Scrivener's Error

null
Scrivener's Error	Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting.

02 January 2013

link to: 13:26 [GMT-8]

Air Quoted Internet Link Sausages for the "New" Year

This platter of internet link sausages is especially irritable, thanks to a migraine. It is also heavily seasoned with the internet equivalent of "air quotes."

As a not-so-short follow-up to my rant against genre limitations last time around, consider actually reading — and thinking about — the purported "[2012] ultimate book guide" posted at Salon the day before Newton's Birthday. To begin with, there's a severe credibility issue among the fifty individuals chosen to provide their respective single-best-of-the-year selections. All but one write only in serious/semiserious nonfiction or literary/aspirationally-literary fiction (and that one exception had her speculative fiction fabulist work published by Grove, so perhaps she doesn't count as an exception!). Not suprisingly, all but two of their selected "best of the year" selections are also serious/semiserious nonfiction or literary/aspirationally-literary works (and the two exceptions are poetry), particularly as measured by publication imprint: It's entirely from two of the six large commercial houses, a smattering of mid-sized "serious" presses, and a similar smattering of small (and university) presses of serious/literary aspirations. Not one of this supposed list of fifty best books of 2012 came from an "archly commercial" imprint, or from a diversified midsized publisher, or from a niche small press. (OK, one came from Dalkey Archive... but Dalkey Archive is no niche small press.) This is a startlingly indefensible prejudgment. I'm not claiming that no list that excludes, say, Harlequin is credible; I am, however, saying that a list that excludes not just Harlequin, but every similar and not-so-similar specialist/commercial imprint, utterly lacks credibility. Bluntly, those "prestige" imprints simply aren't very good at uniformly snapping up all of the good stuff... or excluding bad stuff. If one accepts Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap), this list fails even when measured solely against the subpopulation it draws from (serious/semiserious nonfiction, literary/aspirationally-literary fiction, and poetry), let alone the entire population of works-trying-hard-to-be-good. And Sturgeon was an optimist.

Looking beneath the surface credibility problems, though, I'm even more disturbed by a subsurface current: Hiding the data. We simply do not know how many books "competed" in each "reviewer's" mind for "best of 2012," or how those books were acquiried. None of the "reviewers" appears to extensively review books; a couple of them appear to have provided a few blurbs on works published in 2012, but that's certainly no guarantee that the works blurbed were even read, let alone in publication form. It would have been trivial for each reviewer to state the number of works actually read from beginning to end in publication form (ARC or later); it would have been trivial for each reviewer to be excluded from promoting works published by their own publishers; it would have been trivial to include links to reviews of the works in question, a number of which were reviewed at Salon. This reflects, if nothing else, the failure of Salon's editorial process to adapt to the electronic world — which is both ironic in that Salon has never had a print counterpart and far from unique. The old print-world concept of rigidly limited column-inches per article does not apply — and even if it did, a hyperlink to a separate data repository would be equally useful, if in all probability disturbingly prone to other misuse.

Data and analysis matter. Ms Filgate and her editor and her production designer get a D– for this piece of utterly irredeemable and fundamentally misleading garbage.
I'm actually frightened that someone might apply Ms Filgate's/Salon's methodology to self-help books. Fortunately, a lot of the "greats" of the field are dead; unfortunately, there are a lot of snake-oil salesmen (and even true believers) out there trying to adapt those principles to the present. As "Professor" Harold Hill said, their market is "[w]herever the people are as green as the money..."
An interesting warning from the founder of Smashwords, who (mostly) seems to have his heart in the right place (specifically, the thoracic cavity): "Indie" and "self-published" authors will earn less from sales than they pay out for dubious packaged "author services" for the forseeable future... and beyond, if the recently-purchased-by-Penguin-and-possibly-about-to-become-part-of-another-conglomerate Author $olution$ continues buying up every competitor it can find. Of course, there's another problem lurking in there, too: The presumption that those who have "skillz" in the various areas of import to indie/self-published authors make meaningful contributions to the profitability of a given work... and that's definitely far from certain, particularly concerning both interior design and cover design. (It's virtually certain for "marketing and publicity" consultants, but in the opposite direction.)
Over at The Economist, "Johnson" ponders the "problem" of split verbs. I think there's a darker, perhaps subconcious, class/cultural meme at work here: Among the widely spoken languages in early-twentieth-century England and America, only English does not grammatically require split verbs (and even split infinitives) for substantial parts of its common usage. As a specific example, consider non-present-tense German... That — and the insanity of verb-number agreement in English — makes the split-verb "problem" a particularly good marker for non-native speakers of English, or at least for those who hung around with a lot of non-native speakers of English (or, more to the point, less-well-educated speakers of English and patois-English) while growing up. I don't claim that this is a dominant factor, but it certainly bears some consideration concerning force-of-law proscriptions in a steals-from-everyone language that attempts to keep verbs away from the end of the sentence where they belong.

