I’m subverting blog post/comment convention in order to share the Q&A that’s been going on in comments on Laura’s inaugural post here this past week (Book Smarts), because the questions GWP readers posted so far are ones I hear a lot, and I know everyone’s going to benefit from Laura’s responses. Have at it! And please feel free to post in comments book publishing industry related topics you’d like to Laura to address in a future post. – GWP

Blogger Ralphie said…
That marketing thing is difficult. Is it really true that the authors of all those terrific, sensitive, gorgeous-writing-filled books I read were out there “selling themselves” to get their first book published? I guess so, but it all just seems so… sad.

Blogger LauraM said…
I entirely agree, Ralphie. Marketing CAN be hard, and luckily for all of us, there are still editors and agents in this industry who are committed to finding those terrific, sensitive, gorgeous-writing projects without needing all the buzz. But the reality of book publishing is that it’s a narrow-margin enterprise. Want to guess how many books actually earn a profit for the author and publisher? It’s fewer than you think, and the pressure is on editors to champion the books that will make money, not lose it. So if you can offer your editor terrific, sensitive, gorgeous writing AND a solid marketing pitch, then you’ll have a huge advantage. And take heart—these days, having a web presence is very easy, and that’s a great first start to creating a platform for yourself. Start a blog, post on others’ blogs, be active in your writing. Let the rest follow from there. —Laura

Blogger Jay said…
Great advice, thanks! It’s a bit daunting to go back to my proposal and give it the overhaul you suggest but I can see how your suggestions will make it so much better. Do you think it’s worth hiring a professional look over/edit the proposal before I submit it?

Blogger Ericka said…
My problem has been Right Freeway, Wrong Lane. I’ve been in the “industry” a long time, a solid midlist nonfiction writer. And, I’m good at the marketing thing — I have website, blog, lots of PR experience and reading experience and radio and even TV — but my career has largely been for my non-fiction. And now I’m about to send my LITERARY NOVEL out there (in a month or so) and I fear that all that experience in the non-fiction realm won’t translate to the literary world. My “platform” has been parenting writing, and my novel is not that. (Though it is family-based.) Suggestions for how to spin my experience? I’m afraid it will seem like Apples and Oranges.

Blogger Caroline said…
This is so helpful to read right now, Laura, and I’m sure I’ll have questions for your future posts! As you know, I sold (modestly) one book, but now I’m working on something I’m hoping will have a broader audience, and your tips about presenting the proposal are perfectly timed for me. I’ll keep checking in for more!

Blogger LauraM said…
Hi Caroline, I’m so happy you posted! How are you, and how is your book coming along? I’d love to hear. And do ask any questions, I promise I’ll answer them if I can.

Ericka, hi! You know, I think you’re underestimating the value of having had previously published books, even if they are in a different category. The trick is to use those books to show that you have a solid foundation as a publisher writer. Make sure that your bio includes any and all positive reviews, blurbs, and media coverage for anything you’ve published before. And keep in mind that unless it’s a very high-level editor who is looking at your work, it’s not likely anyone is going to expect you to have had previous bestsellers. Midlist is a good place to be … dependable, successful. Just replace “midlist” with “backlist” (read: My books are STILL selling even after several years!), and you’ll be surprised what kind of attention that can get you. —L

Image cred

Blogger Amy Tiemann (aka Mojo Mom) has an excellent piece up over at Women’s eNews this week, titled “Obama v. Clinton Puts Stretch Marks on Sisterhood”, which beings:

“Sisterhood” bound women together during the second wave of feminism in the 1970s.

Fast-forward three decades, and it is time to start asking ourselves what happens when you try to stretch sisterhood across a generational divide and then push and pull it between the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Answer: serious stretch marks.

I couldn’t agree more (and kinda wish she had cited my book or Courtney and my WaPo oped somewhere–oops–down ego, down) when Amy writes:

Ten years from now we could look back on the arguments about Clinton v. Obama as the wedge that emphasized a generational divide, to the detriment of all women.

The Mother-Daughter dynamic illuminates a power differential. In many ways the Mothers have the upper hand. They control the largest established organizations, the purse strings of foundation grants. By excluding younger women’s definitions of feminism, however, the Mothers are short-circuiting their power.

The Mothers need to remember that they need the Daughters as well.

Gen-Xers such as myself are no longer children; we’re reaching our 40s now. Not only do we represent the future, we are the bridge to the millennial generation who will clean up after all of us.

And speaking of intergenerational, the WomenGirlsLadies crew can’t wait til tomorrow, when we’ll be conversing on this very topic and more over at Harvard, on the heels of that interesting conference on feminism over there the other week with Camille Paglia, Katie Roiphe, Christina Hoff Sommers and others. Perhaps we might all be together on a stage sometime cause that sure would be an interesting conversation.

(Thanks to Joanne over at PunditMom for the heads up on Amy’s piece!)

I’m posting this cause I dig the cover. It’s a book published in 2006 called A Woman for President: The Story of Victoria Woodhull, and it “brings a fascinating character from history to schoolchildren.” And in case folks are wondering who the Woodhull Institute is named for and all.

