it out either. Hard work will get you somewhere. Perhaps it's not where you wanted to be, but you will have gotten somewhere.

(To borrow a line from Richard Bach, I don't see the point in arguing my limitations. If it's something I enjoy doing, I'd rather assume that I'm sufficiently talented, put in the hard work, then find out I'm wrong than not put in the work at all. Of course, I'd rather put in the hard work then find out that I'm right.)

I completely agree with what Jennie says in #27. The problem is not in putting the hard work. The problem is in how you deal with finding out you don't have what it takes. I misread Jennie, at first, in that I thought she meant that the trying was a sad thing. Until someone comes up with a meter that can quantify whether you have sufficient talent before you've even started to explore your abilities, you always have to try first.

(Or to put it another way, I didn't want some unknown talent to be discouraged by the notion that hard work by itself isn't enough. For that talented person, it actually is. And I wanted to get across that things are worth doing in and of themselves.)

Posted November 16, 2006 2:48 PM by JC

The fact that Air Leaf uses the term "traditional" is enough to demonstrate that they don't really understand the market and are just looking to make money off authors.

Posted November 16, 2006 2:58 PM by Dave Kuzminski

#26, #27: D'oh, I figured out what happened right after I hit Post.

I said that hard work==success for certain specific values of "you," "thing," and "work hard." (e.g., all Tiger Woods had to do was work incredibly hard. He didn't have to worry about talent in golf. But obviously, this does not hold for everyone or everything that Tiger Woods tries to do.) I interpreted both of your responses as rebutting the argument that I had said that this was true for every value of "you," "thing," and "work hard."

This is not an argument that I had intended to make. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Posted November 16, 2006 2:58 PM by JC

Part of the hard work of being a writer is not just the hard work that it takes to learn the craft, not just the hard work that it takes to produce the stuff that's at a truly professional level and that can be seriously considered by a publisher. It's the hard work of sending the damn MS out again. And again. And again.

Persisting.

The problem (one of the many problems) with the PublishAmerica types is that they've convinced a subset of writers that you can get to the desired endpoint without ever having to learn the skill of persisting. I always think of the moment in the Muppet Movie when Kermit and Co. get offered the standard "rich and famous contract" by Orson Welles.

It's like the places that offer online advanced degrees. Yes, they're giving you a degree, and the diplomas you hang on your wall will look a lot like the ones I hang on mine. But anyone who knows the difference will....know the difference.

Persistence.

Sitzfleisch.

Posted November 16, 2006 3:03 PM by Sarah S

In Coupland's Shampoo Planet, there's a nice riff on the American tendency to teach their kids that they can do anything they set their hearts on, if they only try hard enough. A European character points out that really, it'd be much more sensible to raise kids with the expectation that they can become mid-level government functionaries. That way, there wouldn't be that sense of betrayal and guilt when the kids discover that they can't do anything they set their hearts on.

I'm not sure how I feel about it. Believing you can accomplish something makes it more likely that you'll put in the work, of course -- but on the other side there's all the people who audition in the first round of American Idol, who don't seem to know they're truly horrifying singers. (The fact that the same skills needed to judge your own ability at something are the skills needed to make you good at it gets wrapped up in this as well, of course.)

And the belief that you can do whatever you dream of also creates this sense of entitlement. Not for everyone, of course -- but in some people. The PHB types who believe they deserve to have a novel published, for example.

Posted November 16, 2006 3:37 PM by G. Jules

If anyone is interested, Boo! is available for author consultations. Payment to made in liver treats.

Posted November 16, 2006 3:45 PM by Scott Janssens

JC #29: Wow, did everyone read Harrison Bergeron in high school?

I certainly did. In an old issue of If that I bought at the sleazy secondhand bookstore downtown.

BTW, there's something very poetic about the title of this post; it's like a mashup of The Unbearable Lightness of Being and that great psychedelic classic, the Driving Stupid's "The Reality of (Air) Fried Borsk" (anthologized on one of the Pebbles LPs.

Posted November 16, 2006 4:07 PM by Robert L

I must admit, I find myself extremely wary of people who are quick to claim a heavy innate component (often labeled "talent") to various endeavors. It is my personal impression that much of what we call talent is really unaccounted for practice.

If a little kid by age ten is playing concert-level piano, many are likely to ascribe some strong innate talent to the child, even if that same child was plucking at keys for hours each day when he was three. The early "practice" is very likely to be written off as "oh, he was just playing", even though it could easily amount to over seven thousand hours of practice before his first concert.

I've been told for most of my life that I'm academically talented, or "gifted", or various variations on the theme. I don't buy it. I know that I spend my spare time reading about or researching things that most people don't care about. I know where my supposed "talent" comes from - it comes from lots and lots of activity that gets written off because it's not formally dedicated time: it's reading SICP on my long train commute, spending the boring time waiting for dinner in a restaurant by factoring the numbers on license plates outside, or playing the 24 game in odd moments. I don't doubt that the "natural" artists I met in high school were the same kids who actually doodled pictures in the corner of their notebooks in grade school. (I was busy doodling something else)

I think that the issue with the American Myth is that we somehow believe that there is a way to try hard enough at something to succeed without trying long enough at it. To become a writer, you write. Yes, it goes faster if you get good feedback on your writing and study the theory of how stories are constructed, but mostly, you need to write. And write, and write, and write. Write like it's what you do, almost as much as breathing. As someone said earlier, it's the skill of persisting - but that applies not just to becoming published, but also to becoming worth publishing in the first place.

