Reblogs – Words Deferred

Reblog: The Anthropic Class Action Settlement — Writer Beware

As usual, Victoria Strauss at Writer Beware has some of the best coverage of the Anthropic settlement. If you haven’t been watching this lawsuit, the court determined that Anthropic’s AI training falls under fair use, but its illegal downloading of millions of books from pirating websites does not.

Anthropic apparently felt it was too risky and expensive to see the case to completion, with the real possibility of a judgement that falls close to the maximum statutory penalty of $150,000 per pirated work. That payout for even a fraction of the millions of books starts to look like the GDP of a small country. So they settled.

The settlement in this class action will likely grant a payout of roughly $3,000 per claimed work, but with a number of caveats. It only applies to works with proper copyright registration, currently estimated at around 500,000 books. The lawyers will get paid, and for books with a publisher who still holds rights, the publisher will also typically get about half.

If you think your work might be included, check the links from the article. There is an easy search function to see if your work was identified as pirated.

Writer Beware — The Anthropic Class Action Settlement

Unfortunately, many authors will be excluded due to the copyright registration requirement. Many self-published works, and even those with lazy “professional” publishers who never bothered to register their copyright cannot participate. For those who can, it will be months (and maybe longer) before any money sees the light of day.

Victoria also notes that this potentially record-breaking settlement is attracting the scavengers and parasites of the legal world.

Writer Beware — Predatory Opt Outs: The Speculators Come for the Anthropic Copyright Settlement

At least one law firm has targeted authors in the settlement class, trying to convince them to give up their right to participate in exchange for potential future lawsuits and the vague hope of a payout closer to the $150,000 maximum. Participants in the current lawsuit are already complaining that these advertisements and the website backing them amount to outright fraud.

Of course, the current settlement is just about guaranteed to pay something if you’re a qualifying author, and there is absolutely no guarantee that anyone opting out will get a better deal. This is a prime example of trading a bird in the hand for two in the bush.

That said, the current settlement terms are a lot less than many authors were hoping for. Part of the class-action structure gives legal right to any qualifying authors to opt out of the settlement if they have reason to think they can somehow get a better deal.

There are at least 50 other lawsuits pending against the big AI companies over copyright issues, and it’s quite possible that we haven’t heard the last word on the fair use issue, even if it’s not looking good so far for authors’ and publishers’ rights. Judging by the haphazard and questionable ways many of these companies have scraped the internet for training data, there may still be more big payouts yet to come.

Reblog: Contract Controversy (and Change) at Must Read Magazines — Writer Beware

I feel very out of the loop.

Apparently some of the longest-running genre fiction magazines still in print were bought up by a single entity at the start of the year: Asimov’s Science Fiction, Analog Science Fiction and Fact, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, Alfred Hitchcock’s Mystery Magazine, and Ellery Queen’s Mystery Magazine. Unfortunately, print magazines feel like a relic of the past, and even though sci-fi/fantasy has managed better than most fiction markets, it’s a tough business to be in.

There is some hope, as the group that now owns these magazines at least claims to be in it for the love of the fiction and the community, and not just to leech the remaining value like most private equity. Still, simply combining several similar magazines under one operation probably isn’t enough to keep things profitable. It appears that part of the strategy will be to try to leverage stories and IPs beyond magazines. This is at the heart of recent contract controversies, with the company using some pretty broad legal language.

Twenty years ago, when I was first getting serious about writing, these magazines were the most prestigious places a sci-fi/fantasy author could place their story. They are now sadly diminished, but some of that prestige still lingers. Let’s hope that they can find ways to keep the lights on without taking advantage of their writers and tarnishing the reputations that made them so beloved.

Check out the full article at the link below.

Contract Controversy (and Change) at Must Read Magazines

Reblog: Rejection Doesn’t Have to Hurt — Lev Raphael

Today’s reblog comes courtesy of the Lit Mag News Substack. Lev Raphael spins us a classic yarn of years of rejection finally turning into success. The secret: understanding why you write, and knowing who you’re writing for.

What eventually turned the tide? Distance and introspection. Away from New York and its toxic ideas of success, I asked myself a simple question: who might be my audience, given that I was writing so much about children of Holocaust survivors? The answer was obvious and should have hit me sooner: Jewish readers. As if by magic, once I started sending these Jewish-themed stories to Jewish magazines and newspapers, I was back on the publishing track and making money at it too.

Most writers are excited about writing, but many are deeply unexcited about marketing themselves or figuring out the commercial niches that their work fits into. Unfortunately for most of us, it’s a necessary skill to learn to sell our work, whether that be sending out short stories to the right publications, or seeking agents and publishers (or self-publishing) for books.

