Posts from — May 2009

Updated at the bottom

If you need to skim or skip the rest of my blatherings in this long post, I understand. But please don’t jump over the first two sections…

I stated in the comments last night that I wasn’t going to hold or participate in another UTERUS fundraiser in the future. This isn’t due to Jane’s questioning, but it certainly cemented it in my mind. It is too hard to fund raise for a person rather than an organization. Which is a funny thing to say because the original idea behind UTERUS was that it was also important to help individuals directly; not just give to large organizations. I’m not really changing my thoughts on that, but right now, UTERUS is not a good fit for me. It’s not just the economic climate and time commitment (dear Lord, it is a huge time commitment), but also the fact that it is too large a leap of faith.

The three people helped thus far with UTERUS were all people I read and communicated with off-blog. The most important part for me was that they didn’t ask for help. They didn’t hint that they wanted support or could use support. The decision to step in and help came from me, therefore, first and foremost, I felt comfortable that the idea originated with me rather than the person. I could stand behind the people we helped because I knew their real names–their full names–and knew addresses before we began in two of the three cases. The fact that the trust flowed towards me made a huge difference in my mind. I was helping a friend rather than stepping in and helping a stranger, even though, yes, these friends via the Internet are technically strangers. If that makes any sense. But I think I felt comfortable taking responsibility because I felt like I had put forth the best effort to ensure that the people being taken care of were who they said they were. And I felt comfortable putting my name on it. I can’t speak for Helen and Jen who originated UTERUS with me, but both knew Cali and it simply made sense to the three of us and I have to believe it made sense to us because we trusted Cali and were invested in her story and cared that she did something with those frozen embryos if she wanted to do something with those frozen embryos.

So, yes, UTERUS will continue–though without me. In fact, others have plans in the works right now. And I will be posting about it on LFCA and supporting their efforts. But it’s time for others to take the reins and help the people they can stand behind. It’s a big blogosphere and people have those that they trust and feel comfortable saying, “I can vouch for this person.” I am really glad it’s continuing because I do stand by that original thought that it is important to support individuals; not just organizations. And I will always be cheering UTERUS on from the sidelines.

I’m putting this out there both to explain my response to the anonymous comments last night, but also to let you know that when UTERUS things pop up in the future, questions should be directed to the people in charge because I won’t know the fine details. Though I hope the future fundraisers are as successful as the last three and wish those working on them the best of luck.

Whoa…is anyone else really thrown off by the font change on Blogger? Am I the only one who is seeing this? Did I hit a wrong button?

Back to why I originally opened the post box…

If you haven’t read the first post on emotional fraud, do so before reading this one.

I think what is most interesting about this is the currency being requested–not money (the Wired article specifically pointed out that money is rarely a factor or requested), but attention. Sympathy. Comments. All things we give out for free anyway without a second thought. Perhaps that is why it is so remarkable.

Meaning, no one wants their time wasted or their feelings jerked around, but that is part of opening your heart. We leave comments and read stories on a daily basis and how many of us give any thought or weigh the truthfulness of the words before we leave the comment and move on to the next blog? I know I don’t. I trust what I read is real and I leave my comment.

The reality is that anyone could have the sympathy and attention they crave–perhaps not in the quantity they crave–if they proactively support others. I had someone write me recently and complain about their low readership. They wanted me to post about their blog in LFCA and I said, certainly. I’m always happy to give people a boost. But I explained that a boost was just that, a leg up but the true work still had to be done by the writer. People may click over once, but if the person didn’t give back to the community by reading and commenting, they wouldn’t sustain the readership. This is also why the “new blog” section of the LFCA only contains blogs that have been started in the last month or two. Any blog older than that should have built a basic readership simply by providing good content and commenting on other blogs. My personal belief is that every story is a compelling story–it doesn’t need drama or constant developments.

The writer explained that she didn’t have time to read and comment on blogs; she only had time to write her own. And that’s just not a sustainable model. Or, it is if comments don’t matter and your only interest is in recording your story. But there are no shortcuts to building a sustained readership.

