text:
I was standing at a double water fountain the other day filling my water bottle when a gentleman approached and started drinking from the adjacent fountain. When he pressed the actuator, my water pressure dropped dramatically. Instinctually, I reacted and moved my bottle to follow the water. As he repeatedly hit the actuator to take individual sips, the randomly changing water pressure sent the water from my fountain over my bottle, onto my hand and arm.
Frustrated and irritated, I wondered who didn't consider this phenomenon in the product development cycle. Why didn't anyone account for this shared experience? After all, these two individual units obviously shared a supply line. In retrospect, I realize I could have gotten even with a bit of actuator pressing myself.
Who should have thought about the possibility of water spraying everywhere and who should have thought about me having this terrible experience?
In this article, I want to share some thoughts about user experience design, UX practice today, and its parallels to industrial design practice. In efforts to continue the conversation about the true fit of UX as a growing specialization, I will attempt to position it within the landscape of established design disciplines. I will also to raise questions and considerations to entertain as UX emerges from its software-related origins and grows into strategic leadership across design disciplines. This is neither a manifesto nor a hard-lined stance on UX; rather just some ideas to help carry the collective discussion forward.
Human Centered Design in the Rear View Mirror
Let me start with a slightly controversial statement that I drop on my students each fall during the introduction to the sophomore industrial design studio: all design is human-centered. If it's not human-centered, then it's not design. If it's not design, it's something else and we don't teach that here.
As you might imagine, half of the students have no idea what I mean and the other half usually aren't listening. Throughout the semester we continually explore the relationship between people and objects. We consider physical qualities, ergonomics, semantics, and form language. We also consider aesthetics and beauty using Gestalt principles. Fairly early on, though, each student realizes that the product forms they are creating can effectively take almost any shape. They wrestle with finding the correct form as if there is a magical curve they can pull and the form will snap into beautiful ergonomic shape. So to guide students in form development, I ask, "What impact will this object have? What do you intend it to do in someone's life?"
Immediately they answer, "Well, it should be ergonomic and easy to use." Then I press further and say, "Okay, you're a designer, you're expected to deliver something that is ergonomic and easy to use, and it has to be beautiful too. So, what will this thing do once you bring it into the world?" As you might guess, the students catch on quickly and respond with, "It should have some significance to the user and to enhance their lives in some way." Eureka!
In their minds they shift their thinking from making things to designing things that help facilitate actions, behaviors and experiences. It's a fundamental shift to consider an object's form to be in service of something much greater than its own visual image. This is the core of human-centered design—considering the relationship of people with their products in the context of their activities. It's also the core of experience design.
The term "human-centered design" is interpreted today more strictly as ergonomics, thereby representing an older, more limited viewpoint on designing. But this is just a question of semantics; the perspective of "user experience" has been here longer than the terminology and literature indicates.
Today, design isn't design without a concern for human experience. The pervasiveness of experience-driven design has made "experience" the new hot buzzword. But is it really new?
It's 1964 All Over Again
I recently had the privilege of spending a day with a 1965 graduate from the Industrial Design program at Carnegie Tech (which is now the School of Design at Carnegie Mellon University). As we walked through the undergraduate studios, we chatted about the concerns of today's designers and how our curriculum is shaped to address aspects of holistic design practice.
We also talked about "user experience" as a key concern in designing products and how we have shifted our focus across our undergraduate industrial design curriculum to be driven by human experience. It was at this point that he said with a smile on his face, "so nothing has really changed." This threw me for a loop; 2010 has to be very different than 1964, right? The concerns for today's designer are different than those of decades past.
But apparently back in the 1960s, the industrial design program began running studio projects that were based on designing for human experience. And although the hallmark of industrial design has been the styling of everyday objects, the belief that industrial design is only concerned with styling and manufacturing was as much a misconception in the 1960s as it is today.
As we talked further, I learned that one project in particular, led by Professor Richard Felver, looked at designing the interior of an automobile that could travel 100 mph. After all, in the future cars would surely do 100 mph. The project, named "Man at 100 mph," was to design the technology, information, seating, safety, controls, form, and amenities of a production automobile. Students considered two things: 1. you're doing 100 mph! and 2. people will experience very different feelings, emotions, behaviors, and social dynamics in such a vehicle that could travel that fast. By today's accounts, this is experience design.
When I went to design school in the early 1990s, it was common practice to design for the impact that the object/artifact/system was intended to have in a person's life, but we never referred to this specifically as the user's experience, and we certainly never used the term experience design. It was just designing for people. So, perhaps design is now a ubiquitous practice and the social concerns of product development that are so rooted in the fundamentals of industrial design practice are now being heralded, identified, and championed in other fields.
So, who owns UX? Should anyone? Should it be a discrete subset of design? Can industrial design reclaim ownership of this core aspect of its discipline?
The UXing of Design Practice
If UX has always been part of industrial design, why has it taken so long to permeate through the design landscape and why are we now creating new specialized fields within design practice? Is this a case where other disciplines are extracting key principles of design and rearticulating them in a contemporary context? Perhaps this is a result of UX advocates and practitioners coming from radically disparate fields, many rooted in software, computer science, and HCI, and are newly discovering the depth of methods, theory, and practice of traditional design.
A quick scan of the Wikipedia page on UX reveals, in part, the following definition:
User experience highlights the experiential, affective, meaningful and valuable aspects of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and product ownership, but it also covers a person's perceptions of the practical aspects such as utility, ease of use and efficiency of the system. User experience is subjective in nature, as it is about an individual's feelings and thoughts about the system. User experience is dynamic, because it changes over time as the circumstances change.
UX in general is concerned with the situation around products and systems that affect the formation (or design) of the product or system. In a sense, you could argue that UX is more concerned with the situation than the product itself. This is important because UX practitioners are therefore concerned with holistic views on product ecosystems and user-product relationships.
There are certainly better sources for learning about UX than Wikipedia, but this is the most easily accessible profile for the practice. The top two Google search results for "UX" are the two Wikipedia pages on "user experience design" and "user experience."
In today's landscape, UX is becoming differentiated (or specialized) from established design practices of industrial design, communication design, and interaction design by its holistic viewpoint and strategic outlook. This positions the UX designer as the strategic/visionary driver and can marginalize traditional designers as tactical form-givers, pixel-pushers, and stylists. This is dangerous as it shifts the perception of traditional (ID, CD, IxD) designers to that of cake decorators who fashion only the visual appearance of artifacts in precision and beauty. All surface, no substance.
The UX practitioner today is very different from a couple years ago as UX designers aren't specifically tethered to software or limited to information architecture. I believe a virtue of UXD is in the focus on the role a product/system plays in someone's life. The de-emphasis from "thingness," or the "it," positions UX concerns on the activities, actions, interactions, relationships and interconnections of the product/system–the strategic "ing."
As someone deeply concerned with the formal qualities of objects, this is somewhat blasphemous. Why divorce the "ing" from the "it"? In today's design practice, designing happens through interdisciplinary collaboration, but as I will touch upon later, the future of UX may involve more integration. So the UX designer specializes in the "ing," but what about the gulf between the strategic planning and the concept development? Who bridges that gap? Where does interaction design fall in relation?
UX will be the death of UX
I recently saw an episode of That 70s Show where Kelso (the Ashton Kutcher character) tries to understand what his father does for a living. Trying to put it in the simplest of terms, his father describes his work as "throughput." He's not the originator of ideas and doesn't generate the input, and he doesn't craft the output; rather he receives the input and gets it ready for output. Seems like he was actually describing a process similar to (design) synthesis, although described with great comedic timing. So how do you describe UX practice?
