WordPlay

As far as I’m concerned, 2011 can go take a flying leap.

(No, I am NOT going to make nice!)

Any year that holds so much crap deserves to begone.  We had the endless sick for ConneryBeagle including repercussions from the miracle meds (and the further expensive, ongoing treatment that restricts him from all the things he loves).  One of us here in the household had an extensive laid off and the other is in an industry screaming “help me!”  Editorial transitions inserted half a year of unpaid delay into the schedule on top of endless on-spec projects.  The dog van got $2000 worth of work one week and was totaled by a cell phone driver the next.  (I am not even kidding.  One week later.)  The wonderful new job the other of us finally procured still managed to mess up the paperwork to create a month’s surprise layoff…starting the Monday before Christmas.  And those are just the highlights.

DO NOT WANT.

Not just crap for me…crap for so many people.  When you live on the edge for a certain amount of time, it doesn’t take much to tip you over.  There are far too many people in this country living in that precarious place.  The vulnerable 99%, as it were.

I EXPECT BETTER OF YOU, 2012!!

Don’t bother telling me that it’s all faint symbolism and not a real reboot.  Leave me my little delusions.

In the meantime, there are always the little things to look forward to.  Say, a certain Beagle finding an Important Spot on the treadmill belt that needs catching.

10/15/11 Original Post
10/23/11 Updated information; identified at end
10/26/11 More Updates, ooooh!  Interesting stuff! At the end!

Also!  There’s a silent auction of my remaining DUN LADY’S JESS copies, proceeds to go to horse rescue!

Dun Lady’s Jess

When hikers Dayna and Eric find a young woman naked, terrified, and speechless, they’re sure she’s the victim of foul play. But the truth is much more shocking: she isn’t human at all. She’s Dun Lady’s Jess, a horse transformed into this new shape by the spell that brought her and her rider, to whom she is utterly devoted, into this world. Possessed now of human intelligence but still a horse deep inside, Jess desperately searches this world for her master and rider, using her fiery equine spirit to take on human idiosyncracies–and human threats.

10/15/11 Dun Lady’s Jess is my heart book—my first book. A fantasy, it was first published by Baen in 1994, and in 1995 it won the prestigious Stephen Tall/Compton Crook Award for Best First SF/F/H of the year. It grew two sequels, and it stayed in print for a good long run—but eventually, some years later, it fell off the shelves and the rights reverted to me. Halfway through the next decade, I was invited by a delightful editor to reprint the book through the new Star Ink imprint of the Canadian publisher Fitzhenry & Whiteside. We had a wonderful time with the new edition, giving painstaking attention to the details large and small. It became stalled in production, however, and by the time it was released, the editor had chosen to part ways with the publisher. Eventually the book was released under Fitzhenry & Whiteside’s Red Deer Press line. The reversion clause for Dun Lady’s Jess reads:

“16.(a) If the Publisher fails to keep the Work in print *through regular trade channels* and for sale and written demand from the Author declines or neglects to reprint it within six (6) months thereafter and to offer it for sale, or after two (2) years from the date of the first publication the Publisher wishes to discontinue publication of the Work and gives three (3) months’ notice to this effect to the Author in writing.”

The part between asterisks? My agent and I added that to the boilerplate, because the clause as it stood was far too open-ended. The new phrase was approved and initialed by both myself and Richard Dionne, for Fitzhenry & Whiteside. (The part right after the asterisks? Yes, it seems to be missing a word—probably “upon.” But that’s part of the boilerplate.) The book was published in November 2007, although the U.S. distribution didn’t take place until April 2008. By spring of 2010, it was evident, through royalty reports, that the book wasn’t being placed on the shelves anywhere (that is, “regular trade channels”). For a couple of years now, it’s sold only a handful of copies per year, and has slowly slid off availability via online sources. (see the screenshot at the bottom of the page) But when we asked for reversion of rights, the response shocked us: if I would buy the considerable copies the publisher has sitting in their warehouse, they would revert the book. I have to tell you…it felt like coercion. We responded that this wasn’t possible, and reminded them that they naturally had the ability to sell their remaining stock should the rights to the book be reverted. In other words, for them, nothing would change. But they didn’t respond to that email,nor to the one after that, or the one after that, or to the phone call by the book’s original editor with that line, or—after we’d let the situation sit for a year—to the query after that.

