I recently got good news from a writing standpoint: I just signed a contract with Blood Bound Books for a story of mine. "23 to 46" will be part of their "Welcome to the Splatter Club" anthology. They informed me that there will be an official announcement and roll out in September, and the tentative publication date is Summer of 2020. I will, of course, include updates as I receive them, such as the contributor/title list, any story blurbs, and the cover reveal.
I looked over my records, and learned that I wrote "23 to 46" 20 years ago. And it took until its 40th submission before it was accepted. So to all those frustrated authors and would-be authors, take this as a bit of inspiration. It's unwise to give up on a story--you never know when it can be accepted, and published.
For the rest of this post, I thought I'd touch on some things that I just don't understand. For older readers, think of this as my take on Andy Rooney's segment on "60 Minutes." Anyway, first off there's non-alcoholic beer, from here on out abbreviated to "NA beer." It's existed since at least the Prohibition years in the U.S., when it did make sense, since the kind with alcohol was illegal. But recently it's beginning to become a little more popular--even craft breweries are starting to make NA versions, some using more creative styles. Traditionally, NA beer starts out as regular beer, and then has its alcohol heated off. This generally affects the taste, resulting in a sweeter, syrup-y like taste. Modern brewers try to combat this by adding more hops, or other flavoring agents. I should say up front that I'm not trying to tell other drinkers what to do--if they want to drink NA beer, or light beer, or any other beverage I don't care for, that's up to them. But I don't personally get it, with a few exceptions. If you're pregnant, or diabetic, or belong to a religious group that forbids the consumption of alcohol, then I understand it. But if you're not part of these groups, why? The usual rationale is that it's for beer drinkers who want to have some drinks but not have a hangover the next day, or who want to hang out with drinking friends but not imbibe, say if they're the designated driver or something. I've served as the designated driver many times, and I certainly respect that practice, but when I do I'd rather drink water, or soft drinks or something, not a pale imitation of a real beer. As for the hangovers, if you get one after having say, a couple of beers, I think you have some allergy to alcohol, or weigh like 70 pounds. (Plus if you're regularly getting hangovers from nights out with friends, you might want to cut back a bit, I think, for health reasons.) Moving on, I've tried some NA beers in the past, and came away unimpressed. And I tried another one, Heineken's 0.0 kind, just the other day. It was vaguely beerish, but ultimately hollow, and missing something. It started out okay but ended badly. Not a very positive experience. (Although part of me wants to do a proper, double blind scientific study wherein I try a bunch of beers, and see if I can pick out the NA ones. I think I could, but who knows for sure?) Finally, if you're thinking, as I once did, that NA beer is designed for recovering alcoholics, apparently experts recommend against this. Evidently the familiar-ish taste, odor, etc. can lead to a backslide to the real thing, so it's probably a bad idea.
On a similar note, there's the practice of condensing books. For those that don't know, these are regular books, usually novel-length, that are shortened, and then often put with other shortened books in a type of anthology. Reader's Digest, which also produces a magazine consisting of sometimes shortened articles, is a major publisher of these. The company has put these out since 1950, and continues to do so up to the present. Anyway, I don't see the point. The usual rationale for this is that people don't have the time to read an entire book. But this makes no sense to me. A book isn't like a piece of fruit--you can take weeks, or months even to finish one if necessary. Also, as I mentioned, the usual allotment is 3-5 shortened novels within the overall condensed collection. So if a reader has time to read, say, 300-500 pages consisting of several stories, why can't they just read one 300-500 page novel?! I get that some books are long winded, and could have been edited down. But these are inferior books, written by inferior authors, and put out by inferior publishers. I would recommend reading a good novel or long piece of nonfiction, beginning to end. Or, if you like shorter stories, why not read a regular anthology, consisting of many stories that are shorter, but complete? I've since learned that many audio books are shortened, too, because reading aloud obviously takes longer, so a long novel might require an inordinate number of tapes or CD's, etc., and take too long to listen to. I guess I can grudgingly concede the logic behind this, but I still don't really approve. To me it's the equivalent of watching an edited and shortened movie on television or on a plane--a watered down and disappointing imitation of the real thing.
To end on a positive note, I recently saw a guy wearing an amusing t-shirt. It read, "World's Okayest Dad." I think that's pretty awesome. It shows good self-awareness, and is sarcastically funny. They're basically admitting, "Sure, mathematically, in a world of billions, I'm almost certainly not the very best father that there is, but I'm clearly not the worst, either. I'm alright. Decent even." A little bit of online research revealed that you can also buy mugs and hats with this message on them, as well as a version for mothers. Maybe there's a "boss" one too, to keep the Michael Scotts of the world in check.
Also, for those that prefer my posts about odd food and drinks, don't fret. I located two exotic groceries in my area in the past couple of weeks, so many articles featuring their products are forthcoming.
No comments:
Post a Comment