Except through emotional fraud.

That was what I thought when I read Niobe’s post. Create enough drama or ill-feelings or make people emotionally-invested and you can bypass the difficulty of building readership. Instead of focusing on others and building readership through outreach, you focus entirely inward, using all the energy on the fake story. Isn’t it sad when you think about it that way? That if the same person used the hour to read and comment on blogs, they would have the same readership (and an honest one) as someone who made-up a story and spent their entire time only counting their comments.

Which brings us back to Limeybean and her (his?) question: if you got something out of it too; catharsis, greater understanding of your own life–was it all bad if it turned out to be fake? I think we’d all rather leave a comment on a blog where we’re reading the truth and invest in a story where we’re reading the truth, but here’s a what if for you:

What if a blogger came on the scene and her story was so amazing that it got picked up by the mainstream media. That Oprah covered her IVF plight and it brought awareness about infertility to the general population. That people started donating to Resolve because they were so moved by her story and it enabled Resolve to help fight a few bills and get IVF coverage for all. And then, it turned out her story was a complete fake, written by a fertile woman with four kids who started the blog because she saw how wonderful the ALI community could be and just wanted to be a part of it. And the whole thing just spiraled out of control when she got the first tastes of attention.

By the way–this is obviously not a real scenario (infertile people on Oprah! donations to Resolve! true understanding in the general population!)–but I’m asking the what if in regards to Limeybean’s question. If good came out of it, would all be forgiven or would you have wished that you hadn’t supported Resolve due to her hoax? And barring quantitative good coming out of it, is having catharsis or understanding enough? Can it ever be forgiven if all you get is a good cry and renewed gratitude for your own life?

I have never knowingly been hoodwinked, though there have been some times that I’ve read a person’s story and felt like it didn’t all check out. I keep myself open-minded by saying that every person deals with things differently and while it may not be my instinct to do X, it does not mean that the person is a complete fraud.

I do tend to trust everything and everyone until proven otherwise, but perhaps it helps to know that I have also posted news on LFCA for the person who mocked my kumbayaness and I kept their blog on the blogroll. Why? Because things like the blogroll and LFCA I see as separate from me and liking me or my blog should not be contingent on being in those spaces. I mean, she certainly has other friends and readers in the community and she is part of our community. It isn’t my place to kick anyone out by not including them, therefore, I will always include them.

Which means that I post news or have blogs on my blogroll from people who openly dislike me or my writing, and it also means that I have probably posted news or have blogs on my blogroll from people who are taking me for a ride–either mindfully by creating an entirely fake story or inadvertantly by exagerating a few details. All I can do is trust and trust and trust some more–even if people take advantage of that trust. There is too much good that comes out of having that level of trust to end up having the honest members of the population miss out by things becoming more guarded.

Which is a long way to say that I hope people do not become more guarded. I think it would be a shame if a minority of people broke down community for the vast majority.

Even those who are Internet savvy enough to keep from being separated from financial capital through scams, let their guard down when it comes to giving away emotional capital. How many times have you read a story through a blog and felt a deep connection to the words, carrying them with you throughout the day and having them affect your mood? Perhaps it is someone ill or with an inspirational story or grieving after a death.

And how would you feel to learn that it’s all a scam? A ploy to get attention and sympathy?

There is a name for this type of behaviour–the creation of a fake story via the Internet used to garner support and consideration–Munchausen by Internet. People who engage in this behaviour not only create the situation, but often the people as well. In other words, the teenage girl dying of cancer turns out to be a healthy, forty-year-old man. More often than not, people who suffer from Munchausen are not writing these stories for financial gain, though people are often moved to contribute money or gifts when they are invested in the life. Instead, they crave the attention, comments, and sympathy garnered from the tale.