Dun Lady's Jess: The warehouse listing. Unlike books that are available through regular trade channels, this title is stocked only in the Fitzhenry & Whiteside warehouse

We sent screenshots of the book’s lack of availability and its failure to appear in any distributor warehouse. It’s in the publisher warehouse alone—which does not equal being available through regular trade channels. We also sent a PDF of the relevant contract page with the initialed changes to their boilerplate. This material went out return receipt—and finally, we received a promise to review the situation and get back to us in a week.

This did not happen.

After another nudge—which included the reminder that the publisher could continue to sell warehoused copies in their usual fashion, as well as a reminder of the boilerplate changes–we were finally told: “This book is in stock, on sale on our website, it continues to sell albeit in lesser quantities. [my note: yes, a handful of copies a year] We have some 1,600 in stock with no reason to revert rights. ”

How about because it’s a contractual obligation?

Finally, I went to SFWA GriefCom. You may not have heard much about this committee; when GriefCom mediates a dispute, the parties involved maintain a strict nondisclosure; no one’s dirty laundry is aired. And because they see a high level of success, that means you see very little dirty laundry and very little about GriefCom.

In this case, the request from GriefCom to Fitzhenry & Whiteside was simple: Revert the book per the contract obligations, or provide proof that the book is available via regular trade channels.

It took a week of trying for GriefCom to connect with Mr. Dionne, at which point we were given a promise that Red Deer would provide proof of distribution within a week.

This did not happen.

After three weeks of silence and unreturned phone calls, GriefCom sent a different kind of request, giving Red Deer forty-eight hours to either revert the book or provide proof that it was being sold via regular trade channels, and asserting that after that, I would be forced to take additional steps.

Early the next day, I heard from the GriefCom chair that he had received a phone call, and that the unidentified caller took him to task in no uncertain terms–claiming harassment, declaring there would be no reversion on the title, and warning that she would “report” us to [prominent Canadian SF writer #1] and [prominent Canadian SF writer #2]—all before hanging up on him.

We took this as an indication that the publisher no longer wishes to interact with GriefCom.

Finally—knowing that truly, no one wants a big dramafest, I emailed Richard Dionne and made the same request: Please send either the reversion or the proof that Dun Lady’s Jess is being sold via regular trade channels, and please do so within the next three business days.

This did not happen.

I don’t have a lot of options left, but I do have some. For one thing, I have this: I can break the silence that protects Fitzhenry & Whiteside from the consequences of their actions—a silence I’ve kept for a year and a half. And I can do it to warn everyone possible, via the big wide Internets: This is my documented experience with this publisher. We have a contract clause that was approved and initialed, but is not being honored. A critical contract clause—one that protects my interests in my book per the agreed-upon terms. A contract clause that is of utmost importance these days, when publishers and writers are scrambling to negotiate shifting terms and a shifting industry.

A contract clause no writer should take lightly.

Meanwhile, I still want my book back. I still want Fitzhenry & Whiteside to honor the contract they signed. Contracts are not a thing of convenience, to be ignored when a publisher pleases. “Make me,” isn’t in a professional lexicon…or shouldn’t be. If you feel the same, I hope you’ll pass this warning along.

=======

10/23/11 Edited to Add Tidbits, with a point of dark irony:

After F&W’s threat to report me to specific Canadian writers (no, I’m not going to name them.  One honorable person doesn’t deserve it; I find the other irrelevant to the situation), on the same day Writer Beware guested my blog warning, the latter author did indeed mount a campaign to discredit my efforts; this continues as of this writing.  Personally, I’m not a big believer of coincidences.

