What is agent stalking? When does one cross the between just-a-guy-on-a-social network to full-blown Internet stalker? When one of my followers sent me a note addressing that very question, I took a knee. (Psst--that's military-talk for taking a moment to think things over). I think first I need to define what I consider Agent Stalking. This isn't calling the dude/ette in there office day after checking on the status of your query letter. This type of annoyance is more subtle, and offspring of modern technology and popular social networking tools.
I'm a huge fan of Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat. A good buddy of mine at the Command & General Staff College turned me on to Friedman's wisdom a couple years ago and I've been a true believer ever since. Maybe too much so.
Friedman says that a convergence of technology and events allowed India, China, and so many other countries to become part of the global supply chain for services and manufacturing, creating an explosion of middle classes wealth across the globe. To take it another step, this "flattening" continued with social networking to make it possible for people to connect with each other like never before, breaking down social and economic barriers faster than common sense could keep up.
There used to be barriers in the publishing world. Agents used to use snail-mail to receive manuscripts and queries (some still do, tree killers). The only time you saw them is when they either chose to see you or you were lucky enough to catch one at a convention. Publishers were more scarce, making use of agents to keep the legions of aspiring authors at bay.
Enter Email. Enter Facebook. Enter Twitter. Enter my pipe dream to become a repped and published writer. Enter way too easy access to virtually anyone on the net. You have just increased your ability to make a jackass of yourself a thousand fold.
A lot of literary agents are on Twitter and I follow more than a few of them. They offer amazing advice on how or how not to break into the publishing industry. They also present quite a bit of personal information.
Like the rest of us, they want a good cup of coffee. They're looking forward to seeing their team in the big game. They make snarky comments about current events and pop culture. They rave about a cool movie, or lament spending money on a bad one. This is where they become human. And this is where, if you're not careful, I think you can get in trouble for crossing a line.
A couple of the agents I follow are very entertaining. Occasionally, I find myself shooting them a funny comment (at least I think it's funny, maybe debatable), well, because that's who I am. I apply the Golden Rule when interacting with others. I don't send anyone a note I wouldn't want sent to me, and for the most part, I think it works.
But make no mistake about it, these individuals are still the keepers of the kingdom, and they should be respected accordingly. In the Army, we have rules against fraternization, preventing lower ranks from over-socializing with those higher. We're military, we have our reasons. I joke and poke fun at my boss all the time, but I do it respectfully. I apply this logic to when I trade comments with agents and editors.
One of the comments I was sent was something along the lines of, 'You're brave sending a comment to agent so-and-so.' I think it's okay to interact with these folks. They're human, like us, and God forbid you go out there and make a friend or two. I would caution against becoming too friendly with anyone you plan to query. There's some potential for disappointment and frustration when expectations aren't met. I have no plans to query either of the agents as I don't think their client list is compatible with my current work.
Now, back to the original question. When does interaction become stalking? I'd define that as a whole lot of unsolicited content that is either disrespectful, creepy or undesired (take your pick). Tough call there. I think if you shoot them one comment a month or less you're okay. But if you fire off about twenty in a week. And they're not your Follower?
Aw-kward.
You should probably take a knee.
Showing posts with label social networking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social networking. Show all posts
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, July 23, 2010
To Blog, or not to Blog?
Should unpublished writers blog?
That is the question. This week, a couple of influential bloggers, agent Mary Kole and writer Jodi Meadows, both weighed in on relatively opposite sides of the discussion. (I say relatively because since posting, their opinions are shown to be much closer than originally implied). After reading friend PJ Schnyder's post, I decided my own opinion was necessary. The
I say go for it. Whatever you want. Especially if you are a new and unpublished writer. Go wild.
Why? Because you ARE an unpublished writer. Use your blog and other social media networks to enjoy yourself and test your creative limits. Blogging daily or weekly encourages the development of good writing habits such as, say, the ability to meet a deadline (ignore the fact I failed to post last week) or
If you write something down, you're more likely to remember it later. If you see another writer or publishing professional put out some interesting factoid or advice, analyze it and blog about it. Do that and you're more likely to internalize it than if you simply saved a link somewhere in your bottomless collection of bookmarks.
