When we came in last Friday and saw that huge sign obscuring the building, Heidi commented about how atrocious it was. She suggests #10 is: "Besides, it's butt ugly." I agree.
Jane
I think STORY is a big interest for younger readers. (There's a great speech by I. B. Singer when he got the National Book Award (I think) about how young readers are interested in story.)
But it has to be story with concerns a young adult is interested in.
And it has to have what I call "the getting of wisdom. . ."
Age of the protagonist does not necessarly matter. Nor does gender, race, or species. "Sgt Chip" is the perfect example.
Mostly, though, it's a gut feeling. I think Patrick and I agreed immediately on well over 2/3 of the stories in the book. One of the ones he pushed me toward and I went kicking and screaming to re-read it, is now about my favorite story in the book (and no, I won't tell you which one.)
The stories we disagreed on but each still felt passionate about are in an Honor Roll at the back of the book, some 34 other stories. And one of those we both wanted in the book and couldn't get permission for.
Jane
We don't have any more than two from a single anthology, though we may have three from one of the magazines.
Kathryn's book is twice the size of ours, so maybe she had problems filling it up.But we decided early on that two stories per anthology was the most we'd reprint.
And even though we don't have a contract for the next anthology, we are already reading.
Jane
Good luck. Having just done a stint as WF judge, I wish you joy of the boxes of enormous doorstops.
Between that and reading for YEARS BEST, you will have your hands full. Or at least your mind full.
Jane
There are enough Toroids breaking legs to send out such greetings, but would love to hear you. Only. . .am a bit far afield for that.
Jane
Given that half or more of Publisher's Lunch is devoted to authors and their agents bruiting about their advances (in coy language, but it's not hard to figure out) as pre-publicity, I'd say that a publisher asking someone to keep quiet about monies is the exception not the rule.
Now all the extras gotten by squeezing the publisher. . .
Jane
Not only had I promised to be quiet, we were about to embark to Scotland. So here I am, in St Andrews, in the midst of gales so wild they blew my husband's glasses off his nose and halfway across the Safeway parking lot.
Just to answer Will's question: I favor a death + 50 years. I think 75 excessive. And I firmly believe that individual creators should be treated better than corporate entitites, but then I would--wouldn't I!
Jane
author of 270 published (and about to be published) books and uncounted stories, poems, essays quite certainly double that.
I'm sorry--where did you all miss the part where I said I didn't believe in extending copyright in perpetuity? Just a reasonable time after death. I thought we were arguing about how reasonable the time would be (or how slippery the slope, viz Charlie's metaphor.)
But I have hijacked Patrick's topic for too long over what for me is a highly personal matter.
By the way, I am sure there are wonderful individuals in Hollywood and in the games industry, but again, my experience is personal.
And now as I said before, but mean this time:
Shut up, Jane.
Jane
Presuming I live another five years, my children would then be 39, 42, 43 and given a 50 year lifetime of the copyright after death, would help them throughout their lives and educate their kids and, to some degree, help the grandkids (though to a diminishing degree as there are six of them and by then most of my books would likely to be OP.)
After that, the family is on its own.
Slippery slope, Charlie? Does that mean nothing after death at all for the copyright? Anything other than nothing IS a slippery slope, at least that's how I read your comments. That's pretty draconian.
As it is, I cannot even give my mss. to libraries for any recompense, though artists can. Except... except I can take off the cost of the paper! However, I can sell the mss. and correspondence to a second party and THAT person can gift them and get a tax credit. How bizarre is that? (By the way, I give my mss. and papers to the Un. of Minnesota On Permanent Loan without any tax credits. But it sure would help.)
Jane
I do not believe that works of art should be in copyright in perpetuity. That does NOT serve the public. But I do think that the artist and his/her heirs should have a say in things, get some money if there is some for a solid amount of time.
Most of us who write for children make little enough money at it, but some (think Rowling, of course, but also Eric Carle and Lemony Snicket etc.) make quite a bit. I do not begrudge them immediate sales and immediate monies. They have worked hard, given great satisfaction to many, and
have had great luck as well.
Most of us who are in the middle range, give permission to storytellers, teachers, children etc. to make use of our work in their own way. We want the stories to stay alive.
The difference comes when Hollyweird or Major Media or game makers or the like step in. Why should they be allowed, 28 years after I initially publish a story--or ten years after I am dead--to make gadzillions just because they waited?
My latest movie options have been on books that are fifteen and thirty years away from their original publication. With no copyright protection, a cautious and canny movie maker could wait a few years more and steal them after the fact of my demise. And then with no barriers, they could do whatever the hell they want. (Well, obviously they do that anyway, cf Earthsea!>
I must be very old fashioned here. I want my children to benefit some from my years of hard work. And I want them to be good and generous
executors of their trust so that others will benefit as well.
Jane
But but but. . .did you miss the post about my children being very much a part of working the farm? My daughter writes children's books with me, is my assistant, writes books and stories and poems on her own. My middle son writes novels with me, is a musician, writes novels and short fiction and poetry on his own. My youngest is a photographer and does picture books with me. Also sells photos, works as a photographer on contract to a major resort.
They are all in on decisions (especially my daughter who will be literay executor) having to do with my books, stories.
I harp on my own situation because 1. it's the clearest example I have 2. because in your rush to punish Disney and Gates, a lot of much smaller folk get in the way.