As of 10/22, this author is reaching out directly to those who have spread the word on Twitter.  I’m sorry for that.  But backing off on my hope that people will continue to share this situation with writers, agents, and readers would be the wrong choice, so I’m not doing it, and I hope that if you believe writers should have warning about publishers who have behaved this way, you’ll share, too.

Meanwhile, a kind reader gave me a heads-up that I’m not listed on the F&W Red Deer site with their other authors, in spite of the publisher determination to keep the book.  One might instantly suspect this is due to my decision to break silence…unless you happen to check the wayback machine, and determine that they never listed me as an author–not even when the book first came out.  There’s no conclusion here…just some dark irony.

And finally, on Saturday (Oct. 22), additional dark irony:  The most recent royalty statement for this book arrived.  In the first six months of the year, Fitzhenry & Whiteside has sold two copies of Dun Lady’s Jess.

Two.

Don’t ask me why F&W wants to keep the rights to this book.  It clearly wasn’t a good match for their publishing program–a fact I regret, I imagine they regret, and I suspect every reader facing collector’s prices of the first (and ironically more available) edition regrets.  Why not remainder the title, clear out their warehouse space, revert the book, honor the contract, and be quit of the book?  Or simply revert the book, continue to sell the title exactly as they’re currently doing, honor the contract, and be quit of me?

Many people have advised me to get physical evidence of the warehoused books’ existence.  Hmm.
========

10/26/11: Interesting tidbits continue to trickle in.

The most critical of these is this, in a quoted 10/24/11 comment (with permission) from Victoria Strauss at Writer Beware.  You can see it there, too.  Also, I added the titles/details to my timeline.

Victoria:

Over on his blog, Rob Sawyer posed a challenge: put things in context by comparing Doranna’s book to other books published by Red Deer Press.

So I did.

- Amazon shows 10 books pubbed by Red Deer in 2007. Of those, eight are listed by Amazon as in stock and available in at least one edition. Only two are out of stock or out of print: a nonfiction hardcover that’s out of print, and Doranna’s book, which is out of stock. Doranna’s is also the only 2007-pubbed paperback that’s not currently in stock and available.

- Amazon shows 14 SF/fantasy books pubbed by Red Deer between 2002 and 2010. Of these, 13 are in stock and available in at least one edition. Doranna’s is the only one that’s out of stock in all editions.

Results from Barnes & Noble aren’t quite identical, but they are very similar.

Obviously, there are many reasons why books go out of stock. But this does demonstrate that Red Deer has no trouble getting its books into US distribution.

What does this mean for me?

It means that Amazon.com is, in fact, a regular distribution channel for Fitzhenry & Whiteside; ditto Barnes & Noble.  The publisher has no trouble maintaining stock in these venues when it chooses to.

It is perhaps a good time to put this information back in context:

DUN LADY’S JESS was to be the first book in a new line under a Canadian author/editor. However, my editor reconsidered that publisher relationship while JESS was in production, and the book was folded into the Red Deer imprint.

The book never received the promised bookshelf distribution (yes, I have those emails somewhere, even three email programs later)–promises which heavily influenced my willingness to sign the contract. It didn’t receive post-publication support; I was never even listed on the Red Deer web site as an author (yes, I have screenshots).  You can find the book on their web site, but only with persistence–a “search” returns a broken link.

It’s clear to me that this orphaned book fell through all kinds of cracks. Well, okay. It happens. That doesn’t mean the contract isn’t just as valid as it was the day I signed it–as interpreted in context of the time frame in which I signed it.  And under the contract, it’s time for the book to revert. Asking for reversion–insisting on it, under the contract terms and circumstances–is no justification for bad publisher behavior, or for the publisher to threaten me with another author who did in fact then make an effort to discredit me.

