gallagherwitt - Tumblr blog

[gallagherwitt]

My husband and I are never outdoing this photo. XD Tom Ellis was such a good sport.

[gallagherwitt]

My husband and I printed out this meme and had Jason Zucker sign it. Even better, he said, “I need to take a picture to send to Tanger,” and snapped a picture on his phone. He thought it was hilarious and said, quote, “I was probably saying something stupid.”

So, @inappropriatestork​, please know that Jason Zucker thinks this is hilarious, and there’s a good chance Kris Letang does too. 10/10 meme.

The more I look at this the funnier it is - Sid appears to be highly enjoying Tanger’s outrage, while the ref looks like he’s HAD IT with the back talk.

[gallagherwitt]

NaNoWriMo and Publication.

NaNoWriMo is almost upon us, and with it comes another annual tradition: Newbie writers looking into publication options. There's nothing wrong with this! If you have stars in your eyes about being a published author and about kicking off your career with this year's NaNo, but in the back of your mind you're thinking "it's just a pipe dream," I've got news for you: it's quite possible! NaNoWriMo 2008 pretty much kicked off my writing career, so... yeah. You can absolutely do it! There are a bajillion books and articles out there about the craft, about the work that goes into going from dream to publication, etc. There's plenty of stuff about how you need to actually finish and edit your book before publication enters the equation. I'm not going to rehash all that here. Instead, let's talk about things you should really, really know before you move toward publication. Because y'all... this industry is a fickle one, and it can be a brutal one. I want to share some things I've learned over the course of 14 years so that perhaps you can avoid some of the heartache and headache that I went through. In other words, here's an incomplete list of stuff I learned the hard way so you don't have to. 1. THERE IS NO ONE WAY TO PUBLISH.  Getting an agent and going the Big 5 route is valid. Self-publishing is valid. Small publishers are valid. I've done all three. Don't let anyone tell you that you MUST go (or avoid) a specific route, or that one "doesn't count.". By the same token, don't let anyone tell you that all publishers are created equal or that what works for one style/genre will work for another. More on that later. 2. READ AND UNDERSTAND YOUR CONTRACT BEFORE YOU SIGN IT. Ask questions if you don't understand. If a publisher gets testy because you ask for clarification, that is an enormous red flag. If they get testy when you ask them to modify the contract to be clearer, that is also an enormous red flag. If they are willing to (or threaten to) yank your contract because you won't sign it immediately or because you want it modified for clarity, that's a whole field of red flags. If they tell you the contract cannot be changed at all -- not just terms, but adjusting wording so both parties are satisfied that everything is clear -- there isn't enough fabric in the world to make a red flag that big. You get the idea. Many authors (myself included) recommend hiring a lawyer familiar with publishing to review your contract before you sign it. You can also approach a literary agent with a contract in hand, and they can handle negotiations for you. Don't get so excited over receiving a contract that you sign away the rights to your firstborn. Ask, ask, ask. 3. PUBLISHING YOUR BOOK IS A BUSINESS TRANSACTION, NOT "GIVING YOU A CHANCE." They are publishing your book so they make money. Yes, it feels great, and you should absolutely be proud of it, but don't lose sight of the reality of the relationship, which is a company packaging and selling your product for profit. Protect your intellectual property. Negotiate the contract so it's fair to both of you. Don't let your happiness over being published lure you into entering a business agreement that will screw you. 4. MONEY FLOWS FROM PUBLISHER TO AUTHOR. If you have to pay the publisher to publish your book, it's a vanity press, which is  a nice way of saying it's a predatory scam that takes advantage of people who don't understand publishing but want to see their book in print. Publishers purchase your publishing rights from you, and then they pay to edit/cover/market/package the book, and take a cut of the royalties before paying you. If they're asking you to pay for these things AND they're taking a cut of royalties, you're quite likely getting scammed out of both your IP and your money. There are exceptions to this -- usually for very small projects, niche subjects, etc. -- but these are quite rare.  Err on the side of assuming that pay-to-play is a scam. 5. SELF-PUBLISHING IS NOT THE SAME AS VANITY PUBLISHING. Self-publishers hire editors, cover artists, etc., but we a) retain ALL rights to our books and b) don't actually pay someone upfront to publish. Places like Amazon and Draft2Digital do take a cut of royalties in exchange for distribution, but we don't pay a fee like you would with a vanity project. 6. YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN MAKE MONEY (INCLUDING EARNING A LIVING) FROM WRITING. The reason I say this is not to encourage you to quit your day job or to paint some picture that all writers are swimming in money. Quite simply, it's because I see SO MANY young authors fall victim to the mentality of "I'm not going to make money off it anyway, so I'm not going to worry about this publisher's crappy royalties, trash marketing, upfront fees, etc." No. NO. *spritz spritz* BAD AUTHOR! NO!  It's okay if you're writing for fun and if money isn't your priority. Just don't get into the mindset that because you don't care about the money, you ALSO don't care if a shady publisher screws you. There is nothing greedy about protecting yourself and your interests. Even if your book only ever earns one dollar, that's YOUR dollar. 7. IT IS BETTER TO BE UNPUBLISHED THAN BADLY PUBLISHED. Publishers are not created equal. There are plenty out there with terrible editing and worse accounting, and I promise you, signing with them is a Faustian bargain: it might seem fabulous in the beginning, but the Devil will eventually come to collect, and it'll suck. Ask me how I know. 8. TALK TO AUTHORS BEFORE SIGNING WITH THEIR PUBLISHER. No one knows a publisher like its authors. And don't just talk to the newest authors -- the honeymoon phase is real, and when those rose-colored glasses come off, it can be ugly. Also, publishers can and do change over time, often not for the better. I've given rave reviews about publishers who eventually prompted me to retain a lawyer. Talk to their older authors, including both those who published maybe one or two books early on and those who've done ongoing work for the same house.  Most of us are eager to share industry professionals we're happy to work with, and are equally eager to warn others away when necessary. 9. JUDGE A PUBLISHER BY ITS BOOK COVERS. Book covers are marketing devices, and they are critically important. Look at what a publisher puts on their books, and decide if it's up to snuff. How does it compare to similar genres? How attractive is it? How easy is it to read the title? Is the quality consistent throughout the publisher's catalogue? Would you be happy with that style and quality on your book?  If the answer is no, move along. Because it's seriously heartbreaking to have a cover you don't like, especially when it's also a cover that READERS don't like. I have two books that had numerous reviews with "ignore the hideous cover and buy the book!" Cover art makes a BIG difference. Count on it. 10. SELF-PUBLISHING IS VALID. There are myriad reasons why people choose to go different routes, and I won't go into them all here, but many people like to turn up their noses at self-publishing as if it's on par with vanity presses. There was a time when that was true, but these days, many authors are going indie to retain control of their rights, to avoid getting financially screwed, etc. It's a perfectly valid way to publish your book. 11. IF YOUR BOOK DOESN'T GET PUBLISHED OR DOESN'T SELL WELL, YOU ARE NOT A FAILURE. Revise it and try again. Write another one. Many of us wrote multiple books before we were published, and it's often even more books after that before something takes off. If your first published book doesn't sell well, you will not vanish into obscurity, doomed to never see another word in print. In fact, if your fifth book takes off, you'll have a nice backlist already there for your new fans to find. Don't give up. 12. IF YOU DO GET SCREWED BY A PUBLISHER, YOUR WRITING DREAMS ARE RUINED. Nah, you're good, fam. It's a hard thing to go through, and it's discouraging as all hell, but unless there's some clause in your contract forbidding you from writing or publishing anywhere else ever again (and even the shadiest of shady publishers of shadiness won't usually try that), you can dust yourself off and do it again. You wrote something. You stubborned your way from a blinking cursor to a finished book, and you saw that book all the way to print. You can absolutely do it again. Don't give up. (Also don't sign a contract that prevents you from writing/publishing elsewhere.) 13. SERIOUSLY, DON'T GIVE UP. Persistence -- hell, straight up stubbornness -- is a virtue in this business. Rejection is a thing. Bad reviews are a thing. Perfectly good publishers turning stupid is a thing. Publishers close, books fail, trends die. It's not an easy business, but it's worth it. Don't give up. You'll get there. 14. OTHER AUTHORS ARE YOUR COMMUNITY, NOT YOUR COMPETITION.  Yes, we compete to a degree, but we're really all on the same team. A rising tide lifts all boats and all that. Join groups. Ask questions. Doesn't matter if you're published yet. Every veteran author was unpublished once, and many of us have been through things we would be THRILLED to help you avoid. Plus, I mean, we're writers. Someone else who wants to talk about writing? PULL UP A CHAIR, YO. 15. YOU'VE GOT THIS. Writing and publishing are tough, but don't let anyone tell you that you can't do it. Those of us who are published don't have some special X factor or magic ability that you lack. The only thing that separates us from you is that you're not here YET. We had unfinished manuscripts once too. We were unpublished. "But I'm not Stephen King!" And there was a time when no one knew who Stephen King was. He had to put in the work. I had to put in the work. You have to put in the work. There's no guarantee of degrees of success, but if your goal is to write and publish a book... put in the work. We did this, and so will you. Put your butt in the chair. Put your fingers on the keyboard. Put your words on the page. And when you're ready to break into publishing, there's a whole community of us who will happily help guide you. GO FORTH AND NANO!

