Online Publishing

Just to add to my last blog, what I said about Internet publishers deserves more comment.

A few years ago, when I published The Story of St. Catrick, ebook publishers weren't something you could take all that seriously. Especially, what they call subsidy publishers, like the company where I published Catrick.

A subsidy publisher is one where the author pays a fee, and the publisher does just whatever the auther pays them to do. Unless you're absolutely sure that you have something that will sell, that doesn't need editing for grammer and style errors, and you have a budget to pour into marketing, I'd advise going with a publisher that doesn't charge a fee, but is picky as to what they'll publish -- in other words, they more often than not, send you a polite email saying your manuscript doesn't fit into their publishing agenda. When they do accept you, they take a personal interest in whether it sells or not. It doesn't just sit there, like Catrick did.

'More often than not' is a far better ratio than 999,999 times out of a million, which is more like what you get from standard 'New York' publishers. By 'New York', I don't mean they're necessarily situated in that great city, but that they are a standard paper-only publisher that has to print about a thousand copies of their first editions, and therefore must be absolutely sure that your book is going to sell a big enough persentage of that for them to make it profitible. New York has more than its share of those types, and the top ten lists are done from there.

In a few short years, times have changed. More authors are now making a sizable income from books published on-line. Some best sellers are in the ebook cattigory.

A side product of the downloadable book file (in PDF format or whatever) is P.O.D., or Publishing on Demand. Some publishers do it for you, some rely on a third party to do it. The company where I did Catrick also happens to do POD for other publishers, including one that is now deciding on my Pepe manuscript. POD is where they use ultra modern printer-copiers and desk size book binding machines to print only as many books as have been ordered, be it one, ten or 100. They don't have to pay storage cost, and they have less to loose if your book doesn't sell at all.

However, the non-subsidy companys are still picky, because they edit your book for you, they design a cover, and they market it, which still requires an investment on their part. The fact that they are picky also means that the book buyer can be sure that the books listed will be of a standard quality, and not the rants of some half literate crack-pot as they might find in a subsidy list.

As an author, you do, after all, want a market full of confident buyers.

The biggest obstacle you'll probably find is that a publisher is presently closed to submissions. They'll open again when their present pile of manuscripts get low enough to where they feel they can realisticly tell you they'll look at yours within the next six months to a year. They might say on their site when they expect to open.

The length of time that they take to review your manuscript is the other obstacle, but that's also the case with 'New York' publishers.

Anyway, here are some links. This one is for some articles about the state of internet publishing. Here's another one by author Piers Anthony, author of Zanth, with a list of both subsidy and non subsidy publishers. He comments on each one, giving negative views on some, forwarding his readers comments, and tells you which are subsidy publishers.

Blogsite, school, novels, etc.

I suppose it's about time for a new blog entry, even if I don't have anything profound to say that's going to blow the bloggusphere away. If I don't say something, then the next post below, entitled 'new look' is going to look funny on top with such an ancient date stuck on.

Speaking of 'new look', note the picture of me I've posted, which appears near the bottom of the page in the 'about me' section.

At this very moment, I'm sitting in the computer room of the school as I write. My four year old son has started school now. I hope he picks up Thai quickly. This is the best school for him in that it's bi-lingual. He can learn his Thai without forgetting his English.

I'm still trying to publish my novels. At least I have three on the market, which increases my chances of getting one published. I have all of them listed here. Also, I'm going with the internet publishers, which now seem to have a better future than they did before.

New Look

I've done a bit of revamping. The blogger.com people have added the option of labels, so I've added those. Also, I've expanded the archives to include some of my favourites from my earlier blogsite. I found I could force older entries by changing the date option, so some of the entries now predate my move to Blogspot. Some of these are also on the list at the top in the right hand panel. Some of them were published as articles on the Next Wave ezine.

Happy surfing...

