Social media gaffes. What? You mean like the time I mortally and culturally embarrassed myself by asking on Twitter what GBP meant and Jeffe had to tell me, "Uhm. You know. The POUND. As in the currency of Great Britain." I slunk away into the backwaters of Twitter for a few days after that one.
TOP TEN SOCIAL MEDIA GAFFES
10. Offensive or titillating, incomplete click-bait post (click through! find out why you aren't making a million dollars! You'll be amazed!)
9. Overly emotional primary relationship venting. Twitter is not a qualified marriage counselor. Breaking up via text message, FB post, or in fewer than 140 characters is truly bad form.
8. ANYTHING that would make you show up on Straight White Guys Texting (Tumblr blog - before you go look, just remember that what you see cannot be unseen).
7. Live Tweeting your 'Beat the Tide Beer Race' that day you called in sick to work. Never mind that your boss and coworkers follow you.
6. SCREAM AND NAME CALL a fellow professional - editor, agent, fellow author, as yet unpublished author. Nah. You know what? Anyone. Do that to anyone.
5. Expect social media to educate you. That thing you don't know or understand? No one on Twitter owes you an encyclopedic explanation on it. You *might* get one. You might get a couple. But seriously, you want to comprehend the complexities of LGBTQ+ rights? Do some damn research. Expecting that cool gender queer person you follow on Twitter to explain it all is A) disrespectful and B) a pain in the ass.
4. Use someone else's photos, words, or art without permission much less attribution.
3. Not sending cat pictures. This is a big one. The internet is for two things and two things only. You already know the other four letter word. Cats are the other. Fail to post pics and see what happens when they finally achieve complete subjugation of the human race.
2. Not saying what you believe in a sane, rational way - you get to believe what you believe - just be aware that no matter what you believe, once you speak it - or commit it to the eternity that is the interweb - it's available for target practice. But you NOT speaking your truth is also a gaffe. Against yourself and anyone who wants to know who you are.
1. Trolling J.K. Rowling. She owes the internet. Troll her and see how fast she'll own you.
Showing posts with label JK Rowling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JK Rowling. Show all posts
Friday, May 15, 2015
Friday, August 16, 2013
How Much Quirk is Too Much?
You want me to talk about what? Quirk versus mainstream? My darlings, I'm a Word Whore and not just any Word Whore. I am the Word Whore who thinks explosions are plot points. Who am I to address writing a mainstream success? It isn't as if I've penned a flock of them. In fact, it's entirely possible I wouldn't know mainstream if it jumped up and whispered an indecent proposal in my ear.
Not to say I wouldn't listen and possibly swoon. . .(no photo of me swooning - the cat will have to do.)
I go so far as to posit that few people know mainstream literature until a book becomes mainstream literature. Which is to say, popular.
At one point, it was Oprah's book club that made a story mainstream. But unless your tale was a major downer guaranteed to send readers dashing for the Prozac, you stood no chance whatsoever. These days, publishers will tell you they're looking for 'the next ________' - you fill in the blank with the bestseller du jour. Harry Potter. 50 Shades of Gray. Twilight. At least tragedy isn't necessarily the prerequisite for mainstream these days.
That said, do you see the problem? Any story following in the footsteps of someone else's is a day late and a dollar short. The wave has already crested. This isn't to say that some authors haven't made a pretty penny writing stories in the vein of whichever bestseller speaks to them. A few have. But I can't name more than one.
As for quirk? Define Harry Potter. Or 50 Shades of Gray for that matter. Twilight had enough quirk that it enraged an entire cross section of vampire fandom. Not bad for a day's work.
Point being, I suggest that quirkiness leads to mainstream success. If shoveling the same old story out the door day after day didn't lead to rapidly diminishing returns for publishing houses, they'd do just that. It is about the all mighty dollar after all, yes? But, alas for publishing's bottom line, readers are so fickle! Jaded book sluts, even, always seeking something new to sate their wicked appetites. Yet at the same time, those readers desire the strangely welcoming and familiar - as if by falling into a new story, the reader had come home to something they'd never seen before. When that happens, new love kindles the light in a reader's heart. That is the stuff that runs a story right up the sales lists, for readers, once in love with a book, DO kiss and tell.
Too quirky? I'm sorry. Was someone just implying that it was possible to be any quirkier than Platform 9 and 3/4? Or Nearly Headless Nick? In fact, it is entirely possible that JK Rowling has taken out a patent on quirk. It is clearly not an impediment to getting sucked into the mainstream.
Now. The difference between literature and genre? Easy. Wagner (opera) is literature. Bugs Bunny is genre. As to which is preferable? Who's singing Wagner in your head right now? Elmer Fudd? "Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit . . ." Or anyone else on earth who didn't come from an animation cell?
I go so far as to posit that few people know mainstream literature until a book becomes mainstream literature. Which is to say, popular.
At one point, it was Oprah's book club that made a story mainstream. But unless your tale was a major downer guaranteed to send readers dashing for the Prozac, you stood no chance whatsoever. These days, publishers will tell you they're looking for 'the next ________' - you fill in the blank with the bestseller du jour. Harry Potter. 50 Shades of Gray. Twilight. At least tragedy isn't necessarily the prerequisite for mainstream these days.
That said, do you see the problem? Any story following in the footsteps of someone else's is a day late and a dollar short. The wave has already crested. This isn't to say that some authors haven't made a pretty penny writing stories in the vein of whichever bestseller speaks to them. A few have. But I can't name more than one.
As for quirk? Define Harry Potter. Or 50 Shades of Gray for that matter. Twilight had enough quirk that it enraged an entire cross section of vampire fandom. Not bad for a day's work.
Point being, I suggest that quirkiness leads to mainstream success. If shoveling the same old story out the door day after day didn't lead to rapidly diminishing returns for publishing houses, they'd do just that. It is about the all mighty dollar after all, yes? But, alas for publishing's bottom line, readers are so fickle! Jaded book sluts, even, always seeking something new to sate their wicked appetites. Yet at the same time, those readers desire the strangely welcoming and familiar - as if by falling into a new story, the reader had come home to something they'd never seen before. When that happens, new love kindles the light in a reader's heart. That is the stuff that runs a story right up the sales lists, for readers, once in love with a book, DO kiss and tell.
Too quirky? I'm sorry. Was someone just implying that it was possible to be any quirkier than Platform 9 and 3/4? Or Nearly Headless Nick? In fact, it is entirely possible that JK Rowling has taken out a patent on quirk. It is clearly not an impediment to getting sucked into the mainstream.
Now. The difference between literature and genre? Easy. Wagner (opera) is literature. Bugs Bunny is genre. As to which is preferable? Who's singing Wagner in your head right now? Elmer Fudd? "Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit . . ." Or anyone else on earth who didn't come from an animation cell?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)