Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts

Monday, January 21, 2019

Interview With Mystery Writer Maureen Milliken

Today we've got our first interview of the year, meeting mystery writer and long-time journalist from Maine, Maureen Milliken.


Her latest mystery, Bad News Travels Fast, came out last October.


Let's find out more about her and her work.

Q. So how did this novel come to be? Was it envisioned from the start as a bigger canvas, or did it expand organically out of an idea? Please tell us a bit about the origin.


A. Bad News Travels Fast is the third novel in my Bernie O'Dea mystery series, so some of it was a natural progression from the second novel, No News is Bad News. But it also has a bunch of other origins, as far as the plot and more goes.

I've worked for newspapers for many decades, and a few very interesting things happened in the Maine woods in the area the last newspaper I worked for covered, shortly before I started writing Bad News Travels Fast. I like to set challenges for myself as a writer, and also, when I'm intrigued by something, I can't let it go. So I asked myself, "I wonder if I can take these three really interesting things and somehow weave them together into a plot that'll make sense once it's all done?" I hope it worked!
I also always have bigger themes in my books about people and how they interact in the world, and while I try not to hit readers over the head with it, that's as big as the plot. There were certain things I wanted to say about friendship and loyalty. I also wanted to say something about how people who are different or don't easily fall into what's expected by the culture around them can get jerked around through no fault of their own.

Q. Did you start with the germ of an idea and start writing to see where it went, or did you map a good deal out in your head (or even outline) before crafting?

A. I usually have a bunch of germs -- a real petrie dish. Ugh, I don't like where this metaphor is going. But in any case, I usually have some scenes, some general plot stuff, some bigger-theme things, then I start writing. It helps to have a beginning point. The one I'm working on now I haven't totally figured out where it's going to start and that's got me a little bogged down. Once I get going and things start to happen, the book usually takes on a life of its own, though I always try to keep my bigger themes in mind.

The outline usually comes when I'm about two-thirds of the way through, so I can figure out where I am and where I'm going. I do it on a giant whiteboard, color-coded.

Q. What do you feel is the main theme(s)?

A. The bigger themes in Bad News Travels Fast are what friendship and loyalty mean. Really mean as opposed to people giving it lip service. It's easy to give up on people, or to use a slight, perceived or real, as a reason to screw over a friend. The people who don't do it are the heroes of the world. There's also a theme of marginalization -- many of the characters, in either really obvious ways or more subtle ones don't fit an expected mold and are punished in a variety of ways for it. My protagonist included. People who march to their own drummer often end up paying for it in one way or another, even though it's a cliche to urge people to be themselves and march to their own drummer. Often, people don't really mean it.

Q. Why do you feel this is important, and what would you want a reader to take away from reading this book?

A. First of all, I want to stress that I try not to hit people over the head with the heavy stuff. It's a mystery novel with a bigger-picture focus, but I don't want anyone to think they're going to get preached to if that's not their bag. But I do feel how people interact, how they feel about each and care or don't care, is a big part of life and also essential to any plot. I don't want to read a book without characters I'm interested in or care about, and I assume other people feel the same way. The themes in this book are ones that I think a lot of people come up against in life, but everyone wants to fit in and no one wants to stick their neck out too far, so they're kind of glossed over day to day. Then feelings get hurt, or worse. That said, I believe that readers takes away whatever they take away. If they don't get what I was going for, I hope they still enjoy the book. I'm not going to alter my writing, though, or what goes into it, no matter how people feel about it. If I'm not writing from the heart, I don't see the point in writing.

Q. What makes a good book or engaging story?

A. Lots of things -- compelling characters, a fresh approach and voice go a long way toward making a good book and story. I don't want to read something I've read before. A writer who avoids cliches, both in writing and with characters and plot is someone I want to read. Also, writers who respect the craft. I can't get through a book that is poorly written, including things like too many adjectives, overwriting and wordiness, but also poor editing, grammar and structure.

Also, lack of voice makes a book boring. A writer may be the most technically adept in the world, but if there's no voice, the book can be really boring.

Q. Are there writers with similar themes to yours? Who are your influences (can be writers, or even artists, musicians, or others) and what is it about their work that attracts you?