[gallagherwitt]

Apparently some people need a refresher. *side-eyes Texas* (Spoiler: Texas doesn’t want to save babies, they want to control women, and the result is they’re going to oppress, maim, and kill woman. Pro-life indeed.)

Hey, single-issue voters? In particular, those whose single issue is abortion? We need to talk.

This isn’t a topic I usually wade (so to speak) into on social media, but after the recent election, reading comments/posts by people whose sole voting issue is abortion – whose start-to-finish interest in a politician is their stance on abortion – I just… I need to say something.

Or rather, I need to ask something:

Do you want to BAN abortion?Or do you want to do something to STOP abortion?

Because banning abortion does not stop abortion. It never has. It never will. There were abortions in the US before Roe vs Wade. There continue to be abortions in countries that have banned them.

We can argue all day long about this and why you still believe it should be criminalized and why I still believe it shouldn’t, but that’s not the point of this post. What I want to talk about is what actually WILL reduce abortions. Because believe it or not, we both want the same thing here: fewer abortions. Where we seem to differ is on how to accomplish that.

If you really truly want to do something about abortion, you need to do more than elect pro-life lawmakers and then dust off your hands because they’ll take it from there. The issue is far too nuanced and has far too many factors in play to simply say “No more abortions!” and call it a day.

If you want fewer abortions to happen, then you need lawmakers who…

1. Support affordable, accessible healthcare. A first trimester abortion is usually $1,000 or less. An uncomplicated vaginal birth without insurance can easily be 10x that much, if not more. That’s to say nothing of prenatal and postnatal care, C-sections, complications, stints in the NICU, etc. Even with insurance, it’s not unusual for new parents to take huge bills home along with their newborn, who they now also have to feed, house, and clothe. For someone barely staying fed, housed, and clothed already, those costs can spell disaster.

2. Support raising the federal minimum wage and other means of reducing poverty. Diana Greene Foster, a professor at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, a research group at the University of California, San Francisco, states that the single most common reason women cite for wanting an abortion is because they cannot afford to raise a child (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-abortion-hardship/denial-of-abortion-leads-to-economic-hardship-for-low-income-women-idUSKBN1F731Z). The more women you have in poverty, the more abortions will happen.

