11 Temmuz 2012 Çarşamba
Know Someone With an Unique or Unusual Job? Pick Their Brain, Then Send 'Em My Way
[Ljava.lang.String;@43b258eb
10 Temmuz 2012 Salı
8 Temmuz 2012 Pazar
Know Someone With an Unique or Unusual Job? Pick Their Brain, Then Send 'Em My Way
To contact us Click HERE
I never thought being a novelist was a particularly interesting occupation. The way I see it, I’m just an average person with a side career as a writer, a job just like any other. I may be writing about extraordinary or unique or unusual people doing extraordinary or unique or unusual things, but honestly, my job as novelist—the process itself--is kinda boring.
So imagine my surprise when a few people told me over the past couple of months, while discussing my debut novel The City of Lost Secrets, that they thought writing was a fascinating career. (It’s not, just ask my husband. But thanks for thinking so.) These same people went all Freud on me, wondering what motivated me to write about biblical archeology, asking how my husband felt about my long mental absences, and drawing conclusions about the autobiographical nature of the book.
It freaked me out at first. I don’t necessarily want people to know certain personal things about me, and I feared that I unknowingly revealed my innermost thoughts through my fiction. But whatever. What did I expect would happen after “putting myself out there” as a creator of fictional worlds and characters? It’s cool though, because these people are now fans of my work and just want to know more about me and the psychology behind it all, so of course I give them honest answers—and continue to let them think being a novelist is the shit.
So while I think “novelist” isn’t exactly the coolest gig in town, I believe there are plenty of truly interesting and unique jobs out there, occupations you just don’t hear about everyday. Like Industrial Hygienist. And Pet Therapist. And Rag Picker (more on that in a minute). And those people who travel around the country firing other people from their jobs, George Clooney “Up in the Air” style. I think the correct job title is Corporate Downsizer.
You don’t bump into people like that everyday who actually do those jobs for a living. Those are the types of people who show up in novels, right? Because let’s be honest: successful books (and movies and TV shows) are populated with interesting people doing interesting things. Lisbeth Salander, the damaged computer hacker goth girl from Stieg Larsson’s books? Yeah, interesting chic, and a character I would’ve given my left arm to have created. Willy Wonka. Harry Potter. Sherlock Holmes. Hannibal Lecter. Interesting characters with unusual jobs.
I mean, no one wants to read about a copier salesman. He’s boring, right? He’s your best buddy. The guy you play poker with on Friday nights. He may be an upstanding citizen and a great family man who makes an honest living but sorry, that’s boring. He’s just an average guy. Nobody wants to read about the average guy with a boring life.
Now, if your best buddy was a copier salesman who had a secret identity…lived a double life as, I don’t know, an undercover government agent who roughed up Russian gangs illegally importing photocopiers…now we’re talking. That’s an interesting guy with a cool story to tell! I’d want to write about him and you’d want to read a story about him (but not necessarily my story).
The show Dexter works on the same premise: A forensics experts who moonlights as a serial killer, hunting down criminals who’ve escaped justice. Interesting guy with an average job and an extraordinary, um, “side job.”
Now, remember earlier when I mentioned the occupation Rag Picker? I watched a show the other day about 19th century Parisian “rag pickers,” people who made a living rummaging through trash in the streets of Paris to collect it for salvage. Rag picking was a career most prevalent in the 19th and early 20th centuries before organized trash collection came about. Here’s a picture I found of what a “typical” Parisian rag picker looked like:
Looks like a guy with an interesting story to tell, right?
Rag pickers still exist, most notably in India and Cairo, Egypt. What instantly grabbed me was the fact that picking through garbage was and still is a noble and honest occupation in some areas of the world. Who knew? Theirs is a story yet to be told, the plight of the rag pickers, and damnit, I’m gonna tell it. I’m going to write an historical drama set in 19th century Paris about an extraordinary boy born into a filthy world who must overcome great odds in order to realize his true power. It’ll be Oliver Twist meets Benjamin Button. I’m jazzed about it and have already written the first chapter.