Industrial design has the exact opposite problem. The tangible artifacts of designing are so critical to the survival and perception of the discipline that the thinking, research, and UX principles that created those artifacts are often never seen. As stated earlier, this is the hallmark of the profession. Historically, industrial designers have had a very difficult time shaking off the impression that they're only stylists. A March 20, 2000 issue of Time Magazine proclaimed on its cover, "The Rebirth of Design: Function Is Out, Form Is In." True, we love forming things and we do "decorate cakes," but the deeper driving concerns of industrial designers are never known.
UX is a nebulous term much like "design." It is often interpreted in a multitude of ways and practiced in a widely varied fashion. Whitney Hess' 10 Most Common Misconceptions About User Experience Design introduces some good themes for UX practitioners that can also be applied to other areas of design—just drop the UX and replace it with any other design discipline. Ms. Hess consolidates viewpoints and perspectives across the UX landscape and provides a must-read if you're introducing the idea of UX to a non-design audience.
As UX and UXD migrate toward the strategic center of design practice, UX practitioners run the risk of becoming marginalized as specialists equipped to handle only the front end of the design development process. What is currently missing in much of UX practice is the delivery of a concrete tangible artifact—a synthesized outcome. Yes, proposals, system architecture, interaction schemas, profiles, and design criteria are all valued components of the design process, but to what end?
Can UX designers decorate the cakes that they bake? Or can they only write the instructions for baking a cake? Or can some continue to write the instructions without actually baking and decorating at all? Perhaps the immediate future for UX may be to deliver on the "it" to back up the "ing." Maybe more UX-titled designers will be recruited from traditional design disciplines. Or perhaps UX is a fad that will not reach maturity and will come and go like fashion. A similar problem afflicts "green" design; its popularity and catchy name may end up curtailing its impact.
We do know that the concerns for the human experience are deeply rooted in design practice, and this will persist. However, the term UX may end up doing itself in. Perhaps it will be replaced by HeX (human experience) or some other equally obscure terminology.
A Brief Comment on Design in the 21st century
Terry Irwin, former principal and creative director of the San Francisco office of MetaDesign and now head of the School of Design at Carnegie Mellon, has adamantly stated that this is the century for design. No other discipline is as equipped to address current problems, forecast a new future, and shift conventional thinking, behaviors, and understanding of the world.
UX represents a uniquely orthogonal viewpoint to any business model and product development process as it provides sight across landscapes, domains, and silos. This is an important aspect for design to redefine itself for the 21st century and to articulate all of the core practices, methods, and thinking that have made design integral to the advancement of civilization. We are the shapers of the modern world. UX has the opportunity to shift the focus on the socio-emotional issues as the main drivers for designing and let the other parts fall in service to these humanistic ideals.
As we trek toward 2011, the articulation of design and user experience will continue to shift from design as an entity (the "it"), to designing as a behavior (the "ing"). It's really the act of designing that matters, so we should focus on designing rather than design.
Closing Thoughts
I believe that UX in its current incarnation is not entirely new, but shows promise to provide a critical link between design and the rest of the world. Businesses are spinning up UX departments at an incredible rate thinking this will be the answer to slumping sales or poor product performance. Maybe this is the cure. Realistically, it's likely the first part in acknowledging that consideration for the people using, purchasing, interacting with, and identifying with the products and systems we create is extremely important. It seems that the concerns of the designer are now coinciding with equitable business models.
The UXing of the articulation of design is new. This new language and expression of the impact of design provides the invitation for others to connect with design and see clearly what design can do for them. But we have to deliver good, human-centered, experiential, sustainable, ergonomic, beautiful forms. As professor Joe Ballay said at the Industrial Design 75th Anniversary at CMU:
When I talk to my students about the importance of form and understanding I say, Look, everything in the world from a clump of dirt to the shiniest car has a form. You can't avoid it. It's got a form. It's got a color, it's got a texture. It may as well be the right one. It isn't a question of form, no form, it's a question of which form.


text:
Executive Summary
This report analyzes the demographic and economic characteristics of newlyweds who marry spouses of a different race or ethnicity, and compares the traits of those who "marry out" with those who "marry in." The newlywed pairs are grouped by the race and ethnicity of the husband and wife, and are compared in terms of earnings, education, age of spouse, region of residence and other characteristics. This report is primarily based on the Pew Research Center's analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) in 2008-2010 and on findings from three of the Center's own nationwide telephone surveys that explore public attitudes toward intermarriage. For more information about data sources and methodology, see Appendix 1.
Key findings:
- The increasing popularity of intermarriage. About 15% of all new marriages in the United States in 2010 were between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from one another, more than double the share in 1980 (6.7%). Among all newlyweds in 2010, 9% of whites, 17% of blacks, 26% of Hispanics and 28% of Asians married out. Looking at all married couples in 2010, regardless of when they married, the share of intermarriages reached an all-time high of 8.4%. In 1980, that share was just 3.2%.
- Gender patterns in intermarriage vary widely. About 24% of all black male newlyweds in 2010 married outside their race, compared with just 9% of black female newlyweds. Among Asians, the gender pattern runs the other way. About 36% of Asian female newlyweds married outside their race in 2010, compared with just 17% of Asian male newlyweds. Intermarriage rates among white and Hispanic newlyweds do not vary by gender.
- At first glance, recent newlyweds who "married out" and those who "married in" have similar characteristics. In 2008-2010, the median combined annual earnings of both groups are similar—$56,711 for newlyweds who married out versus $55,000 for those who married in. In about one-in-five marriages of each group, both the husband and wife are college graduates. Spouses in the two groups also marry at similar ages (with a two- to three-year age gap between husband and wife), and an equal share are marrying for the first time.
- However, these overall similarities mask sharp differences that emerge when the analysis looks in more detail at pairings by race and ethnicity. Some of these differences appear to reflect the overall characteristics of different groups in society at large, and some may be a result of a selection process. For example, white/Asian newlyweds of 2008 through 2010 have significantly higher median combined annual earnings ($70,952) than do any other pairing, including both white/white ($60,000) and Asian/Asian ($62,000). When it comes to educational characteristics, more than half of white newlyweds who marry Asians have a college degree, compared with roughly a third of white newlyweds who married whites. Among Hispanics and blacks, newlyweds who married whites tend to have higher educational attainment than do those who married within their own racial or ethnic group.
- Intermarriage and earnings. Couples formed between an Asian husband and a white wife topped the median earning list among all newlyweds in 2008-2010 ($71,800). During this period, white male newlyweds who married Asian, Hispanic or black spouses had higher combined earnings than did white male newlyweds who married a white spouse. As for white female newlyweds, those who married a Hispanic or black husband had somewhat lower combined earnings than those who "married in," while those who married an Asian husband had significantly higher combined earnings.
- Regional differences. Intermarriage in the United States tilts West. About one-in-five (22%) of all newlyweds in Western states married someone of a different race or ethnicity between 2008 and 2010, compared with 14% in the South, 13% in the Northeast and 11% in the Midwest. At the state level, more than four-in-ten (42%) newlyweds in Hawaii between 2008 and 2010 were intermarried; the other states with an intermarriage rate of 20% or more are all west of the Mississippi River. (For rates of intermarriage as well as intra-marriage in all 50 states, see Appendix 2.)