3. Support better protection for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. In some states, if a rapist impregnates his victim, he has parental rights, which he can use to have access to both the child and the victim for the next 18 years. Domestic abuse survivors often still have to interact with their abusers due to shared custody situations. Rapists and domestic abusers rarely see the inside of prison cells, never mind for any length of time. Instead of passing laws that require women to obtain permission from the father to get an abortion, even if that father raped her, we need lawmakers who believe victims should be protected from their abusers. Until such time as we do, none of us get to judge women who choose abortion so they won’t be shackled to their rapist for 18 years.

4. Don’t demonize late term abortion. I know this is one’s an extra hot button, but it’s important. Contrary to popular belief, liberals aren’t a bunch of evil people who encourage moms to abort at 37 weeks just because they feel like it. The vast, vast, VAST majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester, and the later they’re performed, the more likely they are to be for non-elective reasons. Putting severe limitations on late term abortions might make people feel better, but in practice, it does nothing to actually reduce elective abortions. What it DOES do is does cause serious red tape and heartache for the majority of people seeking late term abortions: those who are terminating wanted pregnancies due to catastrophic incompatible-with-life defects or to save their own lives.

5. Support comprehensive sex ed in public schools. The more kids know, the better. You’re not doing kids any favors by keeping information from them or leaving it to their parents to teach it at home.

6. Support affordable, accessible birth control. I genuinely don’t care if you think we should be “subsidizing people’s sex lives.” Accessible birth control means fewer unwanted pregnancies, and fewer unwanted pregnancies mean fewer abortions. If fewer abortions really is your goal, then there’s no logical reason to be against making birth control as readily available as possible.

7. Support better support systems for working parents and parents attending school. Childcare costs are through the roof, and many women cite “having a child would interfere with education” as a reason to have an abortion (https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589). If someone is already working three jobs to keep their head above water, an abortion may very well be the solution to avoid financial disaster.

8. Support mandatory paid parental leave. And not just 6 weeks, either. The rest of the world provides months and upwards of two years of maternity leave without their economy imploding. The US has no excuse, and no leg to stand on to shame mothers who abort a pregnancy because they simply won’t be able to survive taking even a couple of unpaid weeks off to recover from having a baby.

9. Support affordable higher education. Seeing a pattern yet? The things people need in order to have the stability to cope with an unexpected pregnancy are astronomically expensive, putting them well out of reach for many would-be mothers. Education is one of those things.

If your candidate claims to be pro-life, but either doesn’t support or actively opposes any of the above, then why are you voting for them? Why are you choosing candidates who call themselves pro-life, but who aren’t actively working to reduce *demand* for abortions?

Which brings me back to my original question, one I hope you will consider before the next election:

Do you want to BAN abortion?

Or do you want to do something to STOP abortion?

Because they’re not the same thing.

[gallagherwitt]

[gallagherwitt]

[gallagherwitt]

Straight people: Stop sexualizing queer people.

Straight folks, I need you to stop doing something.

I need you to stop sexualizing everything queer folks do. It's gross, it's violating, and that's even before many of you take it WAY too far.

A public display of affection is just that. It's not "flaunting who we have sex with." It's not going to disturb and traumatize children. People in our community already have to be cautious about PDAs so they don't become targets of violence. Being targeted by your twisted perceptions of queerness just adds a layer of grossness. Our PDAs don't mean anything different than yours except that they also imply we feel safe enough to do them. Obviously we shouldn't feel as safe around some of you, because gross.

When a person comes out, they're not announcing what they do in the bedroom. They're telling you that the people they date and fall in love with aren't who you are conditioned to expect. They're not trying to get attention for being sexual deviants. They're asking for your support in a world where just being who they are and loving who they love can get them killed.

Including same-sex practices in sex ed programs is not training children to engage in perversion. It's teaching them how to protect themselves. When you twist it into some sinister recruiting or grooming, what you're actually doing is preventing young people from accessing information that can keep them safe when they become sexually active, and that can help them identify and talk about sexual abuse.

One go-to tactic of anti-queer people is to talk about all the disturbing and gross sexual practices they engage in. Proof they're just a bunch of perverts, right? I don't suppose its ever occurred to any of you that straight people engage in those same activities? Because they do. And queer people can have sex lives that are just as vanilla and boring as you imagine straight people's. Some are quite happily asexual, and I can only imagine how they feel when straight people assign sexual perversion to them.

And for God's sake, stop assuming every queer person is trying to prey on your kids. While you're wringing your hands and writing laws to keep trans people from having access to public restrooms, you're unironically letting that one straight uncle spend time with your kids even though they don't seem comfortable around him. Queer people are just trying to live our lives. Focus on actual predators (many of whom are straight) instead of painting us with that brush just because we're an easy target that doesn't make you uncomfortable with the knowledge that you probably know some real predators.

The list goes on.

As a queer person myself, it makes my skin crawl to hear straight people sexualize everything people in this community do. How would you feel if you kissed your spouse and everyone started talking about how gross it is that you flaunt who you screw? Or if they reduced your marriage to demanding that the state validate all your perverted practices? Or if they labeled you a child predator because you are attracted to consenting adults of your own sex? You'd feel pretty violated and gross, wouldn't you?

Think about that the next time you try to distill queerness to sex.

Because I can't speak for anyone else, but I am DONE being polite to straight people who sexualize people like me.

[gallagherwitt]

I do not wish Trump well, and here's why.

Many years ago, there was a person in my life who sowed resentment and discord wherever their tentacles could reach. The vitriol of a manipulative narcissist was something we all watched each other take on the chin, and then vented and commiserated about in private because that was all we could do. There was no point in pushing back. No point in trying to reason. There is no reasoning with a narcissist.

Plenty of people bought into the things this person said, and they would watch the abuse and then defend it to the abused. There were always excuses. They came from a different era. They're wonderful for doing X, Y, and Z, so you should suck it up and take the good with the bad. They just want what's best for you, and you're too ungrateful to see it. Needless to say, my relationships with those people were strained at best.

This person was ill for a long time, and there came a point when the end wasn't far off. People were coming from miles away to visit them, or calling if they couldn't make the trip, and everyone made sure to seize that last opportunity to spend time with this person before they were gone forever.