As Raphael says,

The main thing I learned from being accepted by publishers is that a book and its author are commodities that need to be sold, and the author has to work hard to sell both. You need to push aside any embarrassment and pull up your cyber sleeves.

Read the full article over at Lit Mag News…

Reblog: Acceptance Rates — Aeryn Rudel

Earlier this week, I mentioned personalized rejections. Lo and behold, Aeryn Rudel, the rejectomancer himself, recently provided a timely post about acceptance rates, personal rejections, and the editorial thresholds authors have to cross to actually sell a story.

Submission tools like Duotrope and Submission Grinder provide some rough statistics for reported acceptance rates, but even these have low sample sizes, and inevitably suffer from some systemic inaccuracies.

However you slice them, the numbers are daunting, with hundreds—or even thousands—of submissions being whittled down to only a handful of acceptances. This is the cruel math of short fiction publication. It’s nice to get some perspective from someone who has been submitting a lot of short fiction for years, and is kind enough to share his experience with the rest of us.

Recently, I was discussing the chances of getting published at some of the big genre markets with my author pals, and a few numbers were thrown around, some by yours truly. These numbers were mostly guess-work. None of us really know the exact percentage chance we’ll make it out of the slush pile and onto the editor’s desk, to say nothing of our chances of actually getting published. Then I remembered a few markets had actually told me how close I’d gotten to publication in their rejections, relating my near miss in terms of percentages.

Check out the rest over at Aeryn Rudel’s Rejectomancy…

Reblog: Finding Confidence — John August

This week’s reblog comes from screenwriter John August, of the popular Script Notes podcast. If you’re a fan of Script Notes, his SubStack Inneresting is really just more of the same in text form. I’d highly recommend it.

As usual, August comes at his topics from a screenwriter’s perspective, but the discussion pertains to any kind of writer. This one is a mailbag post addressing questions of confidence in writing.

First, there’s the question of insecurity vs. arrogance. I think most of us struggle with this in some form or another, even if we don’t have full-on imposter syndrome. When I was young, I read some advice that suggested cultivating both feelings simultaneously: be your own biggest critic, while also remembering all the ways that you’re fantastic. It’s a bit of a mental magic trick, but it’s a good goal to strive for.

Other questions include whether it benefits a writer to be unpopular or self-obsessed, and what to do when you’ve lost your confidence.

Read the rest over at John August’s blog, Inneresting…

Reblog: Just Say No to Artificial Intelligence In Your Creative Pursuits — Chuck Wendig

This week’s reblog is a timely rant by Chuck Wendig in the ongoing argument over AI art. Chuck definitely falls on the anti-AI side, which is where I land these days as well.

If I paid an actual artist actual money to paint me Batman and Mario doing the bat-nasty, the artist would be the one executing. The artist is still the artist. I’m just the guy paying the artist and asking them to give me what I want.

This is a great articulation of an argument against “prompt engineers” being artists. Sure, it’s a lot faster to ask AI to generate 50 slightly different versions of the picture you want, but your input is really no different than if you asked an actual human artist to do it. There is a certain serendipitous process of discovery and choice in the work of creating art.

Commissioning art is not the same as making art, no matter how detailed your prompts are.

Check out the full post on Wendig’s blog, Terrible Minds...

Reblog: This Year in Books (2023) — Nathan Bransford

Today’s reblog is Nathan Bransford’s recap of 2023. Bransford has worn many hats over the years: author, agent and editor, and is uniquely equipped to sort signal from noise in the writing and publishing landscape. This year’s takeaway is that it’s a weird and uncertain time to be an author or work in publishing.

Major acquisitions continue, nobody knows what’s going to happen with AI or the social media landscape, and we have yet to see what the long-term effects of the pandemic will be on the industry as a whole.

Check it out over at Nathan Bransford’s blog…

Reblog: On the State of Literary Magazines — Lincoln Michel

Today’s reblog is Lincoln Michel discussing the sorry state of short fiction magazines, which isn’t exactly anything new, but still worth paying attention to.

Check it out on Counter Craft.

I’m only just now learning of the fact that Amazon is no longer “publishing” periodicals on their Kindle platform. This seems bad, but they wouldn’t shut it down if it was making any significant money (although who knows where that line is at Amazon). It’s probably more a symptom of shrinking short fiction markets than a cause.

I have a few samples of these magazines on my Kindle. And I’m not subscribed to any of them. So I suppose I’m part of the problem.

When I first started writing, the fiction magazine landscape had already contracted quite a bit from the golden age, but it still seemed fairly strong. Magazines were the place to cut your teeth—standard advice was to submit short stories until you got good enough to publish, then publish short stories to build credibility for getting an agent to sell novels.