A. I'm sure there are! And just a note, the people I'm going to name are really good writers. I'm not saying I'm necessarily in their league. I've always, since I was a teenager, been impressed by Stephen King's empathy and focus on people who aren't in the popular crowd. He's really, really good at that. I love love love the way Eleanor Lipman (not a mystery writer, but a really good literary fiction writer) writes dialogue. She's a master at it. One of my peeves in a book is dialogue that sounds like someone studied buddy movies before they sat down to write. Lipman has an ear for how people really talk, and how big things can be said in little ways, or with non-sequiturs. She also never has totally bad or evil people in her books -- another sign of empathy and understanding. One of my favorites is Richard Russo -- he also gets people and how they act, and his writing is so good I forget I'm reading a book. I'll add that "Empire Falls" is my least favorite, and the movie I can't watch. Those fake Maine accents kill me. But that isn't his fault. Dorothy Sayers was the first mystery writer I read as a kid (adult books, though) who cares as much about character as plot, and it was a wonderful eye-opener. Carl Hiaasen isn't afraid to use his voice and he's great at it. Also Sarah Vowel, who writes nonfiction, is very confident in voice and writing, and her books are fantastic. Other fearless writers I love, those who aren't afraid to write the way they want to and are so good at it, are Kate Atkinson and Denise Mina. I know any time I pick up one of their books, I'm going to love it and not be able to put it down.

As far as more specific themes, Gerry Boyle, a longtime Maine mystery writer, is a former newspaper guy, and when I read his first book, "Deadline," in the 1990s, I could tell he worked for newspapers and he gets them right in his books. He was doing what I wanted to do. Paul Doiron, another Maine writer, is great with Maine settings. People here in Maine have compared me to both of them, and it's flattering. But all three of us are very different when you get down to it.

Q. Is storytelling mostly entertainment, or does it serve other functions? Do you have particular goals other than telling a good story?

A. Storytelling as entertainment is important in itself -- telling good stories is the lifeblood of human connection, history and communication. [Can you tell I have a Jesuit education?] But I always want people to take away some human understanding. I want to do more than just weave a mystery plot. I want people to feel something when they're reading, and also maybe take away something about the world around them they didn't think about before they started. I'm sure people don't take away life-changing things from my book, but maybe, in some little ways, their world is different. That said, few things make me happier as a writer than when someone tells me something in one of my books made them laugh or cry.

That all said, I hope at least a reader is entertained and didn't feel reading the book was a waste of time.

Q. Any other goals you've set for yourself, professionally or personally?

A. My biggest goal is to someday be able to write for living -- not to be hugely rich [though I wouldn't say no to it], but to be able to pay the bills without working two jobs. That's two jobs besides being a writer. If I didn't have to worry about paying the bills and could write, I'd be a better writer too. It blows my mind how much better I'd be if I could devote the time I'd like to writing. My jobs also take up a lot of space in my brain that I'd like to use for my writing. I always have to push the book out of my head so I can get my work done. So, despite the fact I'm so grateful for my publisher taking a chance on me and putting their resources behind me, I have a goal of getting an agent and finding a larger, more effective publisher, and taking my career up to another level.

As far as the writing itself goes, I want to become better and say what I want to say more effectively. I see a lot of possibilities and want to explore them.

Right now, I'm writing a standalone before I get back to the fourth book in my series, and I hope it'll help me get to those next steps.

Q. Some writers write fast and claim not to rewrite much. Do you do this, or painstakingly revise? When you send the book off to the publisher, are you happy with it, or just tired of it?

A. It is a long journey for me -- but I love it. As a newspaper reporter, I banged out stories as fast as I could, and it was a very linear process. It took me a book or two to learn my fiction writing process, which is two steps up and one step back as I figure out where I'm going. That said, I write fast because I've learned top put down whatever's going on in my head, then to go back and worry about what words I'm using and how the sentences are structured, and taking out exposition. I'm always rewriting. Always. I don't set a word goal for myself when I sit down to write, because I can bang out thousands of words at a sitting, no problem. But then I have to go back and refine it. I have files and files of scenes I've taken out of my books as I'm writing, because I don't throw anything away. Then, when I'm well into the book, I go back and review and see if I took out something I need to put back in somewhere.

The book I'm writing now, so far, I have a lot of scenes that've just come to me. The plot came quicker and easier than my first three books, but I don't know all the details yet, just a very basic outline. Every time a scene comes to me, even if I don't know how it's going to fit, I write it. If I got hit by a bus tomorrow (no chance, since there are no buses where I live in Maine), and some kind soul decided to honor my memory by finishing the book for me, they wouldn't be able to. It's a bunch of scattered pieces. I have an idea where they're going, but the big picture has yet to take shape anywhere but in my head.

There's really no such thing as a first draft for me, because I'm going foward, going back, revising, adding, taking away. Then I go through and refine many many times before I feel like it's good enough to send along. By the time I get it to the publisher, I'm a little sick of it and have no idea if it's any good or not, but I also know that at one point I thought it was good, and since then I've made it better, so it's probably okay.