I have no desire to write that much; as a consequence, I'm never going to be a published novelist. I'm really OK with that.

Posted November 16, 2006 5:15 PM by Daniel Martin

(I suppose I ought to see if I can get the Enchanted Laserjet working again.)

This does, very much, sound like something Wonder Woman flew for about six issues in 1973.

I sit in rapt attention, waiting to hear how the repairs come out and if you will ever get off the Island of Oddly-Walking Dinosaurs. [comic code, yanno.]

Posted November 16, 2006 5:21 PM by Sandy B.

Hmm - an interesting theory, Daniel. I find myself inclined to agree in many instances. I get thought of as really quick on the uptake when given verbal puzzles to work out. My deep dark secret is that I'm actually not very quick, I just love word games and logic puzzles so I've seen hundreds and thousands of the things.

Contrariwise, at least for some physical endeavors, some people do seem to have an innate coordination and kinesthetic sense that others just can't achieve no matter what they do. I pick up new kata in karate so quickly that I can get away with about half the practice of most of my fellow students with the same results. If I practice equally, I do much better.

In writing and story-telling, I think an awful lot of what I see in people who seem to be untalented writers no matter how hard they try is not a lack of effort at writing, but rather a lack of reading. Whereas other people who write very little but read inveterately, seem to have a much better sense of pacing, plotting, and the general structure of a good story.

Posted November 16, 2006 5:47 PM by Cynthia Wood

I believe that innate talent makes a difference. I'm never going to be a dancer, for example. I started taking dance lessons when I was three; in high school, I took dance as my winter athletic credit, and we danced at least two hours a day, six days a week. And while I did get better at it -- I can now do a passable waltz, at least -- there was no question of my ever getting good at it, much less going professional. My body just doesn't work like that. Similarly, while my voice isn't bad, it isn't strong enough to make me an operatic soprano or get me on American Idol. And I'm okay with that.

Of course, I also believe that talent is useless without practice, but that's another tangent and I've tangented enough for today.

Posted November 16, 2006 6:46 PM by G. Jules

A high school friend of my sister went on to become a professional opera singer. I understand part of her training had been to unlearn what she had been taught in high school. Hard work and practise in the wrong method could be harmful. However, the habit of practise was probably helpful.

Posted November 16, 2006 9:13 PM by Rob Rusick

Talent (wiring?), Skill (practice?), Perseverance (drive?), are, I believe, intrinsically linked. We can overcome some of our deficiencies in any of these by being stronger in the others. We probably can't overcome to big of a lack, no matter how much we want to. How much of each is needed varies depending on what field you're in. The burning desire, the drive, is probably the best at making up the lack in the others. Sometimes other things are thrown in the mix -- physical things require the right physiology, ballet being an extreme example of this, but it applies to singing as well. The really motivated one-legged man probably won't get the Superman gig, no matter how good, no matter how driven he is.
Daniel and Sandy B., I expect that talent comes into play for both of you, but because it isn't a blatantly obvious talent, and you both needed to develop a lot of skill, I think you overlook that talent. I once met a guy in his mid-to-late thirties who rollerblades professionally. Think X-games. Because it was so natural for him to do it he thought that all that separated him from everyone else was his drive and motivation. He didn't realize that most peoples never had the body sense, balance, or knee joints that would let them be like him (not to mention the pain tolerance). Since drive was the obvious-to-him part that made the rest of it work, he was oblivious to that which came easier.

More on topic for the thread, I think there is something else that comes into play for being a writer, an actor, a rock star, or a pro athlete -- Luck. All of these fields are well supplied. We can stock bookstores, film movies, and fill concert halls and stadiums for some time to come with the people we have now. And while attrition will free up places, supply still far exceeds demand, and so luck will play a part. And the outsider sees the luck thing as being the only REAL obstacle to their becoming richandfamous™ and all they think they need to do is get a foot in the door, any door, and they have it made. Airleaf Publishing, our piñata del dio, is quite willing to let them in the door long enough to empty their pockets. But finding Airleaf, or others of there ilk, is the wrong kind of luck, and the tragedy is that some of these folks may actually have the rest of what it takes, and loose their dreams out of the same pocket their money was in.

Posted November 16, 2006 9:55 PM by John Houghton

But sending my manuscript to a real publisher is scary, they might reject me. If I got with one of these nice friendly people who are willing to spam a lot of editors on my behalf I won't have to know how many people aren't interested in my project, or how badly they think it is written, and I can continue to have visions of bumping elbows with Dan Brown and J.K. Rowling.

Seriously, though, I'm working on rewriting a biography that a woman got so desperate to publish that she fell for a scam agent. I can't quite wrap my head around how a grown woman with an MFA in creative writing can fall for that when I'd learned how to spot publishing scams (and recite a good chunk of copywrite law) by the time I was twelve. She never read through the lines of "It's just not for us," in the rejection slips until somebody finally told her that the writing quality just wasn't good enough. I actually referred her here for an education about scams and such, so thanks for doing this.

