Fantastic Worlds

So, Avatar has come out on DVD and BluRay, and smashed all kinds of records for most discs sold and all that. I will freely admit that I simply do not buy DVDs, and I don't own a BluRay player, so I'm a little baffled by all the excitement. If this follows the same trend as many other big releases, there will be a limited edition version out in time for Christmas with extra content that is supposedly there to encourage you to spend twice the money on the content you already own. I have heard that James Cameron is also planning a 3D version next year, so people will have the chance to pay yet again. Fun times indeed.

Oh well, I say. What people do with their money is entirely their own business, and long may it bring them joy. But, personally, I have no need for another plastic disc cluttering up my home. I saw Avatar in the cinema, in 3D. I experienced the spectacle as it was meant to be experienced, and (unfortunately) it doesn't have anything else to offer other than spectacle.

The plot is Pocahontas in space, as many other people have said before. I found it quite silly at times. It's already been ripped to shreds for racism and whatnot elsewhere, so there's no need to repeat all that here. And the dialogue... oh, the dialogue. If I were being kind, I'd call it 'unintentionally hilarious'. Characterisation was disjointed, a little unreal. I left the theatre with the firm opinion that James Cameron had poured all the money and effort into the visual effects, and wrote the script himself whenever he had a few minutes to spare.

So, if we strip away the artistry, the beauty of Pandora and her creatures, what then? I have no reason to spend money on a movie where I can't experience the one exceptional feature of it. Nothing in one's home can replicate the movie theatre unless one happens to be very, very rich. But the sad fact of it all is that Avatar should have appealed to me, and I should be out buying the DVD right now. I live and breathe in fantastic worlds; Alice in Wonderland, the Belgariad, Dune, World of Warcraft. Pandora should have been no different.

What might have been another playground of the imagination is... nothing. A vague metaphor for the New World with a different skin. A setting hamstrung by lackluster story threads, destined for bad fanfiction at best. It's like taking the most expensive canvas, the most delicate brushes, the most vivid paints, and handing them over to an amateur to draw stick figures and blobs. I'm sure people will appreciate it, but oh! What might have been!

And for all that, I still don't begrudge Avatar its success. It deserves it simply for pushing the boundaries of what can be done. I know Hollywood will be chasing the phenomenon of Avatar for years, and out of that effort we are sure to get at least a few well written movies.

It's shown the world that there isn't anything beyond the reach of special effects these days. It's shown the dreamers that the technology exists to make their own fantastic worlds real.

I can't wait to see them.

Sketching

One of the things I'd recommend any writer to do is try to sketch your characters, or the things in your story, or the world you're creating. It gives you a better and a more solid idea of them, and of course, it's good practice. Anyone can learn how to draw, given time - at one stage, drawing was a skill that was learned like reading or writing.

I did art in school, like many people, and promptly forgot it on entering college. That was a mistake, true enough, but one that's easily fixed. It's never too late to start again. Creativity is not something that one can lose as easily as the skills needed to express it.

So. Here is a sketch done on computer of one of my main characters in the Novel. I used an old but very serviceable Wacom graphics tablet, and an open source program called the GIMP.

I'm just glad I got the proportions mostly correct. It's better than my usual efforts anyway, for all that it's very, very rough. It took a few hours of random doodling then erasing everything then doodling again, and finally settling on something that worked and then colouring in whatever way would look interesting.

'Three strikes and you're out' is not a game

This isn't baseball, and I wonder if perhaps the Irish High Court should really take note of that.

Three strikes laws are nothing new. They are the type of law, however the wording actually states, that disconnects a person's Internet connection after they have been accused of a third copyright infringement. They are law, or are in the process of becoming law, in Sweden, the UK, and France.

They are also a waste of time and money, a threat to human rights, and a threat to the livelihood of anyone involved in the creative arts.

In January 2009, Eircom signed a deal with the major music labels to disconnect persistant filesharers. This is not a law, per se, but a simple agreement between them and the IRMA - if they receive notice of evidence of filesharing against a particular connection three times, that connection is cut off. There was a High Court challenge regarding the legal status of an IP address as personal data, but that has now been resolved, and the agreement can go into full force. This is even worse than a law - there is no oversight, no accountability. And with Eircom signing up to this, the IRMA will have the leverage to bully other ISPs into accepting the same deal, or face being sued.

So. Let's hypothesise. Eircom receives a notice that a particular IP address has downloaded an infringing file. They duly send out the notice to the mailing address associated with that IP - they have no way of knowing whether the notice is accurate or not, and little reason to care.