There have been plenty of famous cases–most notably Kaycee Nicole, whose existence (or lack thereof) was only discovered when readers of her blog became distraught after her “death.” Imagine reading someone’s story for two years, becoming emotionally invested, communicating with them via email, and then finding out, after dedicating hours of emotional energy, that the whole thing was a hoax. Wired magazine had an article this spring on death bloggers. It explains the impulse may come from the fact that it “feeds the desire of the narcissist and provides the lonely with the attention that they may never previously have known.”

Niobe recently wrote about the fact that this could happen–that the Internet is ripe for hoaxes and scams, especially with the fact of even earnest, honest people writing under assumed names. She asked if readers had “ever read someone’s story on a blog or forum (no names, please) and suspected that it was was, well, not exactly true? What made you suspicious? And what do you think motivates people like this?” 67 comments later–some repeating the sentiment “how could this happen” and others agreeing that they’ve read things that have made an internal alarm sound–and it makes you suspicious of everything you read thereafter.

The fact is, the infertility community–even more than other areas of the blogosphere–is ripe for these types of hoaxes. People become emotionally invested in each other’s stories and it is too easy to set up a blog and start typing out a tale of woe and find the support you’re craving. More than knitting or food, infertility, adoption, and loss are all emotional topics to start. And it does not even have to be an out-and-out hoax to fit this conversation on Internet scams. Someone actually going through IVF can easily stretch the truth and describe OHSS symptoms worse than they are or keep readers on the edge of their seat with dramatic moment after dramatic moment in a cycle.

And in the end, who is hurt by the all-out-hoax or the stretching of truth if no money has been exchanged and the only loss is emotional energy? Limeybean, a story quoted in the Wired article, even threw out the fact that even if a story turns out to be a lie, if a person felt better upon reading it; that it gave them hope or inspiration, was it all bad? It is the question asked at the end of Armistead Maupin’s The Night Listener, where a writer befriends a little boy with an amazing tale of enduring abuse and AIDS only to discover that the boy is a fake. The writer still asks the question of the worth of what he learned about himself and life in general through the hoax–and not just the negative idea of not trusting people, but also the true lessons he learned about the ways we endure and triumphant over hardships.

I think we can all say definitively that no one wants their emotions jerked around through lies or fibs. I think most are savvy enough to know how to protect themselves financially or from phishing scams. But how do we open up our heart enough to let a story in while still protecting ourselves emotionally so we’re not sucked into a story such as the ones outlined in the Wired article?

Niobe’s post stems from an incident that rocked the ALI blogosphere when a woman admitted that she had submitted her children’s names to the Names in the Sand project even though they were alive. She wrote on a message board: “If you write born sleeping somewhere on the page she will write your kids names for you – how would she know if they were alive or not, I mean its sad and all but I can’t to the beach.”

In addition, she writes of a second incident that happened on a message board where a woman claimed to have multiple second trimester losses as well as a neonatal death. Ryan Was Here writes of the incident

This woman (or so I’m assuming) has seemingly disappeared from these online forums, but not without a widespread trail of confused hearts and angry minds. Why on earth would someone WANT to be a dead baby mama, when those of us who had to say goodbye to our beloved babies would give anything to cuddle and caress our little ones just one minute longer? It’s infuriating that someone would pretend to have walked in the same shoes as me and many of my friends – and take advantage of our broken hearts.

It is difficult to not become cynical when you read stories of Munchausen by Internet and lose your faith in fellow writers who are trying to record their story while connecting with others in a similar community. I have empathy for those who crave the attention so badly that they would resort to fraud, but my true sympathy lies with those who are taken on a ride, who spend hours worried about the person or crying after the loss. Especially when the situation reflects or effects another loss within their life, compounding grief. Those who have lost a child not only mourned with the woman described in Ryan Was Here’s post, but also in turn mourn their own losses fully again through the grief of another.

How does one protect themselves from Munchausen by Internet or lesser frauds? How does one still remain open and trusting instead of cynical? Is there any good that come out of fraud, as per Limeybean’s suggestion? And, as Niobe asked, have you ever suspected that you were being taken for an emotional ride and if so, did it cause you to step back or keep reading?