Check out this must-read piece from Marie Wilson over at HuffPo, called “Leading Like a Girl: For Men Only?”, which concludes:

I am on a crusade to have women risk revealing their authentic selves. As a group who bring important attributes to leadership, who can also be tough and in control, women’s leadership, having been honed at the foot on the table, has lessons and positive possibilities for us all. We have made it safe for men to play like the girls. Now is the time to claim our own ability to do the same.

Along the way, Marie touches on men’s and women’s investing styles and the gendering of political leadership styles. One of the smartest slants on these topics I’ve read in a while. Thank you Marie. (And thank you to Catalyst’s Laura Sabattini for the heads up!)

The Institute for Research on Women and Gender at Columbia University announces a fall conference:

“What is Feminist Politics Now? Local and Global, “19-20 September, 2008

The conference will explore:
– The changing meanings of feminism, and its goals (intellectual,social and political) in a global context: to examine whether these meanings can any longer be contained within the rubric of common social agendas.
– Emerging social movements within the United States and beyond, including those that foster the collective interests of women across national, class, religious, and racial borders; the common interests of women and men; and those that call for greater individual autonomy.
– Questions about how women within the post-industrial west can effectively relate to, and remain engaged with, issues that arise from diverse locations and affect differently situated women in different ways.

More info coming soon here.

Thanks to Broadsheet, I just discovered this new blog called Act Like a Man. by Edward Keenan, a writer for The Walrus (Canada’s New Yorker). Here’s his inaugural post, from March. And here’s what Jezebel has to say. Thoughts? And hey, I’m currently compiling a list of “man blogs”–blogs by men, exploring masculinity–so if you see one you think I might not know about, I’d be so grateful for the heads up!

Nuf said.

HAPPY APRIL 15 everyone! So Americans tend to think we’re better off than families in most other industrial countries because we pay lower income taxes. Right? NOT! As CCF reminds us today, when we factor in the higher amount Americans pay for health care, child care, and education, the comparison is not always in our favor. Where do American families’ tax dollars go and what family “value” they get in return?

For every $100 in income tax:
* $32 goes to national defense
* $19 goes to interest on the national debt
* $15 goes to supplemental programs such as TANF, child tax credits, and
farm subsidies
* $14 goes to health
* $6 goes to education, employment, and social services
* $4 goes to transportation
* $2 goes to administration of justice
* $2 goes to environment and natural resources
* $2 goes to international affairs
* $1 goes to community and regional development
* $1 goes to agriculture
* $1 goes to science, space, and technology
* $1 goes to the commerce and housing fund

Even at their height, the financial benefits of the last decade’s tax cuts for middle class families never equaled the financial benefits that citizens of many other countries receive in the form of monthly child allowances, universal health care, subsidized parental leaves and child care, and college assistance.

In most of Western Europe, citizens enjoy the right to near-universal health care. They do not have to forego routine care for financial reasons, and are not financially wiped out by catastrophic health emergencies. In America, this occurs frequently enough that one-quarter of financial bankruptcies originate in medical problems not covered by insurance. What’s more, of course, every other industrial nation in Western Europe, and most of the rest of the world as well, provides paid maternity leave, and in some cases paid paternity leave as well. In Belgium, free early childhood education is available to all children starting at the age of 2 ½.

Now that’s some family values. But wait–before we all head off to Canada or Sweden, I think we’d better stick around to see how our election plays out. One can still hope for a president who truly values families, which I think both the Democrats running honestly do. Did anyone hear the latest about McCain calling his wife a c—? Family values starts at home, John. Remember that, dude.

Sadly I couldn’t be there. If anyone who was would like to blog about it here and tell us what it was like, send me an email at girlwpen@yahoo.com!

The Guardian has a great piece up today by Polly Toynbee, “Girlification is Destroying All the Hope We Felt in 1968.” By “girlification,” Toynbee means pink princessification. I love neologisms on a Tuesday morning.

The article comes on the heels of an announcement from the UK’s Office for National Statistics yesterday, which reported that UK women in their 40s earn 20% less per hour than their male counterparts. Explains Toynbee, “This is the motherhood penalty – and the more children a woman has, the wider the gap. Young women start out earning almost the same, deluded by beating boys at exams. Motherhood knocks most out of the running.”

The piece goes on to ask, “so, what’s new?,” noting that 2008 is a year for reflection for her generation of women (aka second wave): “What happened in 1968? What really changed? The year of riots saw feminism ignite too, a year hazed in an illusory miasma that nothing would be the same again – but of course it was.”

Depressing. But just in case you aren’t depressed enough, Toynbee reminds us too that only 24% of parliamentary seats in the EU are occupied by women, 20% in the UK; and that 90% of top EU company boards are men. Women dominate primary school teaching, men run universities. The UK has the largest pay gap.

On the upside, Spain’s new cabinet is 50% female. GO SPAIN! And for more on the connection between pinkification and the mommy gap, read the rest here.