I’ll write the rest of that story later, right after I tackle the ones about the industrial hygienist, the pet therapist, and the copier salesman/government spy. Oh, and the eight other novel ideas that are floating around in my head. (But I’ll let the Corporate Downsizer story die—“Up in the Air” is perfect as is.)
So, if you know anyone who has a unique or unusual job, pick their brains. Talk to them. Engage them in conversation. I guarantee they’ve got some awesome stories to tell. And you just might learn a thing or two.
Once you’re done, you’ll sent them my way, won’t you?
I never thought being a novelist was a particularly interesting occupation. The way I see it, I’m just an average person with a side career as a writer, a job just like any other. I may be writing about extraordinary or unique or unusual people doing extraordinary or unique or unusual things, but honestly, my job as novelist—the process itself--is kinda boring.
So imagine my surprise when a few people told me over the past couple of months, while discussing my debut novel The City of Lost Secrets, that they thought writing was a fascinating career. (It’s not, just ask my husband. But thanks for thinking so.) These same people went all Freud on me, wondering what motivated me to write about biblical archeology, asking how my husband felt about my long mental absences, and drawing conclusions about the autobiographical nature of the book.
It freaked me out at first. I don’t necessarily want people to know certain personal things about me, and I feared that I unknowingly revealed my innermost thoughts through my fiction. But whatever. What did I expect would happen after “putting myself out there” as a creator of fictional worlds and characters? It’s cool though, because these people are now fans of my work and just want to know more about me and the psychology behind it all, so of course I give them honest answers—and continue to let them think being a novelist is the shit.
So while I think “novelist” isn’t exactly the coolest gig in town, I believe there are plenty of truly interesting and unique jobs out there, occupations you just don’t hear about everyday. Like Industrial Hygienist. And Pet Therapist. And Rag Picker (more on that in a minute). And those people who travel around the country firing other people from their jobs, George Clooney “Up in the Air” style. I think the correct job title is Corporate Downsizer.
You don’t bump into people like that everyday who actually do those jobs for a living. Those are the types of people who show up in novels, right? Because let’s be honest: successful books (and movies and TV shows) are populated with interesting people doing interesting things. Lisbeth Salander, the damaged computer hacker goth girl from Stieg Larsson’s books? Yeah, interesting chic, and a character I would’ve given my left arm to have created. Willy Wonka. Harry Potter. Sherlock Holmes. Hannibal Lecter. Interesting characters with unusual jobs.
I mean, no one wants to read about a copier salesman. He’s boring, right? He’s your best buddy. The guy you play poker with on Friday nights. He may be an upstanding citizen and a great family man who makes an honest living but sorry, that’s boring. He’s just an average guy. Nobody wants to read about the average guy with a boring life.
Now, if your best buddy was a copier salesman who had a secret identity…lived a double life as, I don’t know, an undercover government agent who roughed up Russian gangs illegally importing photocopiers…now we’re talking. That’s an interesting guy with a cool story to tell! I’d want to write about him and you’d want to read a story about him (but not necessarily my story).
The show Dexter works on the same premise: A forensics experts who moonlights as a serial killer, hunting down criminals who’ve escaped justice. Interesting guy with an average job and an extraordinary, um, “side job.”
Now, remember earlier when I mentioned the occupation Rag Picker? I watched a show the other day about 19th century Parisian “rag pickers,” people who made a living rummaging through trash in the streets of Paris to collect it for salvage. Rag picking was a career most prevalent in the 19th and early 20th centuries before organized trash collection came about. Here’s a picture I found of what a “typical” Parisian rag picker looked like:
Looks like a guy with an interesting story to tell, right?
Rag pickers still exist, most notably in India and Cairo, Egypt. What instantly grabbed me was the fact that picking through garbage was and still is a noble and honest occupation in some areas of the world. Who knew? Theirs is a story yet to be told, the plight of the rag pickers, and damnit, I’m gonna tell it. I’m going to write an historical drama set in 19th century Paris about an extraordinary boy born into a filthy world who must overcome great odds in order to realize his true power. It’ll be Oliver Twist meets Benjamin Button. I’m jazzed about it and have already written the first chapter.