Cross posted on BlogHer

This is the 39th installment of Barren Advice. You can ask questions that are fertility or non-fertility related.

Barren Advice is posted each Tuesday-ish. If you have your own question for Barren Advice, click here to learn how to submit. Please weigh in with your own thoughts in the comment section and indicate which question you’re addressing if there are multiple questions in the post.

Dear Mel:

I am going to self publish my book but things have really been blowing up for me press-wise regarding PFM. Do you think I should try to find a publishing house? I don’t have anything published as a writer. If you think I should at least try it, where do you suggest I go? I know a small publisher is probably my best bet.

—Erica

I have a feeling this question is going to bring out other questions, so I’m going to start with how to pick your path to getting your manuscript in book form, and if people have other things they want to ask, throw them into the pot by submitting a question to Barren Advice.

There are three main paths you can take and there are benefits and drawbacks to all three: self-publishing, representing yourself, or utilizing an agent.

Self-publishing is open to everyone. You pay a fee, and they put your manuscript in book form. Prices range from a couple hundred to several thousand. Self-publishing utilizes a system called POD or Print-on-Demand and it’s similar to Cafepress. They do not waste materials until someone wants the book; meaning, the reason you can usually only get self-published books online rather than in a bookstore is that they don’t exist until someone makes a purchase and then they are printed within the day and mailed out. You pay an upfront fee (Booksurge, Amazon’s program, asks for anywhere from $800–$6000 depending on what you need done–and I’m sure there are places that do it for much less, but you also sometimes have lower quality with the lower fee), and then receive back a portion of the book sale–sometimes up to 35%. So…just to explain the math to see if this option is right for you, if a book costs $15, you should receive back $5.25 per book sold. You’ll need to sell a little over 150 copies of the book to break even and after that, you’ll turn a profit.

Advantages are clear–it is entirely within your control. All you need to do is write the book or convert your blog posts into a manuscript. And frankly, if you’re not up to enduring a lot of rejection (because even JK Rowling endured rejection), self-publishing is the way to go. It is a sure thing. You also have control from start to finish, deciding what goes in the book as well as the look. Though you have to front the money for the process, if you have a thousand dollars to invest, you can easily turn a profit if you have a decent platform (a platform is a term used to describe your reach from the number of people who would be interested in purchasing your book to the media contacts you have who would write about your book). And for most writers, turning a profit is not the reason they wrote the book: it’s to get the information into the hands of people who need it or would enjoy it. Therefore, self-publishing is the perfect way to make sure that information or a story doesn’t linger unpublished on a Microsoft Word doc on your computer. It is the only way within your control to make sure that it gets sent out into the world.

One other advantage is that some PODs then get picked up by a publisher, though this is uncommon and not something that can be controlled. But when it does happen, it means that you didn’t have to jump through the hoops of finding an agent, but you got the benefits of a publishing house down the road. But, again, this scenario is the needle in the haystack and I can only think of one book like this off the top of my head.

The disadvantages are clear too–since anyone can publish a POD, there is a big range of quality. POD-dy Mouth used to be the place to go to separate the wheat from the chaff, but with that closing, it’s really up to you to exercise a buyer beware mentality as a reader. PODs are edited–either by the writer or, for a fee, by a freelance editor, but copyediting is not the same as editing and vetting. Meaning, every book you are purchasing from a publishing house has been professionally edited as well as vetted if it is a work of non-fiction, with research notes examined and challenged. Having been a freelance editor–sometimes called a book doctor–(as most MFA grad students are at some point in their life) and having been on the receiving end of a publishing house edit, I can tell you that it’s two very different processes where one is receiving a collection of notes and one is participating in a collaborative process with (1) some control over using the notes removed but (2) a keen-eye focused on getting the right message across. Removing the publisher from the publishing process can remove some credibility depending on the reader.

