Erin Balser

Free lunch, with a side of contempt.

/ jlevack / 3 Comments

You know that old saw about there not being any such thing as a “free lunch”? I’m guessing that the contestants in the Canada Reads 2011 Hunger Games are thinking about that right about now.

They are everywhere. I see them tweeting and facebooking and getting themselves “out there” like crazy. I see the producers of the Games have them singing for their suppers: “Holiday Gift Guides”? please. I wonder if they’re paid for that work by the CBC? (odds are, they aren’t.) There are podcasts and interviews and articles and tweets…. it’s kind of crazy making, really. I’m starting to feel a bit sorry for them.

Not too much — really, it’s a great thing to be nominated and I’ll bet that it’s helped sales of their books. Always a good thing. I wonder, though, just how much dancing they’re doing? How much of their time is now taken up shilling for the CBC?

I’m being a bit harsh here — perhaps belabouring it a bit to make a point. But here’s the thing, and it’s the same thing that’s been bugging me all along: where is the dignity in this? Why is it that the authors not only create the art, but then have to run around selling it too? Since when do they have to write freaking holiday gift guides in order for the Hunger Games overseers to publicize their books?

I wonder what Flannery O’Connor would have put on her holiday gift guide or if she would have tweeted, tongue in cheek about how a “good book is hard to find”. Oh, how droll that would be, no? It would have helped the Hunger Games producers a lot, and would have been completely in keeping with the snide/sly/self-referential tone of the CBC Hunger Games’ branding.

Speaking of which. Can I just say that my deep antipathy to the over-all tone of the CBC Canada Reads site — nay, the entire CBC Books portal — is growing daily. Sometimes I go there and cannot believe my eyes. I’m not sure what bothers me the most, but there are days when I just can’t manage to get past the tone of it. The “voice” is very clearly that of a twenty-something smarty pants who isn’t half as smart as she thinks she is. It is derisive and sly and just so insulting.

Case in point. A recent smarty-pants post with a romance novel theme said the following:

With so many romance writers out there, I began to think: How hard can it be to whip one of those novels together? Not very, I told myself! There are how-to guides are all over the Internet. I’m smart. I’m creative. I can write coherent sentences. Surely, I can write a romance novel in a mere month. What better way to get intimately acquainted with this genre than to write one?

Then I remembered that I am lazy.

So, CBC Book Clubbers, I need your help. We’re going to write this romance novel together. I’ve consulted the eHarlequin guide to How to Write the Perfect Romance and learned the most important things involved in writing a successful romance novel. With that in mind, let’s begin!

I’m as much of a book snob as the next person, but I’ve grown to respect the act of writing a little too much to let this pass without comment. I don’t get the derisive tone, I really don’t. Does she think this will endear her to the 78.4 million people who read romance novels every year, or to the authors who (even if you don’t like the genre) are crafting work that those (let me say it again) 78.4 million people read? This is a craft, and as usual she is lazily contemptuous of the creators of that craft.

It’s not about the books at all, is it? The point she really seems to be trying to make is that she could do it, if she weren’t so darn lazy.

This isn’t the first time that being lazy has been trotted out by this particular  writer. We’ve met Erin Balser before, no? It was she who I discussed in this post.  Perhaps it’s worth showing you again her illuminating biography from her site:

This is who the CBC hired to help produce their books coverage? I’m still trying to figure out how being lazy is an endearing quality. Lazy is what made her link to only Quill & Quire reviews of the books in the Top 40, regardless of the quality of those reviews (spotty). Lazy is what creates this groundswell of contempt toward the CBC on the part of readers/listeners. Lazy is what makes authors write (for free) holiday gift guides instead of finding thoughtful commentary on their books to post. Lazy is being snarktastic without substance to back you up.

Thing is, she’s a product of her age, and has created a niche for herself. She was probably hired by people a generation removed from her who don’t actually quite “get” the whole social media/twitter thing — who think she’s really connected because she and her friends all create the impression that they are a movement by incestuously (re)tweeting one another’s work and commenting on one another’s snarktastic websites.  Maybe they think that this is how things work now…. but what she must think is insouciant irreverence has turned the corner, most of the time, into contempt. Perhaps she doesn’t realize it? Who knows.

After I wrote about the CBC Canada Reads game a few times, I got this comment from Bonnie Stewart, educator, writer, and social media maven:

re. Canada Reads, i think my biggest issue is with the CBC’s apparent decision to leave the whole shebang in the hands of the tragically-hip 25 year old who set the tone. she treated it all like a big, ironic game and her ‘condescending cheerleader’ schtick has, IMO, set the case for social media in the arts in Canada back by 10 years. she did not have the professionalism to lead the contest, even if it was her idea. and she didn’t have the good sense god gave chickens to ensure that big novels that had ALREADY been on Canada Reads were set respectfully aside to make some limelight for, i dunno, the unexpected. she neither understands social media nor promotions nearly as well as she thinks she does, and my respect for the CBC is negatively impacted by her handling of this.

