KWBC: Ask the Author - Seized

[I'm Murrin]

As you probably know, our Kevin's Watch Book Club pick for January was Seized, first book of the Pipe Woman Chronicles, written by our very own aliantha, aka Lynne Cantwell. To go along with our discussion of her novel, Lynne has kindly agreed to field questions from the members about the work.

This is an open topic for you to ask questions about Seized and for aliantha to answer them; it will run for one week from today.

I'll leave it to you folks to kick things off.

[aliantha]

Er...hi, guys.

[ussusimiel]

Hi ali,

As you've probably seen from my posts in the other thread I enjoyed your book and I have a number of questions for you. I'll ask one now and I'll have a few more after the weekend.

The question I raised in the other thread related to good and evil in Seized. What I noticed was that there didn't seem to be any outright evil character, so I was wondering if it was a feature of the world you've created that there is no positive evil, but rather that it is the absence of good that is perceived as evil.

u.

[aliantha]

Hi ali,

As you've probably seen from my posts in the other thread I enjoyed your book and I have a number of questions for you. I'll ask one now and I'll have a few more after the weekend.

The question I raised in the other thread related to good and evil in Seized. What I noticed was that there didn't seem to be any outright evil character, so I was wondering if it was a feature of the world you've created that there is no positive evil, but rather that it is the absence of good that is perceived as evil.

u.

Actually, I haven't read the other thread. I figured it wasn't going to be good for my ego, either way. But I'm glad you liked the book.

And I think you've done a pretty good job of summing up my personal philosophy about Good v. Evil. I think it's a human-invented dichotomy that allows us to give a label to the Other that justifies our hatred of it/them. But the Other always believes it/they have legitimate reasons for what they do. SRD played around with this a little bit in the Chrons, with the Ravers; the names they call themselves are (Buddhist, IIRC) terms of enlightenment.

Mediation takes this idea that there are two (or more) sides to every disagreement, and runs with it. Journalism, at least they way I did it, does the same thing -- reporters are supposed to present all sides in an even-handed manner. Not that they do, these days, but that's the ideal. The right/wrong, good/evil decision is then supposed to be left up to the viewer/listener/reader. But everybody gets a chance to explain themselves. And oftentimes, I think, hearing the explanation defuses the dispute -- assuming you're willing to try to wrap your brain around what the other guy has to say.

As a Neopagan, I admit to being a little sensitive about the whole Good v. Evil thing, as the Christian Church has done such a great job of demonizing non-believers over the past couple of centuries.

So yeah, you're right, there's no Ultimate Bad Guy in the book. And that's a concept that Naomi is struggling with.

Man, I could go on for a lot longer with this answer.... Really good question, u., thanks!

[I'm Murrin]

In the book, you appear to have an active pantheon of gods from every faith, but the ones that feature in this one are the native american gods, and the Norse gods Odin and Loki. When Odin first appeared, there was a comment made to the effect that it made sense that Norse gods would be in America, because people had come over from there and brought their faiths. Now I couldn't help when reading that piece but think of Neil Gaiman's American Gods, which is built on a very similar concept.

Is this a coincidence, or do you consider Gaiman an influence on the mythology of the series?

[Frostheart Grueburn]

Now I couldn't help when reading that piece but think of Neil Gaiman's American Gods, which is built on a very similar concept.

Is this a coincidence, or do you consider Gaiman an influence on the mythology of the series?

I noticed this also and wondered about it.

[aliantha]

I freely admit to stealing Gaiman's idea that "foreign" pantheons came here with the immigrants who believed in them. Altho I think Charles deLint made the same, or a similar, argument in Widdershins (which wasn't that terrific a book, but is somewhat instructive in juggling pantheons in a fictional setting ).

[ussusimiel]

Thanks for your response to my question, ali. More about that later

In the discussion thread in reponse to a post by Murrin about Brock I said the following:

Brock is an interesting character who seems to have lots of excuses for his bad behaviour. For me, this can weaken a character because it elicits our sympathy for them. The best example that I can think for this is Hannibal Lecter (not that Brock is as extreme as this ). When I read Hannibal much of the elemental power that had inhered in Lecter in Silence of the Lambs drained away. Instead of a monster I began to see a human being.

In Brock's case he doesn't actually do anything bad, he doesn't actually enact evil. (Now part of this may be that positive evil doesn't exist in the world ali has created, it may simply be that the opposite of good is the absence of good. That'll be one of my questions for her later ) The worst thing that Brock does in the book (apart from cheating) is send Naomi's documents to be shredded. Now that may be a big deal to a lawyer, to me it's more of an inconvenience rather than tragedy.