That said, I also think that removing the publisher from the publishing process can give you a more emotional, raw text. Stuff that would be edited out at a publishing house can be left in with a POD, therefore, I think of self-published books and traditionally published books as two separate beasts with PODs closer in helpfulness to a blog: it is raw, unwatered down emotion; it is off-the-beaten-track; it is honest. But I also wouldn’t take my fact from a blog, if that makes any sense? By which I mean that I read a blog and I think “this is true for them.” It may also be true for me, but at its heart, it’s true for them. When I read a book, I tend to think more along the lines of “this is true for a lot of people.” It may not actually be true for me, but I can see how
it is more inline with fact than opinion.

I’m pro-POD for fiction if I’ve already read something from the person and know I like their style, and I’m pro-POD for memoir with the same caveat, and I’m pro-POD for non-fiction in certain cases, BUT I would never use a POD book for research unless it came from a major organization rather than an individual. Because while it’s a nice jumping-off board, it’s not a good base to use because the research hasn’t been vetted by a third party. I am obviously mixing both thoughts about each path both as a writer and as a reader–how the book may be received.

The other disadvantage is marketing. You are entirely on your own for marketing with a POD unless, again, you pay for services. If you have a pretty strong platform or the book gets a cult following, this isn’t an issue. But it means that you keep having to take the initiative to get it out there and it can be exhausting (and avenues can quickly be exhausted). Most publish
ers expect authors to take a certain amount of initiative, so it isn’t as if this disadvantage is unique to PODs, but the difference is that (1) you will not get the foot traffic picking up your unknown book off the shelf at a bookstore because it’s usually only offered online and (2) some traditional reading sources and media outlets will be closed to PODs.

So, to review about self-publishing–it’s great if you want control of the process and you want it to just happen without having to jump through hoops. Yes, you need to front the money, but if you can sell between 150–200 copies, you’ll recoup your investment. And if you have a strong platform, selling 150–200 copies won’t be a problem. The information will be out there instead of sitting on your hard drive. And there’s always a chance it will hit cult-success or be picked up by a traditional publishing house. I am personally a fan of self-publishing because there’s a lot of good stuff that will never be considered by a publishing house because it doesn’t have marketing potential (remember, a publisher buying a manuscript is essentially making an investment and just as you wouldn’t buy stock in a company that looks like its going nowhere, publishers will not invest in books that they don’t think will make a profit. And publishers need to sell many more than 150 copies to turn a profit).

At the same time, one thing to consider–a blog is essentially a POD e-book that is being given away for free. Think about that for a moment–everyone who keeps a blog is a writer. The fine line to walk is whether people will pay for what they are getting for free on the Web. In other words, is the information compelling enough that they’ll want it in book form or would they rather just access it for free via your blog? If your plan is to incorporate parts of your blog into your book, it could be a very difficult road to convince people that they want to buy what they get for free in the same form that they get it for free.

To take an example, Heather Armstrong used parts of her blog in her new book, but it was also edited by a publisher at Simon Schuster, therefore giving it new meaning, consideration, etc. I’m not sure she would have the same readership happily recommending the book to others if she had self-published the same blog entries without the requisite editing given to her by Simon Schuster. It sort of begs that free milk/cow question that is so popular as a sex/marriage analogy.

Sort of like applying to college, self-representation is open for everyone to try, but you’ll have to be accepted. Though independent publishers prefer to work with agents, some will accept direct submissions (major publishing houses will not accept submissions that do not come through an agent). Most independent publishers work with a specific genre or within a specific swath of the population, but if you fit their profile, you may be able to send your work directly to the house and have it considered for publication. If you get accepted, it contains all the advantages with working with a publishing house–you get paid to write the book, you get a professional editor, and you get help in marketing the book. It will appear in bookstores and you will have readings and reviews (hopefully–but even that is not a given these days).

