I put up a CommentPress version of my NASIG talk from May 2007 (which now feels extremely old and stale, but never mind — it links to my Library Journal article about LOCKSS, among other treats I’m sure you’re slavering for).
————
(Added 8/26/07.) Last night I had a confusing dream involving a house in Sonoma County and a large red plastic Santa tumbling down steep stairs. When I woke up I said, “I really must redact most of that NASIG post.”
I would like to tell you that I did this because in the days since I wrote this post I have become a more highly-evolved person who is beyond such rants, but that is not the case. I can also assure you I haven’t changed my mind about what I think, nor am I a-feared of the wrath of any person or group.
The central motivation was deep irritation with my writing (in)ability: it didn’t come off as I wanted it to. (I am successfully suppressing the urge to yield to the novice writer’s habit of explaining what I was trying to say.)
Some of my blog writing is not too bad, but more posts than I’d like to admit are “shitty first drafts,” to quote Anne Lamott from Bird by Bird. This book initially irritated me — it’s baggy, it roams here and there, Lamott is so consistently over-the-top that I can’t quite read it end to end — but it has sidled its way into my heart.
My first writing rule is “reduce, reuse, recycle.” My words aren’t golden. They’re entirely expendable. As noted in an earlier post, if I think a piece needs to be eight pages instead of eighteen, I pull out my knife and I slice away. I just took an essay in progress that is more or less a one-day travelogue of a day trip to Palm Springs and remorselessly removed pages about the history of the Salton Sea that were just a load in the poor essay’s pants.
That’s my job: to put the story ahead of the words. To the extent that this blog is a narrative, I will occasionally correct course.
I am sure the ghostly presence of that post floats out there in sundry aggregators, but it’s no longer part of the corpus of this blog or of my own personal history of the first fifty years of my writing life.
Posted on this day, other years:
- So, nu, how am I? - 2013
- Analog Chicken - 2005
- FooCamp, BarCamp, and Girls with 'Tudes - 2005
Oh man and you’re Virgo too?! Don’t forget to mention that neither you nor I took that weird job they were offering to pay us unequally for. I was just invited to give a talk at some big-acronym place. They said that because they are a small organization without deep pockets that speakers usually waive their fee. Fair enough, maybe they do. I knew they were also inviting two more bigger-than-me (and pee standing up types) to talk too, so I said this…
“If both the other speakers waive their fees, I will waive mine too. If they do not, please pay me the average of what you are paying both of them.”
Hope that works. At least I won’t show up having waived my fee to find that the other two speakers didn’t because they were less polite than me.
Oh, I am so Virgo, it’s painful!
Jessamyn, that was a strategic approach. Good for you. (Also, sorry if I didn’t make it clear that neither of us took that guy up on that dumb work.)
I should add I’m giving a number of talks that are basically whuffies — I am given excused time and I do not charge. I don’t have any problem with being part of that economy, even when other speakers must charge. I’ve been in situations where I had to charge because speaking was my livelihood. It’s just the infernal inequity that irked me so.
It will all just have to go on my Permanent Record, which is lengthier by the minute.
Please do continue to scandalize. I only hope that more people read your Permanent Record and try to follow in your footsteps–I know I will.
If you have any advice for us pee-standing-up folks to help remove the inequities, please let us know. Not being in a money-determining position leaves my options for this particular social justice fight somewhat limited, it appears.
Karen, some of us ASPIRE to be deemed
MISS POOPY-PANTS!
And what a fantastic permanent record it is, too. Ms. Schneider, I apologise for not having visited this space earlier.
I read your wonderful piece on Critical Mass about journals – I have banged on a bit about same for an Oz poetry journal recently, so was gratified (sombrely) to find my concerns supported, developed and refined by your expert opinion.
As you were, guys… fight the good fight.
I didn’t attend NASIG this year, so I am glad that I didn’t spend money to hear a speaker who now shows disdain for the audience as irrelevant. In some of your other posts on this blog, you have mentioned presenting at this conference in a much different light. I am not sure if your attitude has changed because you are now reminded of a paper that you agreed to write.
It is so contradictory to the earlier post that you wrote about their contract. You were so complimentary of their contract that you even asked to post a copy of the contract on your blog. You specifically noted its clarity. So, what happened Karen?
https://freerangelibrarian.com/2006/11/18/speaking-of-speaking-2/
I have always enjoyed reading your blog and involvement in the library profession. But, to accuse an organization of being sexist in their requirement to make you, Karen Schneider, write a paper is almost funny. What would have happened if you had just asked about this requirement when you signed this very clear contract?
You were given an opportunity to speak in front of an audience made up of publishers, vendors, collection development, acquisitions, and serials librarians who come from a wide variety of institutions and companies. You were given more reimbursement than some of the other speakers (just look at their reimbursement policy on their website) and you probably added some fans to your base. You forget about a requirement and some volunteer fell down on the job on reminding you of this obligation. What is your reaction? Complain and throw out some thoughtless statements. Sure makes us women look good – we can’t be trusted to read agreements.
Dear Anon,
Like I said, I screwed up (and I made it clear I screwed up), but I’m not taking it on the chin for womenkind. NASIG had a responsibility to treat its speakers equitably. I actually would have less issue if I had been paid less than the other speakers than to have NASIG lean so hard on me about this “requirement” ten months after they got it in writing through one short sentence on the second page of a contract.
No, I do not agree it was my job to stay on top of this requirement, and it was bizarre to get my first reminder almost two months after I had given the talk. The “girly” thing to do would be to quietly assume responsibility for this requirement, then keep my mouth shut about the guys getting different treatment. I’m cheap, but I’m not easy.
Also note that you’re confusing the copyright agreement with the contract. I was operating under the delusion they were referring to my presentation, as I’ve frequently signed copyright statements for my talks.
Finally, I am not averse to criticism, but anonymous criticism is for wimps. If I can’t or won’t put my name on it, I won’t say it. I posted this because it represents the kind of response I expected on this post, which is why I debated long and hard about it… for a month in fact. But your comment isn’t abusive, just wrongheaded, and surely represents a point of view shared by some of this blog’s readers, so I posted it, and I’ll protect your privacy, as well… that turning-the-other-cheek business I keep hearing about.
Isn’t LII MPOW minus *2* now? 🙂
I agree that this makes a great cautionary tale to read those contracts more carefully and to not be afraid to negotiate for what is equitable!!! It gives librarianship a bad name when this is viewed as being a “miss poopy pants” which in itself is so boomer it makes me cry. (and in the interests of full disclosure – I am a boomer)
findthepattern, you are so right. The good news is that MPOW is a GPOW which means LII will stay MPOW Minus 2 for a while. 🙂
Yes, reading contracts carefully is so important…
Oh… and with fee-based presentations I usually do negotiate. This was originally a “whuffie” (for a job I never actually held!) but I was unemployed for a while, and at that point the issue of work products became much more food-on-the-table, pay-the-mortgage critical for me.
Even with whuffies, I’m careful to do my part to keep the terms fair (and clear) for both parties, so everyone’s happy. I have never had an issue like this before.
I also believe verbal contracts should not misrepresent written contracts. I expect that on a fly-by-night used-car lot, not with colleagues. The library speaking circuit is no place to have to deal with “caveat emptor.”
FYI, the reason why the two guys had their talks written up (I did one of them) is because they chose that option. I’m sorry that the paperwork wasn’t clearer — this is the first time we’ve had a problem like this. It’s not sexist in any way, as far as I can tell, and I’m glad you have redacted your earlier statements about that.
[…] like when I said I could post about public libraries without speaking as a librarian, or when I ranted at NASIG for requiring me to submit a paper as well as give a […]