Everyone except me.

I was one house over. For nearly two weeks, I was less than a hundred steps from my front door to theirs. People asked when I was going to go, and they chided me when I said "Never." People pressured me to grab this chance before it was gone and I said "No." People tsked and told me I would regret if it I didn't go and I said "I won't."

I stood by my word. I didn't go. Twenty years later, I have no regrets.

Because you see, this person had been the architect of a lot of misery in my life. They'd been terrible to me and to those around me. Their illness didn't negate any of that. Their impending death didn't erase it. The fact that this person was seriously ill didn't un-batter my psyche or un-speak all the things they'd said over the years.

I was exhausted. Maybe they were running out of time, but I was out of energy, and quite frankly, I did not believe -- and still do not believe -- that I was obligated to conjure up the effort it would have taken to perform the grief that was expected of me.

And that's where I am today.

I haven't slept right in four years. I've always had trouble sleeping, but the 2016 election ushered in a level of insomnia even I had never experienced before. Not a night has gone by that I haven't spent time lying awake, worrying myself sick about the future of this country, and it's only worsened with time.

Particularly in 2020, I've watched friends and family enduring illness, fear, grief, and strife that show no sign of abating. People I love are legitimately afraid of losing their rights, and of losing things they need so they don't lose their lives. They're afraid of being unable to avoid a serious and potentially life-altering -- or life-ending -- illness because they have no choice but to expose themselves to it.

During a time when we need a leader, we have had a provocateur of distrust in science and in each other. When we need information, we are bombarded with lies, stoking confusion when we need clarity. When we need a leader the most, we're being run by the worst-case scenario, and we're collectively paying the price for his incompetence, his dishonesty, and his prioritization of his ego and image over the well-being of our country.

Now Trump, the catalyst of that all fear and confusion, has COVID-19.

People are calling for unity, decency, and decorum for the man who has refused to demonstrate the same at every turn. People want us all to come together and hope for the best, and at the very least, to offer well wishes.

No.

I won't wish him ill. I won't wish death or suffering on him or anyone else.

But the last four years have left me mentally, emotionally, and physically exhausted in ways I have never experienced.

With his words and actions, Trump has forfeited any right to the effort or energy it would take to wish him well.

[gallagherwitt]

[gallagherwitt]

ruth bader ginsburg has died. call your senators and remind them over and over and over again of mitch mcconnell’s own rule to not replace supreme court justices in a presidential election year. call them as many times as it takes until they agree to not fill the seat until 2021. 202-224-3121

[gallagherwitt]

I'm done letting the anti-abortionists control the debate.

I'm done letting the anti-abortionists control the debate.

There are plenty of reasons why, but one that's been particularly frustrating to me is how their narrative excuses them from responsibility for their contributions to the very things they argue against.

One of their go-to arguments is "How can you support allowing abortions up to the day of birth, or even allowing newborns to just DIE right after birth?"

And my response to that is that we wouldn't even need to have this conversation if it weren't for the myopic approach to anti-abortion legislation. My response is, "How can YOU support forcing a mother to carry a dead or dying fetus to term? How can YOU support denying palliative care to terminally ill newborns?"

Because that's what necessitated that legislation you're all so outraged over: The "born-alive" measures pushed by anti-abortion activists require that if a baby is born alive, life-saving measures are required. Period.

Who gets caught in that net? Terminally ill babies. Babies with defects that are incompatible with life and will result in death shortly after birth.

Those laws you screech about? The laws that "allow a baby to die" (or "allow them to kill a baby") right after birth? Those were designed to protect parents who know their child is going to die, and who want to, in lieu of heroic measures, give that child the most peaceful and comfortable death they can.

How can you deny such a comfort to a dying infant and their parents? How can you force a dying infant to die attached to tubes and wires instead of in their parents' arms? How can you take away that little bit of peace to a family going through something so terrible?

And "terminating up to the point of birth"? You know why that is? Because you all keep pushing increasingly restrictive measures on late term abortions without stopping to think about who is actually affected by those measures. You want a line in the sand, a period of gestation after which abortion cannot be allowed.

Who gets caught in THAT net? Mothers whose fetuses have died or are dying. Because "terminating a pregnancy" legally and medically includes removing a dead fetus. And sometimes catastrophic problems occur or are discovered late in the pregnancy. Sometimes the painful choice is made to terminate rather than let the baby suffer at birth. When the other choice is made -- to carry the baby to term and let them die after birth -- then they're caught up in the aforementioned born-alive laws. Pregnancies can go terribly wrong and put the mother's life in jeopardy too -- no one should have to worry about running afoul of the law while trying to save the mother, but those late term abortion laws can restrict a doctor's options during a critical emergency.

How can you force someone to carry a dead or dying baby? How can you decide FOR THEM what is best?

See, in the name of being virtuous and moral, in the name of stopping some mythical sociopath from deciding to abort at 38 weeks,  you've demanded increasing restrictions without stopping to think about WHO is really affected and HOW they're affected.

And so, in order to protect those who are affected, regulations become necessary, which you then use to demonize the pro-choice side by claiming that, in addition to just wanting to slaughter babies with impunity (which we don't), we support abortions at 39 weeks and letting infants die.

That is wrong, and I'm done letting it slide that it's BECAUSE OF ANTI-ABORTION ACTIVISM that those laws you demonize have become necessary.

You brought this on. You created this. Now OWN IT.

And what about first trimester abortions? Elective abortions? I'm done letting you paint this as if we're all celebrating each time someone aborts. As if we're trying to encourage as many abortions as possible.

You know what? If a pregnancy has occurred and the person is considering abortion, then there are some bad circumstances involved. In my mind -- and in my experience, the minds of other pro-choicers -- the solution is to address those circumstances. Make them less prevalent, less disastrous...and less likely to push someone in the direction of an abortion.

I want fewer abortions to happen because I want fewer people to be in situations where abortion is on the table, and this is why I support:

Affordable and accessible birth control, healthcare, housing, education, and childcare.

