August 2005 – Page 3

Atlanta Nights

A number of years ago some sci-fi and fantasy authors wrote a book called Atlanta Nights. The book was not sci-fi or fantasy, because the prospective publisher (PublishAmerica) had publicly dissed sci-fi and fantasy authors.

PublishAmerica claimed to be a respectable publisher, though its critics claimed it was a vanity press.

After reading its diss of SF&F authors, several decided to exact revenge by writing a deliberately bad novel and getting PublishAmerica to agree to publish it, thus exposing the literary "standards" of the house for what they are.

The manuscript was not only filled with bad grammar and spelling, misused words, and internal contradictions. It also featured things like an "accidentally" duplicated chapter, an inexplicably missing chapter, and a chapter written by a computer program.

The manuscript was then submitted to PublishAmerica under the pen name Travis Tea (get it? say it fast).

The plan worked brilliantly. PublishAmerica offered to publish the book.

At least, it did until the authors publicly announced that the book was a hoax and then PublishAmerica did a "further review" that determined that the manuscript was "not ready to be published" after all.

Despite this setback, Atlanta Nights was eventually published and can be read online or ordered in hardcopy.

It also has some of the most remarkable blurbs in publishing industry history. For example, Jerry Pournelle raves:

"Don’t fail to miss it if you can!"

But best of all, it turns out that Travis Tea is a reader of this blog, and later today, Travis will give us the inside scoop on Atlanta Nights!

Yee-Haw!

Screwtape's Rejection 101

You say you’re desperate not to be published but that your manuscript is insistent that it is ready to be unleashed on an unsuspecting world. How do you satisfy your manuscript’s ambition to make the rounds of literary agencies and publishing houses while still ensuring that you will fulfill your own dream to remain unpublished? Screwtape has some advice for you on how to make sure you are rejected:

"We’ve often imagined ourselves giving a talk that would have a title along the lines of ‘How to Get Yourself Rejected.’ The target audience would be new writers, though we think everyone could stand to learn something from these tried and true secrets for ensuring rejection. In fact, if everybody applied these lessons to their daily lives, they’d be able to avoid that first date with a person to whom they’re attracted, that lucrative and promising job, that bank loan essential to achieving a dream, or whatever it is they claim to want — in other words, all those forms of success that complicate lives unnecessarily.

"But we’ll confine ourselves to encouraging writers with ways to get themselves turned down by agents or publishers, and trust that you’ll understand how to apply these lessons in a broader context. Nor are we going to insult anybody’s intelligence by telling you about the really basic, simple ways that a writer can ensure that no one will read her query letter, let alone her manuscript. We’re sure you already know about obvious things like using unusual fonts and paper, though we will point out that a really fuzzy, beat-up printer for your letter and manuscript is certainly a plus. Extra points if you could dig up a dot-matrix, though of course the real prize goes to those who handwrite their letters. That takes a special person."

[…]

"Anyway, you get the idea: do your worst, think only of yourself and not of the person reading your letter (let alone the person who supposedly will read your book), and you’re bound to fail admirably!"

GET THE ADVICE.

For those who need a bit of tutoring in applying to the broader context, to which Screwtape alludes, take special note of that last paragraph. A sure-fire means of being rejected in any context is to not put yourself in the position of the person whom you want to accept you and think of those means by which you can make that person’s job or life easier. In the art of learning how to be rejected, selfishness and self-interest is a virtue.

Screwtape’s Rejection 101

"We’ve often imagined ourselves giving a talk that would have a title along the lines of ‘How to Get Yourself Rejected.’ The target audience would be new writers, though we think everyone could stand to learn something from these tried and true secrets for ensuring rejection. In fact, if everybody applied these lessons to their daily lives, they’d be able to avoid that first date with a person to whom they’re attracted, that lucrative and promising job, that bank loan essential to achieving a dream, or whatever it is they claim to want — in other words, all those forms of success that complicate lives unnecessarily.

"But we’ll confine ourselves to encouraging writers with ways to get themselves turned down by agents or publishers, and trust that you’ll understand how to apply these lessons in a broader context. Nor are we going to insult anybody’s intelligence by telling you about the really basic, simple ways that a writer can ensure that no one will read her query letter, let alone her manuscript. We’re sure you already know about obvious things like using unusual fonts and paper, though we will point out that a really fuzzy, beat-up printer for your letter and manuscript is certainly a plus. Extra points if you could dig up a dot-matrix, though of course the real prize goes to those who handwrite their letters. That takes a special person."