But is that evidence accurate? It may not be, if it's similar to the system used in the UK by ACS:Law. The Internet Service Providers Association in the UK was not convinced. See BeingThreatened for more information on this. The content in question also may not be infringing - in Viacom's lawsuit against Youtube, for example, there were a hundred clips listed as infringing when Viacom had uploaded them itself! Fair use is not mentioned, so background music in a home video you share with your relatives abroad may get you disconnected (legally, it's still infringing material) - and we have no assurances as yet that the IRMA will not pursue people in that fashion. This, by the way, is the same organisation that claimed that people who copied music to their iPods from their CD collection were breaking the law.

Does the evidence actually point to your computer? It may not. The IP address points to your connection; your gateway to the Internet, as it were. Several computers in one house all use the same gateway. They have no way of telling which computer connected to that gateway actually did the infringing.

What if the gateway belongs to a business with a dozen employees? Maybe a rented accomodation, where students are coming and going all the time? A school? How do you tell who actually did it, and who is just a bystander? What if the culprit hacked into the connection, as many savvy users can, without the owner's knowledge - through a wireless router, for example? The IRMA apparently doesn't care, and Eircom stands to lose more through getting sued than it does by losing one customer's business.

But nothing can change the fact that this is punishment on accusation; the customer is guilty until proven innocent. It's like getting arrested for being nearby when a crime occurs, and the actual criminal is let free to break the law again. And Eircom will likely lose many customers as they move to other ISPs, but that is a stalling tactic at best if the IRMA manage to foist their agreement on all Irish ISPs.

I did state, though, that this is a waste of time and money. Allow me to expand on that.

The entire point of this agreement is to discourage copyright infringement, and encourage the legal sale of creative works. I'm sure it looked good on paper, but in practice, it simply does not work. Sweden saw a drop in filesharing traffic after implementing the IPRED law, but the levels simply bounced back and even increased. People moved to streaming sites, or bought VPNs that encrypted their activity and essentially let them fileshare with impunity. And the question of whether IPRED actually increased legal sales is up for debate; an increase was seen, but was that a result of the law, or of better availability of legal music through sites such as Spotify? Correlation does not equal causation. Attitudes to filesharing remained largely the same, and to date there have still been no IPRED convictions.

The lesson to be learned here is, as I've said before, that people will get the content they want in the manner they want, and laws that are easily circumvented by the technologically astute are hardly going to stop them. The time and money spent by the IRMA and Eircom on this is simply a waste - it will not even slow down piracy, if the figures from Sweden are anything to go by, and it is certainly not guaranteed to catch the actual pirates.

That the three strikes laws are a threat to human rights is quite clear; they are a threat to free speech, and the free access of individuals to information. Internet access is considered so important by the EU that it adopted an Internet freedom provision in the Telecoms Package last year, in which "the right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed" in the case of disconnection because of copyright infringement. Alas, this provision only applies to states, not private ISPs... Technically, what Eircom and the IRMA are doing is legal, but that doesn't make it right.

But these laws are also a threat to people involved in the creative arts. I think I should know about this, as I am a person involved in the creative arts. The reason is simply this: the law disconnects people from the Internet. It cuts them off from the greatest communication medium the world has ever seen.

Without access, they cannot talk about my books on their blog. They cannot tweet about me, the author. They cannot buy a paper copy of my book as a present for someone. They cannot discuss my books with other fans. They cannot buy merchandise from me. They cannot find out about book signings.

They certainly can't buy my damn ebook.

The greatest challenge facing me, as an aspiring author, is obscurity. It's the same challenge facing all but the biggest names in music, books, and movies. And it makes me goddamn furious that the IRMA and licensing authorities like them feel that they can cut me off from my fans because of filesharing. Piracy isn't right, and I know I'd rather not see my books pirated, but this is not the answer! Removing one major avenue for people to consume and purchase media will not encourage them to consume and purchase elsewhere; in fact, if they're disconnected because they have an infringing copy of my work, it could damage my reputation as an author because they are likely to blame me personally!

I do not want my name connected with such idiocy, especially when there is money to be made by creative individuals who understand the power of the Internet. The Irish High Court certainly don't have a clue, judging by the comments of Mr. Justice Charleton. They should have done even the most basic research on other implementations of three strikes, and how they affected filesharing. They might have noticed how an IP address may not correspond to the infringer, and how there is enormous scope for innocent people to be disconnected. They might have considered other effects of disconnection such as inability to pay bills online, inability to complete coursework, inability to do business, inability to spend money on legitimate sites.