Free DUN LADY’S JESS, Fitzhenry & Whiteside. At this point, it’s the least you can do.

What’s that, you say?  Aren’t you keeping us up to date any longer here on WordPlay?

Just as soon as I get back from twelve hours of agility trialing for two days with the Beagles.  

#FreeDLJ!
And writers, take a look before submitting your work.  Knowledge is power…

======================
This is a vastly updated version of Q&A #1.  It’s lots different, though–I just didn’t want to stick a second post in this space to clutter things up.

If you haven’t seen the BoingBoing post—or read Cory Doctorow’s wonderfully concise and clear comments regarding the nature of regular trade channels—you might find it of some interest. Not everyone there thinks I’ve got my head screwed on straight, of course.

In response to the most common point I see being addressed in comments here and there:

Yes, in a perfect world, the contract reversion clause would have been more tightly negotiated–but we had to fight tooth and nail to get what we got.  Going forward on those terms was a decision I made on the basis of significant mitigating circumstances–my agent responds with a little more detail in the original post comments. By all means, learn from this situation.  But the main point here is how this publisher has behaved for the past eighteen months.  Learn from that, too.

The Original Post
The Timeline
The BoingBoing Post
The Writer Beware Post
WriterBeware Comments Further (scroll down!)
Twitter #FreeDLJ

Regarding my awareness that this is a Canadian publisher—yes, I know that.  It’s been taken into account with regards to the distribution conversation, as has the industry standard meaning for “regular trade channels.”

But delayed, limited online availability doesn’t constitute regular trade channels.  And even this (Tuesday) evening, a search on Indigo.ca of all the Chapters, Coles, and Indigo bookstores in Victoria, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, and Toronto has revealed DLJ to have one copy on the shelves at one store.

I’ve said elsewhere (I haven’t the faintest idea where.  It’s been a crazy couple of days) that I have no delusions that this book should be a best-seller.  It’s a 17yo title which sold modestly the first time.  The first edition copies are regularly priced at sums that startle me, but it can also sometimes be found at your basic used-book price (note:  it’s easier to find a used copy of the first edition than it is to find the reprint under discussion–I signed three of them at the last convention, after which they went back in their plastic protective sleeves).  To some extent, conversational threads that go in that direction–my unreasonable expectations or some failure to understand the modest nature of the book–are only misdirection.  To the contrary, I have a very good (and realistic!) idea of what this book could be selling.

Meanwhile, I’ve left a comment here and there, but I haven’t engaged in any significant conversations outside this blog.  I’m aware of what’s being said about me, and…well, I disagree.  Let’s leave it at that.

I admit it. This is not my strength. I’m not someone who enjoys a good rousing argument or is invigorated by social conflict. Mainly, I’m doing my best with something I feel needs to be done. Probably that means it could be done better, but you know…here I am, and here it is, and so be it.  I mainly hope the word of this publisher’s behavior over the past 18 months is reaching agents and authors who are considering submission plans.

PS: First-time posters on this blog pass through moderation before posting, and always have.  This is a Zone of Thoughtful Discourse, whether you agree or disagree with me.  Visitors here should feel safe to post, either way.  Visitors of Virulence will receive the Mighty Click of Moderation.

Yes, I love Alabama.  I have a hankering to ease right on over to that iTunes store and replace my tapes from…oh, so long ago…

Well, if you know that tune, you can hum along while reading. Because as Blog Rolls go, I am quite pleased with mine.  These are all Backlist eBooks authors, and boy do they have a lot to talk about–from the industry to the tech of the industry to what’s happening at home to…ohhhh yeah…teenaged boys.

Here’s a sampling of their latest. And I would have written this blog a lot faster if I hadn’t gotten caught up in reading them–!

(PS the links open in a new window, so you don’t have to flip back and forth.)