I frequently text one of my sisters when I'm writing things like "This is f$%@ng awesome. Best book ever written." Then the next day, I'm texting, "God, I suck. What a piece of s#%t this is." She's learned to take it in stride.

Q. Do you have good editors, and if so, how do they help you? Do they look for particular things? Do you have different people for different editing levels?

A. I have good readers. I've learned since my first book to only have a few. They are very good at getting to the heart of what's working and what isn't, and aren't afraid to tell me. And I'm not afraid to listen.

I have the book edited at least once before I send it to the publisher, and also have a reader or two who read just for typos, but stuff always goes unnoticed. It's the nature of the beast.

Good editing is incredibly important, but the internet is over-saturated with them and it's very hard to find one who really knows what he or she is doing. I can say this because I've been an editor for decades. I was a judge for many years for the Writer's Digest Self-Published Contest and while most of the books credited an editor, I can count on two hands, with fingers left over, the books I read for that contest that I'd consider well-edited. And I read hundreds of books.

Q. If a writer came to you for advice, how would you help?

A. I've sat down for coffee with writers who are looking for advice, and it's great to talk to them and find out about their writing and where they want to go with it. I feel like that's the best way I can help them. Everyone's different, but talking and finding out where they're at is important. I also occasionally -- only occasionally because I have so little time [two jobs!] -- will read a manuscript and give some feedback.

The best advice I can give aspiring writers is simple and something some people don't want to hear: Know the craft; know what you want to say and how you want to say it; do as much homework as you can about how to write the kind of book you want to write; don't even think about agents and publishers until you've completed a book; make sure the book you've completed is not just a first draft. I tell them to go to conferences like Crime Bake, and find out what publishers and editors are looking for, and how the process works. Join Mystery Writers of America or Sisters in Crime, and take advantage of the resources. Find resources online about how it all works. Find a good editor, not the retired English teacher next door, and expect to pay for editing. If your mom says your book is great, that's sweet, but listen to critiques from people who don't have any stake in making you feel good, and take their critiques to heart.
Also: Don't expect someone else to do your work for you, whether it's finding an agent or publisher, or learning about the craft and getting published. Be proactive and figure it out yourself.

Read books. Both good ones and bad ones, and learn from them. Don't get your dialogue from a buddy movie.

Don't give up or listen to people say it's "impossible" to get a book published.

My favorite quote is one from Thomas Edison: "Opportunity is missed by most people because it's dressed in overalls and looks like hard work."

Q. Stories can be told by using a different medium. Can you see your book as a film, audio, etc.? How would that alter the telling?


A. I have the audio rights to my Bernie O'Dea series, and my audio producer, Trudi Knoedler, does a great job with them. [Thanks Dale Phillips for the advice on how that all works!] I wouldn't say no to a movie or TV series, since it'd be nice to be on time with the mortgage check, but I know it would alter the story. I'd want it filmed in Maine, but likely wouldn't have control. They'd try to do Maine accents, no matter where it was filmed, and it'd be a disaster, like it always is. The actors wouldn't look anything like how they look in my head. All of that could alter the story, depending on what happens to my story and who has control. Whoever it is, it won't be me. All I have control over is the story I've told and I'd have to hold on to that. Hopefully, a movie or TV series or something would introduce people to my books, and hopefully they wouldn't be too bummed out when they read them that the police chief doesn't look like George Clooney or Bernie (Bernadette) the protagonist isn't a stick-thin glamour-puss.

Q. What's the next step in your writing world?

A. I'm working on a standalone, because it's hard enough to get an agent/new publisher as it is, but pitching the fourth book in a series would be banging my head against a wall. Not that I don't enjoy doing that. Writing the standalone has also freed up my writing a little -- I can go different places with characters, be a little edgier, think differently. I'm surprised how smoothly that happened. While I'm pitching that book, I'll write the fourth in the series, because those characters are still doing things in my head, and believe it or not, people are now asking me when it'll come out!

Q. Tell us a fun fact about yourself.

A. Not sure how fun this is, but since we all know each other so well now, I'll bring it up. The protagonist in my series has ADHD. I was diagnosed with it the same week I thought I'd finished my first book, Cold Hard News. It was kind of a relief, because it explained a lot about me and my life and also explained a lot of my protagonist's behavior. It still took me more than a year before I revised the book so that she had it, too. That was for a few reasons. I wasn't sure I wanted to "out" myself as having it. It's wildly misunderstood (just heard someone on a podcast say they don't think it exists). It's also not a "sexy" thing to have. When I say in my books that when it comes up, people get uncomfortable, or their eyes glaze over, or they change the subject, I'm not making that up. I'm also not making it up that it's sometimes easier to go through life letting people believe you're just really annoying and obnoxious than to tell them why. But then I realized that it's an opportunity to try to explain what it is and spread a little awareness. It also gives my book a "hook" that others don't have and makes my character easier to understand. And it's also honest and part of life. And, back to the awareness part, an honest depiction of what it is rather than someone who thinks they know what it is writing about it.