Posted November 16, 2006 11:39 PM by Anaea

Julia, #9, and Gag, #14:

I know a guy who is being published through AuthorHouse. In addition to whatever up-front fee he's (I assume) paid them, they are also charging him for making changes to the manuscript. He fills out a "changes needed" form, and they charge him $2 per correction. That comma should be a period? $2, please. And there were, at least, several dozen errors that needed correcting.

Posted November 16, 2006 11:47 PM by Leslie in CA

Strongly seconding John Houghton in #41. A bit of further riffing on the topic:

IMO, it's true that most people can get to the level of "decent" in just about any endeavor by dint of hard work and practice, with obvious exceptions for physical impossibilities. The tone-deaf man will never succeed in any musical field, nor the one-legged woman become a hurdler.

To reach the level of "professional", one must have a threshold amount of innate ability as well as the willingness to work hard. The folks who have talked about being able to sing well enough for a community choir, but not well enough to have solo careers, illustrate this. (I also fall into this bracket -- I do fine in the filkroom, but would be a dismal failure as a professional singer.) It's the difference between doing it as a hobby and doing it for a living. Harry Chapin's song "Mr. Tanner" is an outstanding example of the heartbreak that can happen when well-meaning friends push someone with hobby-level talent into trying to go pro.

And yes, luck is definitely a factor, as is timing. No matter how good you are, if the breaks consistently go against you, you're screwed. You can improve your chances of getting a break by networking, by pounding the pavement, by doing all the things lumped herein under "perseverance," and by continuing to hone your craft while you do these things (opportunity does favor the prepared) -- but there's still an inescapable luck factor.

The myth of "you can do or be anything you want if you just work hard enough" doesn't take ability and aptitude into account. Because of that, people who buy into it tend to put inordinate amounts of importance on the luck factor. After all, if they're WORKING at it and it's still not happening, then the fault can't be with THEM. And that's sad, because it sets them up to be the perfect victims for this kind of scam artist.

Posted November 17, 2006 2:36 AM by Lee

Talent can be an hindrance, too. For all of my career in school up to college I almost did not study. I literally didn't know how to do it - I just had to read the assigned pages once and understand them, which was easy because I found them interesting. The one area where practice would have helped, maths, I didn't excel at because I quickly became bored with doing the exercises.

As a result, I failed spectacularly in college, in two separate fields.

I suspect I have the same problem with my writing.

Posted November 17, 2006 3:51 AM by Anna Feruglio Dal Dan

Talent can be an hindrance, too. For all of my career in school up to college I almost did not study. I literally didn't know how to do it - I just had to read the assigned pages once and understand them, which was easy because I found them interesting. The one area where practice would have helped, maths, I didn't excel at because I quickly became bored with doing the exercises.

As a result, I failed spectacularly in college, in two separate fields.

I suspect I have the same problem with my writing.

Posted November 17, 2006 3:51 AM by Anna Feruglio Dal Dan

Anna at #45, I recognize the problem. It's why I'm very glad that my 9-year old son who has a tendency to get bored with math exercises does taekwondo, where you have to practice practice repeat repeat and then practice some more on the same old exercises for years and years. He knows he gets better that way, and I hope the realization will carry over into his school work. Because I myself feel still mostly lacking in this department: if I'm not super-good at something at the first try, I despair of ever becoming any good.

Posted November 17, 2006 6:12 AM by marrije

An odd note on the American Idol comparison. What you don't know about are the auditions to even get into the first few shows of American Idol, where those terrible singers and dancers are. Thing is, it's not as good a comparison as you think:

I had a coworker audition for the Canadian version. As she put it, she nailed her song, but there were others on stage better than her. She could easily pick out the best singer there; not necessarily pop pro level, but noticeable in the crowd of mostly-decents.

They didn't pick the best singer. They picked the girl who interrupted her song three or four times to say how nervous she was, and who giggled.

Oif they really wanted, they could ahve a show of all good-but-not-great singers, great singers, and fantastic singers.

The reason they don't is because it's more interesting to have only the bad singers, great singers and excellent singers. Good but not great is boring after the first few. Bad is morbid fascination.

If it weren't, I wouldn't have made it through Atlanta Nights.
___________________________
John Houghton's middle paragraph in #41 says all it needs to about my view on talent vs. persistence for the things we're good at; we tend to have a combination of innate talent *and keen interest* in the thing we do best, therefore we put in the hours of practice without ever realising it *is* practice.

It's a more visible curve in things where you're not as good. When I started doing SCA dance, I had almsot no sense of rhythm. I have zero innate talent at dance, and I danced around enough as a child and teen to know it, usually hidden in a basement once I figured it out, but still.

SCA dance is hardly ballet, or even jazz. While there are points of technique and precision that can mark a superior dancer from an ordinary one, it doesn't require flexibility or stamina beyond what an oridnary person can accomplish. it took me years to be more than a raw enthusiast. I still count beats under my breath in trickier pieces.

After over ten years, I'm not the best person out there (Practice has slacked off), but i'm competent, the limbs know the drills, and it's helped in dance ventures that look nothing alike, and in aerobics classes, and, for the two years or so I was really dedicated to it, in fencing. I fall over less in general.

More talented dancers with fewer practices can look like worse dancers than me in this field.