So, it’s not just me. There’s a groundswell out there of growing contempt for this type of arts… marketing (reportage? branding? I don’t even know what to call it.)  My feeling, whenever I read something she’s written is that no matter the subject, it’s really an exercise in selling Erin Balser.

I’m going to keep writing about this stuff. Odds are I’m going to see things that I disagree with. Reading the drivel that keeps getting put out there under the umbrella of the CBC Books makes me crazy. Can you see Erin and Eleanor Wachtel at lunch, talking literature? Or even with Shelagh Rogers — what a great meeting of the mind that would be.

Eventually, though, I’ll have had enough. I do want the CBC to know that it’s because she’s lazy that I’ll have stopped listening and reading.

Clusterwha? and a Poll….

/ jlevack / Leave a comment

Mr. 761 is ex-military. As such, he has a colorful vocabulary that I have found particularly enriching. There are phrases and terms that grad school didn’t teach me (but should have).

The term “clusterfuck” for example.

I can’t help it, I really like that word. It is related to the word “snafu“, which stands for “situation normal, all, er, effed up”. I hate to offend people, but anyone who knows me knows that we all curse like sailors here at Box 761. Or, rather, like airmen. Anyway, clusterfuck (aka “charlie foxtrot”) signifies a few different things, but my favorite definition is this one:

A situation that is totally fucked up, especially as a result of managerial incompetence.

Originally of military origin; a double play on the word “cluster,” both evoking multiple fuckups, as used in the term “cluster bomb,” and evoking the oak leaf or star “cluster” insignia of the [officer] who did the fucking.

Why am I taking you through this potentially offensive vocabulary lesson, you ask? Well, because I have been trying to figure out how to write about CBC Canada Reads, and have been trying to find a way in to the conversation. This topic has kind of taken over box 761, and while I like it and am obviously invested in it, part of me wants Canada Reads to just get their act together so I can write about other stuff — like, the green curry I made for dinner the other night, or how nice it is to have Mr. 761 home on leave from Kandahar. I’d love to write about my ongoing (and quite heart-breaking) search for just the right wall-covering for my bedroom, or my upcoming road trip with the Mr.

I’d like to talk about my trip to Toronto last weekend to see Wicked (not the best show ever, but oh, so steampunkily terrific – full of gears and giant clocks and smoke), what a great travel companion my youngest is, how great it was to see old friends from university days, and about my new boots:

Instead, I find myself getting in another froth about the doings over at CBC.

Last night, an author I know posted on Facebook that he’d been on the CBC Canada Reads site and Lo, (cue angels singing) found the list of the 40 Essential Books up and on the site. His own name was on it, as were, well, 39 others. There was a tag line about Erin “knowing how to read to 6000”, which I assume was the number of votes cast.

Really? That’s all? For crying out loud. There are 34,260,000 million people in this country and only 6000 votes? We should all weep for shame.

When he went back to check again, it was gone. I assume that Ms. Balser or the tech person (if they have one) had been previewing how it was going to look or something? Stupid mistake, and not one you can get away with in this day and age. It was all over Facebook almost immediately.

Then the day finally came. We listened to Jian Ghomeshi’s admittedly very lovely voice read out a random selection of the Top 40, and then when we went to the website like he told us to do (five times he said “go there now” – we counted), we discovered there was no list. It was slated to be up at eleven Toronto time, apparently. It’s a big country, Jian — we were all listening at 11 a.m. Atlantic time. Some authors were named over the air, but not all. Certainly I didn’t expect (or want) you to read out all forty names, Jian, but exhorting us to go to the website when it wasn’t actually loaded was not cool.

FINALLY, it’s up and all is well, right? Nope. Quickly, we realized that while there were indeed 40 books on the list, there were only 37 listed on the poll. Apparently Erin can count to 6000, but not to 40. They took the list down, and when it was up again, those three books were on it, but tagged on to the end, rather than in alpha order with the others. You don’t think that’s going to affect the votes?

Long boring story. I’m  boring myself, really I am. I’m just tired of this, this… tiresome slack-ass lack of respect for Canadian authors. Fine, make it like the Hunger Games. Make it so that it’s a mix of American Idol and Survivor, fine. But stop changing the rules in the middle of the game, stop egging them on with orders to “get cracking” (jeez, that still rankles), and for the love of all things holy try to get this stuff right the first time.

You don’t know how to count? Get someone to help. You don’t know how to put a poll up online? Get someone to help. You mess up and only put 37 on the alphabetical list? Fix it AND put them all in order. You might have to type the whole list out again, but don’t you think that they’re worth it? You don’t think that making it to the Top 40 of all books written in Canada in a decade doesn’t rate retyping the list?

