Sunday, February 8, 2009

How to Publish Commercial Nonfiction...


Dr. Donovan’s advice: Take a lot of drugs first. Hard drugs. Cocaine, heroine, crystal meth. You have to go hard because if you’re lucky, they might give you brain damage and your IQ could drop about a good 10 to 15 points. This way you’ll be in the correct state of mind to write something the book business will deem of interest to the general reading masses.

I’m writing this because one of my former students asked me this same question. Since she’s a pretty bright kid, the drugs are in order. My answer’s prompted not so much by my usual aimless wanderings through the local Borders, but the latest romantic comedy that opened this weekend: He’s Just Not that Into You.
There’s just something about the existence of that movie that annoyed me and got me thinking. I realized I wasn’t so much annoyed by the fact that someone would make a film based on a relationship advice book, but by the fact that the book is so emblematic of the trivial, pointless, redundant pabulum you have to wade through in a big bookstore to find some really worthwhile nonfiction that might educate you, give you a new perspective to think about, or just open your eyes to some interesting and cool new facts.

For example, just wander through your bookstore in the near future and see what you find. Here’s some of the stuff I found, and stuff that left me feeling like an angrier and more unsatisfied reader as I left the store:

Books called “sensitive” and “life-changing.” I hate today’s books that are called sensitive or life-changing. They are most often about people dealing with the same things we all must handle every day. The problem is that these books make the random frustrations of every day life sound like epic obstacles you deserve a medal for dealing with. A few words to the authors of these things: you have to struggle to deal with a breakup, a divorce, your kid going to college, your kid moving home after college because he can’t get a job, your husband cheating, your wife cheating, or you gained ten pounds and can’t lose it? Welcome to the club!

If you’re dealing with any of the problems described above, I am really not interested in reading about it. If publishers pay a great deal of money to get books like that produced and marketed, they will not recoup their losses from me.

I am incapable of giving a damn about how a woman ate her way through Italy and Indonesia following a divorce.

I won’t read books about people and their animals. You get a lot of these in the wake of “Marley and Me.” After the success of the film, you will get a lot more. I saw books about people and their dogs, their cats, and even a “sensitive” and “life changing” book about a researcher and her relationship with a parrot. I had a dog once too. Just like millions of people. I really loved him. He was a big black lab named Einstein. Then, just like all dog-owners, I had to see Einstein grow old, sick and die. I was really depressed afterward. I’m not writing a book about it and I really don’t care to read about anyone else’s dog experience either.

Now let me qualify this by saying that I will read all of Dean Koontz’s fiction about dogs. Koontz, you see, is God and he is the greatest living novelist in America. I would pay to read Dean Koontz’s grocery list.

I also suggest you look at – but don’t buy – books with pastel-colored covers. The copy on these covers will usually look like a high school girl’s wavy cursive. These things are usually either “sensitive” or “quirky.” Most often they are about eating or buying shoes. Pastel covers are also usually found on “chick lit” fiction. Chick lit is invariably about women buying shoes in New York. Chick Lit is usually described as being “light,” "fluffy," or “frothy.” I want my yogurt light and fluffy, not my literature.

Today I saw a pastel-colored book about the importance of having conversations with people. I’m not making this up.

Another author – pastel cover on her book – tells me the importance of writing in good cursive. Thanks for the tip.

Books like these are the literary equivalent of elevator music. Unfortunately, publishers and agents think this is what the average American wants to read. This is the sort of trivial, inconsequential crap that will get multimillion dollar marketing and advertising budgets. And huge advances for their writers.

Seeing all this taking up space in a bookstore is almost as annoying as seeing so much self-help non-fiction and completely worthless memoirs of people of absolutely no distinction.

Most self-help advice I hate because it comes in either of two varieties:

One explains how to deal with the unfairness of a world where every single person you meet does not automatically love you and want to have sex with you.

The other category makes up the massive glut of weight loss advice. Why are these things being published? Or, more importantly, why do people buy them? It’s obvious most of the readers of these things don’t follow the advice between the covers. My free weight loss advice: Stop binging on junk food and get some exercise.

As for the memoirs/biographies: Similar to the points above about people dealing with breakups, divorces, dead pets, and weight gain.

Oh, and then we have the biographies of every flash in the pan, flavor of the month celebrity. I generally have no problems with people writing biographies of accomplished performers, directors and authors whose work stood the test of time or had a major impact on the culture. I own biographies of Marlon Brando, Clint Eastwood, Ian Fleming, James Dean and, naturally, Dean Koontz. When I was writing my book on Hollywood and Asian action films, I bought biographies of Jackie Chan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jet Li, John Woo, Bruce Lee, and Sylvester Stallone. Chan, Lee, Stallone and Eastwood are people who made a long-lasting impact. Unfortunately, if you go to the bookstore today, you’ll also find biographies of Tila Tequila and Sanjaya Malakar!!! (hardcover prices of $26 and $20, respectively) I doubt that when the list of the important early 21st century performers will be written, the names Tila Tequila or Sanjaya Malakar will be on it.

