Showing posts with label Blogging About Blogging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blogging About Blogging. Show all posts

Several Books of Genre Interest Reviewed Haphazardly, But Mostly Positively, Several Months Late: A Preview

It's no secret that my book-reviewing here has been in an extended slump for the last six months or so. (Though the amusing thing to me is, as I poke through my archives, is that the one consistent theme of this blog is that I'm always behind in writing about the books I've read and that I'm never happy with what I write about books I like. So this is an extreme case, but it's also the standard.)

Since I'm on vacation this week, I'm going to try to clean up the backlog, which will solve one problem. The other one -- motivation -- is trickier; as my job has gotten more difficult and complicated and taken more of my attention and mental energy, I don't want to spend a lot of time thinking deeply about things I've read. (And then I read less, and drift farther away from the SFF world, and feel worse about that, and start moaning that I'll die still selling crap to accountants.)

There's no reason any of you should care about any of that.

For that matter, there's no reason why I should bother to keep typing things like that; I know what the problems are, and my complaints don't help. But whining is one of the great human pastimes, and I'm not immune to its charms.

Anyway: I've written a couple of reviews already (they originally were all going to go into this post, until I thought better of it), and I hope to do more. Right now, I'm planning to space them out once a day. We'll see what actually happens, as it happens.

Submission Policy

I haven't needed a written policy before, but I've been getting more and more requests recently, so I now want something to point people to.

Guest Posts

Antick Musings has never had any guest posts, co-written posts, or sponsored posts.

I do not intend to ever have any posts in those categories, or any other kind of posts other than the ones that come out of my own fingers.

Do not query in these areas; I'll just ignore you.

Book Reviews


Antick Musings is, at least in part, a book-review blog. And I do take submissions, and at least a few of those eventually turn into reviews here. But I don't review even as much as 10% of the books I see, and I read and/or review a lot of books that aren't sent as submissions.

Self-Published Books

I work in Big Publishing, and have hopes to get back into the fiction end of that business. For that and other reasons -- sixteen years of dealing with submissions at the Science Fiction Book Club strongly among them -- I'm temperamentally disinclined to like self-published books. You can definitely query me about your book, but I'm really not that likely to ask for it. I like the system we have, and want to strengthen that to the point where I can work for a SFF publisher again.

I apologize in advance for standing in the way of your glorious revolution.

Formats

I can read e-books -- I've got a device with lots of things on it -- but I generally don't. Personally, piles of actual physical books are what spur me to read them, and e-books are easily forgotten since they don't take up space. So I am happy to take submissions in digital formats, but that means that I'm very likely to forget about them.

I prefer physical books, even when they cause me storage problems.

Again, I apologize in advance for standing in the way of your glorious revolution.


Genres

I don't read as much SFF as I used to, and I try to avoid fairly generic work in those areas these days. (I know that no author considers her book "fairly generic," but if you're writing about a small band of heroes battling the Evil Emperor, the spunky redheaded demon-hunter with a complicated love life, or the tough-as-nails Space Marine planet-hopping to defeat The Bugs, you're who I'm talking about.)

I also read mysteries/thrillers/spy stories -- again, I prefer smart and sneaky and intricate to James Patterson-level single-page chapters -- as well as a fair bit of narrative nonfiction and humor/columns, with the same caveats. (I don't see nearly as much in these areas as I'd like to.)

I am a marketer by day, but I'm generally not looking to review books on marketing, or most categories of business books.

Responses

I am very bad at replying to e-mail, especially if I have to say no to someone. I apologize in advance for dodging your e-mail. If you don't hear from me, it means I'm not interested but can't muster the energy to tell you that.

Exceptions

If your name is Matt Hughes or Harry Connolly, these rules don't apply to you. There are other exceptions, I'm sure -- if you think you might be one (hint: have we ever met?), ask me.

If I ignore you, see above.

Things I Haven't Commented on Yet

I had a very nice comment yesterday, asking my thoughts about the Night Shade firesale. (The best link round-up to date I've seen is from Publishers Weekly's blog.)

That reminded me that I also haven't said anything about the slate of Hugo Nominees -- I gather there is the usual ranting and rending of garments about them, though I've mostly just marked those posts to read later so far.