Of course, there's the Uncle Jim caveat; it has to be the right *kind* of practice, the kind that involved trying to improve. We have some dancers (usually male) who've done this for years, and while they step on beat, they look slumpy and uncontrolled. And I know I've been letting myself slip for just that reason.

Posted November 17, 2006 2:27 PM by Lenora Rose

On the question of how people become good at a field, definitely read the Freakonomics column on the subject. The short answer is that it definitely requires dedication and constant practice, but also immediate feedback and goal-setting. Inborn talent seems to be a minor constituent for most cognitive tasks.

Posted November 17, 2006 2:58 PM by Alex Cohen

Daniel Martin #36: "I must admit, I find myself extremely wary of people who are quick to claim a heavy innate component (often labeled "talent") to various endeavors. It is my personal impression that much of what we call talent is really unaccounted for practice."

Back when I was a gradual student in the Old Stone Age (a.k.a., the late 80s and early 90s) I made some of my living abstracting journal articles for Sociological Abstracts. I recall one article I read that argued, on the basis of studies of olympic swimmers, that success was the basis of 'repetitions of practice'. That is to say, more or less what you contend.

I mentioned this to some of the faculty (as an example of research which ends up proving a popular adage -- practice makes perfect). One pointed out to me that it was false; no matter how hard he practiced he could not become an olympic swimmer even though he was in good shape and swam daily. Successful athletes have innate advantages over those who aren't successful, and these include talent.

I'd say the same applies in other fields of endeavour.

Posted November 18, 2006 6:35 PM by Fragano Ledgister

Just to stitch up a little around the edges of this discussion, which is mostly quite correct.

The term "talent" begs a few questions IMHO. To be an Olympic swimmer requires long-tail amounts of motor coordination, muscle strength, and other unusual genetic endowments-- plus, arguably, a Zen-like quality of acclimatization to the water. That last, if you had it, would make every swimming experience a positive one, and drive you to spend as many of your waking hours in the pool as possible. Thus we arrive at Daniel Martin's observation at #36, of unacknowledged years of practice-- engaged in because there's positive reinforcement built in.

I'm a rock musician (if that's not oxymoronic). I do it because it's fun, because it certainly isn't remunerative at the level I'm at. My ear is good, if I may say so, and I like playing things that stretch it, resolving harmonies in unexpected ways, etc. So I've practiced for 40-some-odd years, even if what I've done has never really measured up to my old childhod piano teacher's definition of "practice."

Posted November 20, 2006 2:50 PM by Michael Bloom

Masquerading as a polite letter about exchanging links at #52 from 'Webmaster' on March 08, 2007, 02:20 AM

Posted March 8, 2007 2:59 AM by Epacris suspects comment spam

A spammer writes: We will appreciate if you will use the following information to link us back from your web site

I hope no-one on ML minds, but I've been running a Zombies simulation on a 2 Mqbit SQUID using the comment threads here as modelling data. This is not a Vingefied AI system with trapped, sentient copies of the contributors here: the agents modelled are guaranteed soulless empty software shells.

I'd just like to note that when I fed comment #52 above into the system, the Zombie Jim Macdonald said "No".

Posted March 8, 2007 5:05 AM by Niall McAuley

Niall, could you go into more detail?

Posted March 8, 2007 12:03 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Niall @53,

I'd just received a pseudonymous letter from 'Zkathryn zfrom Zsunnyvale' that traceroutes back from a domain I haven't yet but was planning to register, datamined out from a stenographic analysis of flickr flower photos, and containing information that only I know.*

The letter asks me to ask to to "shut the fr@cking SQUID down OR download a complete BL and LoC without DRM, better comfy chair and hot chocolate modules, and a *working* cornucopia machine."

Please take care of this now. Thanks.

* "...if you had a substandard chocolate module, you'd use bad language too. Oh, wait, you still believe you're substantiated in the meatverse. Fine. Imagine it all tasted like Hershey's milk chocolate..."

Posted March 8, 2007 3:56 PM by Kathryn from Sunnyvale

I do not at all understand what's going on here. How could Niall's zombies get information only Kathryn knows?

Posted March 8, 2007 4:01 PM by Xopher

The only logical way that Niall's zombies could have information that only Kathryn knows is from eating her brains.

I for one welcome our artifically intelligent/undead overlords.

Posted March 8, 2007 4:17 PM by Neil Willcox

What a coincidence. I am currently reading Lucius Shepard's novella Dead Money, which is about... what else?... a zombie card player in post-Katrina New Orleans.

He doesn't appear to need eating brains.

Posted March 8, 2007 4:20 PM by Serge

Xopher @56,

All you need to know about the different flavors of zombies.

Zkathryn is claiming to not be a philosophical zombie. And if someone claiming to be me says she has and needs the qualia of (or for?) chocolate, I'll err on the side of more chocolate.

Posted March 8, 2007 4:40 PM by Kathryn from Sunnyvale

Niall,

Why did I just get an email from myself, containing a sonnet that scans and rhymes perfectly, but has no artistic interest whatsoever?

Just asking.