Since it’s a fact that most books barely break even, I write this as an open challenge to the acquisitions people and literary agents who decided to buy/represent manuscripts about Tila Tequila and Sanjaya. Show me an earnings report that proves these books actually turned a profit.

But, of course, if your IQ is somewhere around your belt size, keep writing! You might have a future in nonfiction publishing.

Friday, February 6, 2009

A Dangerous Media Effect


Since I was just arguing media effects with the head of the New Jersey chapter of the Parents Television Council on Culture Wars, I can’t help but comment on what may be a truly dangerous media effect I just ran across. And no, it’s not people becoming more violent, or wanting more sex, or trying to bully each other, starving themselves after reading fashion magazines, or watching anything on TV. It’s the possible effect of atrocious journalism.

The FOX news web page has a link to an AP story about a study on video game use by college students, with the headline reading “STUDY: VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES BAD FOR MENTAL HEALTH.” Check it out here.

The article describes a study published in The Journal of Youth and Adolescence. It looked at the sort of people who play a great deal of video games. The researchers report that students who play a great deal of video games are also the ones who may have alcohol problems, use drugs, and have bad personal relationships. The gamers who enjoy the violent games are also the ones to have a lot of sex partners and bad personal relationships. We are told that there is a “clear correlation” between the video gaming habits of these students and the sorry state of their lives.

So this study is proof that video games really cause you to become and alcoholic, a junkie, perhaps a sex addict, and someone who can’t have a healthy relationship, right?

Wrong!

But, of course, going by the AP story, you might conclude exactly that. The way the story is written – and most people are going to get the majority of their science news from the mainstream media rather than reading a dense, jargon-laden academic journal – the average person might conclude that here is a study establishing a clear causality between video game use and behavior.

Except that the study does nothing of the sort. The study finds a correlation, which is NOT the same as causality. A correlation is merely the observation of changes between two variables. From a study like this, we can’t tell if playing video games turned these students into sex-crazed, alcoholic drug users, or if people who like their cheap frat house beer, smoke too much reefer, have sex a lot with different women (most of the problem gamers appear to be men) because they’re loose and licentious (or perhaps they’re just lousy in bed and get dumped after the first roll in the hay) will also play a lot of video games. Maybe if you’re a drunken screw-up to begin with, you might be a high-using videogamer as well.

Again, maybe these people were screw-ups to start with and they turned to video games in their screwed up state.


Of course the problem with this is that media-phobic control freaks like to jump on these stories and get all “active” and “concerned.” For example, we might have a lot of folks at the PTC with a great, big silly grin all over their face right now, writing an Op-ed about the “scientifically proven” danger of video games. Then they’ll be starting campaigns to pass new laws to control video game sales because “the research proves the dangers.” These are the people who are incapable of understanding the nature of correlations in statistics and incapable of grasping why a count of the number of punches thrown in your average Rocky movie is not a proof that Rocky movies cause people to get into fights.

But, nevertheless, these very concerned activists like to get active and pass new laws to control your life and behavior.

And the real culprit in all this is a sloppy reporter!

Thursday, February 5, 2009

More State of Panic Coming Soon!!!!

The podcasts of Culture Wars will be available by early next week. You can tune in and listen to our PTC debate with sound enhancements correcting some of the level problems experienced in the studio today.

Be sure and check back in here and I'll let you know when you can hear our thrilling exchange and the NJ PTC's explanations of:

The rampant crime...

Out-of-control social diseases decimating humanity...

Children going wild in the streets...

The breakdown of all civilization...

...all caused by the mass media!!

And why colleges should be coerced and intimidated if they let anyone say anything that offends the high arbiters of taste, style, and morality!!

B.D.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

The PTC on Culture Wars!

With apologies to the constant reader - as Stephen King would say - for the lax updates over the past week, I just wanted to announce that the Culture Wars radio show, hosted by yours truly and Ernabel Demillo, will have a special presentation this Thursday. The head of the New Jersey chapter of the Parents Television Council will join us to discuss her organization and their agendas and views of the media.

While this blog had been critical of the group, there is nothing we support more than free speech and the opportunity for everyone to exercise their rights to free expression. Thus, Culture Wars will give the PTC the chance to speak up tomorrow and air their views.

Tune in and decide for yourself!

B.D.

Saturday, January 31, 2009

Check it out...!

A quick apology, loyal readers, for being off the blog for the last couple of days. I just got a moment for an update here, so I wanted to urge everyone of take a look at the blogs I follow and check out the piece on the Fairness Doctrine by Paul Levinson. Or just click here. Outstanding!!