There's several other award things that I haven't weighed in on, either.

I may get to all of this stuff soon, but I have to admit, I've been really busy lately -- work and life and everything else, with a long Saturday trip into NYC with my sons last weekend that stole what would have been blogging time. (And, of course, when I have free time right now, what I really want to do is play some more Lego City Undercover.)

But, just in case I don't have time for a longer, more thoughtful post later, some quick takes on La Affaire de Nightshade:
  • I don't know Jeremy Lassen and Jason Williams well, but I do know them, from my SFBC days, and they're deeply passionate and devoted to what they do. What I've seen written about their very generous royalty rates matches what I know of them -- and, I suspect, they also paid advances somewhat higher than warranted even by their royalty rates. Those points have been often forgotten in the kerfuffle, but I'll be blunt: Night Shade probably went under because they were too generous to authors. (Or, to be more nuanced, because they've spent 10+ years trying to punch above their weight, and you get awfully battered doing that.)
  • I also know Tony Lyons from those same days -- my other hat in my last five years of bookclub duty was for Outdoorsman's Edge, which sold books on huntin' and fishin', and Tony ran Lyons Press before he founded Skyhorse. He can be a tough negotiator, but he's a great publisher with a strong sense of markets and an eye for a good business -- he's built that company very strongly through a recession, which is no small feat. (And I'm amazed at the implication that he did it entirely through dead-tree books.)
  • Actual bankruptcies, that go through courts, are horrible for authors. Really. It's been a while since we had one in the field, so you folks might have forgotten, but contract provisions mean nothing in a bankruptcy, and your contracts could be sold for pennies with no money coming to you for years, if ever. Avoiding that is a huge deal.
I do have to dig in more, though -- I've only seen the broad outlines so far. It's possible that authors are being utterly shafted, but that's always the standard narrative of any publishing story, so I tend to doubt it.

What Happened to Sitemeter?

I was using them for traffic stats, and their page seems to have turned into a squatter -- did they just suddenly go out of business?

(I'll admit I didn't check my stats as often as I should have, but they were always right there, in that Firefox tab I rarely touched, and that was comforting.)

I mean, I've got Google Analytics too, but I looked at Sitemeter more (meaning once every three months or so).

This Internet stuff keeps changing in ways that are deeply annoying.

Update: April 6th, AM. Sitemeter is back!

But I can't find any reference to the outage on the site itself.

A blogger called The Other McCain reports that Sitemeter forgot to renew their domain -- which is exactly what this looked like, but it's such a basic Web 101 thing that I don't want to believe it -- so perhaps that is the explanation after all.

Blog Post Level Five Thousand!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is my five thousandth post on Antick Musings.

Since I'm reflexively contrarian, it is entirely content-free.

Please continue to go about your business.

My New Look

Since all of the cool kids are jumping off a bridge this week, I was compelled to do the same. You can generate your own fake pulp cover here -- it's one of the really good generators, with lots of controls to fiddle around with things.

Here's How You Know You're Not Blogging Enough

The spammers start to circle, like sharks -- first one little comment here, then another, and then several a day.

Eventually, I assume, they'll hit the site continually until it finally succumbs. (Or, perhaps, regular posts start back up.)

I've been seeing more comments than posts on Antick Musings for the last few days, which is not a good sign, at this level. And I do know the solution.

Look for solutions in this space in the near future.

This Was the Year in Hornswoggling: 2012

Anything done for at least two years in a row becomes an unbreakable tradition -- ask any four-year-old -- and so it's time once again for the first and last sentences of the past twelve months, linked to the posts in which they appeared.

(This was a meme, five or six years ago. I would lay serious money that no one else is still doing it, since it doesn't make a lot of sense. But it amuses me, so it lives on here.)

Since a lot of Antick Musings these days is my standard posts (yes, I know; it's a rut, and I've been thinking, now and then, about how to pull myself out of it), I've ignored those, when necessary, so that the following is mildly more interesting:

January
I have no illusions about my reviews; they're read by an audience of dozens -- sometimes rising into the low hundreds -- and might help to push an additional ten or so copies of something if I'm lucky.