The fact that they seem to have ignored all this suggests to me that they are not treating this issue with the respect it deserves. They are not acting in the best interests of Irish citizens.

'Three strikes and you're out' is not a game.

Rejections, Rejections

Let's say you're a writer, and you have set your work free into the wilds of the world with the hope that an agent will find their way back to you. Hopefully with a contract in hand, of course. And time goes by, and the silence only grows - but suddenly an email appears! From nowhere! From an AGENT! Stardom is within your grasp, so close you can almost taste the champagne...

No. It's a form rejection.

It's something I have to handle, being an aspiring writer. You deal with it as best you can, hopefully with good grace and a shrug of indifference. Yes, underneath the veneer of professionalism, it feels like a solid punch in the gut. You take the threads of story, you live and breathe for your characters, you forge... well, something you thought was worthwhile. Something good. But, in some way, it wasn't enough.

That's the hardest part for me. I can't know where I went wrong. I only know that I did, and it hurts a little more than it should. But I also know it won't last, because I have other stories to write, and other threads to follow. I think Van Halen said it best - You gotta ro-o-oll with the punches to get to what's real!

It wasn't the Novel, you understand. It was just a short story. When I start getting rejections for the Novel, I'll probably spontaneously combust from agony and disappointment.

However, in any case, I won't be doing what Mr. Patrick Roscoe did! In the category of too-dumb-to-be-let-out-unsupervised, this writer's response to a form rejection is surely a winner. I do so love his use of the phrase, "You lose, silly woman", and the insults he levels at Ms. Lindsay's clients. And the follow-up email... classic stupidity, the like of which you rarely get to read about. It's like watching someone shoot themselves in the foot, and then clean the wound with bleach.

Perhaps the most important things that an aspiring writer can take note of are as follows:

• Agents react badly to insults or snide sarcasm, because they just happen to be human.
  
• Agents talk to each other, and to editors and publishers.
  
• Agents often have blogs that are popular.
• Agents have a hundred other hopeful writers with actual manners in their slush pile who have probably submitted work as good as yours.

In short, all that I have learned so far about agenting and publishing tells me that a writer trades on their reputation, and this is doubly true of aspiring authors like myself. Leaving aside for the moment that Mr. Roscoe was unbelieveably rude to Ms. Lindsay, what on earth was he thinking when he wrote that email? Did he honestly expect her not to reveal his crass behaviour to the world? Did he believe his words were actually justified? One does not simply insult an agent (especially one who works for such an esteemed agency as Fineprint) and expect to walk away with one's reputation intact. Five minutes of anger may have bought him fifteen minutes of fame, but it's probably cost him more than a few chances of publication and, if he routinely conducts himself in this manner, a entire writing career as well.

When I submit my work, I endeavour to follow every guideline, and act with nothing but the highest respect and courtesy towards the submittees. A published author isn't just a person with their name on a book cover; they're also a professional writer, and I think that demands a certain standard of behaviour.

It's alright to rage in private. It's even expected, I would think. But in public, when facing a rejection, it's unacceptable to be anything but businesslike.

Zen and the Art of Beyoncé

I will happily admit that I despise the vast majority of current pop songs. They are, as you say, not my thing, nor are they ever likely to become my thing. My taste in music is varied, weird, and frequently unpredictable.

But I do read a lot, and inevitably I read about music. I happened to spend an enjoyable hour reading through this article by Martin Seay earlier - warning: it is very, very long - and I particularly picked up on his dissection of the Beyoncé song, Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It).

The idea of anything written by Beyoncé having hidden depth is, well, frightening to me - but I'd put that down to my natural adversion to most pop music. Mr. Seay puts forward some quite interesting explorations of a song called TiK ToK by Ke$ha (how I wish I was making that up) and how it compares to the Beyoncé single, among other things, and the conclusion seems to be that the Ke$ha song is eminently hateable because it's about as deep as a puddle on a sunny day.

He has this to say about Single Ladies, though:

Then there’s the way the meaning of the refrain—all the single ladies, put your hands up—blurs and broadens as the song proceeds. The line is of course lifted from standard-issue Friday-night club-DJ patter: an ostensibly playful exhortation for eligible women to identify themselves as such. This moment in a DJ set always comes off as icky, anything but playful, a moment of peak social coercion; it suggests that single women are to be regarded as public property, or that they have (or are) a problem that needs to be solved, or even that they’re simply present (Ladies’ Night!) as prospective quarry for the hapless prowling menfolk who by this point in the evening can’t be trusted to take aim at appropriate targets without a little help. “Single Ladies” sets out to divert and defuse the line’s coercive function, not so much by recontextualizing it through wit or double-entendre—a trick which can only work within the fictional world of the song—but instead by repurposing it along with the gesture it prescribes: we’re asked to see the single ladies’ hand-raising not as an act of acquiescence to or participation in a social ritual that objectifies them, but instead as a celebratory assertion of individual and collective agency...