Your blog doesn't have to be great. Shoot, it doesn't have to be good (although it would help). Hell, it doesn't even have to be amazingly average (think, blog devoted to cats, blech). It just needs to make you happy from week to week as you get out there and share your ideas. Look at it this way: It can only have a positive effect on your other writing efforts.
Now, on the flip side. If you're not enjoying it, if every day or week or month you look at the keyboard and say, "Damn, I have to do the freaking blog," then you should reconsider why your doing it in the first place. If it's not fun or enjoyable, then it's probably not worth doing. Although I usually say, 'if you can't do it right...', but that's a different discussion.
I also don't recommend 'bitch' blogs where you aim the rhetorical flamethrower at current or future employers, agents or corporate entities. If you're going to burn down the bridge, at least wait until your standing on it with a contract in hand.
Chances are, your blog and Facebook account are not going to help you get an agent and get published. Yes, there are exceptions, rare ones, but in the end you have to actually write material that is extremely interesting to achieve your breakthrough moment. It is at that point that you will be forced to reevaluate your position as you attempt to walk the fine line between image, publicity, and marketing. After all, when you're a successful writer, the big boys will have much $$$ invested. Don't be surprised if they not-so-subtly request you to make a change, or ten.
Make it big, delete your old blog, pretend it never happened, then hire a marketing firm and publicist to come up with the interesting material for you.
Again, not there yet? Go wild.
That is the question. This week, a couple of influential bloggers, agent Mary Kole and writer Jodi Meadows, both weighed in on relatively opposite sides of the discussion. (I say relatively because since posting, their opinions are shown to be much closer than originally implied). After reading friend PJ Schnyder's post, I decided my own opinion was necessary. The
I say go for it. Whatever you want. Especially if you are a new and unpublished writer. Go wild.
Why? Because you ARE an unpublished writer. Use your blog and other social media networks to enjoy yourself and test your creative limits. Blogging daily or weekly encourages the development of good writing habits such as, say, the ability to meet a deadline (ignore the fact I failed to post last week) or
If you write something down, you're more likely to remember it later. If you see another writer or publishing professional put out some interesting factoid or advice, analyze it and blog about it. Do that and you're more likely to internalize it than if you simply saved a link somewhere in your bottomless collection of bookmarks.
Your blog doesn't have to be great. Shoot, it doesn't have to be good (although it would help). Hell, it doesn't even have to be amazingly average (think, blog devoted to cats, blech). It just needs to make you happy from week to week as you get out there and share your ideas. Look at it this way: It can only have a positive effect on your other writing efforts.
Now, on the flip side. If you're not enjoying it, if every day or week or month you look at the keyboard and say, "Damn, I have to do the freaking blog," then you should reconsider why your doing it in the first place. If it's not fun or enjoyable, then it's probably not worth doing. Although I usually say, 'if you can't do it right...', but that's a different discussion.
I also don't recommend 'bitch' blogs where you aim the rhetorical flamethrower at current or future employers, agents or corporate entities. If you're going to burn down the bridge, at least wait until your standing on it with a contract in hand.
Chances are, your blog and Facebook account are not going to help you get an agent and get published. Yes, there are exceptions, rare ones, but in the end you have to actually write material that is extremely interesting to achieve your breakthrough moment. It is at that point that you will be forced to reevaluate your position as you attempt to walk the fine line between image, publicity, and marketing. After all, when you're a successful writer, the big boys will have much $$$ invested. Don't be surprised if they not-so-subtly request you to make a change, or ten.
Make it big, delete your old blog, pretend it never happened, then hire a marketing firm and publicist to come up with the interesting material for you.
Again, not there yet? Go wild.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
New DoD Policy Embraces Social Media
Last week was pretty huge for me for two reasons. First, author Jim Butcher personally provided some tremendously helpful advice, and second, my manuscript made it to the second round of the Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award. I was working on this week's post, a look at the Fort Hood Esquire article, but late in the week, the Department of Defense issued Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-026 - The DoD's policy for Responsible and Effective Use of Internet-based Capabilities.