Paid parental leave (and not just the pitiful 12 weeks some American companies offer).

Higher wages.

Better support and protection for victims of abuse and assault.

Comprehensive sex ed in all public schools.

etc etc etc but it basically boils down to "reduce poverty and increase education."

In other words, address the demand, not the supply.

I am not some monster who rejoices at the idea of abortions. I'm glad the option is available for those who need it, but fewer abortions are better because it means people either aren't getting pregnant when they don't want to be or they can support the child they have.  I see the solution as giving people fewer reasons to seek abortion, not putting up more hurdles to get one.

So I'm done letting the anti-abortion side own the narrative. Your short-sighted "feels good over does good" push for abortion restrictions has *necessitated* many of the very measures you demonize.

THINK about who is affected.THINK about who seeks abortion and why.THINK about the repercussions of the restrictions you push.THINK about your responsibility for creating the very set of circumstances that made "allowing babies to die" legislation necessary.THINK about whether you really want to reduce abortion, or if you just want to ban it so you feel better about yourself.

And if you think I'm going to let you keep hijacking this debate and pretending we're just unrepentant baby killers...

...THINK again.

[gallagherwitt]

[gallagherwitt]

Hey, writer folks, let's talk editing for a minute.

Lately I've seen some posts by a number of writers concerned about the editing process. In particular, what happens when your editor starts trampling your voice? Or when they start changing things that are clearly a matter of taste, not structural or grammatical issues? Or when their comments are rude or condescending? Or when you don't even recognize your own book anymore, and not in a good way?

Basically, what happens when you get your manuscript back from your editor, and you get that sick feeling in your stomach like "This is ruined"?

First, right off the bat, without even getting into whether the editor is right or wrong, it's a perfectly natural and acceptable reaction when you have some hardcore edits that involve massive revisions. This is especially true early in your career, but trust me, it doesn't magically go away. It's tough on the ego to see that manuscript you worked so hard on come back slathered in red. It's demoralizing. And it's okay if you feel that way!

You know what I do when I get a set of edits? I go through it one time and let my inner toddler go nuts. I mentally flail and push back and holler and roll my eyes and "oh my GOD that is BULLSHIT" and I eat a cookie. Then I put the manuscript aside. The next day, I take a deep breath and go through it again, and more often than not -- especially now that I'm mostly indie and I hire editors who I mesh with -- the comments and changes aren't so bad after all. So I 100% give you permission to do that if getting it out of your system helps.

THAT BEING SAID.

The inner toddler isn't always wrong. When I read through it the second time, if my eyebrows keep climbing until they touch my hairline, it's possible that something is amiss here besides my ego needing a nap.

So what happens when you and your editor disagree? How do you know if the problem is the editor or the manuscript? And how do you handle it? Well, that can be tough, and the answer usually comes down to communication.

But let me say this upfront: it's not just you. After 11 years in print, I'm creeping up on 200 titles in my catalogue. I have, shall we say, extensive experience with editors, and it hasn't always been good.

With one publisher, I had to hire a copy editor on my own to go through and undo all the errors *their* copy editor inserted, not to mention fix all the ones they'd missed.  That's a pretty objective problem.  If your editor is missing mistakes or ADDING mistakes, then you need a new editor. Period. Do NOT be afraid to go to your senior editor (or your agent), tell them what the problem is, and request someone new. If the problem isn't resolved or you're told "this editor does a perfectly good job," then consider that a sign that you and the publisher have differing standards on quality. You might have to grit your teeth through the process on your currently contracted book(s) (that's why I hired an outside editor for mine), but consider not submitting to that publisher in the future. If you're an indie author who hired your own editor, you can fortunately choose not to use them again.

Sometimes it's a personality clash or a difference in taste or style. Maybe the editor's method of communicating rubs you the wrong way. I had an editor who thought that since I'm fairly sarcastic with a dry sense of humor most of the time, that would be an effective way of communicating via comments in a manuscript.

Spoiler: it was not. I have a thick skin when it comes to writing, but if I feel like my editor is making fun of me, talking down to me, or yelling at me, I shut down. I can't work like that. Solution: ask the editor to do things differently or ask for another editor. DO NOT grin and bear it if your editor is communicating in a way that's hurtful or counterproductive. You're equal partners here, and you have a right to be treated with respect. It's okay to say so if you feel that's not happening.

I also had an editor who did line edits by making the change they wanted to see rather than putting in a comment about how and why they thought it should change. I really liked that because in comparing my original to the tracked change, I could see what they were getting at, and even if I didn't accept their change in its entirety, it was a good way to communicate the issue to me. For us, it worked really well.

But that approach had the opposite effect on another author, who felt like the editor was stomping on their voice and just changing things willy nilly.  Neither of us was wrong, it was just different people responding to different means of communication. In that instance, simply approach the editor, explain why you would prefer they made comments instead of changes, and see what happens. If they're willing to do so, great! If not, you and the editor might not be compatible. That doesn't make you a diva or them a bad editor, it just means you're not a good match. That's okay!

Also, if they've made a suggestion or recommended a change, and you disagree with it or don't understand it, sometimes just typing out your concerns in an email or a reply to their comment can resolve it. I can't tell you how many times I've been in the middle of explaining to an editor why I wanted to keep something the way it was, and I talked myself right into a solution to their comment that I was happy with. The solution wasn't always what they'd initially recommended, but the result was that the problem they'd pointed out was fixed.

Which is another thing to keep in mind: if your editor suggests you do X to fix a problem, but you don't like X, think about WHY they want you to do it. What is X fixing? One of my editors told me "There isn't enough tension in this scene, so I recommend cutting it by 10% to tighten it up." I tried. Lord, I tried. But there was no way I could cut anything without losing vital information. So I revisited the comment. The problem wasn't that it needed to lose 10%. The problem was there wasn't enough tension. In the end, I ratcheted up the tension....by *adding* 10%.