[…]

"Anyway, you get the idea: do your worst, think only of yourself and not of the person reading your letter (let alone the person who supposedly will read your book), and you’re bound to fail admirably!"

GET THE ADVICE.

Simony At Sunday School?

A reader writes:

Pretty simple question — but one to which I’ve never heard an intelligent answer. My parish charges $100.00 each to put a child through one season of religious ed (what we would have called "Sunday School" in my days as a Baptist). Shouldn’t this be considered simony? After all, the passing of the faith down to the next generation is part of the Church’s core mission — not some kind of extra added service, like a camping trip. It’s part of her duty, not something for which she may legitimately demand payment, to my way of thinking…

(I’m asking this, Jimmy, because my still-Baptist parents are scandalized by the very idea; they hear the ghost of Tetzel in this request, the coins still jingling in his cup. They’ve never heard of simony per se but they do definitely see the principle. Ironically, however, they see nothing at all wrong with an church counselor who happens to have some kind of psychology degree insisting $50 an hour for his services. I thought this was simony even when I was still a Baptist!).

I know how one might seek to defend this on canonical grounds. The 1917 Code contained a definition of simony, but this definition was eliminated from the 1983 Code as the result of a policy seeking to eliminate definitions from the new Code. The 1917 definition thus doesn’t have legal force any more, but it does shed light on the kind of things that are classified as the canonical crime of simony. Here’s the def:

Canon 727

§1. By divine law, simony is the studied will to buy or sell fo ra temporal price an intrinsically spiritual thing, for example, Sacraments, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, consecration, indulgences, and so forth, or temporal things so connected with spiritual things that without the spiritual they cannot exist, for example, ecclesiastical benifices, and so on, or a spiritual thing that is, even in part, the object of a contract, for example, the consecration of a chalice consecrated in sale.

One might look at this and say, "Okay, when the 1917 Code refers to ‘things,’ it has in mind something more concrete than Sunday school education"–or one would want to find some way to distinguish Sunday school education from the examples of simony listed here.

My trouble is that I’m not convinced (a) that it is possible to find a relevant distinction here and (b) my instincts tell me that charging for basic instruction in the Christian faith is just wrong.

Now, if the parish is charging a fee for optional teaching aids that a child is not required to have (e.g., workbooks or something) then I can see that.

I also can see having a suggested donation that will be used to pay the teachers for their time then I can also see that ("The worker is worth his wages," after all).

I perhaps could see charging a fee for an advanced course in something that is not basic catechesis.

But if they are really charging for basic instruction in the faith then it seems to me to be simony.

There’s a balance to be struck in the proclamation of the gospel, and Jesus illustrates that balance in the commission to preach that he gives to the disciples in Matthew 10. In verse 8, he tells them "Freely you have received, freely give." He then tells them in verses 9 and 10 not to take money but to depend on the donations they are given, saying that the laborer deserves his food.

It thus seems to me that the logical way to proceed for a parish would be to solicit donations for basic religious education but not to charge for it. The latter would strike me as simony.

So I’m with your parents on that one–assuming that’s what’s happening here and that it isn’t a misunderstanding of the parish’s suggested donation policy.

(NOTE: If the parish is committing simony, one would hope that they aren’t compounding the sin by refusing to grant waivers to those children whose parents can’t or won’t pay.)

Beginning To Write

Having done a few posts on different kinds of publishing and which kinds to avoid, let me now start by giving some advice on how to start writing in a way aimed at getting published.

1. Most importantly, START WRITING! Don’t wait until you’ve read a bunch of theory before you start. Just start. If you don’t get in the habit of writing–and writing regularly–you won’t get good at it.

2. Be prepared to write a lot of stuff that never gets published. This is your practice work. Everyone learning any skill has to practice, and writing is no exception. As a result, relax. Don’t worry about whether this stuff is good enough to print. Don’t have that as a goal for your initial writings.

3. Become aware of what you read. As you read stuff–particularly stuff you like–ask yourself questions, like: "Why did he say it that way?" "How could he have said it differently?" "Why didn’t he?" "What is it about this writing that I like?" "What don’t I like?"

4. Get some books about how to write. There are lots of them out there, and they’re specialized by the kind of writing your want to do (e.g., non-fiction, fiction, science fiction, detective, romance, western, etc.). Read them.

5. Get the book Elements of Style by Strunk and White. This is a very short book offering concise writing advice. It is the standard work for beginning writers. Has been for decades. It’s also cheap.