I’ll write the rest of that story later, right after I tackle the ones about the industrial hygienist, the pet therapist, and the copier salesman/government spy. Oh, and the eight other novel ideas that are floating around in my head. (But I’ll let the Corporate Downsizer story die—“Up in the Air” is perfect as is.)
So, if you know anyone who has a unique or unusual job, pick their brains. Talk to them. Engage them in conversation. I guarantee they’ve got some awesome stories to tell. And you just might learn a thing or two.
Once you’re done, you’ll sent them my way, won’t you?
Plots and Heroes Are Easy, It's the Bad Guys That Get Me Every Time
To contact us Click HERE
For the past two weeks I've been working on the second book in my Mara Beltane mystery series. Notice I said "working" and not "writing." That's because I'm in brainstorm mode, figuring out the plot and major characters--most notably, the antagonist.
I've got a good handle on the narrative arc and the "good guy" characters. As with the first book, those elements came easily. It's the bad guy who's being a pain in the ass.
I struggled with the antagonist with the first book, too. Every book needs a good guy with a goal and a bad guy that impedes the good guy's progress. That's what gives a book action and plot. I'm proud of THE CITY OF LOST SECRETS, but I do think the antagonist could have been a little stronger, a little more fleshed out. That being said, I need to up the ante with the second book.
I thought I had a lock on who the ultimate baddie would be, but then I realized he's appeared it lots of other books before in my genre, and he's, well, played out. Shame too, because everyone loves to hate the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church--the guy responsible for the property and revenue of the Vatican. We love him because of his silent power and his mysterious presence and his ability to run a tight ship. Secretly I think we all want to be that guy. But we hate him because, well, somehow "profit" and "Pope" seem oxymoronic and hypocritical and downright wrong. The papacy shouldn't be a for-profit entity, right? RIGHT? So he was turned into a bad guy because frankly, we didn't know what else to do with him.
But the Camerlengo-as-bad-guy thing is just plain cliche now, so I'll be having none of that in THE CITY OF SACRED BONES. Oh, right. The second book's called THE CITY OF SACRED BONES. Here's a little teaser video:
I've switched gears a bit, let go of the Camerlengo, and latched on to another, better idea for a bad guy. He's connected to the Church, and the Pope, but in a round about way. That's all I'm going to say for now; you'll just have to wait until the book is published to find out who he is. In the meantime, I'll throw you a bone. His official title is "The Custodian." How's THAT for a bad guy name?
I've got a good handle on the narrative arc and the "good guy" characters. As with the first book, those elements came easily. It's the bad guy who's being a pain in the ass.
I struggled with the antagonist with the first book, too. Every book needs a good guy with a goal and a bad guy that impedes the good guy's progress. That's what gives a book action and plot. I'm proud of THE CITY OF LOST SECRETS, but I do think the antagonist could have been a little stronger, a little more fleshed out. That being said, I need to up the ante with the second book.
I thought I had a lock on who the ultimate baddie would be, but then I realized he's appeared it lots of other books before in my genre, and he's, well, played out. Shame too, because everyone loves to hate the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church--the guy responsible for the property and revenue of the Vatican. We love him because of his silent power and his mysterious presence and his ability to run a tight ship. Secretly I think we all want to be that guy. But we hate him because, well, somehow "profit" and "Pope" seem oxymoronic and hypocritical and downright wrong. The papacy shouldn't be a for-profit entity, right? RIGHT? So he was turned into a bad guy because frankly, we didn't know what else to do with him.
But the Camerlengo-as-bad-guy thing is just plain cliche now, so I'll be having none of that in THE CITY OF SACRED BONES. Oh, right. The second book's called THE CITY OF SACRED BONES. Here's a little teaser video:
I've switched gears a bit, let go of the Camerlengo, and latched on to another, better idea for a bad guy. He's connected to the Church, and the Pope, but in a round about way. That's all I'm going to say for now; you'll just have to wait until the book is published to find out who he is. In the meantime, I'll throw you a bone. His official title is "The Custodian." How's THAT for a bad guy name?
How's the Writing Going, You Ask? Well, It's Going
To contact us Click HERE
Holy cow, has it really been since January that I’ve blogged? I’ve no excuses, other than to say I’ve been realllly busy promoting THE CITY OF LOST SECRETS, the publication of which will be celebrating its one-year anniversary in August. And I’ve been sorta busy writing the sequel, THE CITY OF SACRED BONES.