Dr. Levinson, a Fordham Communication professor, author of the Phil D'Amato science fiction novels, and free speech advocate also has a couple of words about the NBC/vegetarian ad. And, most importantly, he has a link to the video of the ad!! Take a look at it, unless you're worried that it might usher in the Apocalypse before 2012.

I don't know about you, but I've been getting more and more of an urge to go to the produce aisle at my grocery store!

B.D.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Go screw yourself with a broccoli!


The culture wars roll on and on! With the approach of the Super Bowl, we have the approach of more ridiculous advertising controversies. Check it out right here.

Apparently NBC is already trying to prevent any possible trouble with the Super Bowl broadcast by refusing to air an ad for vegetarianism by PETA. Too sexual, they argue. One part of the ad, according to NBC’s interpretation, suggests that an actress is “screwing herself with a broccoli.”

Now, unfortunately, we can’t see this for ourselves and decide whether or not this is appropriate because NBC is letting itself be bullied into acting like our broadcast nannies. We must be protected from ourselves because we are too dumb to handle a simple TV ad, or we are such incompetent parents that we don’t know how to raise our children so they are not scarred and corrupted for life by a vegetarianism ad.

The root of all this, of course, is the fact that Super Bowl broadcasts are now anniversaries of the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” and the Parents Television Council’s reign of terror. Following the Jackson situation, the FCC went psychotic and issued more fines against broadcasters in the following year than fines it had proposed issuing in the previous 10 years. This was all due to the prompting of the members of the PTC.

I am certain that these champions of censorship will soon enough be celebrating their ability to keep more expression they don’t like from the airwaves. Check out their web page and keep an eye on this, I suggest. Or, better yet, since these folks like to start complaint campaigns – the home page of their organization has no fewer than THREE links to file an FCC complaint – maybe people can take the time to send them a message and let them know that Americans don’t appreciate their First Amendment rights being trampled upon by bullies and cheap thugs.

The culture wars, in the meantime, will keep rolling on the web broadcasts of WSPC Culture Wars as well. Every Thursday at noon, Eastern time.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

I Seek Britney



Being away from a regular dose of entertainment gossip, I almost lost track of a great Britney Spears story…then almost missed a piece summarizing a pornography study on the FOXSexpert column. The timing of these stories is just perfect and I wanted to comment on them as a follow-up on my previous post praising the timely and thankful rejection of an absurd anti-porn law by the Supreme Court.

Although we’re in the twenty first century, I still feel the urge to scan the headlines every few days in case there might be the public burning of a witch. Or maybe the red-lettering of an adulteress. Today I just got my almost-missed story of something equally as stupid: the brain trust of the Parents Television Council is threatening to file obscenity complaints against radio stations playing Britney Spears’ song “If You Seek Amy.” Now I’ll have my school radio station to play it completely uncut, I think.

Their reasoning is explained here, on their web page. Some delicate, impressionable young child might accidentally be exposed to it while listening to the radio. The horrors of playing a silly double-entendre that most junior high school kids would be embarrassed to say! Most would be embarrassed because it’s so tame and silly, in fact, that other kids might laugh at their lack of sophistication in matters of sex. I know when I was in junior high, or grade school for that matter, that’s probably what would have happened to you. “If You Seek Amy? Come on, you can do better than that!”

Now would I really would urge anyone to check out the Sexpert article’s summary of a study on teen attitudes on pornography. It is brief, it summarizes the study well, and it’s clear enough with its numbered points for even a member of the Parents Television Council to understand. Or maybe they might want to invest time in a second reading. But the point is that if this is how teens react to pornography, it really is an absurd waste of time to listen to the PTC’s harping about the pernicious threat Britney Spears poses for America’s impressionable, innocent young children.

The study is a remarkable outline of what active and critical consumers teens are of pornography. Far from being stupid, mindless, thoughtless sponges that see images in the media and imitate them, teens process information from even the hardest, most explicit pornography “critically, (compare) it to life experiences and information from other sources. Young people are able to evaluate the materials as overstated, distorted or incorrect. The ultimate reaction: They tune out or distance themselves from the source.”

Furthermore, “hardly any of the participants (in the study) considered the pornography actors as celebrities, but rather as ‘cheap’ and ‘ridiculous.’”

Kids, or adults or any of those audience members in whose name the meddling do-gooders of the PTC usually advocate censorship are not as passive, weak, and pliant as the PTC usually argues.

This should be something to think about for all those admiring the PTC for their efforts to protect America’s families: These people think you are stupid, you can’t run your own family or raise your children, and you need the hand of big government bureaucracies to tell you how to live.

So just relax and let the kids listen to Britney!

Regards,
Barna W. Donovan, Ph.D.