Just in case it's unclear to some of my newer readers, I am being so sarcastic with this phrase that I am surprised the entire Internet does not burst into flames.  

February
The NY Times has the standard story on the results, announced yesterday, and the consequent stock price slippage and analyst beard-stroking.

Maybe it's just my cynicism talking, but that sounds suspiciously like the slow clap of literature -- you're not all that good, got it? you're just mildly better than some other things. 

March
I'm interested in theme parks, and I'm interested in design (in a vague, general way, related to some books I've worked on at my day-job and reading Henry Petroski -- on that level). And so I thought The Hidden Magic of Walt Disney World would be interesting, since it's a guide to the "secret" (here meaning "minor" or "background") details of Disney's Florida theme parks.

But Liew's lovely watercolor art is the real draw here: I'd love to see him illustrate a new edition of the Alice books, or adapt them directly to comics, using his own designs.

April
You probably have heard by now that Christopher Priest was unhappy with this year's Clarke Award shortlist, going so far as to say that the panel should be disbanded, the award skip 2012 entirely, and that all the fields of Carthage be sown with salt so that nothing will grow there ever again.

This time, Gift of Fire brings the mythical Prometheus to the modern world, while Head of a Pin deals with a company making utterly realistic animation to allow new movies with long-dead actors that discovers an entity lurking in their software. It hits stores May 8th. 

May
I'm more than normally concerned with the idea of good graphic novels for teens and tweens, for two very selfish reasons: my sons, aged eleven and fourteen, are reading piles of manga and graphic novels these days (not so much traditional Western-style superhero comics, though, in common with most of their generation), and I want them to have good stuff.

You could even buy a print, were you so inclined.

June
Haruki Murakami Bingo, from the inimitable Incidental Comics.

The next blog entry should be from a real computer, back in my home, and, with any luck, it will also have more substance than this one. 

July
It is simply impossible to declare a novel "not funny."

Feiffer was one of the first to sketch the reality of modern life, and one of the best as well.

August
I discovered Erickson's first two novels -- Days Between Stations and Rubicon Beach, both mid-'80s Vintage Contemporaries, with that over-designed look that signaled Smart and Literate to so many of us in those days -- as remainders not too long after publication, right next to each other on a table in a mall bookstore that's probably been gone for two decades.

And he did: My Friend Dahmer isn't impressive simply because Backderf knew and grew up with Dahmer, but because he's spent these last twenty years trying to figure out how he became Dahmer -- and if there was any way that could have been stopped. 

September
Words can have very specific meanings within particular contexts -- for example, in the title Fodor's Disneyland & Southern California with Kids, the word "kids" means particularly small children: definitely those under the age of ten, and mostly those up to the age of six or seven.

But it's yet another tool to poke through things that look like data, which I suppose is moderately useful, at the very least as a way to waste time. 

October
TenNapel is a successful and accomplished maker of cartoon images -- he created Earthworm Jim, and has spent the last decade or so making excellent graphic novels like Ghostopolis (see my review) and Bad Island (also see my review) -- who I never see discussed among the usual comics circles.

Says the man who plans to both read "Who Could That Be at This Hour?" and re-read The Basic Eight on his upcoming vacation.

November
If I'd read this closer to Gibson's Distrust That Particular Flavor (see my post last month), I'd have combined them into one post, since they're very much the same kind of thing: complete (or nearly so) collections of the occasional nonfiction by major writers who started off solidly in the SF camp but have since drifted in somewhat different directions, but remained solidly in favor of SF and regularly define what they do as SF.

Oh, and if this drives you to think of buying something-or-other from that particular retail behemoth, here is a handy link to allow you to do so.

December
It's time once again for the Bad Sex in Fiction Award, one of those wonderful literary awards that only the Brits could create and administer with anything like a straight face.

Hope you all liked it.

Coming in 2013: more posts! (I could hardly have fewer than 2012, I think.) Possibly even a few that aren't belated reviews of books, too!

The Imp of the Perverse

Yesterday, along with the other mail, I got a copy of A Memory of Light, which, as you know Bob, is the thrilling conclusion to a very long-running epic fantasy series. It presumably contains many shocking and surprising events that are eagerly awaited by hundreds of thousands of fans.