Today on Q Jian Ghomeshi sounded like he was trying to make sure we all knew that it’s just this year that Canada Reads will be in this format. I don’t know if that’s because he’s been keeping an eye on the blogosphere/Twitterverse/CBC website or what, but it did sound as if he were slightly apologetic about this. I see that The (Canada Reads) Life of Brian blog addressed some of the issues that I’ve been bitching about, too.

That’s all good. Really it is. But does it address the overall clusterfuck-ishness of this process?

No. I think not. This truly is a bit of a snafu, seems to me.

I had more I wanted to write, but I’m feeling as if this rant isn’t doing any good. I keep writing the same stuff, in different ways. So instead, I’m going to end this post with two things. First, a heartfelt congratulations to all authors involved in this spectacle. Thank you for writing and thank you for playing this game, with grace.

Second, I have a hankering to do a poll (look familiar?). Here are the rules:

  1. You can vote only once, unless you feel like voting more. (just an aside here… with a Polldaddy poll, you can vote more than once if you change your IP and cookies, or just use a different computer, just sayin’)
  2. I reserve the right to change the rules, at any time
  3. There will be three winning answers. I will post two
  4. If you want this to count, you should get cracking
  5. Write your own answers. Hell, write your own questions. I want to know.

She’ll write things for you, if you like….

/ jlevack / 4 Comments

I started Box 761 unwittingly. Not without forethought, but with a sense of not knowing (or even caring overmuch) where it was going to go. I just wanted to write about what I was thinking. As a result, I’ve felt free enough to write about anything I want, when I want.

A few days ago I felt like writing about the Canada Reads 2011 “Essential” list. That post got more hits than anything I’ve written to date, and changed this blog into an entirely different proposition for me.

I’m a  “stats watcher”. I like to see how many people read what I’ve written. I understand the urge to look at the stats, and I know it must be akin to what an author feels when they have a book published. It feels good. It feels validating. It feels like what you’ve written matters.

I found that with that single post,  my “readership” went up hugely. . It certainly hit a nerve. When I wrote that post, I didn’t do much except sit down and just write. I was responding to one specific post on a CBC blog. I didn’t research it, or even look around to see who else was writing about it — I just wrote it, and wrote it quickly.  Since then, I’ve read some great blogs about Canada Reads: Stephen W. Beattie’s post Canada Reads loses the plot: updated was especially well-written and germane. I felt compelled to write a comment on his post, largely to speak to an earlier comment from Erin Balser, an Associate Producer of Canada Reads.

She wrote, in part (full comment can be found at the link to Mr. Beattie’s blog, above):

I personally think change is good, and we’ll just have to wait and see if it works. I have faith in the reading public that the list will be reflective of what Canada reads or wants to reads or what they want to see on Canada Reads. And if it’s not, well, Beattie, you’ll have something else to write about.

So, thanks to everyone who has discussed, dissected and destroyed this year’s format. I’m loving every minute of it.

And so is everyone else at the CBC. Really.

I need to point out that the “Really.” tagged onto the end of that line just really gets my goat. Her calling him “Beattie” bothers me. Her obvious glee with the way this is shaping up made me sad. Here is the response I left on that site:

I further add that what I find especially difficult for me to watch is that this new format is pitting authors against authors (not, I might add, book against book — it’s a nuance that’s important to point out).

Erin Balser (producer at CBC) points out the connection to “Survivor” here; I take that further and suggest that it’s a Can-lit “Hunger Games”. Balsor’s comment […] seems to me to be just a little bit dismissive. It makes me think of her and her cohorts rubbing their hands together as they snicker over the hoops they’re causing authors to jump through. This isn’t – not any more — about readers. It’s about which author sings loud enough for their supper.

Having already conceived of and created the supper, it seems really unfair to make them beg for it too.

One nugget of information I did glean from Erin Balser’s comment was that she has a blog, called Books in 140 and A Bunch of Other  Fun Things. Here’s a screen dump from her site. It explains, I think, the mindset behind Canada Reads 2011.

 

About Erin Erin Balser grew up in small-town Nova Scotia and somehow ended up living in the downtown core of Toronto, where she drinks too much coffee, tells people she’s a writer, spends all her free time on the internet and writes a lot. She’ll write things for you, if you like. They’ll be nonsensical and filled with snarktastic comments, but she’ll do it for a very low price. She’s a whore like that. About Books in 140 Books in 140 started when Erin decided to validate her book buying addiction by writing “reviews.” Except long reviews are hard. And take time. Erin thought she’d solve this problem by writing reviews in 140 characters on twitter. The book buying validation is solved. The review writing is not. If you want a book to be reviewed, want to submit a guest review, want to be interviewed, or just want to tell Erin how awesome she is, head over to the contact page. If contact pages aren’t your thing, feel free to email Erin! She hearts emails. Review Policy I read what I want, when I want and review what I want, when I want. Books in 140 is as much meant to be a representation of my tastes and reading habits as it is a space to discover new books.

she hearts emails

 

That, my friends, is pretty much my last word on this.

I know that from now on I’ll feel like writing about Canadian fiction much more often than I had before.