- Is more intermarriage good for society? More than four-in-ten Americans (43%) say that more people of different races marrying each other has been a change for the better in our society, while 11% say it has been a change for the worse and 44% say it has made no difference. Minorities, younger adults, the college-educated, those who describe themselves as liberal and those who live in the Northeast or the West are more disposed than others to see intermarriage in a positive light.
- Public's acceptance of intermarriage. More than one-third of Americans (35%) say that a member of their immediate family or a close relative is currently married to someone of a different race. Also, nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) say it "would be fine" with them if a member of their own family were to marry someone outside their own racial or ethnic group. In 1986, the public was divided about this. Nearly three-in-ten Americans (28%) said people of different races marrying each other was not acceptable for anyone, and an additional 37% said this may be acceptable for others, but not for themselves. Only one-third of the public (33%) viewed intermarriage as acceptable for everyone.
- Divorce. Several studies using government data have found that overall divorce rates are higher for couples who married out than for those who married in – but here, too, the patterns vary by the racial and gender characteristics of the couples. These findings are based on scholarly analysis of government data on marriage and divorce collected over the past two decades.
Notes and Terminology
In this report, the terms "intermarriage" and "marrying out" refer to marriages between a Hispanic and a non-Hispanic (interethnic) or marriages between non-Hispanic spouses who come from the following different racial groups (interracial): white, black, Asian, American Indian, mixed race or some other race. "Intra-marriage" and "marrying in" refer to marriages between spouses of the same race or ethnicity.
"Newly married" or "newlyweds" refer to couples who got married in the past 12 months prior to the survey date (American Community Survey). Newlywed couples in 2008-2010 combines three years' data for newlyweds. Even though labeled as "newlyweds," 42% of newly married couples in 2008-2010 have been married before (either husband or wife or both). Newlyweds are a subset of the "currently married" population, which includes individuals whose marital status is "married, spouse present."
When comparing characteristics of detailed groups of newlyweds by race/ethnicity as well as gender patterns, only intermarried couples involving a white spouse are analyzed, and they represent about 68% of all intermarried newlywed couples between 2008 and 2010. For illustration purposes, "/" (not specifying gender) and "-" (specifying gender) are used to indicate different types of couples. For example, "White/Asian" indicates intermarried couples between whites and Asians. "White-Asian" means that the husband is white and the wife is Asian, in that order.
The term "Asian" includes native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders. "American Indian" includes Alaska Natives. The terms "black" and "African American" are used interchangeably in this report. All references in this report to whites, blacks, and Asians refer to the non-Hispanic portions of those groups. Hispanics are of any race. For more details, see Appendix 1.
About the Report
This report was researched and written by Wendy Wang, research associate at the Social & Demographic Trends project of the Pew Research Center. Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Research Center, participated in the initial planning of the project and prepared the couple-level ACS datasets for the analysis. Paul Taylor, director of the Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends project, provided the editorial guidance and also edited the report. Kim Parker, associate director of the Social & Demographic Trends project, provided valuable comments and suggestions. Research Assistants Eileen Patten and Seth Motel did the number checking, and Marcia Kramer copy-edited the report.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Every so often, Brandi Koskie finds dozens of photos of her 3-year-old daughter, Paisley, on her iPhone — but they aren't ones Koskie has taken.
"There'll be 90 pictures, sideways, of the corner of her eye, her eyebrow," said Koskie, who lives in Wichita, Kan. "She's just tapping her way right into my phone."
The hidden photos, all shot by Paisley, illustrate a phenomenon familiar to many parents in today's tech-savvy world: Toddlers love selfies. Observant entrepreneurs have caught on to these image-obsessed tots, marketing special apps that make taking photos super-easy for little fingers. You can even buy a pillow with a smartphone pocket so toddlers can take selfies during a diaper change.
But toddlers aren't the only ones taking photos nonstop. It's not unusual for doting parents to snap thousands of digital photos by the time their child is 2. Today's toddlers think nothing of finding their own biopic stored in a device barely bigger than a deck of cards.
While the barrage of images may keep distant grandparents happy, it's not yet clear how such a steady diet of self-affirming navel-gazing will affect members of the first truly "smartphone generation." Tot-centric snapshots can help build a healthy self-image and boost childhood memories when handled correctly, but shooting too many photos or videos and playing them back instantly for a demanding toddler could backfire, said Deborah Best, a professor of cognitive developmental psychology at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.
The instant gratification that smartphones provide today's toddlers is "going to be hard to overcome," she said. "They like things immediately, and they like it short and quick. It's going to have an impact on kids' ability to wait for gratification. I can't see that it won't."
Julie Young, a Boston-based behavioral analyst, has seen that firsthand. She was recently helping her 3-year-old son record a short birthday video for his cousin on her iPhone when he stopped mid-sentence, lunged for her phone and shouted, "Mom, can I see it?"
U.S. & World
"It's caught on the end of the video. He couldn't even wait to get the last sentence out," said Young, who has two sons. "The second the phone comes out, they stop, they look and they attack."
Now Young and her husband make their sons wait to look at a new video or photo until after dinner or until the other parent comes home, when everyone can watch together. They are careful to sit with their kids when looking at photos and have adopted the phrase "practice patience" as a family mantra.
It's natural for toddlers to be fascinated with their own image (think mirrors), and that interest plays an important developmental role as they develop a sense of self, child development experts say. Watching a video again and again can also help move events from short- to long-term memory, Best said.
But like any other fun thing kids get obsessed with, too much of it can be bad. Parents should make sure some photos show the child with other family members or friends. Parents can also sit with kids and narrate the photo or video as if it were a bedtime story.
"When we read a book to a child, it's the same thing we do with these photos," Best said.
Koskie has noticed that cuddling in bed on a lazy Saturday morning and swiping through digital photos is one of Paisley's favorite activities, and it seems to encourage her to ask about her place in the world. They look at photos and videos together on the iPad going back to Paisley's birth and "she'll start to ask questions: 'When I was a little tiny baby did I do this? Did I do that?'"
Paisley and the iPad are almost the same age: She was born two weeks after it came out. "That's a base-level, foundation technology for her," said Koskie, who handles marketing and content strategy for the email app EvoMail. "Someday it's all going to come back to bite me or she's going to come back and say, 'Wow, there's this whole encyclopedia of my whole life.' We're very plugged in, for better or for worse."
Still, parents who remember the days before iPhones wonder if their children will ever really understand the power of a cherished photograph. Jason Michael, a 32-year-old father of two in Denver, has taken so many photos of his 11-month-old son and 4-year-old stepdaughter (about 4,000) that his iPhone's memory has filled up three times. His stepdaughter takes plenty of selfies and loves to film herself singing favorite songs, then watches the videos again and again.
Michael worries that all that visual noise may keep them from treasuring that one special image that can evoke memories decades later. For him, it's a photo of himself as an 8-month-old baby lying on a pink blanket decorated with a rabbit eating a carrot. He remembers the photo so vividly that he asked his mother for the blanket when his son was born.
"I know everything about that photo. But there are 20,000 photos of my kids, so will it have that same emotional impact for them?" Michael said.
"It sounds a little cheesy, I guess, but you look at the photos and it's so rich and there's so much you remember about it," he said. "Now, all they have to do is swipe their hand to the left and it's gone and there's a new picture."