And so it came with a little notice, asking -- well, perhaps demanding is more correct -- that any coverage or reviews hold off until the official publication date in early January.

So of course I was immediately seized with the desire to thumb through the last chapter or two, type up what seemed to be the juiciest and most amazing bits, and post immediately. That was a silly, weird desire, particularly since I've never read any of the other books, but it was definitely there.

I didn't do it, obviously -- I do have more tact and couth than that. But I'm sure someone, somewhere on the vast Internet, has already done so. And perhaps that's the lesson of the Internet: anything you can think of, someone has already done.

A Backwards Glance

The "Read in November" post has just been updated, with capsule reviews of American Vampire Vol. 3 and New York Mon Amour. Further updates should follow. (For that matter, the similar post for October needs updating, too, but I make no promises.)

Words Blogger's Spell-Checker Does Not Know

...are probably myriad, but "dystopian," "balkanized," and "immersive" are definitely among them.

In fact, I'm surprised to see it knows "myriad."

I may, perhaps, be more in love with ten-dollar words than I should be, but I don't see those as particularly obscure or useless terms. Once again I feel superior to my blogging platform.

A Flurry of Back-Dating

Yes, a bunch of posts just went live this afternoon, dated over the past week. No, I probably can't adequately explain why I did it that way, so I won't try. (It has to do with plans and expectations, and how they change over time -- real introspective crap that no one would care about.)

The point is that the books I read in September are now (mostly) covered here, with a few stragglers to come "soon." And I intend to work more forward than backward in the coming days -- but, as always, I make no guarantees.

The Utterly Fantabulous Seventh Anniversary Hoe-Down!

Seven years ago today yesterday, Antick Musings shambled into existence, a training blog to get me in shape to write the official SFBC blog, which I then expected to start very soon thereafter. That official blog didn't start up as quickly as expected, and ended abruptly -- among other things that ended abruptly at exactly the same time -- but Antick Musings soldiers on, if much changed and altered over the years.

For the first few years, especially when I was working for the SFBC and, later, had hopes of getting back into the SFF field, I insisted that Antick Musings wasn't a book-review blog, and didn't post anything critical of any of the SFF books I read. (Of course, as we've seen, even things I think are positive are sometimes taken otherwise by some writers -- writers are of necessity thin-skinned, so I should have anticipated that.) Once it was clear that I was out, and not getting back in, Antick Musings slid in the other direction -- particularly during and after the year-long stint of Book-A-Day in 2010-2011 -- and became almost entirely a book-review blog.

None of that is what I intended or expected, but a blog -- like life -- is what actually happens day-to-day, not what anyone plans or controls. And so I don't want to say what Antick Musings will become, since I simply don't know: it becomes whatever it becomes because of what I think and write, and because of what happens to me in the meantime.

Before I go any further in my navel-gazing, let me give you the inevitable links back to prior anniversary posts: one, two, three, four, six. (Yes, I missed the only milestone anniversary this blog has had so far, which very well illustrates the way I operate: lots of thought and energy and activity, inevitably directed in an unproductive way.)

Post quantity dropped precipitously during Book-A-Day, and hasn't recovered since -- partially because I launched another blog, Editorial Explanations, immediately after Book-A-Day ended, and partially because I seem to have stopped writing lots of short posts the way I used to. I could also try to blame that drop in post count here on my increased Twitter presence -- except I post only sporadically there -- or the Hornswogglets Tumblr, except that's practically a ghost town, with just a few stray posts and lots of roaming tumbleweeds. Whatever the reasons, here are the numbers:
  • 2011-2012 -- 332 posts
  • 2010-2011 -- 445 posts
  • 2009-2010 -- 711 posts
  • 2008-2009 -- 880 posts
  • 2007-2008 -- 834 posts
  • 2006-2007 -- 841 posts
  • 2005-2006 -- 809 posts
Since Antick Musings has turned into primarily a book-review blog, I should link to some of the ones I thought were most successful. This year, though, I'm going to do it with quotes, allowing me to quote myself, which is nearly as disreputable, and precisely as pleasant, as it sounds:
My love-hate relationship with the status of Antick Musings as a book review blog was the undertone of much of what I wrote this year. (Yes, I do realize it -- it is that obvious.) Probably the most -- possibly only -- interesting bit of that was What a Pile of Books Demanding to Be Reviewed Looks Like.