The advantage with self-representation is that you don’t need to first obtain an agent. You can present yourself however you wish, meaning, you can highlight what you think is important rather than having the agent decide what to highlight. In certain cases, you can represent yourself better than an agent, though with few exceptions, an agent always represents the book better (meaning, you know you, but your agent knows books). Personally, I’d trust the agent because you’re not selling yourself per se, you’re selling the book. But there are cases where this is important (for instance, if your book is about social media and you can’t find an agent who is Twitter-proficient and you know of a publisher who would be perfect for the book).

The big advantage is that unlike self-publishing, you will never have to layout any money to be published–they will pay you. If a publisher asks you to pay for any part of the process beyond mailing your manuscript, you will know it is not a legitimate press. Publishers will not ask you to layout your money because by buying your manuscript, they are essentially making the investment.

Some people who self-represent to get the deal will turn around and get an agent once they have an offer on-hand. They will have the agent look over the contracts and help negotiate things. Personally, I see a lot of advantages and disadvantages to doing this: you get an agent, but you miss out on the reason for having an agent in the first place (more on that in a moment). But I do think it makes sense if you see yourself writing more books or negotiating more contracts (international rights, film, etc) later on.

The disadvantage to self-representation is that fewer and fewer independent publishers will accept unsolicited manuscripts (the term for a manuscript that you want them to read, but they did not ask to read nor did it come from an agent). So on one hand, it’s more immediate than getting an agent, but it’s also harder to have your manuscript read. And once you’ve taken this path, it’s hard (though not impossible) to get an agent to look at your manuscript because it has already been out there. So it’s a path I would only take if you’ve already exhausted searching for an agent or if you’re prepared to either self-represent or self-publish. But it’s not a good starting point if you’re looking to seek an agent after you try this route. Also, you will not have every publisher open to you–only a few–but going this route also cuts off access to big publishing houses later because agents will be more squeamish about taking you on if you’re a first-time author.

The other big disadvantage is that you will always be negotiating (instead of having someone negotiate on your behalf) and you’ll have to be vigilant. I think only those who know what to expect and look for within publishing should take this route. The way it was explained to me in graduate school is the offer you will receive through an agent is so much greater (not just financially, but in retaining rights et al) than what you can receive for the most part on your own, that it’s worth the cut an agent will take from your contract because you’ll still come out ahead.

So, to sum up self-representation, if you’re pretty savvy, have connections in the publishing world, have access to free law advice, or want to try this before self-publishing, it’s a great route. If you are set on publishing with a publishing house, this isn’t a great starting point, but it can be a good finishing point before you throw in the towel.

Lastly, you have traditional publishing which the majority will find they need an agent to get their foot in the door and negotiate. So first you have to find the agent–and if anyone wants me to speak to how to find an agent and what you need to prepare to send, let me know and I’ll cover that in a future Barren Advice because it’s very different for fiction and non-fiction–and then the agent finds the book deal for you. Though having an agent does not mean that you’re going to get published. First and foremost, there are a lot of agents out there who do not have the necessary connections to get you a book deal (anyone can call themselves an agent) and beyond that, even the best agents do not sell their whole list. But having an agent helps.

Let’s start with the disadvantages. It’s hard to get a good agent. Most agents will not take on work they do not think they can sell and passionately represent. The fact is that their time is precio
us and they get asked to look at a lot of projects. Feel good if an agent asks to see your manuscript. It means a lot of have it considered.

Most good agents (and again, I could declare myself an agent tomorrow but it wouldn’t mean that I am a good agent. I do not have the expertise to negotiate contracts nor the connections to get your book looked at by a major house. So when I saw “good agent,” I mean an agent with an established reputation, most likely in New York though the Internet has opened up the world to living outside New York, with prior sales or working for a solid agency) will not take on a first-time author without a platform or a published author without decent book sales. It can be very disheartening to receive rejection after rejection OR to not receive any feedback at all. Many agents say they will only contact you if they are interested, therefore, you may have a long list of people approached that are in limbo–neither rejecting you nor contacting you, making you wonder if they got your submission at all.