Lorraine Bartlett: What I didn’t Want to Hear

Marsha Canham: Guest blog, pithy thoughts from Bob Mayer

Jeffrey A. Carver: Ebook Special Prices!

Jacqueline Lichtenberg: Worldbuilding – Building a Fictional, but Historical, World

Phoebe Matthews: FortuneCookie says: MONDAY SPEND TIME WITH FRIENDS.

Jill Metcalf: Memory Flashes

Maryann Miller: “Screen-Free Week” Starts Today: What to Do without the PDA?

Pati Nagle: Nambe’: Life is Full of Surprises

Terry Odell: Guest Blog: The Story of my Life (Egyptian Revolution)
Karen Ranney: Rant Alert

Patricia Rice: All Things Digital

Gerald M. Weinberg: “Smashwords vs Kindle” — Are Your Lights On?

Linda Wisdom: I’m Interviewed Today

Roll on, readers, roll on!

Between the trialing, The Heart of Dog anthology, the fret of being unable to ride while this hamstring sorts itself out, and a certain pack rat…let’s just say I have critters on my mind.  And it made me think of this blog, written last year for a guest gig…

There can be Only–  Oops.  Never Mind.

Animals of the world!  Stand up and represent!

What, you say? No opposable thumbs?  Language barrier?  Logistics issues?

All right, then. It’s time to do it for you.  Right here, right now.

Although maybe I should narrow that down. Between oil spills, climate change, and habitat destruction, the need is maybe a little overwhelming for one blog.  So, let’s stick to:

Animals of paranormal fiction.

Here’s the really cool thing about being a writer–especially about being a paranormal writer.  In order to create the most exciting stories possible, we have the chance to romanticize; we can build on paranormal themes to create animalistic more-than-human and other-than-human realities.  The human-plus, in our own vision..

(This, as it happens, is really fun.)

You’d think that gives us a certain carte blanche–our own realities are what they are, right?  If we want our animal-based human-plus to act a certain way, move a certain way, be a certain way…why, then, so it is.  Right?  The societal structures, the underlying behaviors…convenience trumps reality.  When it comes to alpha wolves, There Can Be Only One; when it comes to big cats…well, a cat is a cat. What you think you know is as good as what you really know.  Right?

Eh.

Maybe not.

The thing is this: Our created realities, in order to sustain themselves, must be built on the best possible truth.

And our created realities, in order to help sustain the very real life elements that appeal to us, also must be built on the best possible truth.

So that makes it kind of a win-win, and worth our while to pay attention to what that truth is.

It isn’t always, for instance, what everyone “knows” it is. Or assumes it is.  Or just figures they can fake what it is.  It isn’t (again, for instance) that wolf packs are ruled by a single alpha.  Or that strict social structures keep all the little betas in line, each little wolf in a specific pecking order.

As it happens, that particular outdated wolfie understanding, based on flawed studies conducted under artificial circumstances, has been repudiated even by the man who formed it.  (Surprise!)

There are of course dominant personalities in wolf groupings–the whole study isn’t hoo-ha–but the social interactions are far more malleable than a simple pecking order.  So it is the inflexibility of the model that holds flaws, but that very inflexibility has turned into the most common understanding.  The thing we all know…the thing we expect.

The endemic common understanding we then also tend to accept as reality.

*insert game show Buzzer of Doom*

But!  The truth is, the strict dominance and alpha conventions are pretty darned convenient in dramatic fiction, especially one that focuses on relationships.  You won’t find me advocating their complete demise.  At the same time, I think it’s worth building those elements thoughtfully–knowing exactly when a book’s reality diverges from those elements on which it might be based, and integrating the two with care.  It does, I think, do honor to both the wolf and the new reality.

That was the easy example–the one with instant resonation power.  But wolves aren’t the only ones taken for granted–don’t even talk to me about horses.  Or those big cats, who really aren’t interchangeable at all.  By not getting it right, we miss out on the luxury of exploring these creatures for who they really are…knowing how they fit into our real world, and how delicate that balance can be.