text:
As countries modernize around the world, they're increasingly being hit with one of the curses of wealth: cancer.
There are about 14 million new cancer cases globally each year, the World Health Organization reported Monday. And the trend is only getting worse.
The global burden of cancer will grow by 70 percent over the next two decades, the WHO predicts, with an estimated 22 million new cases and 13 million deaths each year by 2032.
The majority of cases now occur in low- and middle-income countries, the agency found. Many of these nations' health care systems are ill-equipped to deal with the flood of complicated conditions that go along with disease.
Cancer in the developing world is a "time bomb," says Dr. Bernard Stewart, an epidemiologist at the University of New South Wales, in Sydney, Australia, who helped edit the WHO report. The problem, Stewart says, is that treatment availability for cancer hasn't kept up with the rise in its prevalence.
The long-held idea that cancer is a disease that affects primarily rich countries is slowly being undermined. You're still more likely to get cancer if you live in a wealthy country than if you live in a developing one. But you're more likely to die from the disease if you live in a poor country because cancer is often detected later in developing countries, and treatments are limited.
"The drug treatment path is simply not an option for the vast majority of low-income countries," Stewart says.
Furthermore, in industrialized nations the most common cancers (malignancies of the breast, colon or prostate) have the best potential treatment options, whereas cancers most common in low-income countries (cancers of the liver, stomach or esophagus) are harder to treat.
The good news, Stewart says, is that the lessons learned in the West — especially about early screening and prevention — could help to stem the expansion of cancer in other parts of the world.
"There are actions that can be taken in low- and middle-income countries," Stewart says. In particular, vaccinations against human papillomavirus and hepatitis B and C can help stop the rise of cervical and liver cancers.
People living in North America and Europe are still the most likely to get cancer. But the sheer size of China's population means that more people now die of cancer in China than anywhere else in world.
Despite high rates of smoking, China's rate of lung cancer is actually lower than that of most European nations. Death rates in China from stomach and liver cancer, however, are the highest in the world.
There's great diversity in terms of what forms of cancer strike where. Breast cancer is the leading type of malignancy globally among women, yet in some African nations cervical cancer is more common. Of all the malignancies, prostate cancer kills the most men worldwide; but in Japan, for example, stomach cancer kills more men.
And while cancer is a growing problem in developing nations, the person most likely to get cancer anywhere on the planet is a black man in the United States.
Copyright 2023 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
Type:Productivity Size:615MB Update Time:2022-02-17 23:24:18
Example Description:
Douglas Elliman Events is the official mobile app for Douglas Elliman Summit and Altitude.
This mobile app allows you to:
View schedules, explore sessions, and find networking events.
Curate your own personal schedule for easy conference attendance.
Access location and speaker information at your fingertips.
Post updates to sessions, keynotes, and exhibitor booths.
Interact with a real-time feed of all event activity, that showcases which sessions are trending, most popular photos, and popular discussion topics.
Earn points, badges, and prizes for being active on the app and at the event. Check the leaderboard to see how you compare to other attendees.
Expand your professional network and have fun!
Features of the App:
Update - a quick way to share photos, comments, and which session youre attending
Activity Feed - the real-time pulse of the event. See what people are saying, view photos from the event, and find trending sessions and topics.
Agenda - view the full agenda and related information (session time, room number, speaker info, etc)
Users - see whos at the event, and connect with them on the app
Exhibitors - find exhibitors and sponsors, and leave comments or ratings
Remember, as you use the app, you'll earn points and badges for participation. Enjoy the app and have a great show!
This app was created by DoubleDutch, the leading provider of branded mobile applications for events, conferences and trade shows worldwide.
The DoubleDutch platform is designed to thrill attendees and empower event organizers with powerful analytics.
Create engaging, memorable events and conferences with a DoubleDutch mobile app today.


text:
Quilts: Masterworks from the American Folk Art Museum
Quilts: Masterworks from the American Folk Art Museum
The Figge is pleased to present a special exhibition of 27 priceless quilts from the collection of the American Folk Art Museum (AFAM), opening November 3, 2012, and continuing through February 3, 2013. Featured will be classic examples of many major quilt types from the beginning of the 19th century to the end of the 20th century, including wholecloth, whitework, pieced, appliqued and album quilts, and a selection of Amish and African-American pieces, all drawn from the AFAM's celebrated collection.
As curator Elizabeth V. Warren explains, "The present exhibition highlights the best of the best, quilts that represent the finest examples in a variety of techniques, time periods and regions." The Figge will present an array of public programs and films in conjunction with the exhibition.
The American tradition of quiltmaking dates back to colonial times when English immigrants sewed heavy woolen bedcovers for the New England winters. As a greater variety of fabrics and threads became available, and the practice of sewing bedcovers spread through the nation, quiltmaking evolved into a rich and diverse artistic tradition.
While countless quilts were used and washed into oblivion, many remarkable examples have survived, and are now admired both for their visual beauty and their extraordinary craftsmanship. The quilting tradition—using remnants of fabrics from clothing and other sewing projects, gathering together for the quilting bee, and adorning the bed with the finished quilt—has come to epitomize the domestic side of the "pioneer spirit" in America. Today, quilting is a vibrant art form practiced by an estimated 20 million men and women around the world.
Organized by the American Folk Art Museum, New York
This exhibition is on view through February 3, 2013.
Tours of Quilts will be offered every Sunday at 1:30 through January 20th
Companion Events
Quilters Appreciation Day
Thursday, January 17
10 am–7 pm Quilt Appraisals
5-7 pm Warm up with Quilts
7 pm "Quilts as Art—or Not"
Celebrating Black History Month
Saturday, February 2
11 am Quilts: Masterworks from the American Folk Art Museum Tour
Noon-2 pm Quilting a Community in the Figge Studios
2 pm Quilts Lecture
Why Quilts Matter: History, Art & Politics (shown three episodes at a time)
See a video about this series.
Sunday, January 13, 2013 2:30–4 pm
Ep. 4: What is Art?
Ep. 5: Gee's Bend: "The Most Famous Quilts in America
Ep. 6: How Quilts Have Been Viewed and
Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:30–4 pm
Ep. 7: Empowering Women One Quilt at a Time
Ep. 8: Quilt Nation: 20,000,000 and Counting!
Ep. 9: Quilt Scholarship: Romance and Reality
Lureca Outland (c. 1904–2009), Boligee, Alabama, Wedding Ring Interpretation Quilt, 1991, cotton, wool, and synthetics, 82 x 75", collection American Folk Art Museum, New York, Museum purchase made possible in part by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, with matching funds from the
Great American Quilt Festival 3, 1991.13.5
Elizabeth Schumacher Leece (1867–1956), Kansas City, Missouri, Tulip and Rose Bouquet Quilt, 1930–1945, cotton, 100 1⁄4 x 84 1⁄2", collection American Folk Art Museum, New York, Gift of Marian Baer, 1984.11.2. Photograph by Gavin Ashworth, New York


text:
1970 Cougar Eliminator
Photography by Joe Greeves and courtesy of NAHC
Ford's Mercury division was, by design, positioned to be the stepping stone for those customers who wanted to move up the luxury ladder. And while the majority of Mercury owners purchased their vehicles strictly for its luxurious appointments, a small group of owners were enjoying the well-appointed equipment while tearing up the dragstrip. During the latter part of the '60s, Mercury followed Ford in providing a select number of performance cars that included the Cyclone, Cougar GT-E and Cougar Eliminator.
