It's Alive! (The House Eaters)

What he said. And by "It" I mean The House Eaters and by "Alive" I mean back in print.

Available through Createspace now for $6.99.

(Amazon and other retailers will take a few days to update).

Of course, you can still pick up a $0.99 ebook for Kindle, at Smashwords, or through Barnes & Noble for the Nook.

Of a Split Mind

Last night was the annual rules meeting for Speech/Drama coaches. For those of you who don't know, I spend a number of Saturdays each spring with teenagers who like to "act". (beyond the usual adolescent drama)

On the way to the meeting (a nice 35 minute drive), I was listening to NPR. British commandos rescued a reporter for the New York Times, Stephen Farrell. Farrell's Afghan interpreter (a fellow reporter), Sultan M. Munadi, was killed in the raid. The NPR piece told a little about Mr. Munadi...he was 34 (I'm 34), father of two (I have two kids), interested in public education in Afghanistan (I'm a public school teacher)...

Too often we overlook those who die in war zones. Casualties become numbers. Numbers are easier to ignore than the deaths of real human beings. My heart goes out Mr. Munadi's family...and all those touched by war. If you do nothing else, read this Times piece and remember a brave man who was driven by a quest for truth.

__________

At the rules meeting, we discussed appropriate sources from which students may take "cuttings" for prose/poetry interpretation. (What is oral interpretation?) As it now stands, the official governing body for our activity does not recognize online sources. Basically, if it isn't published on paper, it doesn't count.

What?

Most of those who read this blog write. Most writers know the abundance of high quality online venues for fiction. (um, Clarkesworld, Fantasy, Strange Horizons, Chizine...just to name a few in the realm of spec-fic) More and more "content" is only being published in digital form. With resources like Lulu.com and Blurb.com, dead tree publishing isn't really a gateway to "quality" anymore.

While I appreciate the original aim of the rule, I believe it has become outdated. Paper is more or less meaningless. (yeah, it has great sentimental value to me as a writer, but we're moving into an increasingly digital society) I'm writing my state activities association representative this morning to explain why.

Another interesting chapter in the online v. print debate from a different perspective...

The Great Electronic Debate Part 2

A cappella Zoo is opening an online archive of previously published stories. The editor, Colin Meldrum, sent an email asking for permission to publish/archive "A Sort of Honeymoon". I didn't hesitate in replying "yes".

I started this internal debate here. Today, I'm adding evidence in favor of online publishing.

During an average week at Fifty-Two Stitches, we see over 250 visitors. While this isn't an astronomical number, the count has been growing steadily over the past four months (thanks largely in part to the fantastic stories and buzz created by the author/contributors). Two points for online publishing: new content can be added frequently with less effort. Imagine a print magazine with weekly editions...imagine the cost involved (both in labor and actual capital). Online is cheaper and more cost effective.

Some write for themselves. Some write to be read. For some, writing is a blend of both worlds. I do write because the process of writing is important to me, but I want as many people as possible to read/understand/enjoy the products of my labor. I don't live in a vacuum. Another point for online.

Consumers (and here I use the word in its most general sense) are wary to give up their hard earned $$ for untested products. Give it to them free, however...and online wins another point. Even publishers stand to gain by giving away content: you build consumer trust and following. Another point for online. (this is turning into a rather lopsided affair)

I haven't even addressed the "green" issue. (online wins again)

In my previous post, I mentioned this as a head vs. heart issue. My heart still likes to see work in print, but my heart is also swayed by knowing people are reading and sometimes, on rare occasions when the planets align, even enjoying, my writing.

Print vs. Online...hurm

My mind is currently wrapped in a debate (with itself...yikes): would I rather see my work in print or online?

Some of the highest paying and most well-regarded markets for horror and dark fiction reside online (Clarkesworld, Chizine). But an online publication doesn't carry the permanence of something in print...holding that paper with your name and your words in your hands.

I've really wrestled with this...I like to have that physical evidence that someone thought enough of my work to publish it on real paper. I also have to face the truth that, in the small press, new readers might be more likely to find something and read it online. From personal experience, I know more of my work has been read on the 'net than in print. Isn't that a big part of the goal as a writer--to have my work read?

Is this really a head vs. heart issue, with my head saying: online--be read, and my heart saying: print is sooooo cool?

Still debating...