It's "Love Your Local Atheist" week

On both Scott McKnight's blogsite and Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert, who doesn't believe in a creator -- ha ha, pun intended)', there have been some interesting discussions on atheism. I've put in a comment on both. I'll list them below, but first, here's an interesting one I found on Scott Adams' blog.

Wow - painful posts. I'll try to be brief.

It isn't irrational to look at evidence and make a decision based on what you can observe and trying to think clearly about that.

You have to understand that an orthodox Christian point of view believes that this is too small a way to look at the world as a whole.

Logic, math, philosophy, scientific method, etc... are all things made up by some guy (or a groups of guys over time). That shouldn't diminish them in any way, they are smart and useful and good.

But if you really take the assumption of religious faith seriously for just a second, of course God is bigger than those things - how could a small man-made thing ever adequately define or explain Him?

That would be like taking a square inch of a Van Gogh and saying that there wasn't any evidence for good painting.

With a narrowly defined course of inquiry, of course you'll reach that conclusion. And it would be a rational one.

The bigger question is - is rationality the only measure? Is rationality the best measure?

I mean, if no religious person believes that the scientific method is the way to find God - then why are you confused that they don't buy your logical and scientifically correct arguments? You've lost before you've started. And vice versa.

You have to have an atheist that isn't threatened by considering things outside of the provable, and a believer who isn't threatened by someone who will tend to demand proof :)

It is such a non-starter to not accept the premise of the opposing camp and then start beating on each other.

It seems to me that the only way to have a conversation that isn't the nauseous restating of your already owned notion... is to agree on a premise that you can both live with. Then go from there.

Posted by: E | January 29, 2007 at 07:55 AM

Now, here are the comments I made, first the one I posted on Scott McKnight's blog, which was a disscussion of Dawkin's recent book. The question being posed was this: So - is Dawkins right, is Christianity hopelessly irrational? If not what is the correct approach to development of a rational, unified, and Christian worldview?:

If faith is what we believe simply because we’ve been taught it, then there is a point to Dawkin’s thesis.

For me, there’s more, but I don’t expect someone like Dawkin’s to readily accept it. I would point to Hebrews 11:1, using the litteral Greek terminology of “evidence” as being a legal term, and “substance” as being a scientific term. It’s something that is tangible, and those whose hearts have been been enlightened can see it, and it produces results when the the various factors are right (i.e. “with signs following” Mark 16…), but it’s found in a realm of reality that as yet seems to be out of reach of present day science.

I don’t doubt that if scientific research could be done using instruments that don’t just expand the five senses, but also the sixth sense, or else if quantum theory were expanded to something beyond a theory by enabling us to actually see sub-atomic activity etc. with absolute clarity, then faith would be fully contained within the realm of science. Humanity may never develope that level of skill. What we’re left with is something like a very subjective sixth sense, with a few pointers to be found in places such as scripture — a bit like “seeing through a glass darkly”.

An explanation like that is not enough to convince someone like Dawkins, but it’s enough to assure the likes of myself that what I’m following isn’t something hopelessly irrational.

...and here's the one I posted on the Scott Adams discussion:

I am of the opinion that the reason many theists won't allow atheists the benifit of the doubt that they are honestly atheists, is that some of us theists are still squirming and trying to convince ourselves that our theistic possition is the right one. The more evidence that the atheist's possition is untenable, the more secure we feel. Maybe we have too much to lose if we're proven wrong.

Real faith isn't just going along with something we've been taught all our lives, but, according to Hebrews 11:1, it's the "substance of things hoped for, and the evedince of the unseen." Once I decided I didn't have anything to lose anyway (and probably everything to gain if anyone did convince me of the "truth" of atheism), and rested on that, things became a lot easier.

What I've experienced is enough to convince me, but it may too subjective for someone like you. We might be looking with a different set of lenses, but we're also dealing with person. Proving the existance of a person (as opposed to a substance or a force) can be pretty tricky, especially when that person has a tendency to make himself scarse at times, responding only to those wearing the right set of lenses.