I say “sorta busy” because I must admit I’ve been slacking. The second book requires a lot more research than the first book, and well, I’m just not that into it. The subject itself is fascinating but the time commitment it takes is daunting. That’s my hang up. I’d much rather sit down and write, rather than sit down, research, and THEN write. But it’ll be worth it, because this novel has a lot more action and intrigue and a plot that’s pretty kick-ass, if I don’t say so myself.
So when people ask how the project is going, instead of going off on a tangent about how the research part sucks, and I can’t find the time to do it, bitch bitch bitch, gripe gripe gripe, I simply say, “it’s going.” It’s much easier that way, since no one wants to hear me bitch (they just want to read the damn book already) and because most days I don’t feel like talking about my slacker-ness. I’ve found it’s a win-win that way.
My curt two-word answer does seem a bit insincere, I realize, because if people didn’t care, they wouldn’t ask how the writing’s going. So for those people who persist and ask follow-up questions, I usually give them a little teaser like, “Mara’s been reunited with Uri in Rome, but he just threw her a curve ball and announced they’re going back to Jerusalem to meet with some very high-ranking but elusive people. People whose secrets are protected by none other than the Pope himself.” Or something like that. It only sounds that good in my head. But my verbalized version of that usually elicits an “ooh” or two anyway.
So for those of you who are interested, and who’ve been asking how the writing’s going, I wanted to offer a little bit more than just, “it’s going” and a dangling carrot about the Pope. I want to give you a sneak peak of the first two chapters of THE CITY OF SACRED BONES.
Sign up for my email list or shoot me an email and I’ll send it right out to you.Or you could just wait until I post the excerpt here, although I don’t know when that’ll be….
Oh, and here’s the trailer for it.
I say “sorta busy” because I must admit I’ve been slacking. The second book requires a lot more research than the first book, and well, I’m just not that into it. The subject itself is fascinating but the time commitment it takes is daunting. That’s my hang up. I’d much rather sit down and write, rather than sit down, research, and THEN write. But it’ll be worth it, because this novel has a lot more action and intrigue and a plot that’s pretty kick-ass, if I don’t say so myself.
So when people ask how the project is going, instead of going off on a tangent about how the research part sucks, and I can’t find the time to do it, bitch bitch bitch, gripe gripe gripe, I simply say, “it’s going.” It’s much easier that way, since no one wants to hear me bitch (they just want to read the damn book already) and because most days I don’t feel like talking about my slacker-ness. I’ve found it’s a win-win that way.
My curt two-word answer does seem a bit insincere, I realize, because if people didn’t care, they wouldn’t ask how the writing’s going. So for those people who persist and ask follow-up questions, I usually give them a little teaser like, “Mara’s been reunited with Uri in Rome, but he just threw her a curve ball and announced they’re going back to Jerusalem to meet with some very high-ranking but elusive people. People whose secrets are protected by none other than the Pope himself.” Or something like that. It only sounds that good in my head. But my verbalized version of that usually elicits an “ooh” or two anyway.
So for those of you who are interested, and who’ve been asking how the writing’s going, I wanted to offer a little bit more than just, “it’s going” and a dangling carrot about the Pope. I want to give you a sneak peak of the first two chapters of THE CITY OF SACRED BONES.
Sign up for my email list or shoot me an email and I’ll send it right out to you.Or you could just wait until I post the excerpt here, although I don’t know when that’ll be….
Oh, and here’s the trailer for it.