I tried to make it an organic part of the book instead of making it seem gratuitous, so I hope it worked. Funny, though, how rarely I get asked about it. And when someone does ask about it and I mention I have it myself, the person asking the question usually doesn't have much more to say.  Sometimes they look like they wish they hadn't asked.

And one more thing -- a lot of creative people have it. I love what goes on in my head and am never bored when I can be with myself. I can't imagine what it would be like to live a boring life, bereft of ideas and all the other cool stuff that can go on in your brain.

Q. Any other information you'd like to impart?
A. One of the best things about being a writer is that people read -- and seem to like -- my books. It may be an obvious thing, but it's not really something I ever thought about before it happened. It's the biggest thrill there is for me as a writer. Whether it's me or some other author you're reading, if you like the books, spread the word. Recommend them to friends who you think would like them. Go on Amazon and Goodreads and do a review. It really means a lot to a writer to know someone out there is reading their books and appreciating them. It makes it all worthwhile.

---

Web page:

https://www.maureenmilliken.com/

Where to buy:
Amazon https://www.amazon.com/News-Travels-Fast-Maureen-Milliken-
Audible  https://www.audible.com/search?keywords=maureen+milliken
S&H Publishing  http://sandhbooks.com/story/bernie-odea-mysteries/bad-news-travels-fast/
Sherman's book stores in Maine https://www.shermans.com/
Possibly other book stores
The trunk of my car.



Saturday, April 15, 2017

For Those Who Love Truth- Interview with Lee C. McIntyre- with update

Yes, we've been doing a lot of interviews here, because there are so many cool writers doing great work! Here's one that's a bit different, as Lee is publishing so far in the non-fiction world.
But we'll be talking about fiction- specifically why so many people believe in things that aren't true, even when shown the truth.
Disclaimer- those who are offended by facts, and prefer their opinions over verified science and reality should not read further. They are likely to have some beliefs challenged by a rational thinker. 


Bio:
Lee McIntyre is a Research Fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University and an Instructor in Ethics at Harvard Extension School. He holds a B.A. from Wesleyan University and a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor). He has taught philosophy at Colgate University, Boston University, Simmons College, Tufts Experimental College, and Harvard Extension School.

His most recent book is Respecting Truth:Willful Ignorance in the Internet Age (Routledge, 2015)


in which he explores the problem of why people sometimes refuse to believe something even when they have good evidence that it is true. In a forthcoming book, Post-Truth – which will be part of the “essential knowledge” series at MIT Press – he explores the recent attack on facts and truth since the 2016 Presidential election.

*****

Q. Lee, you wrote this book well before the current climate of a mass disbelief in facts. Did you see all this coming? Please tell us a bit about the origin.

A. I wouldn’t say I “saw it coming” because I had hoped it wouldn’t get to this point, but the idea of “denialism” was certainly out there and I was fighting against it. One of the most maddening things is that the tactics which were successfully used to obfuscate the truth about things like evolution, climate change, and vaccines have now made the jump to ALL factual topics. It used to be that political ideology was keeping people from believing the truth about science. Now it’s about things like whether it rained during Trump’s inauguration or whether the murder rate is going up. This is distressing because we’re moving in the wrong direction. 

Q. For some of us, it's frightening and impossible to understand how millions of people can just choose not to believe in reality, and still function. Tell us how this comes about.

A. It’s pretty frightening to me too, even though I’m trying to understand it better. In my new book Post-Truth, I’m examining some psychological research that has explored the question of disbelief in the face of evidence. What they’ve found is that we are wired with cognitive biases that can smooth the path toward irrationality. I don’t think anyone can really explain how evolution allows this (what’s the reward for disbelieving in truth?) but it is there, at the neural level. Of course, we’ve known for years that emotion, desire, and motivation can color our beliefs. Way  back in the 1950s Solomon Asch was doing work that showed that if you put someone in a room with others, and they all gave the wrong answer to a factual question, he’d do it too. These were situations where it was easy to tell that the answer was wrong, but there is a strong human desire to conform. Unfortunately, this is exacerbated by getting positive feedback for your mistakes, so when people hunker down in a news silo or a chat room where they are believing in wild things but everyone around them is too, they don’t get the kind of negative feedback that is necessary to change their beliefs. Belief becomes tribal. More recent psychological work has shown that once we get to this level, it is very hard to convince someone to change their mind, even when the facts are in their face. They just don’t see it. It’s not that they are being stubborn: they literally can’t see the truth anymore.