I believe that the way to engage an atheist in a discussion, as with anyone, be it a Moslem, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Nazi, etc., is with respect. That means, don't go in with the assumption that you know more what's going on in the atheist's mind then he/she does. Give him/her the benifit of a doubt that he/she actually is a genuine atheist. If you read just a few of the comments on Scott Adam's blog, you'll see that there are many types of atheists. For some, there's a fine line between atheism and agnosticism. Each has their own reason for calling him/herself an atheist. Also, don't go in claiming that atheism is a belief system that requires faith. Also, understand that the debate is probably not going to win anyone. Your love and respect will win more souls than your knowledge of science, etc.

For the same reason, I also believe one must never argue with a Moslem by referring to the Quran (unless you, yourself were once a Moslem), nor with a rabbi by using the Talmud or the Kaballa (unless you, yourself are Jewish). It's just not nice to try to show off the notion that you know more about the other's area of expertise than they do. It won't win them, rather drive them away.

On the other hand, if an atheist, a rabbi or a Moslem, or any other non-Christian comes at you using the Christian Bible, be gracious and answer him/her as best you can. It's a double standard, I know, but it's their soul we're interested in, not the fairness of the argument.

Transitions

It's been a while since I blogged. A lot has happened.
Since the entry entitled "We Moved", I have landed a job as a school teacher at a bi-lingual school. I've been teaching there since the end of October.
We really have a lot to be thankful for. About a month and ten days after leaving my job as a software tester in Belfast, I stood in front of a class room full of primary school students and began my attempts to fill their heads with the English Language. The previous blog post, the Christmas Poem, was written for the Christmas program. Five of the best readers in second grade read it in parts while I accompanied them on the violin. It seemed to go over well.
We've also moved to a two bedroom condo in a nice quiet clean neighbourhood with very reasonable rent.
I've also updated the "About Me" blurb on the right.
I hope I'll start being a bit more consistent in my blog posts from now on.

long long ago,
before there was ever
a Central Department Store
a Robinson's
or a Tesco shop
to put up lights
to play songs
and dress fat men up in red...

there was the Light.

that Light tried to shine
but the darkness wouldn't let it in

there were people living in the darkness
who needed the light

so, the light said,
“i will go into the darkness myself...

“i will be born as one of the people in the darkness...

“then, i will grow up as one of them...

“then i will shine,
and the darkness can't stop me.”

so, the Light was born

the Light chose a poor mamma and pappa

it chose the darkest spot to be born

so it was born
and became a baby

it was so dark
there was no room for the poor mamma and pappa to have the baby

the baby had to be born in a place where they keep horses donkeys
and other dirty animals

that's really not a healthy place to have a baby

the Light was born in the darkness

but this was too special to keep as a secret

special messengers of the light appeared to some poor shepherds

these were poor people who had to stay up all night
looking after other people's sheep

they heard that the Light had been born
and came running to see

a star of the Light shone in the sky

some people who can read the stars saw it

they knew that the Light had been bornthey came from a distant country to see the Light
who had been born as a baby

and that baby grew up

He began to shine

the darkness hasn't been able to stop it

today we still celebrate that Light

that's not exactly why
Central Department Store
Robinsons and Tesco
put up lights
and play songs
and dress fat men up in red...

some of that has to do with the darkness...

but it's why we celebrate that Light on Christmas

We've moved...

No, not the blog page, not the websites, but us, litterally.

We now live back in Bangkok. We arrived on the 20th of September.

I won't tell you of all our adventures of getting here, of our overweight baggage in Dublin, the fact that some of it is still lost in Bangkok's brand new. modern. efficient. etc., airport, etc. etc. But we're here.

Actually, I'm sitting at a guesthouse's internet PC in Kuala Lumpur, where I've applied for the type of visa I need to work in Thailand. I should be teaching English at a bilingual school soon.

Now, the little blurb you see immediately to the right of this entry is out of date.