Posted March 8, 2007 4:49 PM by abi

Looking back, it's obvious that no one has eaten Kathryn's brains. Other possible explanations include:

-Zombies have eaten Kathryn's chocloate
-Zombies have eaten the plot
-Zombies have eaten my brains

(I managed to type Xombie for whoever has eaten the plot, which is either an indication that theory 3 is the most likely, or some as-yet unidentified cross between Xopher and a zombie*)

* presumably because name Zxopher looks too much like an alien, rather than an undead

Posted March 8, 2007 4:55 PM by Neil Willcox

Tonight on Doctor Who, "Zxopher the Xombie"...

Posted March 8, 2007 5:05 PM by Serge

If I understand this correctly, Zkathryn necessarily knows everything Kathryn knows, but has no awareness of that knowledge. Zkathryn claims not to be a p-zombie, but that's exactly what a p-zombie would claim, isn't it? I mean, a p-zombie would need consciousness in order to make truth claims about its nature, and if it had consciousness, it would not be a p-zombie. "I am a p-zombie" is always a false statement.

And what, exactly, is the difference between a lich and revenant? Which one is The Thing on the Doorstep? I'm pretty sure that Halpin Fraser's mother is a lich, and Dracula is a revenant, but there's a lot of grey area in between.

Posted March 8, 2007 5:33 PM by Howard Peirce

People, can we not stereotype about zombies based on misrepresentations in really atrocious, campy movies? Zombies do not eat the brains of the living and stumble around going "Braiiiinsss...". They eat the flesh of the living and stumble around going "Uggggggghhhh..."

God, I thought everyone knew that. If they were after you, I bet you wouldn't even know to destroy the brain or remove the head.

Posted March 9, 2007 1:53 AM by ethan

Rëgulårs at Måking Lîght:

þere îs no need for alårm. The SQÜID ìs sêcure. I have spðken with my øwn Zðmbie counterpårt, and he has înstructed me to "Be cool."

Posted March 9, 2007 4:47 AM by ZNiall McAuley

Ethan,

In California, the workplace guide set (employement law, minimum wage, existential threats) includes the standard zombie warning chart. It specifies incineration or beheading / dismemberment as the preferred destruction method.

So can we not assume we're not having ironic fun here? I think everyone knows how to kill zombies. Certainly everyone here is going to, what with Jim MacDonald's "how to be safe from dehydration and zombies in the summer" and "how to protect against hyperzombia in winter" and all the others in his 75 part "Only if you memorize everything I say will you have a chance to live until the morning" series.

Posted March 9, 2007 4:59 AM by Kathryn from Sunnyvale

Kathryn #66: Is this an appropriate time to mention that any time I enter a space I've never been in before I will secretly judge it based on how potentially useful it would be as a zombie-proof hideout? You know, in the event that the unburied dead ever do rise, possessing only vague memories of their former lives and driven by a never-ending instinctual need to devour the flesh of the living, or whatever.

Dehydration seems pretty far-fetched in comparison, though if it ever threatened I'd be completely unprepared. I've heard rumors that it has something to do with fluids. Mr. Macdonald?

Posted March 9, 2007 5:09 AM by ethan

Ethan,

I totally understand. I'm a Californian, and as a Californian I can't walk into a room without noting the strong desk under which I may need to leap the instant the P waves swell. Nor can I travel anywhere without thinking about earthquake safety codes. Harvard Square was a nightmare: far too much unreinforced brick. Evil, evil brick, no shear strength whatsoever.

And I've only gone through a few minor 5's and a low 6. (I was 90 miles away from Loma Prieta's 6.9/7.1)

But when I'm staying at friends' houses, at least I don't sneak around in the middle of the night to weld steel framing alongside the main frame beams, the way Californians who've been through the big quakes have.

Live in zombie country, get zombie country habits. Nothing wrong with that- it would only be weird if you didn't.

Do you do the 'plywood supplies in the car' thing? We always get the oddest looks from car rental agencies- what, can everyone afford titanium sheeting in Japan? But my biggest travel complaint is flying- only one sheet of plywood per (coach) passenger?

(btw, with the liquids restriction I just mix my holy water with a colloid and put it into mini shampoo bottles, each under 100ml.)

Posted March 9, 2007 5:51 AM by Kathryn from Sunnyvale

The preferred weapon for personal anti-zombie defense is the chainsaw. For a horrifying example of what happens when you don't have a fully-fueled chainsaw handy, see The Black Cauldron by Lloyd Alexander.

Let us not forget the training film, Resident Princess, in which Princess Mia (played by Anne Hathaway) wakes up in the palace in Pyrus to discover that most of the citizens of Genovia have been turned into flesh-eating zombies by the T-virus. Mia (dressed only in a nightie and combat boots) must rescue Queen Clarisse (played by Julie Andrews) and get out of the country before the USA nukes them to prevent the spread of the virus. The film demonstrates that full-automatic weapons and motorcycles can adequately substitute for a chainsaw if a chainsaw isn't readily available.

Posted March 9, 2007 10:34 AM by James D. Macdonald

Kathryn #68: If you think flying with plywood is hard, try flying with a shotgun, matches, gasoline, and, as Jim mentions in #69, a chainsaw. Usually they make me check everything except the gasoline, and I'm like, come on, people, if there were a zombie breakout on an airplane, that would be seriously bad news for all of us.

Also as Jim mentions in #69: Oh my GOD I want to see a Julie Andrews zombie movie.