By 1970, performance buyers began to recognize the Cougar as an alternative to the plethora of other factory muscle cars. Mercury's designers gave the exterior a more aggressive look than the 1969 model. Exterior color choices were expanded to six in addition to a number of special order colors. The bold blacked out front grille openings were enlarged and included hideaway headlamps. The hood had a pronounced center bulge with a vertical applique that extended between the twin grilles. A large hood scoop, available with or without ram air, was painted matte black with a wide stripe that exited from the front of the scoop to the front of the hood. A front air dam kept the car from lifting at high speeds. Side graphics were bolder than the previous year and extended to the rearward edge of the quarter-panel. An "Eliminator" decal was placed in front of each rear side marker light. Changes to the rear of the car were limited to new taillamps and a new spoiler graphic.
Inside, the Cougar took luxury to the next level compared to its cousin Mustang. A black "camera case" finish gave the dash a racing appearance. All Eliminator's included either a 6,000 or 8,000 rpm tach, depending on engine choice. An "elapsed time" clock allowed owners to check on performance. Standard high back bucket seats were covered with Comfort-Weave vinyl. Shifters were floor mounted with or without the optional console. Four-speed vehicles came equipped with a Hurst shifter.
The heart of the Eliminator was, of course, its powertrain. The 351 cubic-inch Windsor and the 390 cubic-inch FE engine were history for 1970. The Windsor engine was replaced with the 351 cubic-inch Cleveland V8. While rated at only 10 horsepower more than the Windsor, the much-improved breathing capability of the Cleveland engine provided excellent performance. The Boss 302 Eliminator was also available and for many considered the ultimate performance car. Available with a four-speed manual transmission only, the high revving engine wasn't particularly well suited for the street because of its long duration cam, large valves and ports. For those wanting the ultimate straight-line performance Cougar buyers would simply order the 428 cubic-inch Cobra Jet and Ram-Air Super Cobra Jet Eliminator. Both engines were rated at an unreasonably low 335 horsepower, but more likely produced nearly 400 horsepower. All 428 cubic-inch Cougar Eliminators included a 3.25:1 rear axle; performance handling package and F70-14 raised white letter glass-belted tires. For those serious racers, customers could order the Drag-Pack with axle ratios of either 3.91:1 or 4.30:1.
Mercury succeeded in providing a good balancing of luxury and performance. Only 2,267 Cougar Eliminators were produced for 1970 and today are highly prized in the collector car market, particularly when equipped with either the 302 or 428 cubic-inch engine.
Last year for Eliminator
Both the 428 non ram-air and ram-air engines were identified with a "Q" code
First year for locking steering column
Designed by Larry Shinoda, designer of the Boss 302 Mustang
Not available as a convertible
Number built – 2,267 (1,424 with the 351 cubic-inch V8)
Construction – Unibody
Engine – 302, 351, 428 cubic-inch V8
Power/Torque – 290/290, 300/380, 335/440
Transmission – three-speed manual, four-speed manual and three-speed automatic
Suspension front – independent ball joints, single lower control arm. "A" type upper control arm, independent coil springs
Suspension rear – longitudinal leaf springs
Steering – recirculating ball and nut
Brakes – front disc, rear drum
Length/width/height – 196.1/74.1/51.5inches
Wheelbase – 111.1 inches
Weight – 3,333 lbs. shipping weight
0-60 mph/quarter-mile – 7.6 seconds, 15.8 seconds at 90 mph (Car Life, September 1969)
Top speed – 104 mph (Car Life, September 1969)
MPG – 10 - 15 mpg est.
Price – $3,404.40 Today – $32,200 (351 engine)
Insurance cost is $277/year for a 1970 Cougar Eliminator valued at $30,000. This is based on 3,000 miles per year of pleasure driving.
*Based on a quote from Heacock Classic Car Insurance
The 351 Cleveland engine was available for only four years yet it proved to be a dependable powertrain. Performance upgrades made the engine come alive. No major weaknesses were attributed to the Cleveland engine.
The 351 Eliminator provided a good balance of performance and handling. Braking was more than adequate with the optional front disc brakes. Cornering was on par with other muscle cars of the era.
1970 Camaro Z28
Number built – 8,733
0-60/quarter-mile – 6.5 seconds, 14.51 seconds at 98.79 mph
Top speed – 119 mph
Price – MSRP – $3,878; Today – $14,650 - $30,600
1970 Dodge Challenger RT
Number built – 3,052
0-60/quarter-mile – 7.4 seconds, 14.9 seconds at 91 mph
Top speed – 109 mph
Price – MSRP – $3,516 (2 dr. hardtop 383 engine); Today – $18,000 - $43,900
Low production equals rarity
Unique styling
World class performance
Attracts crowds at car shows
Not well known in the performance world
Aftermarket parts not as available as Mustangs
Niche market for sales
Typical rust issues of unrestored cars
Rarity restricts regular usage. Few show up at weekly car show and cruise nights. Most are trailered to and from events.
1970 Mercury Cougar
Low – $12,400
Average – $17,900
High – $32,200
Seat cover set $448.85
Carpet set $119.95
Front fender $545.00
Tie rod end $36.85
Front end rebuild kit $495
*West Coast Classic Cougar
(503) 463-1130
Mercury Muscle Cars (Muscle Car Color History) by David Newhardt
Cougar Muscle Portfolio 1967-1973 by R.M. Clarke
Ford: Mustang/Cougar 1964-73 (Chilton Automotive Books) by The Nichols/Chilton Editors
Ford Parts Interchange Manual: 1959-1970 Mustang, Fairlane, Torino, and Mercury Cougar and Cyclone (Motorbooks Workshop) by Paul Herd
The Cougar Eliminator is a very rare and desirable muscle car. The Eliminator represents those out-of-the box muscle cars developed during the heyday of the late '60s and early '70s. Those lucky few people who currently own one can relish in the fact that they own a unique piece of history. With a low production run, the Eliminator continues to have an audience that appreciates what the Mercury division brought to the table.
Published Dec 7th, 2015


text:
The only reason anyone would go out and fight any of the monsters depicted in the previous chapter is reward. Some monsters may be terrorizing the countryside, and a desperate citizenry will pay to have a pest exterminator come in. Others may be natural enemies with whom one is feuding, and still others may have come hunting the characters! But the main reason to fight monsters is the probability that they have been gathering loot, just as you have.It's paragraphs like this that make it hard for me to credit any notion that RuneQuest is not, at its core, very similar to D&D -- but, then, given the origins of its rules system in the Perrin Conventions, is this really a surprise? I don't mean to downplay RQ's genuine differences, both mechanical and philosophical. However, I don't think they're as great as some would have it nor do I think that, at least in its original second edition, the game cannot be called "old school" by any useful definition of the term.
That said, shortly after the paragraph quoted above comes another paragraph that does, I think, highlight a real difference between the two seminal fantasy RPGs:
A hoard should reflect the relative toughness and numbers of its guardians. The following list tries to do this by giving a treasure factor for a monster, based on individual capacities.Treasure factors are tied to a table, ranging from 1 to 100, divided into groups of 10, with each higher group have a greater chance of treasure (and more of it). Monsters gain treasure factors based on their hit points, chances to hit, damage done, armor, spells, and so on. Thus, the more mechanically powerful a monster, the greater the odds of its having nice loot.