So sometimes it's just a matter of stepping back and asking yourself, is this editor stomping all over your voice and tearing apart your work in a way you disagree with? Or is it a difference in communication style? Are they trying to hijack my book? Or does their suggestion illustrate a problem which I can fix in a way that is more satisfying to me and more in line with my story?

Also, a lot of writers have come of age hearing that you toe the line and do what your editor tells you to, or else you'll get blacklisted for being difficult. And to some extent, sure, you CAN cultivate a reputation for being an unreasonable diva, but there is an enormous gap between diva status and being a professional asking to be treated accordingly. If you feel your editor is being rude or they're hurting your story, say so. If you think there's a lapse in communication somewhere, say so.

If you don't understand something, ask. When my current editor makes suggestions for significant changes, it's not unusual at all for me to email her first and say "I'm thinking of doing X, Y, and Z to fix A, B, and C. What do you think?" Or "You suggested A, B, and C, but I think if I do X, Y, and Z it'll work better because... What do you think?" And we'll go back and forth a little before I ever touch the manuscript. It works beautifully, and I'm always confident going into the edits that I understand what the issues are and how to fix them. You're not alone when you're editing! Your editor is there to help you and to work with you, and if they won't do that, they're not doing their job!

Seeing a pattern here? Communication is crucial. If you aren't comfortable with something, or you don't understand something, or the way the editor is communicating isn't working for you, it's okay to speak up. It goes without saying that you need to be professional about it, but don't buy into the idea that for authors, "being professional" means gritting your teeth and taking whatever your editor shells out.

And yes, if you absolutely cannot work with an editor -- if just thinking about looking at that manuscript spikes your anxiety like a tornado siren just went off because the comments are rude, the changes are uncalled for, or something is just OFF -- it is acceptable to say "This author-editor relationship isn't working for me."

Yes, you can break up with your editor.

Obviously that's easiest for indie authors. We just...don't hire that editor again. With publishers, it's a little more complicated, but it CAN be done!

In just over a decade, there has been one occasion where I stopped midway through the edits, emailed the senior editor, and said "I'm not working with this person anymore. I want a new editor." This came after a round of edits left me so emotionally wrung out and beaten down that I was literally in tears over it, and if you know me, you know that says A LOT. The first draft of my email basically said "You know what? This book is obviously garbage. Let's just cancel it." I felt that bad about the whole thing. But after talking to some industry friends, I pulled myself together, realized the book was not the problem, and I sent a firmly-worded but still professional email to my senior editor.

You know what happened? I got a new editor. We scrapped the existing edits, started over, and it was like night and day. The edits were still intense, but they were reasonable, and instead of feeling like I was being told to nuke the book from orbit and start over, I felt like I was course correcting. In the end, readers loved the book, and I continued working with that editor for a long time because we meshed so flawlessly.

If you find yourself in a situation like this, and you're not sure if it's just you, run it by some trusted writer buddies. Ask some long-published veteran authors. It's okay to say "Something about this doesn't feel right -- what do you think?"

Don't suffer in silence! Get feedback from a third party. Talk to your editor. Talk to your senior editor or your agent if you have them. It could be just a simple miscommunication. It could be that you and this editor aren't compatible. But if no one knows you're struggling, they can't help.

And honestly, if there's one thing I've learned in working with literally dozens of editors over the years, it's that most of them genuinely do want you to succeed, and they want you to be happy with your book. If they do, they'll also meet you in the middle and try to make the whole process work for both of you. If they don't, well, then that's somebody you probably don't want to work with again if you can help it.

To recap:

Talk to your editor if you have concerns or if something isn't working.

Talk to your senior editor or agent (if you have them) if you think a new editor would be the best solution.

If you're truly unhappy with an editor, you might be stuck with them for the duration of one book or series, depending on your contract, but beyond contractual obligations, it's okay to choose not to work with them again. (And if it's really not a good situation, push for a different editor.)

 If an author and editor disagree, the author is not wrong by default. Neither is the editor.

Communicate, communicate, communicate.

Remember that you are colleagues, and you should expect to be treated accordingly.

Sometimes calmly explaining to your editor why you disagree with or don't understand their comment can lead your thought process right to the solution.

It's YOUR book. In the end, YOU should be happy with it. Your editor should be on your side.

 You are not obligated to correct a problem in the manner your editor suggested. Most problems have multiple possible solutions!

It's totally okay to email your editor and ask for clarification, bounce ideas off them for solutions, etc.

So go forth and bravely tackle those edits, but communicate like whoa and trust your gut if something doesn't feel right!

[gallagherwitt]

QAnon is actively, deliberately, and successfully grooming people to embrace fascism.

What’s that? Am I claiming that the kingpin of an organization of conspiracy theorists is actually behind a conspiracy of his own?

Yep. That’s exactly what I’m saying.

Stick with me, folks. I’ve been keeping my finger on the Q pulse for a while, and especially lately, this has become incredibly apparent. And not in the “look at all the pieces,” “take the red pill,” “wake up,” “open your eyes” kind of vagueness that Q’s followers use without realizing they sound like the cultists they are.

I mean looking at what is said, how it’s said, and how it’s making people think and behave.

For example, I just saw with my own eyes a Q follower outright state that the reason Trump and the GOP have been aggressively installing federal judges is so that after Trump's reelection, the infrastructure (trustworthy Constitutional judges) will be in place to try and convict members of the Deep State.

The whole narrative of Trump and others going after the "Deep State" and the "cabal of Satanic baby eaters and pedophiles," not to mention the constant drumbeat of "Trump is secretly renovating Gitmo to hold all these traitors" and "military tribunals are being set up as we speak"—QAnon's followers are eating it up and salivating for more, oblivious to the fact that they are eagerly embracing blatant fascism. It isn’t just creeping in and quietly setting up shop—there are people laying out the welcome mat and throwing it a parade in broad daylight with zero self-awareness.