Labels: arts, culture, publishing

Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.

All material © 2003–13 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. This blawg does not use the Creative Commons License, although I'm usually pretty good-natured about permissions for attributed reuse.

Site Feed

I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.

Sausages?

Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.

I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.

Archives

Warped Weft

Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of the more infamous threads that have appeared here by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.

Links of Interest

Links open in a new window.

Writer Beware and the Writer Beware Blog provide essential knowledge for writers who don't want to be ripped off
Writing-World.com published by the former managing editor of the now-defunct Inklings
Agent Research & Evaluation provides both free and paid analyses of literary agents
US Copyright Office, including both registration forms and records and quite a bit of other helpful information
Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) allows searches of granted, pending, and some rejected trademark registrations
US Supreme Court Opinions from the current and past couple of terms
Law Library of Congress includes statutes for free
The Public Library of Law can help you find the law... but not use it in court, as many of its resources are not in proper form and do not provide all of the citation information needed in court papers
Legal, free e-books are available through Online Books (University of Pennsylvania) and Shakespeare (MIT)
Legal, free music is available through
- ClassicCat.net (what kind of music do you think you'll find here?)
- Music.Download.com (long-awaited successor to MP3.com)
- Janis Ian (artist)
- John McCutcheon (artist)

Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals

These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.

A blawg is sort of like a blog on legal issues, but usually has a lot more links to outside resources (other than other blogs) than does a typical blog. Scrivener's Error is a blawg, not just a blog. You can find other blawgs at < ? law blogs # >.

How Appealing is aimed at appellate lawyers and legal news in general. If you care about the state of the law, start here — Howard's commentary is far better balanced, better informed, and better considered than any of the media outlets. To concentrate on the Supreme Court, don't forget SCOTUSBlog.
Some academics' blawgs with a variety of political (and doctrinal) viewpoints:
- Professor Anthony Arend (Georgetown Law)
- Professor Stephen Bainbridge (UCLA Law) (aka "The Perfesser")
- Professor Jack Balkin (Yale Law)
- Professor Dennis Crouch (Missouri Law) (better known as Patently-O)
- Professor Michael Froomkin (University of Miami Law)
- Professor Eric Goldman (Santa Clara University Law)
- Professor Rick Hasen (UC-Irvine)
- Professor Brian Leiter (U of Chicago Law/Philosophy)
- Professor Michael Madison (Pitt Law)
- Professor Rebecca Tushnet (Georgetown Law)
BoingBoing, by speculative fiction writer (and 'net activist) Cory Doctorow, is quite hostile to copyright enforcement efforts, particularly regarding file-sharing
The main European IP blawg of interest remains the UK-based IPKat, on a variety of intellectual property issues, with some overlap (with a less Eurocentric view) at IPFinance
Cyberlaw (Stanford) has its agenda grounded firmly in the so-called "digital commons," which might make a bit more sense if any of the advocates of that viewpoint understood diddly-squat about population ecology
The American Constitution Society blawg is a purportedly "liberal" counterweight to the so-called "Federalist Society" (which, despite its claims, should be called "Tory Society") that has yet to establish much coherence... but maybe that's all to the good.

Searches

Optimized for at 1024x768.