That old pipeline of short fiction into traditional publishing isn’t gone, but it seems like the funnel continues to narrow. Meanwhile, indie publishing has become a legitimate alternative for novels and novellas, but it’s no easier to stand out or make money as an indie, and I suspect hardly anyone is making money on indie short stories.

Maybe I should be grateful that I write SFF and there is still a professional short fiction scene at all. Maybe eventually they’ll all be non-paying or barely-paying markets.

Reblog: A.I. and the Fetishization Of Ideas — Chuck Wendig

I subscribe to more blogs than I could ever read, and the notifications steadily accumulate in my email inbox. This past weekend, I was making a vain attempt to clear through some of it, and I came across this post from Chuck Wendig.

In his usual rambling blog style, Wendig asserts that the problem with A.I.-generated art—whether that be visual media or text—is the fetishization of ideas and indifference to execution.

But again, the idea is a seed, that’s it. Ideas are certainly useful, but only so far. A good idea will not be saved by poor execution, but a bad idea can be saved by excellent execution. Even simple, pedestrian ideas can be made sublime in the hands of a powerful craftsman or artist. Not every idea needs to be revolutionary. Every idea needn’t be that original — I don’t mean to suggest the plagiarism is the way to go, I only mean in the general sense, it’s very difficult (and potentially impossible) to think of a truly original story idea that hasn’t in some form been told before. The originality in a narrative comes from you, the author, the artist. The originality comes out in the execution.

It is there in the effort.

(And any writer or artist will surely experience the fact that the execution of an idea helps to spawn more new ideas within the seedbed of that singular garden. Put differently, driving across country is so much more than plugging the directions into Google Maps — when the rubber meets road, when you meet obstacles, when there are sights to see, you change the journey and the journey changes you, because choices must be made.)

And herein lies the problem with the sudden surge and interest in artificial intelligence. AI-generated creativity isn’t creativity. It is all hat, no cowboy: all idea, no execution. It in fact relies on the obsession with, and fetishization of, THE IDEA. It’s the core of every get-rich-quick scheme, the basis of every lazy entrepreneur who thinks he has the Next Big Thing, the core of every author or artist or creator who is a “visionary” who has all the vision but none of the ability to execute upon that vision. Hell, it’s the thing every writer has heard from some jabroni who tells you, “I got this great idea, you write it, we’ll split the money 50/50, boom.” It is the belief that The Idea is of equal or greater importance than the effort it takes to make That Idea a reality.

Read the rest over at Terrible Minds…

Reblog: On “Prose-Forward” Writing and the Pleasures of Different Genre Conversations — Lincoln Michael

Good Lord, Lincoln Michael is a treasure. He lives with one foot in genre fiction and one foot in literary fiction, and he’s erudite enough to use that vantage point to illuminate the literary landscape.

Every time I read one of his Substack articles, I come away with five tabs open for further reading, and a whole new vocabulary to describe topics that I had vague ideas about, and which he has described with exacting precision.

In this post, Michael suggests that the common discussion of “invisible vs. visible” prose is shallow, and Max Gladstone’s tension between “textured and aerodynamic” prose adds to the conversation. He follows that up with a discussion of yet more theoretical axes for comparing fiction: plot-forward and prose-forward.

As an author who is published about equally in the SFF ecosystem and literary fiction ecosystem, this is a topic I think about a lot. It’s very easy to say “all these labels are false and mean nothing!” And obviously as someone who writes both SFF and “literary fiction” I think the binary is bullshit, the snobs on both sides are annoying, and all of these terms are fluid, overlapping, and spectrums. Etc. At the same time, questions of what gets called literary and what is embraced or rejected by SFF readers is a practical concern. Saying “it’s all bullshit” or “it’s all just marketing” doesn’t change the hard reality of where your work gets published, whether you have shots at awards, and how readers will find or fail to find your work.

…

I often hear SFF people ask why some speculative writers are embraced by the literary world and others aren’t. I think “prose-forward” is much of the answer. Indeed, I’d go so far as to say that “prose-forward” writing is the defining quality of what is called “literary” in general. (Note that in my view authors can be simultaneously literary and genre. This is a Venn diagram, not a binary.)

Prose-forward doesn’t mean a specific style but rather that the prose itself is an integral part of the work. The texture of it, to use Gladstone’s metaphor. That texture might be dense and lush like Southern Gothic or gritty and minimalist like dirty realism or a million other things. But the literary world places great focus on the texture of sentences, whatever that texture might be.

I’m a big fan of anyone who can get past the supposed binaries that people love to define for these kinds of topics, and Michael is great at sussing out those details and making me want to dig deeper.

Category: Reblogs