Knowing why we care enough to speak for them when the moment comes.

The other thing about integrating truth is that it’s fun. When the real animal gets to come through to affect the human, it adds spark to the character and to the story.  It adds the unpredictable…and the charming.

My favorite scenes–both reading and writing–are the ones where it’s obvious the animal within the characters influences their behavior.  Not with the obvious power dynamics or strength or posturing, but the quiet things.  The impulse to chase, to pounce; the subtle shift of body language and expression.  It’s the reason I reread favorite scenes…and the place where we–readers and writers–have the chance to connect to elements of nature we might not ordinarily have the chance to touch.

If, at this point, you’re secretly (or not so secretly), thinking, “Oh, please!  Lighten up!  It’s fiction/fun/made up!”..?

Well, it is fiction; it is fun. And it ought to be!

But at the same time, it matters–and I’m glad of it.

(first seen at Tor.com in June ’10.)

We see that.

Seriously, we do.

We don’t like it.

Because no, your little product placement moments aren’t half as clever as you think they are.

You know, those moments when the camera lingers lovingly on a beer label–a beat too long–after our character has ordered it distinctly by name.

The moments when the camera pans over a car dashboard, spaghetti-western close-up style, usually while our characters discuss a particular feature.  “Oh, don’t worry–with the SuperDooperCar’s stupendously amazing built-in GPS, we can’t get lost!”

The moments when our heroes *gasp* LOSE INTERNET signal during a crucial undercover moment but!  Never fear!  SooperUltraDevice saves the day!  *insert loving close-up, multiple repetitions of the device name*  This is especially ironic in light of the way no one on TV ever has trouble with their cell phone connection.

(Me, I haven’t yet lived in a place where I get adequate cell connection even at home.)

And to think I thought it was amusing when they figured we wouldn’t notice seasons of distinct default ring tones on the phones of characters you just know would have picked something personalized.

So, Dear T.V. Producers, in case you thought it didn’t matter or that we wouldn’t notice or that we wouldn’t be annoyed, completely kicked out of the story you were telling, or thinking twice about watching shows we otherwise love…think again.

We know who you are.

And we don’t like it.

(This moment brought to you by ONCETOOOFTEN.COM)

Oh, I know, I know. Cheerful author blog is this.  Cheerful, perky, personable…

Well, today I’m kinda peeved. And it works for me to say:

Dear Dog Owner from the UNM Campus this Past Weekend:

Here is a clue about responsible dog ownership.

Other people, including dog lovers, have no obligation to adore your dog.  They have no obligation to greet your dog with joy, be jumped on, drooled on, or risk contact with claw or tooth.

And they should never, ever have to worry about whether your dog, as it runs toward them, has anything other than friendly intentions in mind.

Guess what.  Shouting, “Don’t worry, he’s friendly!” doesn’t count (even if you didn’t bother).  Not for a moment.  Because you never know what someone’s background is.  Have they been bitten in the past?  Do they have allergies?  Do they have injuries or weaknesses that will cause them  pain if bumped?  Balance or strength issues that will cause worry and concern at the approach of an unknown dog?

Fortunately, there’s an easy way to avoid all of this. It’s called a LEASH.  And there’s a back-up system for avoiding these issues when in public areas that invite dogs to go off-lead.  That’s called a RECALL.

On the other hand, if someone is infringed on to the point where they have to shout, “Call your dog!  CALL YOUR DOG!” then either your dog doesn’t have a recall or you’re above using it, and in either case if you had deigned to do so (which you didn’t), you would still have failed in your responsibilities as a dog owner.

Because, Dear Dog Owner, it’s your responsibility to use a leash in public areas that require it.  Period.  You are not special.  You don’t get to break that rule because it’s more fun or  more convenient.  So sorry!