Great Price Tech Swiss TSA488 for $59.95
To contact us Click HERE
*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 12, 2012 10:12:43
Watch Box Leather Case For 4 Watches with Lined Pocket Brown Lock Key Tech Swiss Best
Rate This Product :
Watch Box Leather Case For 4 Watches with Lined Pocket Brown Lock Key Tech Swiss Feature
- Compact Watch Box for 4 Watches With Lined Pocket
- Coffee Brown Leather
- Interior Dark Brown
- Lock and Key
- Great for Travel or Safe
Watch Box Leather Case For 4 Watches with Lined Pocket Brown Lock Key Tech Swiss Overview
Keep your precious watches secure in this compact Tech Swiss leather case. The perfect travel companion, the case will protect your collection from harms way and help to ensure the nothing will gets lost in transit. The brown leather box opens displaying 4 compartments with removable cushions for watches and lined pocket in lid for other accessories. The interior brown lining adds to the overall detail of the case. Also, comes with a gold plated lock and key. Tuck's nicely into a travel bag or safe. Great Gift Idea! Case measures: 8 1/2 x 4 1/4x 3" H
Customer Reviews
*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 12, 2012 10:12:43
Check Out How To Find TSA Luggage Locks for $4.95
To contact us Click HERE
Written by experts in the field, Quick Easy Guides share little-known trade secrets and helpful hints to get you moving in the right direction.
Quick Easy Guides gives you books you can judge by the cover. Our books are short, sweet and cheap. You can see for yourself.
We specialize in publishing books in the following categories: Business, Marketing, Careers & Work, Consumer Tips, Finance & Real Estate, Computers & Internet, Electronics, Cars & Auto, Hobbies, Food & Drink, Education, Health & Safety, Sports & Fitness, Fashion & Personal Care, Religion & Spirituality, Family & Relationships, Home & Garden, Pets & Animals, Holidays & Festivals, Travel.
Quick Easy Guides -- helping people achieve success and happiness.
http://www.quickeasyguides.com
*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 13, 2012 12:24:25
How To Find TSA Luggage Locks Best
Rate This Product :
How To Find TSA Luggage Locks Overview
In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. government has instituted new regulations for luggage on airlines. One of these includes the TSA-approved lock. The Transportation...Written by experts in the field, Quick Easy Guides share little-known trade secrets and helpful hints to get you moving in the right direction.
Quick Easy Guides gives you books you can judge by the cover. Our books are short, sweet and cheap. You can see for yourself.
We specialize in publishing books in the following categories: Business, Marketing, Careers & Work, Consumer Tips, Finance & Real Estate, Computers & Internet, Electronics, Cars & Auto, Hobbies, Food & Drink, Education, Health & Safety, Sports & Fitness, Fashion & Personal Care, Religion & Spirituality, Family & Relationships, Home & Garden, Pets & Animals, Holidays & Festivals, Travel.
Quick Easy Guides -- helping people achieve success and happiness.
http://www.quickeasyguides.com
Customer Reviews
*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 13, 2012 12:24:25
7 Temmuz 2012 Cumartesi
NV-200 NanoVault Key-lock hand gun safe
To contact us Click HERE
NV-200 NanoVault Key-lock hand gun safe Video Clips. Duration : 1.40 Mins.
GunVault is pleased to introduce NanoVault, the compact, secure and affordable handgun storage safe solution. Available in two sizes the NanoVault is perfect for home, travel or concealed-weapon permit holders. The NanoVault meets TSA airline firearm guidelines and fits discreetly in a bag, briefcase, desk or under a vehicle seat. The NanoVault features an easy-to-operate key lock system, 21-gauge steel construction and 1.25-inch thick memory foam interior. Each unit comes standard with a 1500-pound test security cable. When the cable is wrapped around any fixed object and slid over the lock receiver inside the security box, both the NanoVault and any valuables will be securely attached.
Keywords: NV, 200
GunVault is pleased to introduce NanoVault, the compact, secure and affordable handgun storage safe solution. Available in two sizes the NanoVault is perfect for home, travel or concealed-weapon permit holders. The NanoVault meets TSA airline firearm guidelines and fits discreetly in a bag, briefcase, desk or under a vehicle seat. The NanoVault features an easy-to-operate key lock system, 21-gauge steel construction and 1.25-inch thick memory foam interior. Each unit comes standard with a 1500-pound test security cable. When the cable is wrapped around any fixed object and slid over the lock receiver inside the security box, both the NanoVault and any valuables will be securely attached.
Keywords: NV, 200
Does The TSA's 3 oz. Liquid Rule Still Hold Water?