I used to write about movies here -- hell, I used to see movies regularly, but I've been too busy or anxious or whatever to do more than one a month for a good year now -- but the only real remnant of that this past year is a lone Movie Log post called Catching Up Once Again.

At the end of 2011, as is now traditional, I picked the best books I'd read each month that year, as a pseudo-Top Ten of the year. It's a weird format, but I like weird formats.

Speaking of particular days of the year, I also continued my tradition of rounding up the very particular news announced on the first day of April.

I blogged about music intermittently, talking up songs by The Airborne Toxic Event, Local H, Fountains of Wayne, Mieka Pauley, Cloud Cult, Sleigh Bells, and The Indelicates.

I caved into peer pressure more than once, with such memes as Less Exciting Book Titles and The Weird Questionnaire. I also -- clearly misunderstanding how memes work, and why people do them -- tried to start my own, with the too complicated and smells-like-work Five Quotes.

In the aftermath of last year's flood, I wrote something closer to a real essay than I usually manage: What We Lose, What We Save. I'm still reasonably proud of it.

Every Monday, I had a Reviewing the Mail post to examine -- and, often, to supposedly-humorously interrogate -- the books that had arrived in the prior week's mail.

If you're concerned about your personal brand, I have some words for you. Many of them are unprintable.

I blogged about the various tempests-in-teapots of publishing much less this past year -- perhaps because they all start to look the same, after a while -- but I did write about What Publishers Don't Do, Street Dates and Sales Velocity, Amazon Drops a Big Shoe, Barry Eisler Continues to Shill for Amazon, Stating the Obvious,

I review comics, though I don't do much of the chin-scratching (or hair-tearing, or forked-tonguing) kind of blogging about comics that defines the form on the Internet. This year, my major think-piece in that area was The Myth of the Comics Creator,

Have I mentioned that I hate consultants? Let me point you towards In Which a Lying Liar Lies.

As my sons have grown up, I've spent much less time blogging about the cute little things they do -- partially because tweens don't do cute little things -- but I did actually put up a picture to go along with my thoughts about My Alarmingly Large and Increasingly Grown-Up Son

And those are the kinds of things I blogged about this past year -- plus lots and lots more posts listing books, whining about the books that were destroyed, and reviewing books I had semi-recently read. It's a rut, I admit it. And maybe admitting it will let me find a new rut to trample down for a while.

I hope you'll stick around for Year Eight.

The Most Meta Post Yet

Blogger, in its relentless Googleicious quest to make everything as stark and white and difficult to navigate as possible, has made the new design mandatory, as of a couple of days ago.

But it's still ugly, and still more difficult to use, and all of the problems it had before. It's dull and bland and I hates it.

(And now I have a new excuse for not blogging! Yea me!)

Take That, Piles of Books!

As of this moment, I am entirely caught up on writing about the books I've read, for what is probably the first time since the end of Book-a-Day last February.

Which means it must be time to get back to reading, so if you'll excuse me....

Introducing the Belated Review Files

So I've gotten behind in writing about books this past year, and that has made me feel bad (as so much else in this world does). But, starting with the holiday weekend just past, I've been catching up -- I did posts covering the leftover books for January and February then.

Today, I've been tackling March, but, instead of shoving all of those reviews into one post (as I kept trying to do, most of this morning), I'm going to space them out over the next week, to give the illusion of more content here at Antick Musings. They all share my newest label, Belated Review Files, which identifies a book I'm getting to write about much later than I should. (The first of those posts, covering Daniel Handler's Why We Broke Up, is already live.)

And here's what was going to be the introduction to that single overstuffed post, when it was a single post:
This is the third in a series of posts designed to get me back to even after I spent the first half of 2012 reading books and not writing about them. (Because what are we without our rituals and habits? Nothing!)

