 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More writing. I am progressing steadily if not swiftly -- 2,000 new words a day seems to be the pattern. It's not sexy but it gets the job done without breaking anything (like me), and I'm in the Discovery phase of the last quarter of the plot. Always fun, that. "That wasn't what I thought happened! That's not what the outline says!" But, since it is that time of year, let me talk instead about royalties. No, wait. Let me talk about advances. Because they are the A of A + B= C where A is advance and B is back-end monies [aka royalties] and C is an actual career. An advance against royalties is what the publisher pays the author for the right to publish a book. It can be paid in a variety of ways, from half on signing the contract and half on delivery, to a seemingly endless series of drips and drabs, each triggered by an event [acceptance by the publisher of the outline, acceptance by the publisher of the manuscript, publication, six months after publication, reprint publication, etc] depending on the size of the advance. Larger advances often get broken into more and more-extended payments. [I will pause here to play devil's advocate and point out that the publisher not only sees no money until months after the book is published (unless they sell sub rights), but has the additional outlay of production costs. Not defending extended payouts, just laying all the facts out on the table.]So. That's A. There is always an A (if there isn't, get thee to another publisher, NOW). Sometimes there's a B, the back-end monies. B occurs when a book has been published and sold well enough to recoup the advance [remember: an advance against royalties] for the publisher. The advance is repaid, not out of the publisher's share of the net sales, but the author's share, reasonably enough. Once that advance is earned out, then the royalty percentage given to the author goes to the author, not to repayment. Twice a year, generally. Except because of the arcane and favorable-to-booksellers-and-publishers-n ot-authors way it's set up [reserves-against-returns is a whole 'nother post, if people want], a royalty statment covers six months of sales that happened 4-6 months ago [ they claim it takes that long for the accounts to be worked out. Having worked the other side of the desk, I can tell you....it actually does. Almost. Not because it's arcane but because the folk in the accounting departments hate everyone else. S'truth. I swear. And, having seen what passes for expense report record-keeping among editors and salespeople, I can't rightly blame them.] Anyway. If you've earned out, and are getting royalties, it means that your book exceeded expectations for that book [because that's what your advance is based on, the expectation of how well the book will sell]. Exceding expectations is possibly the best way to ensure a career -- no matter how much money you cost the publisher, or how much money you might make, if you fail to meet expectations they are unhappy and if you exceed expectations they are generally not-unhappy and willing to buy more books from you. Sometimes for more money. All this is why authors start to get twitchy at certain points in the year. We haunt our mailboxes, waiting, wondering... Because royalties are like snowstorms. You can make a prediction, but until you're actually shoveling, you have no idea what the final total will be. And, to add insult to injury, statements for unearned books come first. So you know what you're not getting... but not what you are. And me? Luna's statements go out later than mostly everyone else's, it seems. Argh. Don't ask me how I'm doing, I can't tell you yet. On the plus side, since I am not in debt, not in risk of foreclosure, not looking to meet hot singles, or find a new job, and the only thing I want to lengthen are my legs, I seem to be free of the risk of accidentally opening spam. Yay. And now the caffeine is brewed and it's time to hi ho hi ho.... Tags: business, money, publishing
the mood is::  tired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am lifting this in its entirety from dailykos, in case any of you aren't glancing over there on a semi-regular basis: ---------------------------------- As House members debated the latest "emergency supplemental" spending bill for Iraq, David Obey delivered a nice smackdown to John Culberson (R-TX) after he tried to trot out the usual Republican canard about Democrats, supporting the troops and pork: John Culberson (R-TX): ...it contains provisions that have nothing to do with our troop's survival and safety in the field. To burden our troops with pork, with tax increases, with special provisions that have nothing to do with the war, adds to, I think, the obvious misuse of the process and I urge members to vote against the pork and support our troops. Obey: I yield myself 30 seconds...I'd like the gentleman from Texas to point out a single piece of member pork in this bill. Culberson: Does the gentleman yield? Obey: Yes. Culberson: Mr., Mr. Chairman, there's a number of un-un-unnecessary provisions in this... Obey: Name one. Culberson: Well, why are we separating out, sir, why aren't we just passing... Obey: (nearly yelling) Name one. Culberson: Why are we... Obey: (yelling, finger pointing) Can you name one or can't you? The fact is there is not a single piece of member pork in this bill. You ought to... (pounding gavel, "time expired") Culberson: (inaudible)...why are we passing provisions in this bill with tax increases? (pounding gavel) "The gentlemen will cease their conversation. The time of 30 seconds has expired. All members are asked to address their remarks through the chair." Obey: I yield myself one additional minute....and through the chair, I would invite the member to name a specific piece of congressional pork in this bill. He cannot because there is none. He's at least had enough time to read the bill to know that. -------------- Look! Intelligence in the House! Someone call the press-- er, nevermind, they'll just get it wrong. Go check it out yourself. There's a link to the clip on YouTube. Tags: politics
the mood is::  enthralled
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BULLETIN: Gay-marriage ban overturned by California Supreme CourtEtA: ...We disagree, however, with the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that it is appropriate to reject sexual orientation as a suspect classification, in applying the California Constitution’s equal protection clause, on the ground that there is a question as to whether this characteristic is or is not “immutable.” Although we noted in Sail’er Inn that generally a person’s gender is viewed as an immutable trait, immutability is not invariably required in order for a characteristic to be considered a suspect classification for equal protection purposes.
California cases establish that a person’s religion is a suspect classification for equal protection purposes... and one’s religion, of course, is not immutable but is a matter over which an individual has control. ... Because a person’s sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one’s identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment ...Now the real squabbling begins. But out-front-and-public squabbling is what democracy's all about, innit? Go, California! Tags: politics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Writing. Laundry. E-mail. A couple of phone calls. More writing. Excitement R us. My morning reading: Mental Mirrors: Special Cells in the Brain Mimic The Actions and Intentions of Others, Forming the Basis of Empathy and Social Connections (adapted from MIRRORING PEOPLE: THE NEW SCIENCE OF HOW WE CONNECT WITH OTHERS, by Marco Iacoboni, FS&G, on-sale next month). I'm not sure if this is just something I already knew, or the author is really good at explaining the topic (I suspect a little of both) but a lot of it seems "well, yeah, obviously" to me. Not uninteresting, but obvious. However, the combination of the article and some people-watching I was doing last night is making me wonder about the nature of competitive conversationalism a la nature vs nurture. If you show awareness/interest by involuntarily mirroring the confederate, is it the lack of mirror neurons that prevents you from doing that? Or is it also a learned social dominance game-trait? In other words, is the person who runs roughshod over you and refuses to return social cues missing mirror neurons in some capacity or another (a sliding scale from 'rude' to 'low-functioning autism,' for example), or can you have a full compliment of mirror neurons and still not acknowledge* the other person/people in the equation, either intentionally or through lack of what we like to call social skills? It would be nice to say "oh, so-and-so can't help it, they're chemical that way," but I've always thought it was a bit of a cop-out. Maybe I'm wrong, and the cold and conversationally abusive among us need more help than Miss Manners can provide... *not in the 'cut direct" way, since that's a reaction itself, but as though the person wasn't even there. Or maybe I need more coffee. Yeah. And a bonus photo, for those interested:  Coke bottle shown actual size. Tags: science, tech
the mood is::  busy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So last night I went to the opening of the "Horse" exhibit at the Museum of Natural History. Wow. Unlike the Mythic Creatures exhibit, which was nice but a little light, this has (forgive me) more meat to it, from the genetic origins of equus through to the contemporary uses of therapy horses. There were a few blank spots, and I was heard to fact-check a few of the non-scientific displays, but we took a full two hours going through that one exhibit, and felt quite pleased with it, after. If you have any interest in horses, even just to see why they've been so important (in a relatively short time) to mankind's evolution, this is of interest. And oh my gawd, if you go through with young girls, just blindfold them when you walk out, because as usual it dumps you into the gift shop where they have Prepared for the 12 year old [in all of us] with horse-related gear in every size, shape, color and price range..... (including chocolate!) Museum horse! ( picspam )Live Horse! ( Picspam )and some feline picspam ( to round out the day )Tags: felines, horseplay, picspam
the mood is:: awake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous 
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
confused