Posted March 9, 2007 10:48 AM by ethan

Zombies on a Plane!

I have had it with these motherfucking Zombies on this motherfucking plane!

Posted March 9, 2007 10:54 AM by Niall McAuley

I was in San Francisco last week instead of telecommuting. I needed a new security badge so I went to the 23rd floor where I met a young man with purple hair and a t-shirt advertising the zombie defense system. I'm not sure if it meant a defense system for zombies or from them.

Posted March 9, 2007 10:54 AM by Serge

ethan @ 70... I want to see a Julie Andrews zombie movie

"THe hills (have eyes and) are alive (?) with the sound of music..."

Posted March 9, 2007 10:57 AM by Serge

Serge #72: Or a defence system that uses zombies?

Posted March 9, 2007 12:14 PM by Fragano Ledgister

The preferred weapon for personal anti-zombie defense is the chainsaw.

I see you have not read The Zombie Survival Guide, which mentions the chainsaw's many and manifold shortcomings as a weapon against zombies, to wit:
It's loud, which will draw other zombies.
It's unwieldy and liable to stick in bone.
It's nearly as dangerous to the wielder as to its target.
It's heavy--when you're running for your life, heavy is bad.
It requires fuel/power and therefore has a limited span of usefulness in the absence of services such as one usually finds in the wake of a zombie epidemic.

Posted March 9, 2007 12:17 PM by Carrie S.

Shotguns and axes and chainsaws from Husky
Searchlights that start up when night's growing dusky
Claymores that fire when I pull on their strings
These are a few of my favorite things.

Plywood-clad doorways that last until morning
Kick-started motorbikes, engines a-roaring
Flamethrowers spewing the napalm that clings
These are a few of my favorite things.

When the zombie
Shuffles t'ward me
And the world looks bad
I simply remember my favorite things
And then I don't feel too sad.

Posted March 9, 2007 12:18 PM by James D. Macdonald

ObSF Kelly Link "Some Zombie Contingency Plans" in Magic For Beginners.

These are the zombies than non-genre readers famously have problems understanding are sometimes just zombies.

Posted March 9, 2007 12:19 PM by Jo Walton

The author of The Zombie Survival Guide is less of an expert than he'd like you to think.

It's loud, which will draw other zombies.

It's unwieldy and liable to stick in bone.

It's nearly as dangerous to the wielder as to its target.

It's heavy--when you're running for your life, heavy is bad.

It requires fuel/power and therefore has a limited span of usefulness in the absence of services such as one usually finds in the wake of a zombie epidemic.

Posted March 9, 2007 1:00 PM by James D. Macdonald

If you have a gun, shoot 'em in the head. That's a sure way to kill 'em. If you don't, get yourself a club or a torch. Beat 'em or burn 'em. They go up pretty easy.

Posted March 9, 2007 1:30 PM by Sheriff McClelland

Somebody should contact Bruce Campbell.

Posted March 9, 2007 1:38 PM by Serge

Yeah, I don't know if the Zombie Survival Guide is worth the paper it's printed on.

For one thing, I don't think chainsaw noise would necessarily draw zombie attention--not any more than just being nearby would, anyway. The only sounds they tend to be interested in are human voices.

As for the bit about how the chainsaw's weight is a problem when running for one's life: in the midst of a zombie epidemic, one does a lot of things for one's life, but running isn't one of the more important ones. Most living people can outwalk a zombie. Their real threat lies in their ever-increasing numbers, and a chainsaw is very very good at quickly reducing any population (See also: Texas teenagers).

("Napalm that clings / favorite things" is my new favorite rhyme, by the way.)

Posted March 9, 2007 1:49 PM by ethan

Jim Macdonald:

The preferred weapon for personal anti-zombie defense is the chainsaw. For a horrifying example of what happens when you don't have a fully-fueled chainsaw handy, see The Black Cauldron by Lloyd Alexander.

Many years ago Bill Stout did production design on a proposed TV revival of Buck Rodgers. The sidearms included a chainsaw short sword. I suspect from the handle design it was for the Hawkmen, but I'm not sure and haven't seen much on it since then...

Posted March 9, 2007 1:57 PM by Bruce E. Durocher II

Well, the Zombie Survival Guide might be useful for starting fires with which to burn zombies.

OTOH - horrible thought - could it be a guide for the survival of zombies?

Posted March 9, 2007 1:58 PM by P J Evans

Serge:

Somebody should contact Bruce Campbell.

Allegedly New Line has been trying to arrange a Freddy and Jason vs. Ash film, but the sticking point is that Campbell doesn't want "That dumb idiot Ash" killed off by anything as inept as Freddy or Jason. I don't blame him.

Posted March 9, 2007 2:01 PM by Bruce E. Durocher II

Well, clearly I need to wake up more. The revival was to be Flash Gordon, not Buck. Insert Stimpy imitation here...

Posted March 9, 2007 2:03 PM by Bruce E. Durocher II

HA! Has anyone seen this? Bush has even pissed off the Mayan spirit guides.

Posted March 9, 2007 2:38 PM by Xopher

Oops. Wrong thread. Sorry.

Posted March 9, 2007 2:39 PM by Xopher

PJ Evans @83,

It's a cookbook, a cookbook!