I did read these books four months ago, so my memories of them may be wrong in small or large ways; I'm certainly going to blame that if I get anything egregiously wrong. I'd also like to note that, if you happen to be the author of any of these books, I did appreciate it enough to read it all the way to the end and found it interesting enough to think and write about it afterward. That is not nothing; the engaged attention of readers is, under at least one theory, the whole point of writing to begin with. And, if I really do hate your book, I'll be sure to say so. (None of these qualify, I think, but I'll have to see what comes out of my fingers as I think about them.)

(And, yes, I am not blind to the irony that I'm "introducing" something with Belated in its name a week after I started it -- if one were kind, one might even say I planned that irony.)

Edit, five minutes later: I've also slightly updated the March index page, and you'll probably only care about that if you're literarily stalking me.

A Helpful Note

There seems to be an idea floating about in the ether that my review of John Scalzi's new novel, Redshirts (posted late yesterday) is negative, and that I don't like Scalzi's books.

Both are untrue. Redshirts didn't strike me as laugh-out-loud hilarious, as it has been billed [1], but it's a pleasant, quick entertainment -- and Scalzi is reliably entertaining, which is why I keep grabbing his novels as soon as I see them. None of those books has been perfect, though, so when I've written about them the most interesting (and, I think, useful) tactics have been to poke at the bits that don't work as well. [2] Writing otherwise -- focusing only on the things a book does well -- is certainly enjoyable for the author, but I don't think it's as effective for everyone else in the world.

My reviewing mode tends to be more negative than positive, I know, but you really can tell when I actively dislike a book. Take, for example, my reviews of two of last year's Hugo darlings: Mira Grant's Feed and Connie Willis's Blackout/All Clear.

That's what it looks like when I strongly dislike a book. (And, for an example of what it looks like when I keep reading a writer even after I realize I hate his current work, see P.J. O'Rourke's Don't Vote: It Just Encourages the Bastards.)

Redshirts, on the other hand, I basically liked -- the "codas" at the end, in particular, are really good stuff. If I've driven any readers away from it by not stating that it's the funniest thing since the invention of the seltzer bottle, then I do apologize. You may well find it substantially funnier than I did; at least four SFnal luminaries have already done so.


[1] Which was sad for me; I wanted to read a book as funny as I was told Redshirts was.

[2] Though I have definitely reached the point where noting that Scalzi is not interested in carefully building up his worlds from close readings of Nature and his flying slip-stick is entirely beside the point; he not that kind of writer. Come to think of it, I usually make fun of that kind of writer as well.

Greetings from High Above the Fabulous Las Vegas Strip!

I just spent the last hour cursing and trying to populate my other blog (Editorial Explanations, check it out regularly...just not right now, since there won't be any new posts until I can get back to a real computer), without much luck. The sticking point is images -- I can't seem to get them into the posts using my iPad, and that's all the computer I brought this time out.

This is deeply frustrating, since I know that I was able to blog -- including images, though the layout got a bit wonky -- last year from my conferences, and I hate to think that I've gotten technologically dumber in the past year. (I'm going to blame software updates, and not my fallible memory, if anyone asks.)

Anyway, I'm here in Las Vegas -- that most quintessentially American city, where everything is larger and flashier than a healthy person would want it to be -- and it, as usual, exacerbates my usual grumpy tendencies. I don't like people much to begin with, and, in Vegas, there are so many loathesome types of people -- ball-capped yahoos, pneumatic young women on the make, dull middle-aged losers on expense accounts, and far more corn-fed god-fearing middle Americans with kids in tow than I would have expected. (Especially in a casino hotel whose room keys promote its topless beach club.) I recognize that this is entirely my problem, but that doesn't actually help much.

The conference went well, as such things go: it's embarassing but wonderful to see how many financial professionals (here at IMA and at other shows, like last week's ACFE) know and respect Wiley as a publisher; they know our name and associate it with authoritative content and useful works, which is a tremendous compliment and goad to live up to those expectations. (Now, if only everyone were buying books the way they were a few years back, everything would be hunky-dory.)

Tomorrow is one of those unfortunate days eaten up entirely by travel that happen when going from left coast to right; my flight isn't until 11-something, so I don't get into JFK airport until nearly 8, so the day will be just about a total loss.