There is an excited undercurrent right now because Q followers believe that Biden (along with Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, etc) are all going to be arrested any day now and tried for treason, convicted, and hanged. Don't listen to the mainstream media—they're in cahoots with the Deep State. It's all being driven by Soros and globalists, and if they are allowed to retain and gain more power, the United States and democracy are doomed.

Whoever is behind QAnon (and I’m going to go with the idea that he’s one male-identified person, just for the sake of brevity in my use of pronouns) has managed to socially engineer a large and growing group of people who claim to have a thorough understanding of the shadowy goings on in the government, but are completely unaware of what they're enthusiastically embracing.

The fear-mongering about globalism is part of nationalism, and is meant to make us wary of anyone who wants us to depend on or form alliances with other countries. Anything that seeks to unify the world is rejected and demonized as ushering in the New World Order, when in fact the entire narrative is meant to isolate us from the rest of the world, leaving us at the mercy of whoever is in power. “Build the wall” and “close the border” are battle cries of xenophobic nationalists who don’t realize that a wall and a closed border don’t just people out—they also keep people in. This xenophobic nationalism has been galvanized during the COVID-19 pandemic, in which people within this movement state with a straight face that the whole crisis (along with the BLM protests in the middle of it) was engineered by the Democrats along with China, globalists, and the media in order to damage Trump, steal the election, and usher in the NWO. It is, like everything, a false flag attack.

The liberal media’s alleged role in this segues nicely into the vilification of the media and the push for a state-run media, both of which are giant glowing neon signs of fascism. QAnon has taken Trump’s “fake news” narrative and pushed it ever harder, underscoring it with meme campaigns, videos, etc., with the never-ending “the media won’t tell you this” and “the media is afraid to tell you this.” Q’s followers swallow it up, resorting only to right wing sites and QAnon himself for their information. Fact-checkers are dismissed as biased and “Soros-backed.”

No one is to be trusted except for Trump, Q, and the handful of honest media outlets that toe the line of what is acceptable as truth. Anything critical of Trump or Q is to be rejected at once, because apparently no one paid attention to 1984. Anyone critical of Trump or Q are enemies, and are at best complacent (allowing the Deep State child rapists to remain in power) or are accomplices, and should be treated accordingly.

Whiiiiiich segues into that classic hallmark of fascism, "identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause." The Deep State, "illegals," Democrats ("left-wing extremist socialists"), George Soros (anti-Semitic dog whistle), etc. At every turn since Trump announced he was running, and at every turn since QAnon came on to the scene, there has been an “us vs them” mentality. There is always someone coming to take away our freedom, our democracy, our children, our jobs, etc.  Undocumented immigrants, Muslims, Democrats – always. Nothing will get better and everything will be a disaster unless and until THEY – because there is always a “THEY” – are arrested and punished.

Oh hey look, that dovetails nicely with another red flag of authoritarianism: arresting political opponents. Trump could announce today that every single Democrat is being arrested, sent to Guantanamo, and will be executed for treason, and the so-called Q Army would *cheer* because they've been so thoroughly brainwashed about the "Deep State" and the "cabal of pedophiles" that they never once stop to notice that the list of people accused of treason is a list of people who oppose Trump politically. Particularly as we get closer to the election, the salivating increases over “Obamagate,” imminent arrests, etc. without so much as an inkling of “Wait, arresting an entire political party right before an election sounds fishy.” Because they’ve all completely bought into the idea that the Democrats are Soros-backed globalists who rape and eat children.

Which brings me to yet another hallmark of fascism: obsession with crime and punishment. Mass arrests, Gitmo, military tribunals, executions—it’s all there on nauseating repeat, and Q’s followers LOVE IT. They don’t even realize that the idea of military tribunals for civilian offenses is, in and of itself, another notch in fascism’s bedpost: military supremacy.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Under the pretense of hardcore patriotism, QAnon has successfully convinced his followers to embrace and even cheer for fascism.

And they don’t even realize it.

[gallagherwitt]

Biden vs Trump = Lifeboat vs Shipwreck

Joe Biden is not going to magically fix this country.

I don't think anyone actually believes he will, but speaking only for myself, I don't believe for a second that a Biden presidency will return us to pre-Trump, or that our pre-Trump status quo was somehow idyllic or ideal. It wasn't. Otherwise we wouldn't have ended up with Trump or lawmakers who support him.

THAT SAID.

I look at a Biden presidency like a choice between a sinking ship and a lifeboat.

The sinking ship is obviously a bad choice that's only going to get worse. Stay aboard, and options start dwindling real fast.

The lifeboat isn't what anyone would call ideal either. You're still cold. You're still quite possibly wet. You're not out of the proverbial woods, and a whole lot is going to have to happen before anyone's sleeping comfortably in their beds.

But you have OPTIONS. You have a SHOT at getting back to shore.

The sinking ship is headed for the bottom of the ocean regardless of what you have to say about it.

Electing Biden isn't going to magically put us all back into our metaphorical warm beds and make the shipwreck a distant memory. But it is the one and only viable alternative we have to certain disaster.

I don't agree with a lot of Biden's policies, past or present. I'm not a fan. But the alternative is a candidate who has demonstrated he has no regard for the law, the truth, traditions, customs, foreign relations, or even basic decorum. He surrounds himself with sycophants, vilifies anyone who doesn't toe the line, and has no compunction about contorting government departments to service his purposes or behaving as if the Attorney General is his personal attorney.

No, Biden will not restore us to the previous status quo. No, Biden will not usher in a new era of something better. We as citizens are in for a long and arduous period of marching in the streets, demonstrating tirelessly, and holding elected officials' feet to the fire. Yes, there will be a collective sigh of relief on January 20th, and I suspect there will be a lot of people just taking that day for some long overdue self-care, but then on January 21st, the pressure is back on.

Because the fact of the matter is we're never going to get progress by asking nicely for it. We've tried, it didn't work, and now we're going to have to fight HARD for long overdue change (including changes that will make third party candidates viable in the future in ways they are NOT right now). And yes, it will still be an uphill battle post-Trump.