...The degree to which “Single Ladies” has succeeded in accomplishing its implicit aims is, I humbly submit to you, pretty freaking extraordinary. Let’s set aside for a moment the VMAs and the Grammys, the globe-spanning dance craze, the millions in revenue from album and single and download sales, and consider a single achievement: it is now next to impossible for any DJ anywhere to unselfconsciously command all single ladies within earshot to put their hands up—at least not without the DJ then immediately playing Knowles’s hit, which will proceed to reassure those single ladies that everything is all good, that they have nothing to worry about, and that they should pay no mind to the drunk jerks and enjoy spending time with their girlfriends. This is one of those rare cultural phenomena that can legitimately claim solid practical value: the differences between it and, say, Lincoln’s second inaugural address are not those of quality but of scale. “Single Ladies” is a work of art and a feat of rhetoric that has made the world concretely better.

The song annoys the hell out of me, but still - I wouldn't normally consider work like that to actually have any deeper meaning, and the article at least made me take a second look. Mainstream media doesn't naturally lend itself to depth, in my opinion, although obviously it's not completely adverse to it. The question I would ask, in fact, is whether Mr. Seay is reading something into the song that isn't there or wasn't put there by Beyoncé; is there actually a hidden meaning, or is it accidental? I find it hard to say, because I don't really have an unbiased view.

If there is a meaning there, was it intentional? Does it make the effects, as Mr. Seay describes above, any less valid?

If an outsider reads a certain meaning into a creative work that the author didn't intend, is that meaning any less valid?

Anyone who's studied Shakespeare in school would be aware of the dissection of hidden meaning in his work. I know I did, and most of the time I thought that we were searching for something that wasn't really there. It was enough for me that the sonnets were beautiful, and so I didn't need to know why he used this particular phrase or word. The same is probably true for Beyoncé's fans, of course - do they care that Single Ladies might have deeper meaning? I'd say not really. But for someone like me, who'd normally ignore her entirely, the concept of there being a strong underlying message in her songs is fascinating. It's simply not what you'd expect.

At any rate, having been introduced to the idea of greater depths in Single Ladies, I may be willing to give her other songs more than a outright dismissal.

The first threads

I think every author must remember their first stories. The first published one, the first written one, the first completed one. You think back on them sometimes, even when you know they were complete rubbish and your current material is infinitely better. It's a tiny thing, but it's also a place you point to where you can say "This is where I began. This is where I made the choice. This is where I became a writer."

Those threads are probably frayed and ragged, utterly unworthy of attention in any normal frame of reference, but to you they are precious.

I can remember my first story vividly. As a child, I recall myself and my sister telling each other stories late at night - the pretend games of narrative, using dolls or pictures or whatever we had lying around. It was so natural to me. It was instinctive taleweaving, telling only for the joy of it, just like every other kid.

I remember our old computer. It was a huge, clunky (by today's standards) white box, with a clacky keyboard and a basic, DOS command line interface. A Commodore 286, I think; to this day, I wonder if my parents only got it for the novelty of it, because neither of them are particularly technically inclined. But on this pitiful, ancient machine - unworthy of attention in any normal frame of reference, even then - I made something magical.

I was twelve years old, and I started tapping out a story about the snakes returning to Ireland.

It's said that St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland, way back in yonder days. In reality, it's probably something to do with ecology and whatnot, which is not nearly so interesting. But the idea of it was fascinating to me, and I began to dream up images of rivers of scaly bodies slipping away into the sea, with St. Patrick standing sternly behind them with a grim expression. And I thought of snakes, in the modern day, talking amongst themselves about a lost land to the west and north - a sanctuary, Atlantis even - that was little more than legend and rumour.

Ah, it was so little. I barely wrote a few pages before giving up. And it was terrible, believe me - a twelve year old may write well for their age, but that doesn't make their stuff good. It was a story I wouldn't give the time of day to, now, and it was my whole heart and soul made real back then. That was the first time I tried to catch a dream and forge it into a story. Those were the first threads.

Be they ever so humble, I sure every writer remembers them.

Read any good ebooks lately?