Q. Can you give an example?

A. Sure. During the 2016 election, conservative voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were targeted with a deluge of fake news in their Facebook feeds. This was a coordinated attack by Russia, where they hired thousands of hackers to produce ridiculously false and horrible stories about Hillary Clinton. You’d hope that people would be able to apply some critical reasoning skills and know that these weren’t true, but when your friends are passing the same stories back and forth, one might begin to wonder: “Does Hillary have a brain tumor?” “Did she organize a child sex slave ring out of a Washington DC pizza restaurant?” This sounds absurd, but in politics you ignore absurd stories at your peril. Remember the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” during the 2004 election, who were trying to make the case that John Kerry was a coward in Vietnam? He didn’t want to “dignify” it with a comment for two weeks. By then it was too late. When people hear false stories over and over again, and their friends are talking about them, they are more likely to believe it.

Q. What do you feel is the main reason people believe something obviously untrue?

A. It’s called motivated reasoning. In short, they want to believe it. If someone wants to believe something then there is an easy pathway in their brain to try to make it true. Daniel Kahneman talks about this in his wonderful book Thinking Fast and Slow. When we hear something that we want to be true, we engage in something called “confirmation bias,” which is when we go out and look for reasons to think that the belief is right. But the problem is that if you’re on the hunt for reasons to believe something you’re probably going to find it, even if the belief is wrong. This is why science has so much invested in testing a hypothesis – in trying to disconfirm a theory. You don’t learn much by examining evidence that one of your beliefs is true, you learn by trying to find evidence that it’s not. But who is going to take the time to do this? When we all got our news from the same media sources, there was more opportunity to work from the same set of facts. Now a lot of the alternative media are simply making things up, and no one can tell what the facts are anymore.

Q. Why is this mindset dangerous?

A. The main reason is that it’s so easy. Like I said, it’s wired in. Whether we’re liberal or conservative, our brains are set up to engage in a process that feels a lot like thinking, but it really isn’t. In the past, it may have felt safe to dismiss the kind of people who believed in conspiracy theories about climate change or government surveillance. Now those people are running the White House. And it’s dangerous at a general societal level too. Remember that fake news story about Hillary Clinton running a child sex slave ring?  A deranged man read the story and showed up at the pizza restaurant where it was allegedly taking place and fired off a few rounds from his shotgun. An even better example occurred a few weeks later when the Pakistani Defense minister read a fake news story that said that Israel would nuke Pakistan if they sent any ground troops to Syria. He immediately threatened nuclear retaliation against Israel. Fake news can get people killed.

Q. When public officials go on record with "alternate facts," do they know they're lying, or are they blinded by their ideology?

A. That’s a good question and it’s hard to know. There is a long tradition in American politics of “spinning,” which is putting the most favorable face on a set of facts. But I think we’re way beyond that now. It’s not necessarily that they know they’re lying, but maybe they’re not really sure what’s a lie and what’s the truth anymore. When you watch Kellyanne Conway , I think that most of the time she’s lying and she knows it. She’s too good at what she does to avoid the truth so assiduously. It must be a deliberate campaign of obfuscation. That said, some have argued that the best way to deceive others is to deceive yourself first. We saw this back on election night in 2008. Remember when Karl Rove was doing the color commentary for FOX News and he just wouldn’t accept that Obama had won the election? Even though FOX had already called it, he kept insisting that the numbers were wrong and that when a few more counties came in from Ohio, Romney would win “in a landslide.” That is delusion. That is someone who is so deep into their ideology that they can’t see the facts anymore. The goal is to stop people from getting to that point. Every lie has an audience. Even if you can’t convince the liar, what about the people who are listening? If we can stop someone before they make that slide from ignorance to “willful ignorance” to full blown denialism (or delusion), then we’ve done a good thing. But Karl Rove? I think he’s a lost cause. Kellyanne Conway too, because even if she’s aware of what she’s doing, she’ll never admit it.