Now, I expect none of you actually care about any of this -- except perhaps my mother, who does read this blog; Hi, Mom! -- but inaction feeds on inaction as action feeds on action, so I want to get my fingers typing into this little Blogger box more often again, and build from there back to something worth reading. (I've got a long essay that's been half-written for nearly year; I need to get back to that, and everything else I want to do.)

I could waste time and space here attempting to be lyrical about the planes taking off from McCarran -- I can see it out of my 31st-floor window -- and the helicopters that similarly never stop buzzing by, and the mountains in the distance, and the city and suburbs bracketed by those landmarks, but I think I've rambled pointlessly long enough. The next blog entry should be from a real computer, back in my home, and, with any luck, it will also have more substance than this one.

Molasses Search Detail

So one of my many excuses for not blogging more is that my home computer -- that should be "my," since there's also The Wife's laptop, the Mac used by the boys, and the even older Mac that's officially The Wife's but doesn't get used much, all in the same house, and for all of which I'm all the tech support they get -- is running very slowly a lot of the time lately.

I've been trying to figure out the problem -- today I ran a big virus scan, which didn't turn up anything serious -- and have decided that it's one of the three programs I have running pretty much all the time. (Well, the other possible reason is that the machine -- a 3.06 GHz Mac i3 with 4GB of memory running OS 10.6.8 -- is just too old and slow, but the boys' Mac seems to be doing pretty well, and it's about three years older. And I'm really just using it for websurfing, blogging, and other highly non-processor-intensive tasks.)

So the three possible culprits are:
  • Firefox, which used to be a great, stable browser with wonderful plug-ins, but has turned into a weekly-updated house of horrors that freezes for minutes on end for no clear reason. (I'm on the beta update channel, so maybe I just need to step back to a stable version -- but, even there, they're updating the damn thing almost every month, which is way too often for a browser.) I'm currently on 14.0 beta 6, for my sins.
  • Entourage, my e-mail program -- the problem here is possibly the opposite of Firefox, since I'm still on Office 2004 (and I don't really feel like spending $200 to update to something that I'll mostly use to work on documents for my job).
  • And then iTunes, which takes about five minutes to open each day, while it's doing something. (I suspect it's checking every single song in my library -- and there's over 23,000 of them -- for signs of piracy.) If this is the problem, I really don't know what to do -- I'm pretty locked-in to Apple's plug-and-play music ecosystem, with two iPods and an iPad.
I don't seriously expect anyone out there to have an answer -- though I more and more suspect it's Firefox, and that I should shift over to Safari and see how that works. (I already use Chrome and Opera for browsing occasionally, and have radically different sets of bookmarks in each of those.)  I think I even still have Mozilla installed, though I bet that hasn't been updated in a long time.

No, really, I'm just venting, since I am a blogger and that is what we do. This also looks like content to a cursory glance, and I have been feeling guilty about how empty Antick Musings has been recently. But commiseration and/or suggestions are certainly welcome.

When Is Spam Not Spam?

So I recently [1] had an apologetic e-mail from someone I suspect may be a fellow marketer.

He was trying to promote a project, and hired an Internet marketing company to do that...and, only later, he learned that by "promote" they meant "spam on unrelated places in not-particularly-useful ways." And so he was running around, apologizing for those spammy bits of outreach and asking for them to be taken down. (I've just deleted the comment in question.)

That particularly mildly spammy comment had slipped by me, so I went to check it out, and found it was a link to an infographic on the History of Logistics and Supply Chain Management. Now, neither the original apologetic guy nor his too-slipshod Internet marketers apparently know this, but I, too, am a marketer, and one area I work in is supply chain management.

So, yes, I was spammed, since the link wasn't related to the topic of this blog. (Whatever that is on any given day.) But I was pointed at an well-crafted resource, in an area which is not uninteresting to me.

So then the question becomes: was that link actually spam, since I was interested in it once I noticed it? And is there a fuzzy border, where spammy content bumps up against content-y spam, and nothing is quite clearly one or the other?


[1] "Recently," in this context, means "about a month ago." E-mails often sit in my inbox to simmer in their own juices for far too long.