For the last few years, the Army and other services faced a conundrum: How do you maintain operational security during a period of protracted conflict while dealing with the rapidly increasing popularity of social media. The policies that evolved from the problem were as inconsistent as they were perceived by the field to be unfair towards a young generation of service members who grew up with the expectation of free speech through social media.
It was difficult to watch senior leaders tweet and blog while Soldiers in the field were occasionally disciplined for doing nothing more than voicing their own opinion. Of course, this is the military, none of us are under the illusions that we service members have the same free speech rights as the rest of the civilian population. Nonetheless the perception of disparity was out there. Generals and Admirals Tweeted and Facebooked while Privates and Lieutenants were blocked from reaching the same sites.
The disparity needed to be address. The DoD recognized the disparity as well as the changing landscape of social media and its implications in the broader scheme. So, smart dudes gathered, panels conducted, and recommendations made. And after months of speculation, this last week the policy went public.
Basically, the new, unified policy allows access to social media outlets (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs) while still authorizing commanders in the field to "defend against malicious activity” and to bar access to sites with pornography, gambling or hate-crime content. Commanders can also block access to social media sites, particularly YouTube, as necessary to protect a mission or protect sufficient bandwidth, but, and this is a big but, only on a temporary basis.
It's no secret that I stopped posting to my blog because my local command in Iraq was uncomfortable with my blogging while they restricted the content of their own Soldiers. I had no problem shutting things down in the name of fairness and good order and discipline, but privately, I didn't enjoy seeing higher institutions blog away while those of us in the field watched from behind a firewall of mistrust.
Like many other Milbloggers, I don't thing this is going to have a huge impact on the great scheme of things. Soldiers that want to blog and Facebook did it anyway. They simply used friends and family members to get out their message. If anything, this new policy is more of an assist to commanders in the field, who now have clear guidance from their higher how to handle social media.
The public should see this as a reminder that there is a small percentage of the population serving you with honor and pride, and while we defend your rights of free expression, we are not granted them ourselves. I'll get back to writing about writing next week.
For the last few years, the Army and other services faced a conundrum: How do you maintain operational security during a period of protracted conflict while dealing with the rapidly increasing popularity of social media. The policies that evolved from the problem were as inconsistent as they were perceived by the field to be unfair towards a young generation of service members who grew up with the expectation of free speech through social media.
It was difficult to watch senior leaders tweet and blog while Soldiers in the field were occasionally disciplined for doing nothing more than voicing their own opinion. Of course, this is the military, none of us are under the illusions that we service members have the same free speech rights as the rest of the civilian population. Nonetheless the perception of disparity was out there. Generals and Admirals Tweeted and Facebooked while Privates and Lieutenants were blocked from reaching the same sites.
The disparity needed to be address. The DoD recognized the disparity as well as the changing landscape of social media and its implications in the broader scheme. So, smart dudes gathered, panels conducted, and recommendations made. And after months of speculation, this last week the policy went public.
Basically, the new, unified policy allows access to social media outlets (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs) while still authorizing commanders in the field to "defend against malicious activity” and to bar access to sites with pornography, gambling or hate-crime content. Commanders can also block access to social media sites, particularly YouTube, as necessary to protect a mission or protect sufficient bandwidth, but, and this is a big but, only on a temporary basis.
It's no secret that I stopped posting to my blog because my local command in Iraq was uncomfortable with my blogging while they restricted the content of their own Soldiers. I had no problem shutting things down in the name of fairness and good order and discipline, but privately, I didn't enjoy seeing higher institutions blog away while those of us in the field watched from behind a firewall of mistrust.
Like many other Milbloggers, I don't thing this is going to have a huge impact on the great scheme of things. Soldiers that want to blog and Facebook did it anyway. They simply used friends and family members to get out their message. If anything, this new policy is more of an assist to commanders in the field, who now have clear guidance from their higher how to handle social media.
The public should see this as a reminder that there is a small percentage of the population serving you with honor and pride, and while we defend your rights of free expression, we are not granted them ourselves. I'll get back to writing about writing next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