The brouhaha over Amazon and the larger publishers setting the price of ebooks has become rather deafening lately. Doom and gloom all around; writers lamenting the death of traditional publishing; the impending Apocalypse. You'd think that everyone has stopped buying books in dead tree form altogether.

Well - it could just be me. I read a lot of publishing blogs, and I get the feeling that many people are uncertain and worried. The Internet wreaked havoc with the recorded music industry after all, and the publishers have had long enough to see how well EMI and Sony are doing with the digital medium. Perhaps they see their own business suffering in the same way. Perhaps they're already forecasting the rates of ebook piracy. Perhaps, perhaps.

The New York Times has an interesting article on the ethics of pirating ebooks when you already own the title in hardcover or paperback. This has already gone around the writers' blogpsphere, and opinion in general seems to be that the Mr. Cohen is talking crazy. The first thing I noticed about the article, unfortunately, is the improper use of the word 'illegal' - downloading a pirated copy of an ebook is copyright infringement, to the best of my knowledge. Illegal and infringing are not the same thing. He also refers to it as theft - again, not the correct term, as theft implies that you have deprived someone else of ownership of an item. A digital ebook copy cannot be stolen, but it can infringe.

Anyway, pointless word games aside - Mr. Cohen states that it is indeed ethical to download a copy of an ebook if you have already purchased the dead tree version, and the writers and publishers that I like to keep tabs on take serious issue with that. Their position, predictably, is that writers and publishers deserve to get paid regardless - that Mr. Cohen seems to be advocating that if you buy a book once, you should automatically gain free access to every version of that book, such as in audiobook format or as a movie or what have you. On one level, they do have a point - but, of course, I don't fully agree with them.

Writers and publishers should get paid, but the point that seems to be missing here is that arguing about being paid will not stop people from pirating books. People will justify it to themselves using Mr. Cohen's rationalisation, or they will do it out of convenience, or they will do it because they have no money, or just because. It can't be stopped, and trying to slow it down may backfire spectacularly - see the RIAA shutting down Napster, for example. People went to the bittorrent networks, and now that that's being restricted or throttled in some places, they're going to VPNs that cannot be traced. The lesson that should be learned here is that trying to get people to pay for music after they've spent years getting it for free is just not a good use of your time, especially when the pirated version is better than yours.

With the price fixing going on at Amazon for ebooks, I'm very much of the opinion that the publishers have not really learned anything. The recorded music industry might be in much better shape if they had made music available cheaply and easily online. It would have sent a great message to consumers - here's the music you want, when you want it; all high quality, with extras like cover art, and it costs very little for this great convenience. But they chose to keep it expensive, and DRM made it inconvenient, and people had no reason to go back to their services no matter how hit and miss pirate material was.

Publishers have the opportunity here to avoid that mistake, but it's not going to happen. Amazon have set the price of ebooks around $9.95, $12,95, $14.95. It varies depending on the release. And you'll buy a Kindle copy that you can only read on your Kindle device, that you can't give to someone else, that you can't doodle in, that is far more fragile, that needs to be charged, that may delete your books without your consent at any time. If it breaks or is stolen, you lose access to your library. And the main trade off is that you can have hundreds of books on one device.

Colour me unimpressed, to be honest. Part of the reason I don't own one already, despite being a geek, is that I don't want to pay for what I view as less functionality. I'd rather have a paper book that doesn't need batteries, that I can spill coffee on without it being a disaster, and that I can sell to a second hand store or give away once I'm done with it. I'd rather have a library all around me instead of one locked up into one little white tablet.

I really think they should drop the average price of ebooks to about $3 to $5 across the board, and less for out of print titles. They should be portable to any device, and DRM free. Publishers should concentrate on making ebooks bought from them a hundred times more convenient than trawling bittorrent networks, and set the prices good and low wherever possible. Offer ebook discounts to book clubs and libraries, for example. Bundle the ebook with the paper version. Let schools pay a set fee for all ebooks released, and let their students order the paper version or audio books at a discount - and include bonus material where you can. Make it simple, make it cheap, make paper books worth hanging on to - and believe me, they have not gone the way of the dodo yet, so there's plenty of space there for a company with a great marketing team to make money.

It galls me that publishers have the most powerful communication medium in the history of mankind at their disposal, where their customers are closer than ever to them and to each other, and all they seem to want to do is drive people farther away. From the perspective of someone on the outside looking in, they seem to want to stop people from spending money on their books; they seem to be working very hard to kill all the wonderful possibilities of the Internet with shortsightedness. I hope I'm wrong, and the Amazon price-fixing works out, but... well. Time will tell, I guess.