Monday, September 18, 2006
HOW NOT TO GET PUBLISHED...
Wow. Just, wow.
Check this out. http://sarahryoffa.blogspot.com/2006/09/ya...ee-at-last.html
I think the blog is down now, but here's an excerpt:
"I just sent the Partial (letter, synopsis and first three chapters off to Anna Louise Genoese, the editor at Tor who said in March, 2006, she's looking for a Jewish-Inspirational-Paranormal Romance. This is not the "Hannukah book" of which she wisted, but otherwise, is precisely what she asked to see. Hopefully, she'll buy it.You can help make that happen!If you aren't already familiar with OST, go read the first chapter on my web site and then pop over to Anna's blog to ask her to buy it so you can go get it and read the rest. Be sure to give a name other than "Anonymous" though. Not only was there this recent tirade due to an "Anonymous" idiot poster, but it looks like "idiot author stuffing the ballot box" eh? Please don't do me that kind of "favor."Yes, rallying the editor to buy a book just submitted to her low-priority list is odd, unusual, even unheard of--and your point is? You haven't forgotten that this is Sarah R. Yoffa speaking, right? Just checking"
Wow. Need I say more?
On another note, yesterday was Constitution Day. On September 17, 1787, the U.S. Constitution was signed. I'm sure you all know the many and varied reasons why the Constitution is such an important document in our society, so I won't go into them. However, as most of the readers of my blog are writers, I thought I'd throw a reason out there that they may not have thought about.
Did you know that copyright law derives from the Constitution? Yup, Article 8, Section 8, Clause 8 gives Congress the power "To promote
the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
So, is writing "science" or is it "the useful arts"? I'm sure you'll guess "useful arts" but you would be wrong. Historically, "science" was the term used to describe writing. The "useful arts" was the application of today we refer to as "science" (although not in the 1700s) to invent new things. An examination of the wording of Clause 8 further demonstrates this parallelism: "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors..." Therefore, "authors" engaged in "science" and "inventors" engaged in "useful arts."
Therefore, Congress promotes the progress of "science" by giving "authors" copyrights and promtotes the progress of "useful arts" by giving "inventors" patents.
OK, geeky legal history lesson over.
For more on this all-important document, pop on over to the fabulous Q&A on the National Archives website: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html
Even if you think you know a lot about the Constitution, you still might learn something. :)
Posted by Amanda Brice ::
10:09 AM ::
Post a Comment