Good stewardship means showing the rest of the world that dog lovers take our responsibilities seriously, and that we’re considerate of other people when it comes to our dogs.  Bad stewardship means dogs are allowed in fewer and fewer places.  Hotels charge a higher pet fee.  Parks deny organizations the right to hold dog-oriented activities–rescue fairs, competitions, dog celebration days.  Other people pay the price for the self-indulgent decisions of those like you.

And even if  your dog is off-leash in an area where such activities are welcome, then it’s still your responsibility to keep track of it at all times, and to call it back if it shows undue interest in other people, other fidos, or belongings that ought not to be peed on.  Don’t want to miss out on the scenery?  Use the aforementioned LEASH.

Do I sound like someone who bears deep wounds from the irresponsible few? You would guess right.  You would guess right that I have been attacked; you would guess right that one of my dogs has been brutally attacked a number of times, and that the dogs involved in all of these attacks were uncontrolled and charged over open ground to get us.  You might even guess right that had it not been for my quick-thinking friend this past weekend, I might well have tangled with your loose Doberman, who targeted my ConneryBeagle as he tracked his oblivious way through campus.

And that I’m really mad about it.

So, spread the word.  This is a leash:

And quite a nice leash, too. Perfect for a handsome dog.

And this is the hellahot pepper spray I have used in the past and will use again.

Not much fun for anyone.

Use the first to protect your dog–who bears no fault here–from the second.

Ahem.  We now return to our usual perky, cheerful, author-blog programming.

It’s a get ready weekend!

For me, get ready for September, which holds a slew of agility trials. For today, get ready for the weekend–and that means figuring out where Dart Puppy is slipping out of the back yard, and setting myself up with some OH YEAH COOL I CAN’T WAIT scenes in the book.

For this morning, it means “Here comes the Write Horse!” And possibly some thinking that if you haven’t ever owned a horse, you haven’t ever considered.

There are a lot of people making decisions about animal legislation these days…and far too many of them no longer have a day-to-day acquaintance with those animals, or even a passing awareness of the logistics of training, housing, handling, and loving those animals. To a certain extent, those of us deeply involved with animals have let this happen–because the realities of what we know from intimate acquaintance are so very obvious, it doesn’t occur to us that other people can’t see it, too.

One of these days I’ll go on my spay/neuter kick. Let’s just say that in the past thirty years, I’ve owned only one dog who hit the spay/neuter stage before she hit complete maturity or beyond, and if I have anything to say about it, that’s the way it’ll continue. I don’t breed; I don’t intend to breed. But I know what’s best for my animals, and those who are not handling them/competing them/training them…

Well, they don’t.

So which of us should be making the decisions?

Patty Wilber

For the record, I recently rescued Winston out of a kill pen in Texas.  Had I not, he would have gone to Mexico and been slaughtered, possibly for human consumption. 

He is about 6 years old, and a charmer. I do not know, for sure, why he was in the kill pen, but my guess is the nasty, poorly healed  hind leg wound with lots of proud flesh.  Even with care, his leg will be permanently disfigured.  Fortunately, he is not lame.  (I actually was unaware of this problem when I rescued him…but that is another story).

So I bought, got him home, had a vet come, and finally, about 8 weeks later, am going to start riding him.   I am happy to have him.

Despite all this, I am NOT opposed to horse slaughter, and was dismayed when the horse slaughter ban was enacted by Congress. This act specifically states that horses are not to be slaughtered for human consumption.  Not sure there is a law to prevent slaughter for dog food, glue or other by products, but the fact remains that this law shut down the 3 horse slaughter facilities in this country.  The effect was to drive the industry to Canada and Mexico, where there is obviously no U.S. oversight.

A new law in the works would ban the transport of equines for slaughter.

Why, being a horse lover, obsessed and possessed by the very essence of the horse, do I not oppose horse slaughter?