They're not even hiding:
The Living and Raw Foods FAQ.

They understand that zombies can't walk well, so they get help: they only have to shuffle
12 Steps To Raw Food

On chainsaws-

I'm thinking about the new nailgun with pure-sodium-tipped nails. Experiences?

Posted March 9, 2007 2:41 PM by Kathryn from Sunnyvale

Kathryn, it's twelve steps for the walking dead, but only maybe three for the living.

Re: nailguns, they work very well, especially if you tape down the safety and make them rapid-fire. I don't know nothin' about this sodium-tipped nails business; what's that about?

Xopher, it wasn't necessarily the wrong thread. We don't know for sure what causes zombie epidemics--there's been a little talk about radiation from satellites, some speculation about the dead walking the earth when there's no more room in hell, but no definitive explanation. Could politically-aware, angry Mayan spirit guides be involved? We don't know.

Posted March 9, 2007 2:53 PM by ethan

By the way, can I mention now that people on this site have made me laugh out loud at least ten times in the past two days?

Posted March 9, 2007 2:54 PM by ethan

We don't know for sure what causes zombie epidemics--there's been a little talk about radiation from satellites, some speculation about the dead walking the earth when there's no more room in hell, but no definitive explanation. Could politically-aware, angry Mayan spirit guides be involved? We don't know.
I Am Not A Politically-aware, Angry Mayan Spirit Guide (Abbreviated, for your convenience, as IANAPAAMSG from here on out) but if I was, the only thing holding me back in these circumstances would be the fear that my Zombie plague would end up in the wrong place--like close to home, causing difficulties and inconvenience for the locals I was there to protect, instead of shambling through the halls of a foreign presidential mansion, or across the closely-chainsawed brush patches of a place in West Texas.
Of course, IANAPAAMSG, so they might not have to worry about such things. Did Kolchak ever have to deal with this problem?

Posted March 9, 2007 3:09 PM by fidelio

fidelio

I understand the ranch is near Waco, in central/east Texas, not west Texas, where brush is scarce. (Making sure the spell is aimed at the right place.)

Posted March 9, 2007 3:15 PM by P J Evans

Why am I suddenly picturing a typical grade-Z (ha!) zombie movie, where everyone keeps talking about Angry Mayan Spirits, but all the "Mayans" speak Nahuatl and the Evol Priest wears an elaborate Aztec headdress (or plastic simulation therof)?

I'm looking for a deity who will protect me from bad movies. Ready to add Hir to my personal worship-set.

Posted March 9, 2007 3:23 PM by Xopher

#92 Thanks, PJ. As I mentioned above, IANAPAAMSG. However, should I happen to be in a position where I encounter any who need to have their geography checked, I'll point this out.

#93. Xopher, when you find out, please pass this information on. Wasn't there a Particle at some point that linked to a compendium of divinities?

Posted March 9, 2007 3:31 PM by fidelio

Xopher #93: If Yma Sumac's in it, I'll still watch it. Or Julie Andrews.

Julie Andrews as a zombie-summoning Mayan Spirit, and Yma Sumac as the singing, chainsaw-weilding heroine who saves the day! Or should it be the other way around? Either way, I want a duet.

Posted March 9, 2007 3:46 PM by ethan

fidelio - I believe it was Godchecker.com from a particle back in July 2005.

Posted March 9, 2007 4:01 PM by Tania

ethan @ 95... Either way, I want a duet.

"Victor/Victoria vs the Mayan Zombies of Death", starring Julie Andrews and Robert Preston, and some Mexican wrestlers.

Posted March 9, 2007 4:12 PM by Serge

If the Aztec Mummy were pitted against a Mayan Zombie, who would win?

Posted March 9, 2007 5:16 PM by Stefan Jones

I think we all would.

Posted March 9, 2007 5:34 PM by ethan

Rezume

you have no gun
they're already dead
you can't run
they don't need their head

chainsaws take gas
you can't fly
they break the glass
you might as well die

Posted March 9, 2007 5:43 PM by Todd Larason

Odd that this thread would arise the same week that "Marvel Zombies vs. Army of Darkness" #1 comes out.

Rebecca Borgstrom once imagined zombies becoming angels and ascending to heaven. This takes God somewhat by surprise:

"And there’d be these razor-mawed zombie angels shuffling towards him, muttering BRAAAINS

And he’d be all like, “Dudes, I don’t possess brains in the conventional sense.”

And there’d be these razor-mawed zombie angels shuffling towards him, muttering THAT GRACE UPON WHICH BRAINS HAVE BEEN MODELLLLED"

...reading which, my friends, is the only time that I have ever laughed so hard that tears came to my eyes.

Posted March 10, 2007 7:20 AM by David Goldfarb

Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
This guy is dead,
Still wants t'eat you.

Posted March 10, 2007 7:51 AM by Serge

Howard Pierce: "And what, exactly, is the difference between a lich and revenant? Which one is The Thing on the Doorstep? I'm pretty sure that Halpin Fraser's mother is a lich, and Dracula is a revenant, but there's a lot of grey area in between."

I think that we need to stop trying to define liches and revenants, and start trying to describe them.