But if Trump remains in power, that battle is going to be a lot harder, because we'll be fighting against a president who not only disregards law and custom, he has nothing to lose because he doesn't have to worry about being reelected and Congress has demonstrated it won't hold him accountable.

There are two choices in this election. Yes, it sucks -- both that the system is currently set up to only allow for two viable candidates, and who those candidates are -- but that's going to be our reality until the electoral college and other problems are dealt with. They won't be dealt with between now and November.

In November 2020, we have a choice between a sinking ship and a lifeboat, and as someone who has studied authoritarian regimes for years, I cannot overstate how significant the difference is between Biden and Trump:

Biden means an ongoing and exhausting fight for change.

Trump means losing the freedom to fight for anything.

[gallagherwitt]

How about NO Jorgensen...

So I decided to take a look at Jo Jorgensen's campaign website, and I want to talk about her as a candidate.

NOTE: This post is NOT about her viability as a candidate, whether "a vote for Jo is a vote for Trump/Biden," etc. Though interestingly enough, she OPPOSES eliminating the electoral college.

After reading her website, I have come to the conclusion that I would NEVER vote for Jo Jorgensen.

It's not because I'm a partisan bootlicker. In fact I would love to have a POTUS who isn't a Democrat or Republican. No, it's because she is a terrible candidate. She's certainly consistent with Libertarian views of free market, keeping the government out of things, etc., but many of those views add up to someone I for one do NOT want in the White House, or even in Congress.

"Let the free market decide" sounds all noble and "yay liberty!" but history has shown time and again that the free market hurts the worker. The only people who benefit are the wealthy capitalists who, given free rein, prioritize profits over anything else at the expense of workers, communities, and the environment.

The idea that workers can simply choose not to work for companies with shitty compensation and working conditions fails to take into consideration that workers HAVE to work somewhere, and shopping around for an employer (which is how the free market would compel a company to provide better compensation) is a luxury that many, many people simply do not have.

The "free market" is unbridled capitalism, and history has demonstrated that such a market is violently destructive to us and to our environment. Her idea of a free market is a fantasy. The reality is a dystopian hellscape that has been documented time and again for centuries.

On the Q&A portion of Jorgensen's website, there are some things I agree with, but for the most part -- and looking at the big picture that all her answers create -- this is a candidate who is more concerned with the free market and a hands-off government than she is with the living conditions of actual people. Because a great many of her answers are meant to sound like more freedom, but in practice result in more suffering. When faced with a question about whether the government should help people, she almost invariably lands on "the government shouldn't do anything and the free market should decide."

As a voter, I can't abide by that. I don't want the government meddling in every facet of our lives, but I can also see from history that many of the regulations on wages, health and safety, etc., exist because they NEED to exist. Laws requiring decent wages didn't just fall out of the sky. They happened because people WEREN'T paying living wages. We wouldn't NEED environmental regulations if companies weren't dumping pollution into the environment.

In short, Jo Jorgensen errs on the side of the free market, and the free market errs on the side of the rich and powerful.

She's also clearly an isolationist and doesn't believe we should be helping any other nations, which I find remarkably consistent with the "I got mine, screw you" attitude of many Libertarians I've spoken with over the years. The United States is neither a literal nor metaphorical island, and quite honestly, I find isolationism to be dangerously close to nationalism.

From her website:

Q: Should the government raise the federal minimum wage? A: No, and eliminate all wage standards

Q: Should businesses be required to provide paid leave for full-time employees during the birth of a child or sick family member? A: No, private employers should be free to negotiate benefits with employees

Q: Should employers be required to pay men and women the same salary for the same job? A: No, the government should never determine what a private business should pay employees

Q: Do you believe labor unions help or hurt the economy? A: Hurt, I support some private unions but am strongly against public unions

Q: Should the government use economic stimulus to aid the country during times of recession? A: No

Q: Should the government subsidize farmers? A: No, end all government subsidies and let the free market run its course.

Q: Should pension payments be increased for retired government workers? A: No

Q: Should the U.S. remain in the United Nations? A: No

Q: Should the U.S. remain in NATO? A: No

Q: Should the U.S. continue to support Israel? A: No, we should not give aid to any foreign nations

Q: Do you support affirmative action programs? A: No

Q: Should internet service providers be allowed to speed up access to popular websites (that pay higher rates) at the expense of slowing down access to less popular websites (that pay lower rates)? A: Yes

Q: Should the government enforce a “stay-at-home” order to combat the coronavirus? A: No

Q: Should health insurers be allowed to deny coverage to individuals who have a pre-existing condition? A: Yes, and the government should not be involved in health insurance

Q: Should the government regulate the prices of life-saving drugs? A: No, the FDA should be abolished so that drug companies must compete to keep the price of all drugs down.

Q: Should the government increase funding for mental health research and treatment? A: No

Q: When should your state end the “Stay at Home” order and reopen its economy? A: State governments should never have issued “stay at home” orders

Q: Should the federal government increase funding of health care for low income individuals (Medicaid)? A: No

Q: Should the federal government be allowed to negotiate drug prices for Medicare? A: Yes, but ultimately replace medicare with free market solutions

Q: Should there be more or less privatization of veterans’ healthcare? A: More

Q: Do you support the use of hydraulic fracking to extract oil and natural gas resources? A: Yes, and hold fracking companies responsible for damages

Q: Should the U.S. withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement? A: Yes

Q: Should illegal immigrants have access to government-subsidized healthcare? A: Replace highly regulated US health care with a free market and voluntary charities that take much better care of everyone

Q: Should the electoral college be abolished? A: No. The electoral college was designed to protect representation of all states.

Q: Should political candidates be required to release their recent tax returns to the public? A: No, their income is none of our business

Q: Should the government increase spending on public transportation? A: No

Her website is here: https://www. jo20. com/ (copy and paste, then remove the spaces)