1.  It is illogical.  We kill man’s best friend, the dog, by the millions.  We snuff out fluffy cats left and right.  Hunting of all sorts of animals for food and for trophy is legal.   We slaughter cows and ducks, sheep, goats and chickens and then eat them.  What is so different about a horse? Romance aside, really, what is so different?

2.  There are plenty of unusuable equines, as Winston nearly was.  If  a horse  is unusuable, why should there be an obligation to feed, house and care for an him for upwards of 20 years.? It is expensive and time consuming.  We don’t make owners of other animals do that.  Horses are big  hunks of meat.  Slaughter and use of the carcass seems like a practical solution. 

3. What happens to unwanted/ unusuable horses these days?  Many rescue facilitities are full.  Humane euthanasia  is an option.  Know how much that costs?  Me neither, but I can tell you, it ain’t free.  A vet has to come do the job and then someone has to come haul the carcass away.  In the past, you could actually make a little bit on a horse that was unwanted. Now if you can’t afford to keep a horse and it won’t sell (economy and all), you mightnot be able to afford to euthanize it either. Guess you could shoot it and leave it for the coyotes (or maybe bury it $$$).  I don’t really see how that is an improvement.

4. Unwanted and unusuable horses are being abandoned.  Is starving more humane than slaughter? Not.

5.  If I own the horse, I make the (humane, of course) decisions.  I don’t need some urban bleeding heart bunny hugger aiding me.  Do many of these folks really have a CLUE how much time, money, space, and FLIES go along with said horse.  Um no.  Please, if one has no idea about the reality of owning a horse, except a pastel-colored fantasy novel cover image (yeah ok those were actually unicorns on Doranna’s book cover, but CLOSE ENOUGH), then  butt out.

6.  I mentioned this above, but I will say it again.  Closing the  U.S. plants pushed the slaughter to Mexico and Canada. Did this help prevent horse slaughter?  No. Did this increase the welfare of the horse? Apparently not.  The conditions in the Mexican plants is worse than what we had here.  I say reopen the U.S. plants and regulate them.  If we can slaughter every other kind of animal, surely we can manage to do away with horses in a safe and humane way.

I bought Winston, and I don’t regret it.  I don’t plan to throw 1800.00 (well that figure is low now–had his feet trimmed, got  his shots, wormed him, been feeding him and am about to put my training time into him) at the bottomless pit of horse rescue again.  In today’s horse market there are thousands of wonderful, inexpensive horses that are fully healthy and well cared for.  It may sound more noble to rescue horse from the kill pen, but really it is all the same in the end. Time, money and the most fun a person can have.

Well, we’d LIKE to be #1.

The truth is, right now, that’s hard for both of us.  Because, you know, the whole “how things change” gestalt.

Change is messy.

For writers, the ongoing technological change means increased uncertainty in an already uncertain career.  It means shifting responsibilities and skillsets and costs, as publishers push us to take up the burden of publicity.  It means stress beyond endurance, sometimes.

For readers, it means watching publishers fumble with how to best manage books/prices/formats.  It means falling in love with an author only to discover s/he’s been dropped/pushed to another genre/opted out.  It means reading partial story arcs when publishers decline to pick up book three of a trilogy because books 1 & 2 weren’t blockbusters from the start.  It means watching bookstores shrink and the struggle to find new sources–reliable sources–of quality reading.  (Clickie for some more thoughts on that.)

So now, I will reveal to you the answers to all of these dilemmas and more!

HA HA HA HA HA HA!

*coff*

Maybe not.

Maybe I’ll just point out the obvious. We’re in this together.  And in order to reach the best possible outcome, we need to stay in it together, with awareness and an understanding that our interests do, in fact, coincide.  We’re each going to explore different paradigms to fill our needs, but my gut feeling is that the ones that are successful will be the ones where we BOTH get to be number one.

And because I’m both reader and writer, and because I’m incorrigibly persistent (which is how the reader got to be a writer), I happen to think it can be done.