Q. Tell us what rational, thinking people can do to counter this mass hysteria.

A. Fight back. Don’t let a lie go unchallenged. Keep relentlessly pushing the truth. The problem occurs when people are only hearing one side of the narrative. Propagandists have known this since Joseph Goebbels and probably before. It’s called the “reiteration effect.” If you hear something over and over you are more likely to believe it’s true. There is also something called “source amnesia,” which is when you remember the message, but forget whether it came from a reliable source. People who want to get others to believe their lies capitalize on this and they have to be fought. One of the most encouraging things I’ve read recently comes out of some of psychological research which shows that  if you just keep hammering people “right between the eyes” with the facts, eventually is has an effect. At first they resist and it may even backfire, but you can also break through. Also, remember that if someone hears the same facts from more than one source it will help them to believe it. The reiteration effect works both ways. Truth is a powerful weapon. And remember: all of these “irrational” people don’t think that they’re being irrational. In their mind, they’re looking for the truth too. (We know this from fiction right? The villain is the hero of his own narrative). We can capitalize on this. Give them some facts that challenge the narrative of lies they’re being fed by the ideologues and the propagandists.

Q. Is there anything we can do to keep this from happening in the first place?

A. Teach critical thinking! And teach it early. I just read about a 5th grade teacher in California who was teaching his students how to spot fake news. He made a game out of it. He gave them a rubric such as “look for copyright” and “look for a date on the story.” Simple things. Things a fifth grader could do. And they LOVED it. He said he can’t get them to go out for recess now until they play “the fake news game.” That is the right track. Also we forget that the expectation of objectivity in a news source is a fairly recent luxury. The concept of objectivity didn’t even exist for American news until about the 1830s and didn’t really catch on until the scourge of “yellow journalism” in the 1890s. People need to learn how to be skeptical of what they are reading again. We need to engage our brains and expect to question things. And if we want more objective, fact-checked, double-sourced, investigative journalism we should darn well be prepared to pay for it. I bought a subscription to both the New York Times and the Washington Post just after the election. I hear a lot of other people had the same idea.

Q. If someone came to you for advice on how to deal with the current political situation, how would you help?

A. This is a tough one, because I’m a philosopher and not a political activist. But the one thing I’d say is don’t give up. Stand up for what you believe in and make sure your elected representatives know how you feel. Truth matters. Facts matter. But your voice matters too. If you don’t make a statement about your beliefs they will get drowned out.

Q. Give us a bit of hope, some good news about all this.

A. It may seem that we have given up on truth, but that is not true. Even when people are going to be personally hurt by something that is true, they are reluctant to destroy it. Nixon kept the Watergate tapes. Criminals keep souvenirs. Why do we do this? Because I think that at some level people have a deep desire to know that the truth exists, even if they want to ignore it for a while. It’s like taking a kayak out into the ocean. It’s fun and exhilarating, but you want to make sure to keep the shoreline in sight.

Q. When you wrote Respecting Truth, did you map a good deal out in your head (or even outline) before crafting, or did you piece together ideas until a form came about?

A. I had been working on the issue of science denial for quite some time, so a lot of the outline was already there. But then I had to really dig into the examples and figure out how to make them accessible for a general audience. Another challenge was to figure out how to write a book where I was offering some perspective on the topic, while still telling a story. Philosophy is so argument oriented that we sometimes forget people are more convinced by an example or a story than a syllogism. I always outline. I can’t help it. But when I sit down to write it’s an act of pure serendipity. I’ve got all of these sources and pieces of things I want to say and I just draw on them and put them together. I guess it’s sort of like quilting (though I’ve never done that). You have the pieces but you have to be ready for snags and surprises along the way.

Q. What would you want a reader to take away from reading this book?

A. That it is possible to understand why science denial is happening and that we can do something about it. My goal in writing these days is to engage the general reader. I still write some technical philosophy that’s primarily for my professional colleagues, but I enjoy the challenge of trying to reach a wider audience as well. In Respecting Truth, I want to think clearly about issues that are important to all of us, and draw the public into debates that might have seemed closed off. Truth and reason have been the subject of philosophy for the past 2400 years. All of a sudden they’re sexy topics. I think we need to embrace that.

Q. Who should we be reading and listening to now? Are there writers with similar themes to yours? Who are your influences (can be writers, or even artists, musicians, or others) and what is it about their work that attracts you?