Even the cheating is not a direct act of evil (in the gotcha scene he is receiving rather doing). As I write about him I am beginning to think that this may be an underlying factor in his corruption. It may be that his inability to be effective in his actions is what allows him to be so easily corrupted.

My question in relation to Brock is: is his (figurative) impotence*, (as I perceive it) a deliberate part of his character which leads to the ease of his corruption? Or, am I over-reading his character when he's just a weak-willed, lazy p#&*k?

u.

*On a site dedicated to SRD's work we're always going to be sensitive to impotent characters, aren't we?

[aliantha]

Thanks for your response to my question, ali. More about that later

In the discussion thread in reponse to a post by Murrin about Brock I said the following:

Brock is an interesting character who seems to have lots of excuses for his bad behaviour. For me, this can weaken a character because it elicits our sympathy for them. The best example that I can think for this is Hannibal Lecter (not that Brock is as extreme as this ). When I read Hannibal much of the elemental power that had inhered in Lecter in Silence of the Lambs drained away. Instead of a monster I began to see a human being.

In Brock's case he doesn't actually do anything bad, he doesn't actually enact evil. (Now part of this may be that positive evil doesn't exist in the world ali has created, it may simply be that the opposite of good is the absence of good. That'll be one of my questions for her later ) The worst thing that Brock does in the book (apart from cheating) is send Naomi's documents to be shredded. Now that may be a big deal to a lawyer, to me it's more of an inconvenience rather than tragedy.

Even the cheating is not a direct act of evil (in the gotcha scene he is receiving rather doing). As I write about him I am beginning to think that this may be an underlying factor in his corruption. It may be that his inability to be effective in his actions is what allows him to be so easily corrupted.

My question in relation to Brock is: is his (figurative) impotence*, (as I perceive it) a deliberate part of his character which leads to the ease of his corruption? Or, am I over-reading his character when he's just a weak-willed, lazy p#&*k?

u.

*On a site dedicated to SRD's work we're always going to be sensitive to impotent characters, aren't we?

First, you're welcome, u., and thanks for the thought-provoking questions.

My knee-jerk reaction is to say that Brock is simply a weak-willed, lazy p#&*k. But I think you may have something there. And it's all of a piece. Because he's lazy and tries to slide by on his charm, and because that hasn't gotten him as far in life as he expected, yeah, he's vulnerable. It's his anger and frustration -- his desperation (despair? despite? ) -- that make it so easy for Loki to claim him.

(I dunno if you guys noticed, but in that scene, Loki not only tells Brock to keep Naomi close, but also gives him leave to screw around on the side. That Loki -- what a charmer, huh? )

An aside about Naomi's files: The point for her, I think, was that she considered the boxes to be her personal property; his sending them to be shredded was an act of theft -- a violation of her boundaries. From his point of view, he is now perceiving her as an adversary, and as a cutthroat jerk, he's looking for a way to weaken her hand. He could be viewing the incident as "just business", while she sees it as a personal attack.

[aliantha]

Thought I'd double-post , in case someone here doesn't frequent the "How do you feel today?" thread in GenDisc: Seized made the first cut in this year's Amazon Breakthrough Novel Awards.

Next round is the quarterfinals, which will be announced March 12th.

[Vraith]

Thought I'd double-post , in case someone here doesn't frequent the "How do you feel today?" thread in GenDisc: Seized made the first cut in this year's Amazon Breakthrough Novel Awards.

Next round is the quarterfinals, which will be announced March 12th.

That's really cool...the prize is actually worth a bit of something! Good luck.

[I'm Murrin]

That seems like a good enough lead in for another question - this one isn't really about Seized per se but about your approach to publishing your work.

Seized, along with your other books, is self-published through Amazon, and from what I've seen of your social network presence you appear to be pretty involved in the burgeoning "indie publishing" community. (I think you also even design your own covers, right?)

Many in the self publishing world these days have gained something of a reputation for being against traditional publishing houses, seeing them as unnecessary with the rise of PoD and ebooks, and social media promotion. Amazon Publishing, the runner of the above contest, however, is the company's attempt to break into the traditional publishing market, offering traditional contracts and (potential) bookstore distribution, so I can assume from your entry into the contest that you're not necessarily one of those detractors.

I'm struggling with how to phrase this into a question, but in short: What is your position on the whole self-publishing versus traditional publishing discussion?

[Shaun das Schaf]

Thought I'd double-post , in case someone here doesn't frequent the "How do you feel today?" thread in GenDisc: Seized made the first cut in this year's Amazon Breakthrough Novel Awards.

Next round is the quarterfinals, which will be announced March 12th.

That's awesome Ali! Congratulations and good luck... Waiting an entire month for the QF announcement

[Sorus]

Good luck!

[aliantha]

Thanks, guys!