D&D, meanwhile, uses a treasure type system, which divides a table into 26 lines (one for each letter of the alphabet), with each having a different chance of treasure of varying sizes and compositions. These types are then assigned to monsters by non-mechanical criteria -- an example of Gygaxian naturalism at work. Thus, the reason any given monster has any given treasure is because it "makes sense" according to some in-game logic rather than purely mechanical considerations.
As one might expect, I actually prefer the D&D approach in this case. The notion that more powerful monsters ought to have more and better treasure, as implied by RQ's treasure factor system, doesn't hold much weight for me. Indeed, I think treasure factors cross a line in my imagination, one that divided the game mechanics from the world they're meant to simulate. There certainly are problems with the treasure type system but I think, on balance, they do a better job of creating and presenting a coherent world than do treasure factors.
Paradoxically, I'm increasingly coming to dislike D&D magic items, or at least the way they're usually presented and used. They're generally too mechanical and un-special, compared to their RuneQuest counterparts. Indeed, the RQ rulebook notes that "We feel that each treasure should be unique, a carefully crafted reward for the intrepid Adventurer who has managed to overcome monsters and avoid traps to reach the final goal." It's a viewpoint I find myself increasingly sharing, especially now that, in my Dwimmermount campaign, there are multiple examples of the same magic item among the Fortune's Fools.
In future, I plan to be a lot more circumspect, perhaps even going so far as to adopt Jeff Rients's suggestion (a link to which I can no longer find) that each magic item in the D&D rulebook is unique -- if you find a sword +1, you find the sword +1 and no one else will ever possess one unless they pry it out of your cold, dead hands. Maybe that's too strong a correction to D&D's long-standing tendency to reduce magic items to collections of game mechanics devoid of any mystery, but I don't think the approach presented in the rules works as well as I'd like it to.
In any case, more food for thought arising from my continued forays into RuneQuest.


text:
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
To Be or Not To Be Agented
For all of you who are new (or legendary followers – sounds better than old), if you know me, you know I'm an avid supporter of any published author (and yes, those who aren't as well). It doesn't matter if you chose self-publishing, small publishers house, or went with the big six. Each method is designed solely for you to decide what the best route is.
What I had a problem with is when someone told me I was going the wrong route. If you're unaware, I'm currently in the querying process for an agent. It isn't an easy road and for those of you who aren't patient… wait… that's hilarious, as writers it seems none of us are patient… however you get my drift. It's a long and tedious process.
To be told what I'm doing is silly because agents are a scam was very frustrating. Here are these business men and woman, working hard for us. They're putting their neck out on the line each time they scoop up a first time author (or seasoned). They take risks just like we do.
I respect the agent world. I respect those who self-publish. I respect the small houses that give everyone a dream. I would never demean someone's hard work just because they don't believe in the process.
Here's what I think. No matter what path you choose make sure it's right for you. Don't let anyone knock your dream down, no matter how big. If you don't dream big, no one else will do it for you. I say go with your gut instincts, and if you fall pick yourself back up. No one is down and out in this world.
And for those who disagree with someone else's route, don't be the dream crusher. They worked hard; it's not your place to say it was for nothing.
Phew. Glad I got that off my chest. *climbs off soap box* Okay peeps, it's your turn.
What are your views on those who bully you into their agenda? Do you stand up for yourself and for your industry?
66 comments:
- Laura Pauling said...
I think we all have to make our own decisions and go with it. And I wish for a world where all the different pubishing routes could be happy for each other and it not be so either/or.
- Tue Sep 27, 06:43:00 AM
- Lindsay N. Currie said...
Good post Jen and I agree with you 100% While everyone has a right to choose the path that's best for them, many assume they also have the right to pick the right path for others. Not cool.
- Tue Sep 27, 06:46:00 AM
- Juliette Sobanet said...
Well said, Jen. Great post. Each path has its advantages and disadvantages, and it is up to the writer to decide which path is best for him/her. It is not up to anyone else to tell us what to do. Good for you for sticking to your guns:)
- Tue Sep 27, 06:52:00 AM
- Pippa Jay said...
Everyone has the right to their own choice, and not to be ridiculed for it. If someone tried that on my own blog, I'd tell them where to go. Otherwise I ignore them. I chose my route for my own reasons and I consider them good ones. My first book is coming out next year with a small publisher in the US. There are few agents in the UK who represent my chosen genre, and although some gave me encouraging feedback none chose to take me on. I don't have any ambition to be with the big six and I still consider self-publishing as an option in the future. Kudos to anyone who achieves their dream by whatever route they chose, and shame on those who ridicule anyone who doesn't slavishly follow their own narrow-minded path. :-/
- Tue Sep 27, 06:54:00 AM
- Christina Lee said...
Yeah, *sigh*, I had a post like this all planned and never hit publish. I likened it to the moms who beat each other up for various things (breast-feeding, working) even though they are still on the same side and want to be happy, ya know? People should just...chill. xo
- Tue Sep 27, 06:59:00 AM
- Anne Gallagher said...
Go get'em Jen. If we don't stand up for ourselves and our dreams we'll never know if we could have truly made it.
Agents aren't the right path for everyone, but for some they are. You do what's best for you. - Tue Sep 27, 07:08:00 AM
- Anna Banks said...
You've tussled with tunnel-visioned morons. There are many routes to publication and you don't have to pick just one. Just because you self-publish now doesn't mean you can't still pursue traditional publishing. Conversely, many agented, traditionally published authors are self-pubbing their backlists, or books that don't quite meet the formulaic genre traditional houses seek. It's not the path to success that's narrow; it's the minds of the people who think that.
- Tue Sep 27, 07:12:00 AM
- Connie Keller said...
Given the current state of publishing how can anyone even think of saying "you should/shouldn't do this or that?" We all make our decisions, and each has its own strengths and weaknesses. What we should be doing is encouraging one another because no matter which road you take, it's hard and frustrating.
- Tue Sep 27, 07:12:00 AM
- S.A. Larsenッ said...
Love this topic, Jen! I, too, respect the publishing process and believe there is an avenue for each writer. He/she just needs to find what's right for them. But there's always going to be someone out there with an opinion different than yours. I agree - go with your gut. It might take you a while to achieve your goal, but when you do, you will know you've done it 'True To Yourself.' (I linked to you in my post, today.)
- Tue Sep 27, 07:15:00 AM
- Karen Baldwin said...
All you get from sour grapes...is whine, whine, whine. Good for you for stomping on the naysayers.
- Tue Sep 27, 07:16:00 AM
- Matthew MacNish said...
There are two types of people in this world. Those who lift themselves up by raising up those who are around them, and those who think they lift themselves up by tearing others down.
I'll let you decide which type is worth knowing. - Tue Sep 27, 07:20:00 AM
I definitely agree that everyone has their own path to walk. It's hard for writers not to compare ourselves to other writers since we surround ourselves with them for support. The trick is not to fall into the trap of trying to do what others are doing instead of doing what's right for us. And I don't think a writer has to just choose one path and stick to it either. I currently have two books with a small pub, an agent shopping a novel to the big guys and I'm working on self-pubbing my first book soon. But that's what's right for me at this point in my career and it might not be right for someone else. Great topic!
- Tue Sep 27, 07:25:00 AM
- Anna said...
Christina, I made the same comparison in my head as well. We're all on the same team, and we should work to encourage each other, not tear each other down.
- Tue Sep 27, 07:30:00 AM
- Unknown said...