Yet, without the agent, you can’t get to the major publishing houses nor can you get your foot in the door at most independent presses. But this disadvantage to you–the writer–is actually an advantage to the rest of us–the reader. Because getting an agent to stand behind the work and a publisher to invest in the work, gives the work credibility and state of quality. There are plenty of great books that don’t get representation or a contract but most books that do get representation or a contract are of some substance. They may not be your cup of tea or necessary in your world, but they are considered necessary or enjoyable by a group of someones. Notice I mention the idea that it could be enjoyable. Not every book published by a major house will be healthy for your mind. There’s also a lot of literary candy out there. I tend to be a healthy reader so I sometimes look at the candy books and think, “seriously, that got published and X’s book didn’t?” But at the same time, there are a lot of unhealthy, junk food readers out there who snatch up the autobiographies of sixteen-year-old rock stars.

Okay, so the advantages of going the traditional route and getting an agent and using a publishing house start with the same advantage of self-representation: you will be paid to write your book (and again, you will never need to shell out any money beyond postage and anyone who tells you to spend money to get a contract does not have your best interests at heart). You will be a true published author. Your book will be available at brick-and-mortar bookstores. People will respect the process enough to consider the book for review in a major media outlet or offer you space for a reading.

The major advantage is that an agent is a person who is always in your corner. They are always looking out for your best interests and will help negotiate things on your behalf. It may not seem like a big deal, but having an agent is sort of like having a fairy godmother–one who is there to cheer you on, make sure you don’t fall into any pits, and generally stand up and say to the world “I think this writing rocks.” Without an agent, it is impossible to get your foot in the door at most publishing houses (because the agent is looked at as a gatekeeper. The publishers save time by looking for someone they trust and know to vouch for your work).

So, to review this form of publishing–it has the most work on the front end (obtaining an agent), but will be the smoothest ride once the agent is in place and a contract is obtained. You will not need to front any of your own money, and your book will be the highest quality it could be. But, it is a hard road to walk with a lot of rejection inherent in the process.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeew. That was a long answer to a brief question, but there’s a lot to still discuss–such as, once you pick your path, how do you know which POD businesses or agents are worth their salt and which ones are there to waste your time/money? Or what can you expect from the self-publishing process or the traditional book publishing process? Or what constitutes a strong platform? So ask away. And I’d love to hear from others who want to talk about their experience with the publishing process or why they chose the path they chose.

I will admit that due to my background (MFA degree where going the traditional route is drilled into your mind) and the fact that I had a decently strong platform, I went with traditional publishing as my Plan A. My Plan B was self-representation for a limited amount of time. And my Plan C was self-publishing. This book was getting out there one way or another…

No really, the beauty of a blog advice column is that you get to weigh in with your two cents too. Let the questioner know if you support the advice, add to the response, or dispute it completely.

Leave a comment in the reaction box below–only keep in mind that conflicting advice is embraced and rudeness is not. Want to ask your own question? Click here to see what you need to send in order to be included in a future Tuesday’s installment of Barren Advice.

Welcome to Tertia’s book shower for her book, So Close. If you don’t know the guest of honour, scooch on over to her blog for a moment and familiarize yourself. Her book, which grew out of her blog, follows in a similar tone: frank, funny, anguishing, snarky, and honest. She takes the reader from the first days of trying to conceive to the birth of her twins, with multiple IVF cycles and losses along the way.

This book isn’t about how to get through infertility or loss, but about one woman’s struggle to make sense of the years she spent building her family. For me, the purpose of any memoir is similar to the purpose of a blog–it gives you insight into someone’s world, and it gives you a common ground to stand on together. And that is where Tertia takes you; into the world of someone addicted to hope so that you can understand how she made her decisions and what drove her to put one foot in front of the next.

Many wanted to celebrate Tertia and her hard work today. So grab an appletini (please ignore the creepy bartender serving you) and an hors d’oeuvre from the table, and start chatting with the other guests at the party by clicking on a link below: