"A Philosophical Treat on the Nature of a Published Author."

"Riches and Poverty, Fame and Anonymity, Critics and Fans and the Odd Man Out."

by Ken Pauls Milano

In the above heading, there are two analogies, though they are not paired as they should be—that is, riches and fame go hand in hand, just like poverty and anonymity draw from parallel circumstances; as the old cliché goes: they are like two peas in a pot.

On the other hand, critics and fans are as different from one another as it can only be imagined; they are utterly detached from each other’s frames of mind, and as dissimilar as a dog and a rainbow—to use another cliche I think I just invented, but despite that undeniable fact, many readers unaware that they’re being manipulated fall many times into the traps of the ill-advised and evil pennings manufactured by so-called critics.

I won’t disparage the whole of the critics’ community in this article, because that would be totally unfair. They are paid professionals that fulfill a niche in the publishing industry, and many of them are eloquent, fair-minded individuals that perform a contentious but otherwise benign surgery of the anatomy of the literature in front of them

Moreover, there are times when constructive criticism can be a plus but there are also times when immoderate criticism can be a double-edged dagger that can severe the arteries of the written speech and do more damage than help the intended target: namely the lone wolf that is the author himself.

And to be just, there are fans that take it into their heads to be cruel critics as if they had been cheated out of a huge inheritance, even though as a unit they are a more wholesome and forgiving community than that of the critics. Furthermore, fans’ critique can be very illuminating, since they are the backbone in any author’s career., even if that backbone is fickle and unstable at times like the shifting orbits of an asteroid field in the deepest reaches of space.Any writer, no matter what genre he’s in—can draw precious jewels out of the healthy criticism of his fans and the substantial harvest, he can reap after the seeds of judgement that had been sown down deep into his soul.

But I will digress now and ponder on the analogies I mentioned at the beginning of this article. By doing so, I believe I may yet untangle the web of uncertainty and mystery surrounding those subjects. I will analyze the ins and outs of riches and fame as well as poverty and anonymity in the publishing industry—a touchy subject of heated argument that spurts unequivocally in some circles concerning those subjects, and I will also dissect the direct effects they can have on an author, by either shrouding him with a veil of doubts or one of assuredness as they case may be.

A real writer should never write a single word with the sole purpose that money and fame will follow in his wake—it defeats the purpose of good and unselfish writing. Thus a real writer should mold and shape his words on a paper because he truly loves his craft—because he really loves to share his ideas and stories for the world to enjoy, and not the fame and riches that his work will eventually afford him. There’s no better feeling, than to hear a reader, unaware that you are listening, say commendable things about your work. That feeling can’t be beaten, not all the money in the world could buy that electrifying state of mind.

Of course, sometimes an author falls victim into the inevitable blackened, open pit that is poverty and anonymity and he anguishes and prays for a spark of recognition that never seems to materialize, which is a perfectly normal and human experience. Anonymity especially can brew dark doubts into an otherwise healthy mind and bring on the dreaded envy—enemy number one of any man no matter what his profession is.. Therefore, everything starts to revolve in a vicious circle from which is very hard to escape. However, the circle can be broken. The writer must maintain a positive attitude at all times and against all odds, even when everything seems to be conspiring against his person. His motto should be: "There will be better days, when my talent will be finally recognize." And he has to truly believe in it.

In a nutshell, and to finalize this article I must add that the author, well, he’s the odd man out. He gets to be thrown around amid the hurrahs and complaints of each contender, and you can guess already who’s doing all the hurrahs.

A last piece of advice. Hang in there buddy, your time of reckoning with the unpredictable business of publishing and money and fame and all that will eventually come, and you will take it by the horns and wrestle it down to the ground. Nary a wimp out of you from now on. Forward!

"An Honest Letter of Admonishment to Writers Digest's Staff."

"A Gender Specific No Contest Debate."

To whom it may concern:

I was a member of WD for a short while until I realized the obvious, and though it had been staring me in the face from the very beginning, I had not seen it—yet.

Funny, how it happened. I was reading one of their books, and suddenly—I would stop and ask myself, what happened? I wasn’t sure. I kept on reading, and I would stop again and again and think about what I was reading. I picked up another one of their published books, and the same thing kept on occurring over and over again. With all the stops, it was infuriating to lose the thread of what I was reading, to say the least. Why was this happening to me? Had I lost my concentration? Did I have any personal problems that interfered with my thoughts? It could be anything. I wasn’t sure, but I persevered.

By pure chance I picked other books, not published by WD, and it stopped happening just like that—finger clap. I asked myself, why was this occurring with some books and not with others? I didn’t have the slightest idea. I was beginning to have serious doubts about my mental equilibrium—that is until I put one and one together and got me an eleven in the bargain.

Eureka! Suddenly, it dawned on me. I had figured it out, at last. It was all a simple ‘case of mistaken identity.’ The common accepted pronouns were being switched invariably—on purpose, I may add. That is: He for she, his for hers, and him for her. It was convoluted to say the least. I asked myself then, why, would ‘anyone’ do that? After all, if WD wanted to make a case out of the masculine pronoun used as a rule, and they wanted to be fair to both sexes, then they should have used: ‘one,’ ‘they,’ ‘everybody,’ or whatever. But no. Instead, they used ‘she.’

Well, I thought, if we men, are to be considered chauvinist ‘pigs’ because literature has always been written using the male pronoun when referring to an unknown, third person entity, then we should consider WD to be a sexist, feminist organization that doesn’t care about its readers, besides all the confusion they have created with their outrageously silly use of pronouns. Even Agatha Christie, a woman and a great writer I have always admired, would be crying murder about now.

After all, ‘Mankind’ will always be mankind, not ‘womankind.’ (The latter sounds goofy, doesn’t it?) Man was created in the image of God, not woman. Don’t argue with me. It is written in ‘The Book.’ There is a son of God, not a daughter, right?

I may add, that my wife, daughter, mother-in-law, females in my family and friends of that persuasion, all agree with me. But enough of rhetoric, I will end this short rebuke by injecting here some words uttered by the renowned professor, William Strunk, Jr., author of the indispensable, “The Elements of Style.”

“The use of he as a pronoun for nouns embracing both genders is a simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language. He has lost all suggestion of maleness in these circumstances. The word was unquestionably biased to begin with ( the dominant male), but after hundreds of years it has become seemingly indispensable. It has no pejorative connotation; it is never incorrect. . . . No one need fear to use he if common sense supports it. The furor recently raised about he would be more impressive if there was a handy substitute for the word. Unfortunately, there isn’t—or, at least no one has come up in one yet. If you think she is a handy substitute for he, try it and see what happens. Alternatively, put all controversial nouns in the plural and avoid the choice of sex altogether, and you may find your prose sounding general and diffuse as a result.”

The former quotation by a man who really knew the essence of his bread and butter, is in itself very clarifying and enlightening to boot.

Moreover, and to add a few logs to the fire—what if all of a sudden, everyone started to refer to cars, ships, earth and the like, as ‘He’ instead of ‘She’ , it would be pretty foolish, wouldn’t it? Consider the next few sentences:

1.- ‘His’ name was Christine. ‘His’ curves were dauntingly scary. ‘His’ frightening bumper spelled trouble a mile away.”

2.- ‘The mother-ship took them all into ‘his’ hold. ‘He’ was a very large and modern vessel.”

3.- ‘Behold the fruits of mother Earth. ‘He’ is the giver of things. ‘He’ shall feed you and preserve you.

OR IF WE WERE TO SWITCH THE ROLES:

4.- Ask God for a miracle. ‘She’s all knowing, and ‘she’ might yet concede your wishes.

5.- To boldly go, where no ‘woman’ has gone before.

6.- We may consider the invention of radio, television and the light bulb among ‘women’s greatest achievements.

SOUNDS PLAIN SILLY, DOESN’T IT?
I rest my case. Period.

Ken Pauls Milano
Science Fiction Author