I'm loving the passion in these comments!! I think there are some great points made. We really are all fighting the same fight! Support each other no matter what, and those who aren't supportive are ones that will eventually fizzle out.
Stay strong. Trust yourself. Rely on others when in need of a pick me up! - Tue Sep 27, 07:32:00 AM
- Ed said...
My wife is a writer. Well, elementary teacher turned stay-at-home mom turned writer.
Now, if we could just work on the published part. - Tue Sep 27, 07:42:00 AM
- Deana said...
My take is they're just jealous you have the patience--as much as us writers can--to go through the tedious process.
I think you're right, that no one way is the right way. It is what feels right to the individual. I think the people that are okay with their way are also ok with others going the route they choose.
It is those that aren't okay with it that like to stick their chest out and try to act tough. Same old bully agenda, trying to compensate where they feel they lack.
You keep doing what your doing Jen! Dream big. It is your dream after all:) - Tue Sep 27, 08:08:00 AM
- Ellen Brickley said...
I don't think anyone has the right to be nasty about someone else's decision.
Simple as.
And if someone is, I think it often stems either from insecurity or an unhealthy need to be right. I feel for bad for judgmental people, but I don't like being around them. - Tue Sep 27, 08:12:00 AM
- Johanna Garth said...
I think you'll find in all walks of life there are those who feel like their decisions are best (breast-feed vs bottle feed, agent vs no agent). The point is you know what is best for you, so follow that path. The true friends will support you and the rest...well, eventually they'll discover other people get tired of having opinions shoved down their throats.
- Tue Sep 27, 08:13:00 AM
- Shannon said...
I've noticed this attitude in all areas of my life. Just last weekend, I was talking about my exercise routine and the excellent results I'm seeing and a friend felt it necessary to "correct" me and insist I try her routine. I think it's just human nature.
Be who you are and do what feels right in your gut. Anyone who thinks it's a waste of time can pound sand. <3 - Tue Sep 27, 08:54:00 AM
- Unknown said...
It's a bummer that this happened to you. I think as writers it is so important to support each other. I think each writer has to pursue the right path for their book whether it is agent, big 6, indie or self publishing.
Don't give up. You are going to find that agent. - Tue Sep 27, 08:59:00 AM
- Amy Saia said...
Good post, I agree with you completely. Very well said Jen!
- Tue Sep 27, 09:08:00 AM
- Sarah Tokeley said...
Good post. You know that the same person tomorrow will be telling you that your child is at the wrong school, you're wearing your hair wrong,you should be waxing, not shaving....
I wish these people would realise that whenever they type 'you should...' what they actually mean is 'I do...'. Learn the language people! - Tue Sep 27, 09:13:00 AM
- Stina said...
Here's my take on it. If the writer doesn't want to have an agent, that's his choice. That's just one less query in the agent's slushpile. One less query before the agent gets to mine. :D
- Tue Sep 27, 09:25:00 AM
- Angela said...
That was mean. I can't believe the nerve of whoever said that to you. But then, there are always "experts" who think they no better. All you can really do is trust your instincts.
- Tue Sep 27, 09:30:00 AM
- Kathryn Elliott said...
Grandma Jane sounding off in my head: "If you can't say something nice..." Great post, Jen! Best of luck in Q-Hell!
- Tue Sep 27, 09:30:00 AM
- Charity Bradford said...
Great post Jen, I just wanted to chime in and say...
AMEN! - Tue Sep 27, 09:43:00 AM
- REINHARDT! said...
I agree with you wholeheartedly. No matter what I believe, it isn't right to browbeat someone else into believing it. Not only will bullying not work, but it blocks real conversation.
We're all savvy enough to go out and research the pluses and minuses of an agented publishing experience. Once armed, we can go and make our own decisions.
You already know which way you're going to go. So do it. If you change your mind, you'll do it on your terms. I wish you the best luck any way you choose! - Tue Sep 27, 09:49:00 AM
- Shannon O'Donnell said...
Well. Said. Jen! I couldn't agree more. We all have our own path to follow (or jungle to cut out way through) and there is no wrong path as long as you chose it. Our journeys to publishing are as individual as our stories. The most important thing we can do for each other is BE SUPPORTIVE of individual dreams.
- Tue Sep 27, 09:50:00 AM
- Nicole Zoltack said...
Great post. I hate it when people tell you you have to do these this way or that way. What works for them won't necessarily work for me.
Just thought of a great idea for a MG story about bullying. Aack, too many stories to write!
Anyhow, there are some agents who are scammers, but as long as you do your research, it's very easy to find the legit ones. And a great agent is worth a lot more than their 15%. - Tue Sep 27, 09:51:00 AM
- Talli Roland said...
Very well said! Whatever each of choose to day, it's a decision we make based on our own circumstances and experiences. No-one has the right to tell you what's good and what's bad.
- Tue Sep 27, 09:51:00 AM
- Carolyn V said...
I think there is room for everyone. I'm in a crit group with two agented authors and one e-published one. We all want different routes (I'm more of a traditional agent girl), but they area all good.
- Tue Sep 27, 09:56:00 AM
- Alexandra Shostak said...
I just had this discussion with THREE different people: one person who just had a book out with Greenwillow, someone who has an agent and is ready to go on submission, and someone who's with a small pub and absolutely loving the experience. It really comes down to learning about the market, the options, and what you can and can't do for yourself. I think it's all very personal--I can't imagine why someone would tell you in such a definitive manner that you're going about it the wrong way. It really is so different for everyone.
- Tue Sep 27, 10:03:00 AM
- Tonya Kuper said...
Awesome post! Couldn't have said it better myself!
I'm in the query trenches right now, as well, and I feel that is the place for me.
I follow the golden rule: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. I try to follow that to the best of my ability, even in this crazy-ass writing/publishing industry!
Thanks, Jen! - Tue Sep 27, 10:05:00 AM
- DL Hammons said...
I'm pretty stubborn...and un-bullyable. I listen to everybody's opinion, because they are just that...opinions, and then make up my own mind. Once my mind is made up, I refuse to engage with anybody trying to persuade me to do otherwise.
Great post! - Tue Sep 27, 10:30:00 AM
- Roxy said...
Your cuteness definitely remained throughout this post, and I agree, no one needs a dream-crusher. They're fragile enough as it is.
- Tue Sep 27, 10:33:00 AM
- Pauline Barclay said...
Fab post, Jen and like you I agree, everyone needs to do what makes them happy and comfortable. I'm a believer that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. We are here but once, let us make it as good as it can be. x
- Tue Sep 27, 10:45:00 AM
- Mary Strand said...
Great post, Jen. Totally agree. A good friend once said that the only people who criticize your decisions are those who are insecure about their own decisions. I've found over time that she was absolutely dead on.
Good luck finding an agent! My own search took forever ... but ended happily. :-) - Tue Sep 27, 11:04:00 AM
- Heather said...
Wow, that's terrible that someone would think all agents are a scam. Of course there are bad agents out there who are, but they aren't the norm. There is no one 'right' road. We all have to travel our own road, the destination and the journey are the important part, not how we get there. Good for you for standing up for yourself!
- Tue Sep 27, 11:15:00 AM
- Angela Brown said...
Jen, that was perfect. With so many options, it isn't about one route being THE better route. It is about the best route for YOU. Some fing the agented route works best and others prefer self-publishing. Demeaning either route makes no sense to me.