A. Everyone who is interested in the story of how we came to be at a point where facts and truth are in question should read Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s book Merchants of Doubt. It is a devastating history of how denialism over scientific topics (like smoking, acid rain, ozone, and climate change) has been manufactured by those who had money at stake. Ideology often has deep roots in economic interests. I don’t write about that aspect of it myself, but this book is great background for anyone who thinks it is all ideology. One of the most profoundly important books I’ve read in recent years is Robert Trivers’s The Folly of Fools, which talks about the role of deception and self-deception in human behavior. Trivers is a biologist, but he writes like a dream, and his insights are marvelous. In philosophy, I enjoy the work of Michael Lynch, Noretta Koertge, and Alex Rosenberg. In social science, there’s been some stunning work done by Sheena Iyengar, Brendan Nyhan, Jason Reifler, Daniel Kahneman, and Cass Sunstein. Some of my favorite “general audience” writers about similar topics are Robert Wright and Michael Shermer.

Q. Any goals you've set for yourself, professionally or personally? What's the next step in your writing world?

A. In addition to Post-Truth, I’m currently working on a book about scientific reasoning. At heart, I’m a philosopher of science and I have a theory of what’s so special about scientific reasoning. That’s not quite a general audience issue, but I’m writing it as clearly as possible, because I think that these days especially it’s an important issue for all of us. Post-Truth is a book that I’m really excited about. It’s short, pointed, and goes right to the heart of what I think is the main threat to our society today. But it’s also much more political than anything I’ve ever written. I’ve joked with my wife that if they ever start having political prisoners in the USA, they’ll have a cell waiting for me. I’m also an aspiring novelist. I love to read Joe Finder, Harlan Coben, and Linwood Barclay. I remember sitting on a beach one day reading John Grisham saying “I’ll bet I could do that…how hard can it be?” That was in 2004.

Q. Tell us a fun fact about yourself.

A. I once sat in the cockpit of an F-15 Eagle and got a perfect score on the Secret Service test to detect counterfeit money (not on the same day). I’ve also had a painting rejected by the Museum of Bad Art (not because it was too good, I can assure you).

Addendum: Lee now has a piece that has been accepted into the the permanent collection of the Museum of Bad Art.
Congratulations! Keep after your dreams to make them happen!

Q. Any other information you'd like to impart?

A. I believe that reading is our strongest weapon against tyranny.

---

Web page: leemcintyrebooks.com/

Where to buy:  https://www.amazon.com/Respecting-Truth-Willful-Ignorance-Internet/dp/1138888818/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492098049&sr=8-1&keywords=lee+mcintyre

Monday, March 21, 2016

It's a Wonderful Life- in Publishing

Saw an online discussion recently that made me think of a comparison, of how publishing is a bit like the movie It's A Wonderful Life.

Say what? Well, let's take a look. The Big Five traditional publishing companies often act like a group of Mr. Potters, the richest, greediest, and meanest men in town. Note that this whole comparison thing is a generalization, and not all of the people and groups are exactly representative, but as a whole, group efforts certainly do invite the comparison.

The Big Five sit on an excess of wealth, while many authors are scrabbling for enough money to pay a few bills. The Big Five engage in "sharp practice," refuse to pay all but a few authors a fair wage, and have an arrogance and a sneering contempt for the riff-raff and "garlic eaters" (authors and readers). For a prime example, look at Don Maass' public remarks about publishers "culling the prize cattle from the herd" (http://writerunboxed.com/2014/02/05/the-new-class-system/). There are many other utterances from people in the publishing industry expressing similar derision and scorn for writers, who are the very people that supply them with a comfortable living.

For a long time, crawling to the Potters was the only practical way to get published and read. Then along comes George Bailey, in the form of Jeff Bezos. He creates Amazon, which serves as the Bailey Building and Loan. It allowed authors to get published, distributed, and read, at such low cost all can afford it. And the world changed. Like owning your own home in Bailey Park, you can now publish your own book and forego being subservient to the Potters and whatever scraps they decide to toss your way. The Potters of the industry want the suckers to continue paying them rent forever, but many of the riff-raff authors have wised up, and are flocking to the Bailey Building and Loan, to strike out on their own. Maybe they won't have the biggest mansion in town, but they'll have something good- which most didn't have a chance at before.

And it drives the Potters absolutely insane. The Big Five and their cohorts publish hundreds of screechy, non-factual articles trashing Amazon for one thing or another, to the point where people amusedly call it "Amazon Derangement Syndrome," or ADS for short. There's one particular lapdog of the Potters at the New York Times who suffers from ADS in the extreme, and who writes a non-stop series of shrill screeds against Amazon, enough so that his name on a piece is enough to induce chuckles in those who follow industry news, because they know all the false arguments that will follow. No fact-checking or true journalism required- apparently, hating the most successful retailer and writing hit pieces on them is enough to get one a nice gig at the NYT.