What I am saying is that if you take away after- death copyright protection for ordinary writers like me, then the winners will not necessarily be the general public but the big corporatins who then take my now-unprotected work and do whatever the hell they want with it. To the chagrin of my heirs.
For example, all Hollywood has to do is wait till I die (which is in most likelihood not that many years away) and then pay nothing to turn my books into films--and make money off them. Publishers could bring back hundreds of my books and make money off them, changing the text at will. And this suits the public how?
Will and Charlie can gift their works in their wills to whomever they want--NAACP, the Children's Hospital etc but mine go to my family, thanks.
Jane
Will--are you really that naive? Of course my works are subject to inheritance tax.(So are yours.) In fact, we have taken out a rather large insurance policy so the kids don't go broke once the Feds make an assessment of what my property will be worth ten years after my death . Because for at least ten years, the Feds can demonstrably claim that the various stories, poems, novels, essays will keep earning money and they will look at past success times 10, which of course is not useful since once I die, two thirds of the income stream dries right up. (One third being new writing, one third being lectures and teaching, one third being royalties and resales.)
So this is not an argument for argument's sake on the money. And it's certainly an important argument for me on the art side as well. In fact, my daughter is now my full time assistant so she knows everything about my business. She knows what I will allow and won't.
Not all writers make a living from their writing, and perhaps for many of them this is a moot point. But not for me. My little family farm is prosperous. My kids are all in the family business. And I suppose I take all this rather personally.
So I should shut up now.
Shut up, Jane.
Jane
Jane
Will--we have had this disagreement before.
I'd like you to make that same argument to ANYONE with a family farm, a small family business, a family shop etc. Tell them that within five years of their mother/father's death, they will lose all rights to the business. Five years--and a stranger with money to spend on it (but not to give to you), will take over your farm or your family shop, whether you want to give it up or not. Tell them that the person who takes it over can then do anything they want to it--make it into a brothel or a place to launder money or a sweatshop or simply sell it to a big company that will build on the property without regard to its history.
(You can tell I get all fired up over this. My metaphors are hopping all over the damn place.)
Jane
Charlie wrote: "I have absolutely no interest in retaining copyright 70 or 90 years after I'm dead; neither I nor any of my first-degree relatives will be the beneficiaries of it and in the event I have grandchildren I wouldn't want them to be living as rentiers anyway. All I want is to be paid and for people to read my books."
I agree I want to be paid in my lifetime, too, Charlie. But I am 65 and have children and grandchildren and want to--in effect--leave the family farm to them. Partially to supplement their meager incomes (they are writers, musicians, photographers after all!) and partially because Moms/Grandmoms want to give them something to be remembered by.
But also (for the shortish term) to have someone who will TEND that farm with dedication and understanding. I don't want MGM or Gates or Nickolodeon to seize my stories and make gadzillions off them after I am dead with no recompense to my heirs. If the Authors and Artists don't have any say in what happens to their work after they are gone, no legal voice, then the Bill Gates and their monied ilk get it all.
Jane
I think one of the reasons the neo-cons won is that they are deadly serious (in all senses of the word deadly) and frame all their arguments in absolutes. "Commies" is an absolute. And so to, for them, "Democracy." And "Faith."
Whereas we are serious, but not deadly, and also seriously playful and seriously able to laugh at ourselves. Which mitigates our ability to be as deadly as the other side.
However, that being said, I also have to point out that I hate getting aligned with Bill Gates on copyright issues. But as a creator, I am constantly reminding folks that I have to eat, pay mortgages, and leave something to the children and grandkids, too. My stuff AIN'T free. (Another one of my poems has just turned up sans copyright info on a website--this one for scrapbookers! So I may be a tad cranky this early morning.)
Speaking of nitpicking. I thought that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah had to do with (among other things) men offerring their own daughters (of proper marriages) to whore for other men.
Maybe I am misremembering and the Bible is in another room.
Jane
Dave wrote this and I fail to understand it viz reality:
"As for gay marriage, (takes deep breath) I hold that marriage is and always was, in all human societies, a means of meeting a specific need: that of nurturing, raising and socialising the offspring of a sexual relationship. Homosexual relationships, ipso facto, can have no such offspring. Therefore marriage cannot apply to them."
Since I live in an area (Northampton, MA) where many gay folk have chldren together (science has fixed this) and nurture, raise, and socialise them just fine, thank you, why should marriage not apply to them?
Or should those folk who cannot have children the old-fashion way--or who choose to adopt--be denied marriage whether hetro or homo?
If we allow adoption, or allow scientific testube babies tobe born, and THEY have all the rights of (gosh) real people, why not their parents? Or have we just entered Velveteen Rabbit Town here?
Jane
The strangest reaction to Internet anonymity (imho) are the kids who email me believing I am some computer analogue set up to answer their questions. They absolutely refuse to believe that it is, indeed, me. Nothing I say convinces them.
Jane
Some quick thoughts: I was a Kerry supporter from the first. (And a Teresa Heinz-Kerry supporter the first time I heard her speak.) Of course, I live in Massachusetts which means I have been following (and voting for) Kerry for quite some time.
We are an Anyone But Nader household and have been for some time. My husband, normally soft spoken, has Words about Mr. N. Frequently and loudly.
And hi! Will. We actually love you (and your books) here. But you know that.
Jane
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 16 |
| 2004 | 26 |
| 2003 | 37 |
| 2002 | 1 |
Total: 80 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Janeyolen:
Show all comments by Janeyolen.