GET THE BOOK.

6. Start getting feedback on your writing. This is very important, because if you don’t do it, you won’t know how others see your writing, and you won’t make progress past a certain point. Unfortunately, this is also a tricky step.

The easiest thing for most folks to do to get feedback is to hit up their friends and relatives. But there’s a problem: Your friends and relatives (at least the ones you’r likely to hit up) will want to be nice to you. That may interfere with their being honest with you. Honesty is what you need, though, to know whether your writing is succeeding or failing. Another problem is that your friends and family likely are not professional writers themselves and thus may not be able to help you make that much progress.

An alternative that many beginning writers try is joining a writers’ group. Just about every town has these (if you know where to look), and if yours doesn’t, you can start your own. Writers in the group meet, share what they’ve written, and critique it. But there’s a problem here, too: Writers’ groups tend to turn into groups of friends, which raises the niceness vs. honesty problem mentioned above. Worse, writers’ groups frequently end up spending most of their time socializing and comparatively little time critiqing writing. Also, while the writers in your group probably know more about writing than your friends and family, they usually aren’t professionals. Most of the writers who attend these groups are amateurs, and so there’s a limit to how much they can help you progress.

I speak from some experience on that one. I myself used to be a member of a sci-fi writers group. None of us (at the time) were published, and we turned into a group of friends and then started socializing and stopped working as a writers group. I still miss those guys. (Sniff.)

Another alternative is to take a writing class or–better–a series of writing classes. These are commonly available at your local community college. There are also some online. DO NOT NEGLECT TAKING COURSES THAT TEACH GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION. THESE ARE VITALLY IMPORTANT FOR GETTING PUBLISHED. Taking courses usually solves the niceness vs. honesty problem, because your teacher typically will be much more honest with your than your family and friends. (In fact, you may be horrified at all the red marks that come back on your homework.) Better, the teacher also probably knows more about writing than your family and friends–and there’s a good chance he’ll know more than the members of your writers’ group, too, at least about writing in general (if not your particular genre of interest).

The ultimate feedback is sending your material off to publishers (for professional publications, not vanity presses). This is the final threshold. If you can successfully get past this one (and it will take some doing), you’ve arrived in the world of professional publishing.

But that’s a whole ‘nother story.

In the meantime . . . START WRITING!

Boom Yesterday. There's Always A Boom Yesterday.

Today, August 26, back in 1883, the Indonesian volcano Krakatoa blew its top.

You may have thought Vesuvius was big, but it was small beans compared to Krakatoa. I mean, in terms of volcano eruptions in recorded history, Krakatoa IS IT.

I mean, the explosion of Krakatoa was THE LOUDEST SOUND EVER IN RECORDED HISTORY AND WAS HEARD 3,000 FREAKING MILES AWAY (WHICH IS TOTALLY AMAZING SINCE THE RADIUS OF THE EARTH IS ONLY 4,000 MILES AND ITS CIRCUMFERENCE IS ONLY 24,000 MILES, MEANING THAT THE BLAST WAS HEARD ACROSS 6,000 OF THE 24,000 MILES OF THE PLANET’S CIRCUMFERENCE)!!!

WOW!!!

So, okay.

Big HUGE freaking volano explosion.

I mean, if planetary-scale disasters are your thing (volcanos, earthquakes, tsunamis) are your thing, then Indonesia is your place!

EXCERPTS:

Although no one is known to have been killed as a result of the initial explosion, the tsunamis it generated had disastrous results, killing some 36,000 people, and wiping out a number of settlements, including Telok Batong in Sumatra, and Sirik and Semarang in Java.
An additional 1,000 or so people died from the effects of volcanic fumes and ashes.
Ships as far away as South Africa rocked as tsunamis hit them, and the bodies of victims were found floating in the ocean for weeks after the event.
There are even numerous documented reports of groups of human skeletons floating across the Indian Ocean on rafts of volcanic pumice and washing up on the east coast of Africa up to a year after the eruption.
The 1883 eruption was amongst the most severe volcanic explosions in modern times (VEI of 6, equivalent to 200 megatons of TNT — by way of comparison, the biggest bomb ever made by man, Tsar Bomba, had an explosive power of around 50 megatons).
Concussive air waves from the explosions travelled seven times around the world, and the sky was darkened for days afterwards.
The island of Rakata [where Krakatoa is located] itself largely ceased to exist as over two thirds of its exposed land area was blown to dust, and its surrounding ocean floor was drastically altered.
The eruption produced spectacular sunsets throughout the world for many months afterwards, as a result of sunlight reflected from suspended dust particles ejected by the volcano high into Earth’s atmosphere. British artist William Ashcroft made hundreds of color sketches of the red sunsets half-way around the world from Krakatoa in the years after the eruption.
In 2004, researchers proposed the idea that the blood-red sky shown in Edvard Munch’s famous 1893 painting The Scream is also an accurate depiction of the sky over Norway after the eruption.
Additionally, it [the island where Krakatoa lies] has also been a case study of island biogeography and founder populations in an ecosystem being built from the ground up, virtually sterilized, certainly with no macroscopic life surviving the explosion.
The island is still active, with its most recent eruptive episode having begun in 1994. Since then, quiet periods of a few days have alternated with almost continuous eruptions, with occasional much larger explosions.
Since the 1950s, the island has grown at an average rate of five inches (12.7 cm) per week.
Reports in 2005 indicated that activity at Anak Krakatau was increasing.