Good luck in your search for an agent and I hope you find the best agent for you. :-) - Tue Sep 27, 11:18:00 AM
- Hannah said...
Wow, really? Someone said that?? That's kinda nuts. I agree. Do what's best for you.
- Tue Sep 27, 12:29:00 PM
- Carrie Butler said...
Well said, Jen! To each his (or her) own. I think it's really important to respect the industry at all levels. A little positivity goes a long way. :)
- Tue Sep 27, 01:00:00 PM
- Jennie Bennett said...
I agree with everything you said, agents may not be best for everyone, but it doesn't mean they aren't good for some :)
- Tue Sep 27, 01:07:00 PM
- Nancy Thompson said...
I agree with you, Jen. I, too, am trying to go the agent route. I think having an agent who believes in me and my story validates me as a writer, as will being traditionally published.
I have certain views of the self-pub industry, but, like in all things, I'd never force my opinion down someone's throat. That's just wrong. - Tue Sep 27, 01:36:00 PM
- Stephanie said...
Nothing makes me more angry than someone telling me what I'm doing is wrong. I'm doing what I feel best FOR ME....they are free to do what's best for them. And this applies to everything in life- publishing, parenthood, marriage, etc.... - Tue Sep 27, 01:41:00 PM
- Alex J. Cavanaugh said...
I'm with a small publisher, no agent. Never wanted one. I knew myself well enough to know that it would be a long process and I'd eventually lose interest. I'm happy with my decision. I know there are those who pass up my book because I'm not with a big publisher. But it's already more than I ever imagined. I chose the right path for me.
- Tue Sep 27, 01:44:00 PM
- Sara Bulla said...
I skipped over to your blog so that I could post a thank you for a comment on my post this morning. I had no idea that author wrote her book in the mini-van...I'll check her out! And as for your post...I love it and I completely agree. There are a lot of roads that lead to our dream. I don't think everyone's route looks the same, ya know? Thanks for sharing!
Sara - Tue Sep 27, 01:56:00 PM
- Alex Mullarky said...
How annoying. It's different for everyone!!
- Tue Sep 27, 02:31:00 PM
- Misha Gerrick said...
Absolutely. I can't see why one way should be regarded as better than another. It all depends on our goals and personalities.
We're all diverse, why can't our publishing methods be? - Tue Sep 27, 02:40:00 PM
- Charlie N. Holmberg said...
I know people who are so consumed with indie publishing that they tear down everything else. Drives me nuts.
Good luck finding an agent! - Tue Sep 27, 02:57:00 PM
- Valerie Geary said...
Amen. We are responsible for our own lives and the course of our futures. Make the decisions that work best for you and respect that other people who do it differently have good reason.
- Tue Sep 27, 03:05:00 PM
- Liz Reinhardt said...
I am recently self-published, and I plan to continue my search for an agent for other books. I sent the book I published to over 100 agents, had excellent feedback, but never had an offer. I finally realized I had exhausted my options at this point with traditional publishing. I chose self publishing and am very happy! I would also be very happy if I managed to secure an agent in the future. Doubting the help and validity of an agent is just ridiculous. Whether or not you want one on your journey, there's nothing scammy about them! Great post, and great message!
- Tue Sep 27, 03:59:00 PM
- Laura said...
very well said... - feel free to have an opinion guys, but don't ram it down people's throats... your dream and your direction are unique and tailored just for you
Lxxx - Tue Sep 27, 04:11:00 PM
- Jennifer Hillier said...
I'm a big believer that every author must choose his/her own path. It's a personal decision.
That being said, I wanted an agent. And I have one. And I don't regret that decision. It was the right one for me.
"Don't be the dream crusher." Amen to that! Might I also add, "Don't be a jerk." And whoever told you that you were being silly for wanting an agent was a jerk. - Tue Sep 27, 04:20:00 PM
- Rachel said...
Look at all these comments! You've picked a hot button to press, and I think that's awesome!
There are different paths to publication because there are different types of people. Choosing to walk down one path doesn't make the other paths wrong or bad.
I will say that it makes me sad to see a writer give up on their dream of a preferred publishing route because other writers pressure them into another route. - Tue Sep 27, 04:54:00 PM
- Jemi Fraser said...
Yikes! I can't believe anyone would say that! I agree with you completely. I'm hoping to get to the querying stage at some point (hopefully before the next century) & I would expect my friends to support me. Just as I would hope they would support me if I self published. It's such a personal decision. I would have thought most people got that.
- Tue Sep 27, 05:50:00 PM
- Unknown said...
It sounds like someone else was trying to validate to themselves that what they're doing is right by trying to make you question what you're doing.
There's no right or wrong way. Authors are published through all different venues and mediums.
Apples and bananas, you know? - Tue Sep 27, 07:36:00 PM
- Kristin Rae said...
Blast those dream-crushers! Keep on keepin' on! You're doing fab and will one day live out your dream, I have no doubt :)
- Tue Sep 27, 07:46:00 PM
- The East Coaster said...
Fact: Haters Hate. Keep on doing what you need to do, to get where you want to be. Don't worry about other folks.
Holla! - Tue Sep 27, 08:02:00 PM
- Abby Fowers said...
Good on ya Jen. No matter what way someone chooses to go, they shouldn't have people talking crap to them about it. We all need to do what is best for us, and that might be different than what is best for someone else. This is great! I'm so glad you shared.
- Tue Sep 27, 08:07:00 PM
- alexia said...
Amen! Some people need to keep their mouths shut. Just because something isn't right (or didn't work) for them, doesn't mean they need to condemn the whole lot...
- Tue Sep 27, 08:33:00 PM
- Dianne K. Salerni said...
Jen -- Bully is right!! And there are a terrible lot of them out there, ready to tell you that their point of view is the only right one. Every person in every career field (not just writing) needs to choose their own path.
Now, if you want to know my own experiences -- agented and unagented -- I'll be happy to share them with you privately. But even then, I'd tell you to make your own decision, because your experience might be nothing like mine. - Tue Sep 27, 08:41:00 PM
- Donna K. Weaver said...
I agree with you. To tell someone else what they MUST do or that they're stupid for choosing a certain path is arrogant and presumptuous.
- Tue Sep 27, 09:47:00 PM
- dolorah said...
"Here's what I think. No matter what path you choose make sure it's right for you. Don't let anyone knock your dream down, no matter how big. If you don't dream big, no one else will do it for you. I say go with your gut instincts, and if you fall pick yourself back up. No one is down and out in this world."
That says it all for me. No right or wrong path, just choices and outcomes. IMO, the author is the one that ultimately makes whatever venue to publication they choose work for them.
........dhole - Wed Sep 28, 02:09:00 AM
- Amy Beals said...
As in all things to do with writing, follow your heart. If you don't, you are doing the wrong thing. Best of luck to you!
- Wed Sep 28, 11:24:00 PM
- LTM said...
First, I like the fact that I'm legendary... :D Second, why are some people such jacka**es? Seriously.
Scroll up and read Matt's comment. I told him to say that. Also, girl! You just hang in there. You've got tons of support and what you put out will come back to you 100x~ <3 ((hugs)) - Thu Sep 29, 09:10:00 AM
- Meredith said...
Great post, Jen. I also agree that no one should judge or step on someone else's dream or someone else's chosen journey to make that dream come true. I have faith in you Jen - your dream will come true and you won't need to compromise. Keep on keeping on girl.
- Sat Oct 01, 12:45:00 PM