To contact us Click HERE
I recently returned from a trip to Ireland, which I find to be one of the easiest European countries to travel to. You can fly there non-stop from Philly and the New York airports in as little as six hours, and because Ireland is a very popular American tourist destination, you can sail through customs without hassle.
Flying home from Ireland couldn’t be any easier either. The major airports in Dublin and Shannon have U.S. Customs kiosks right there in the airport; U.S. officials stamp your passport and essentially welcome you back to the U.S. before you’ve even boarded your home-bound flight, eliminating the need for your travel-weary butt to wait in a long customs queue on the other side.
Because of the ease with which I’ve traveled to Ireland in the past, I didn’t even worry when my father (who traveled with us this time) bought two large bottles of Irish whiskey at the Shannon Airport last minute before boarding our flight. As predicted, airline officials waved him and his Paddy onto the plane with no problem.
Talk about a system that works and is user-friendly. (Now how come the rest of the country can’t get its arse in gear?)
So when I recently read about a woman whose husband had an issue returning home from Rome with a few bottles of wine, it got me thinking a little more closely about traveling with liquids. I’ve flown enough to know by heart the TSA’s 3 oz. rule; I can recite it as easily as the Star-Spangled Banner. But I’m a light packer and try to avoid bringing liquids home with me, let alone booze, so I’ve never found myself in a similar situation. Plus, my father had had no problem with his whiskey. So I was curious: what had gone wrong with this poor sap and his wine?
The husband in the story seemed to do everything right. He’d bought the wine at a duty-free shop after clearing security at the Rome airport; the bottles were sealed in tamper-free, see-through plastic bags; and he carried them on the plane, as Roman officials instructed him to do. His layover in London’s Heathrow Airport passed without incident. But the husband had another layover to contend with, a domestic one in Dallas-Fort Worth. And this is where he had trouble.
TSA agents at Dallas-Fort Worth told the husband he’d have to check the bottles of wine for his final flight home to Santa Monica, California.
Seriously? So he’d flown almost six thousand miles with bottles of wine essentially in his lap, but for the short 1500 mile flight from Dallas to Santa Monica, he’d have to check them? Yes, and all because of the TSA’s 3 oz. rule, which says you absolutely cannot carry any container of liquid larger than 3 oz. onto a plane originating in the U.S., no matter the destination. (As of this writing, baby products and medical supplies are an exception.) That left the poor guy with three options: pitch the bottles of wine, check them, or have one hell of a party at the airport before his final flight home.
The husband chose to check the wine, and to the airline’s credit, they were helpful with his decision.
But still, the TSA’s liquid rule is confusing and maddening. That’s because the rule raises questions that allow for no simple answers, has rare exceptions that most people can’t utilize, and is fraught with loopholes that make sense only to the TSA’s brand of logic.
For starters, the TSA’s 3-1-1 liquid rule for carry on luggage goes like this: each passenger is allowed one (1) clear plastic zip-top bag, sized one (1) quart, filled with three (3) ounce bottles (or less) of liquid. Sounds simple enough, right?
But what’s your definition of liquid? Hairspray, glass cleaner, contact lens solution? Obviously liquids. But what about toothpaste? Toothpaste is more of a gel, but the TSA considers it a liquid, so into the quart bag it must go. Same with your hair gel, deodorant and fabric stain stick. All considered liquids. And how are you supposed to fit all your “liquids” into one itty-biddy quart bag? Most people can’t. Guess what? More shit for you to stuff into your checked luggage.
(Here’s one “liquid” that you’re banned from carrying on a plane that most people don’t think of: gel shoe inserts. My husband wears these everyday except on days when he’s traveling. Too much of a hassle to travel with, so he goes without.)
Now, if the subject of the story didn’t need to go through security again in Dallas en route to Santa Monica, he would’ve been in the clear; he probably would’ve been allowed to carry those bottles of wine onto his domestic flight. That’s because the 3 oz. rule is a TSA rule, not the airlines’ or airports’ rule. Without a security checkpoint, who’s to stop him? He could tuck those bottles of wine into a carry-on bag and no gate agent, flight attendant, or any other airline or airport rep would even know. But he did have to go through security again upon arriving from Heathrow (as well as Customs), so he was nabbed by agents and told no way, Jose. He’d have to check that wine or throw it away.