If you ask the Potters why authors cannot get paid a little more equitably, say like 50% on ebook revenue instead of the measly 25% they now receive, you get a song-and-dance about how they're suffering. Oh, the poor Potters with their plush Manhattan offices, expense accounts, bonuses, and six-figure salaries are enduring such misery because they're dedicated to Art. Meanwhile, the Bailey Building and Loan gives authors 70%, and still makes money. You'd think there's a lesson there, but it's one the Potters don't want to learn, even though they're losing customers in droves.

I had an online discussion with one of the Potters, and he insisted they couldn't pay authors more, because everyone else in the publishing industry had to get paid, and did I want all those other people to go without? I told him that authors were not responsible for the salary of everyone else but themselves, and he might not want to keep saying that the only people that shouldn't get fairly paid are the content providers, without who, no one else in that field would be getting paid anything. It's a weird, inverted-pyramid style of thinking.

The Potters got rich because they had no competition for many years but each other. With the rise of ebooks and Amazon and other media, they now have a rapidly-shrinking market share, and it scares the daylights out of them. Then successful independent author (Bailey customer) Hugh Howey comes along, and with the help of a data guru, puts out quarterly reports that show most people would be better off with the Bailey Building and Loan route than with the Potters. And the Potters go bananas, calling the reports a pack of filthy lies, even though the reports painstakingly show how the data is gathered. To date, no one has offered better data- the Potters simply insist it cannot be true, because they don't want it to be.

The Potters say that authors shouldn't support the Bailey Building and Loan, because someday the BB&L will turn on its loyal customers, and give them less money. Well, that may be (or more likely not), but for now, all those authors are getting their books published and getting paid something for them. Some are even doing rather well.

The Potters are greedy, and so they charge too much for their ebooks in many cases, driving people to the Baileys in greater numbers. The Potter authors themselves know they'd sell more if the prices were lower, but the Potters don't care about stuff like that.

And with the Bailey Building and Loan, an author doesn't need a Potter contract, a devilish device designed to put most authors at a major disadvantage in publishing. And an author can get the cover they want, because many Potter authors get stuck with crappy stock art, or a cover that has nothing to do with the contents of the book.

Some people want to deal with the Potters, thinking it makes them better. Less than five years ago, I got an account with the Bailey Building and Loan, and have been doing great since. I'm happy about not having to deal with any Potters. I just don't care for their business methods, and their snotty attitude toward writers. I'm publishing and selling quality books in all formats and platforms, and gaining new fans all the time.

So just like the movie, It's a Wonderful Life- in Publishing. Thanks, George. Maybe, like Clarence, you'll get your wings.



Monday, October 17, 2011

Featured in the Spotlight

Got some great promo today, my novel and I are featured in today's online Chelmsford Patch, a site devoted to local happenings. Kudos to them for helping a writer get the word out to the community.

Your community may have a Patch, so if you have a book or other writing to promote, they would likely be willing to help you out. Free promo doesn't hurt.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Farewell Andy Rooney

Tonight we saw the swan song of another legend of broadcasting from back in the age of dinosaurs, as a 92-year-old Andy Rooney gave his sendoff.

I liked him most of the time, even though some found him a bit whiny for their taste. It was because he had standards of decency of human behavior and culture, and saw much to irk him these last 50 years or so.

So my wife thinks I should take over his job. As she says, I'm a grumpy old man who complains a lot, so why shouldn't I get paid well for it?

Monday, April 12, 2010

The Twilight of Journalism

Last Sunday, The Boston Globe published a large piece on their Op-Ed page. It was a load of company crap from an industry hack, telling us how wonderful genetically modified food is, and how it's so much better than organic food, which according to this wonk, is bad for us and the planet.

Wow. And they wonder why it's the twilight of journalism, where newspapers are dying off. Gee, maybe it has something to do with the fact that they keep acting like big-industry newsletters, rather than responsible journalists, pushing out every piece of spin mouthed by self-serving agents of those corporations, at the expense and detriment of the public.

The piece is full of lies and distortions, and is a long advertisement for an industry that has been exposed time and again for its bad practices and potential for disaster. The piece totally misrepresents the opposing view, and is an obvious piece of spin by someone who gets paid to shovel this crap at us.

For an example of what this piece is like, read the book "Toxic Sludge is good For You" by Stauber and Rampton. You'll find many similar examples by corporate mouthpieces.

It is truly shameful that one of the few good newspapers left would put this out to the public. It is a disservice to the readers, and not worth the space. It is indicative of why newspapers are in trouble and losing readership. Printing lies is bad journalism, and makes people mistrust the venue that prints them. So the Globe is digging its own grave. Sad, sad, sad.