DUM! DUM! DUM!

GET THE STORY.

Boom Yesterday. There’s Always A Boom Yesterday.

Today, August 26, back in 1883, the Indonesian volcano Krakatoa blew its top.

You may have thought Vesuvius was big, but it was small beans compared to Krakatoa. I mean, in terms of volcano eruptions in recorded history, Krakatoa IS IT.

WOW!!!

So, okay.

Big HUGE freaking volano explosion.

I mean, if planetary-scale disasters are your thing (volcanos, earthquakes, tsunamis) are your thing, then Indonesia is your place!

EXCERPTS:

Although no one is known to have been killed as a result of the initial explosion, the tsunamis it generated had disastrous results, killing some 36,000 people, and wiping out a number of settlements, including Telok Batong in Sumatra, and Sirik and Semarang in Java.
An additional 1,000 or so people died from the effects of volcanic fumes and ashes.
Ships as far away as South Africa rocked as tsunamis hit them, and the bodies of victims were found floating in the ocean for weeks after the event.
There are even numerous documented reports of groups of human skeletons floating across the Indian Ocean on rafts of volcanic pumice and washing up on the east coast of Africa up to a year after the eruption.
The 1883 eruption was amongst the most severe volcanic explosions in modern times (VEI of 6, equivalent to 200 megatons of TNT — by way of comparison, the biggest bomb ever made by man, Tsar Bomba, had an explosive power of around 50 megatons).
Concussive air waves from the explosions travelled seven times around the world, and the sky was darkened for days afterwards.
The island of Rakata [where Krakatoa is located] itself largely ceased to exist as over two thirds of its exposed land area was blown to dust, and its surrounding ocean floor was drastically altered.
The eruption produced spectacular sunsets throughout the world for many months afterwards, as a result of sunlight reflected from suspended dust particles ejected by the volcano high into Earth’s atmosphere. British artist William Ashcroft made hundreds of color sketches of the red sunsets half-way around the world from Krakatoa in the years after the eruption.
In 2004, researchers proposed the idea that the blood-red sky shown in Edvard Munch’s famous 1893 painting The Scream is also an accurate depiction of the sky over Norway after the eruption.
Additionally, it [the island where Krakatoa lies] has also been a case study of island biogeography and founder populations in an ecosystem being built from the ground up, virtually sterilized, certainly with no macroscopic life surviving the explosion.
The island is still active, with its most recent eruptive episode having begun in 1994. Since then, quiet periods of a few days have alternated with almost continuous eruptions, with occasional much larger explosions.
Since the 1950s, the island has grown at an average rate of five inches (12.7 cm) per week.
Reports in 2005 indicated that activity at Anak Krakatau was increasing.

DUM! DUM! DUM!

GET THE STORY.

And Speaking Of Seminarians . . .

Remember also back during the priest scandal that there was a major question about whether the Church allowed the ordination of homosexuals willing to live chastely?

Some folks were arguing that the Church forbade the ordination of homosexuals on the basis of a 1961 document. This was bandied about vigorously by people who obviously don’t know beans about how ecclesiastical law works, but it was, unfortunately, a non-starter.

The document was released under the authority of the Sacred Congregation for Religious, meaning that it only ever had authority in religious congregations and the like (think: monks, etc.). It did not apply to diocesan priests, which are the majority of priests in the Church.