Posted March 10, 2007 9:16 AM by Heresiarch

I don't know if anyone but the Phoenix news carried the story about the carpenter who tripped and fired a nailgun through his own heart. He lived -- with some spectacular scars -- to tell the tale, by being sensible enough not to pull the nail out afterward (maybe he remembered the death-by-stingray item from last year). And no, he didn't come back as a shambling zombie!

Posted March 10, 2007 10:13 AM by Faren Miller

I can feel a post coming on titled Trauma And You, where you'll be solemnly warned about removing impaled objects (aside from certain closely-described situations), as well as what to do about broken bones, arterial bleeding, and your leg falling off.

Sucking chest wounds: They aren't just for breakfast anymore.

Posted March 10, 2007 10:32 AM by James D. Macdonald

Go, Jim, go!

Posted March 10, 2007 10:34 AM by abi

Agreed, abi... It'll be like our very own version of the Discovery Health Channel's evening fare, where people do really stupid things, and then have to be put back together.

Posted March 10, 2007 10:39 AM by Serge

Godchecker is good at giving superficial, tongue-in-cheek, borderline blasphemous information about gods whose names you know, but not so much use for looking up "a god who does X" where X is something you need a god for.

The nice thing about gods being metaphors, anthropomorphizations of aspects of the Divine to serve human needs to communicate with It, is that if you don't have a god for a particular purpose, you can make one up. I didn't invent Squat (sometimes spelled Skwadt, but I don't think this is righteous) the Goddess of Parking Spaces ("Squat, Squat, give us a spot!"), but I do make obeisance to her when I'm in a car trolling for parking.

I think Protection from Bad Movies will come in the form of a god, not a goddess. He will have aspects of Thor (the real one, not the blond himbo of the comics..."I say thee, nope" indeed), perhaps Vishnu, and other protective gods, but He must also be a psychopomp like Hermes and Anubis...guiding the artistic souls past the Devourers of Time and Artistic Sensibility, to the Elysium of Excellent Film Art, or just Good Movies.

I'll get back to you when I know Him more fully.

Posted March 10, 2007 11:01 AM by Xopher

Dudes, I don’t possess brains in the conventional sense.

This line deserves a T-shirt.

Posted March 10, 2007 11:18 AM by Lizzy L

Lich -- a reanimated dead body, controlled by an external will.

Revenant -- the dead returned, controlled by their own will.

Posted March 10, 2007 2:10 PM by Fragano Ledgister

Xopher @ 108: I didn't invent Squat (sometimes spelled Skwadt, but I don't think this is righteous) the Goddess of Parking Spaces ("Squat, Squat, give us a spot!"), but I do make obeisance to her when I'm in a car trolling for parking.

Blasphemy! The One True Goddess of Parking is Asphaltia, to whom especially convenient spaces must be requited by the sacrifice of Making An Impulsive Purchase!

...or at least she is around here. I'm tempted to draw the line at an invocation I saw recently (on eBay, in the listing for a devotionary necklace) to "Caffina, the Goddess of Nervous Energy".

Posted March 10, 2007 2:33 PM by Julie L.

Julie 111: Where is "around here"? I wouldn't be surprised at all if parking goddesses are cthonic.

As for Caffeina...I was once at a Pagan gathering where there was a massive (albeit tongue-in-cheek) ritual honoring Her. I was told it was an annual tradition at that gathering. I did not attend; I left Her worship many years ago, and She's quite cruel to shol'va, giving them headaches for at least a week.

In contrast to both Caffeina and Asphaltia, Squat requires naught of sacrifice, but bestows parking out of pure divine lovingkindness.

Posted March 10, 2007 2:47 PM by Xopher

Julie L. and Xopher - don't discount the influence of parking karma. Every time you're polite to someone in traffic (especially when they don't deserve it) or aid a fellow traveler, your parking karma grows.

Well, it works for me. I get parking spaces when I'm in Seattle or San Diego that are awesome. Parking in Fairbanks isn't that big a deal.

Posted March 10, 2007 3:04 PM by Tania

Alas, I can accumulate no parking karma. I don't drive.

Posted March 10, 2007 3:06 PM by Xopher

fidelio@91: Did Kolchak ever have to deal with this problem?

Of course. Can you doubt it?

You must learn to ask the right questions, Grasshopper. It would have been more useful to ask if we ever saw how Kolchak dealt with the problem.

(In honor of the Buffy open thread, I would like to mention, for anyone who hasn't already heard this, that there's speculation that Buffy's mother's birth name was Joyce Kolchak.)

Posted March 10, 2007 8:22 PM by Aconite

We're not unreasonable. I mean, no one's gonna eat your eyes.

Posted March 10, 2007 10:39 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

I didn't invent Squat (sometimes spelled Skwadt, but I don't think this is righteous) the Goddess of Parking Spaces ("Squat, Squat, give us a spot!"), but I do make obeisance to her when I'm in a car trolling for parking.

Blasphemy! The One True Goddess of Parking is Asphaltia, to whom especially convenient spaces must be requited by the sacrifice of Making An Impulsive Purchase!

hmf. i always thought it was the parking fairy, who is thanksgiven when you overpay your meter.

Posted March 10, 2007 10:51 PM by miriam beetle

(i always forget to re-italicize the second paragraph.)

Posted March 10, 2007 10:51 PM by miriam beetle