I'm struggling with how to phrase this into a question, but in short: What is your position on the whole self-publishing versus traditional publishing discussion?

You did pretty well, actually.

I've been fairly vocal in various places around teh intarwebz about my feelings about trad publishing. I think the big publishing houses shot themselves in the foot several years ago, when they got caught up in merger fever, and then started listening to the money-men who wanted them to turn a profit at the expense of nurturing writing talent. These days, it's hard to get a contract unless you: 1) have made a name for yourself in some other business -- that's why you see so many books by politicians and celebrities; or 2) have proven that you can sell books. Ironically, some of the top sellers in indie publishing (Amanda Hocking, Hugh Howey) are now being courted by agents and publishers. I heard recently that if you have an indie book in the top 10 at the Kobo Store, you're sure to get calls from agents -- which strikes me as a bad deal for the author. It's like someone saying, "Hey! I see you're pretty successful! Howzabout I sign you up to a contract so you can keep working just as hard, but I take a chunk of your earnings?"

I say that because nowadays, publishers' marketing budgets suck. We've seen it over the past few years with SRD: he hasn't had a national tour for any of the Last Chrons (or maybe he did for Runes, but not since then), and he didn't have a tour at all for AATE. And he's got a track record! So you can imagine what the publisher is offering for promotion of a first book by an unknown author. Which means that the author is going to have to arrange any and all promotional stuff him- or herself -- just like an indie author.

That's on top of waiting years to get a contract in the first place -- and then giving total control over cover images, editing, and publication schedules to the publisher. For losing all that control, the publisher takes the lion's share of the profit and pays the author 17.5% royalties (or thereabouts).

Sure, the author gets to see his/her book in the bookstore. But the book has about three months to garner sales; after that, it's either sent back to the publisher or pulped.

Contrast that with self-publishing, where you hire your own editor and cover designer, publish your book when you please (tomorrow? done!), and keep about 70% of the cover price. Sure, you pay your editor and cover designer out of that 70%, but you can use beta readers instead of editors, and do your covers yourself. (You're right, Murrin, I do my own covers.) And e-books never "go out of print".

A lot of authors are still clinging to the idea that you haven't made it unless you have an honest-to-goodness publishing contract from one of the big houses. But in terms of earnings, most would be better off going indie.

I'm not sure what I'd do if I won the ABNA. Amazon's publishing imprints are reportedly less draconian than trad publishers, in terms of their attitude toward authors. So maybe it wouldn't be so bad to have a deal with them. But I'm pretty sure Seized isn't gonna go that high in the judging, so I'm not worried.

[I'm Murrin]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

As an aside on this topic, I don't know if you follow John Scalzi's blog at all, but if not you might be interested in what he had to say recently when someone suggested that he could have made more money on his latest book through self-publishing. Now there's a world of difference between an established best-selling author and your average newcomer, but he makes some good points IMO.

[aliantha]

He does make some good points, and I'm glad he's satisfied with his career as-is. But I think he's downplaying the effect of his popularity on sales. Maybe he wouldn't be able to arrange as big an advertising splash on his own -- but if Nobody Author had written the book, it's highly doubtful that the publisher would have bought an ad in Locus and billboards in Times Square, y'know?

A better comparison would be the difference in his take-home pay between what he gets now, and what he would get if he self-pubbed and hired his own editor, cover artist, and publicist. But it doesn't sound as if Scalzi is inclined to give it a shot.

[I'm Murrin]

Guess some writers just want to spend time writing instead of running a publishing business.

[aliantha]

Weenies.

To be honest, I'm finding some of the other stuff kind of fun. I've done a couple of podcasts now, which is like being back in radio (tho I kind of wish these thing had producers to remind the hosts to stop bloviating and let the guest get a word in edgewise occasionally ). Making a book trailer taps a different kind of creativity than writing, and it's fun, too. And I like doing guest blog posts (perhaps a little too well...). Dunno if any of this stuff is selling any books, but....

[I'm Murrin]

One last question from me:
At the end of Seized, we have the final confrontation between the parties involved - both in the land buying dispute, and in the supernatural side of it. By this point it has been established that Durant has no legal standing for his purchase or his proposed use of the land, and pretty much doesn't have a leg to stand on; then, with the revelation of Loki and the discussion of his goals during the mediation, we learn that the god's own aims amount to little more than the hypermasculine desire for a "bigger stick". As a result, both of the offending parties wind up appearing somewhat childish in their motives, and Naomi's purpose, at least with Loki, is just to lead them to reason.

Now, was the immature and poorly reasoned nature of Loki's desire for the land (and the more obvious Leo Durant's desire for it), which undermines the more serious threat they had seemed to pose, a deliberate move on your part - a subversion of what one might expect in the motives of a god?