Further, as a document released back in 1961, there was a likelihood that the document had been abrogated in some way since that time. Church law has just changed too much following Vatican II, the revision of the Code of Canon Law, and the deluge of documents that have been coming from Vatican dicasteries in that time. It might still be in force, but without carefully shepherdizing the law, there would be no way to tell for sure. One can’t simply grab a 1961 document and start touting it as an authoritative statement applicable to today without doing a bunch of careful research.

So the document in question was not an adequate basis on which to show that the Church currently forbids the ordination of homosexuals willing to live chastely. One would need another document.

And then we got one.

In the November-December 2002 issue of Notitiae, the journal of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, there was a Responsum ad dubium (Latin, "response to a doubt"; basically an official Q & A) that stated: "A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency, is not fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."

Now, one could perhaps argue with that jurisdictionally, asking whether it was within the CDWDS’s authority to issue a dubium on that topic, suggesting that perhaps instead it should come from the Congregation for Clergy or the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts or something, though ordination is a sacrament, and the discipline of the sacraments falls within the CDWDS’s jurisdiction.

So what might solve this kind of debate?

A more substantial document (i.e., something more than a Q & A) approved by the pope–especially if it’s approved by him in forma specifica (Latin, "in specific form"–which invests the pope’s own authority in it in a special way). That would settle the quibbling.

Well . . . there’s apparently such a document in B16’s hands right now.

GET THE STORY.

Apostolic Visitation About To Start

Remember the priest scandal?

Ugh! Who could forget!

What a morass of vileness on all fronts! (Among the clergy and among the media.)

Well, you may remember that one of the things that shook out of that was a Vatican decision to conduct an "apostolic visitation" of the U.S. seminaries to find out how well they are doing their job. Its purposes were:

— "To examine the criteria for admission of candidates and the programs of human formation and spiritual formation aimed at ensuring that they can faithfully live chastely for the kingdom."

— "To examine other aspects of priestly formation in the United States. Particular attention will be reserved for the intellectual formation of seminarians, to examine fidelity to the magisterium, especially in the field of moral theology, in the light of ‘Veritatis Splendor,’" Pope John Paul II’s 1993 encyclical on Catholic moral teaching.

The visitation teams are to file their reports directly to the education congregation, which will give confidential evaluations to the appropriate bishops and religious superiors. When all the reports are completed, the Vatican will be in a position to make an overall evaluation of seminary formation in the United States.

Okay, so we all remember the visitation.

Well, it’s about to start.

GET THE STORY.

Exercising Your Voice

If you read how-to manuals for writing, one of the frustrations you will encounter is that the term voice is thrown about with abandon. Publishers want "fresh, new voices"; you are implored to "develop your voice"; you will be advised not to "compromise your voice." You know what a voice is in spoken language, but how do you develop one in your writing?

Basically, your written voice is the unique way you put together words into coherent streams of thought. A strong written voice is as distinctive as DNA. A reader can glance at words you’ve thrown together on a page and have a good idea who wrote them without glancing at the byline. For a demonstration of written voice, cruise the blogs and note the different styles of writing. Mark Shea, Amy Welborn, Kathy Shaidle, Jeff Miller, and Tom Kreitzberg are all hugely successful Catholic bloggers with instantly recognizable "voices." I submit that one reason for their success is that they have developed powerful "voices" that set them apart from the rest of the congregation in St. Blog’s Parish. When you visit their blogs, you’re not just there for the links but for their "take" on the day’s events. That’s the power of "voice."

So, how do you develop a written voice? Do you plunge into writing your manuscript, hoping that one will emerge over the next 80,000 words or so? Sure, if you want to remain unpublished. As Jimmy has noted in his recent series of posts on How Not To Get Published, the best way to remain unpublished is to try to write a book before you’ve had any experience at writing.

If, for some inexplicable reason, you’d rather eventually be published, here’s another idea for developing a voice: Start a blog. Even if you keep it as a more-or-less "private" online journal where you write a post or two a day, you’ll be exercising your voice. Blogging will do several things: You’ll be exercising your voice; you’ll be writing on a regular basis; and you’ll be overcoming the "stage fright" that can hinder your writing. The last is one of the steepest hurdles in voice development because if you are timid about how your thoughts sound to others then you are going to be timid about experimenting with your word choice and with how you construct sentences, paragraphs, articles, chapters, and so on. Regular public writing, even for a very small audience, is one means to overcome that.

Or you could pour out thousands of words into manuscript form, stuff the pages in a Jiffy bag, and post them to all the New York slush piles.

You decide.