And if the bottles of wine were 3 oz. or less per container? Well, that’s perfectly fine, as long as the bottles would’ve fit inside his one-quart bag. He would’ve been able to sail through security because the wine falls within the TSA’s magic 3-1-1 scenario. But if the 3 oz. bottles of wine didn’t fit inside his zip-top quart bag, he’d be back to where he started. He’d have to check the tiny bottles or throw them away; he’d be adhering to one part of the rule, while breaking another, and that’s a no-no. With the TSA, it’s all or nothing.
Confused yet? I know, I know. See how maddening the rule can be? The TSA claims it’s working on software that will someday make it possible for us to once again carry liquids onto a plane, thus abolishing the 3-1-1 rule that even the organization itself admits it’s tired of justifying. They even want to get to a point where passengers will be able to keep their shoes on. What a happy day that’ll be. But of course that day isn’t here yet, so what’s a weary passenger to do? Whether it’s wine or whiskey, perfume or stain stick, how can you avoid the 3-1-1 madness?
First off, try like hell to get a non-stop flight. That’s tough to do if you’re flying to/from some far-flung or hard-to-reach area, or if you live in the middle of nowhere. But if you live within a few hours’ drive of a larger airport, like Dulles, Philadelphia, O’Hare, Newark, JFK or LAX, it’s decidedly easier, because those large airports have tons of non-stop, round-trip flights all over the world. (My husband and I flew non-stop from Newark to Beijing in 2009; it was a chaotic three-hour drive to New Jersey and then a grueling 14-hour flight, but it was worth not having to layover or change planes.) Suck it up and drive to/from a larger airport, staying overnight if need be, to reap the benefits of a non-stop flight. You won’t have to worry about missing a connection, for one thing. But more on topic, you’ll be able to bring home larger containers of liquid without worry (if you’re flying home from an international destination, that is.)
If a non-stop flight isn’t an option (and even if it is), consider buying the liquid toiletries you need once you reach your destination, if possible. On the flip side, on the return flight home, throw out any and all liquids you no longer need before packing your bags. Also, if you absolutely must have that bottle of Paddy Irish whiskey (like my dad did, because it’s not sold in the States) consider having it shipped home. And of course, you could always wait until you get home to buy your booze—or not buy any booze at all.
But what fun would that be?
Got a nightmare TSA or 3-1-1 story you’d like to share? Let’s hear ‘em! While you’re at it, sign up to receive all my travel-related blog posts. They’re frequent enough to keep you in the know, but not too frequent that they clog up your in-box. Sign up to the right.
I recently returned from a trip to Ireland, which I find to be one of the easiest European countries to travel to. You can fly there non-stop from Philly and the New York airports in as little as six hours, and because Ireland is a very popular American tourist destination, you can sail through customs without hassle.
Flying home from Ireland couldn’t be any easier either. The major airports in Dublin and Shannon have U.S. Customs kiosks right there in the airport; U.S. officials stamp your passport and essentially welcome you back to the U.S. before you’ve even boarded your home-bound flight, eliminating the need for your travel-weary butt to wait in a long customs queue on the other side.
Because of the ease with which I’ve traveled to Ireland in the past, I didn’t even worry when my father (who traveled with us this time) bought two large bottles of Irish whiskey at the Shannon Airport last minute before boarding our flight. As predicted, airline officials waved him and his Paddy onto the plane with no problem.
Talk about a system that works and is user-friendly. (Now how come the rest of the country can’t get its arse in gear?)
So when I recently read about a woman whose husband had an issue returning home from Rome with a few bottles of wine, it got me thinking a little more closely about traveling with liquids. I’ve flown enough to know by heart the TSA’s 3 oz. rule; I can recite it as easily as the Star-Spangled Banner. But I’m a light packer and try to avoid bringing liquids home with me, let alone booze, so I’ve never found myself in a similar situation. Plus, my father had had no problem with his whiskey. So I was curious: what had gone wrong with this poor sap and his wine?
The husband in the story seemed to do everything right. He’d bought the wine at a duty-free shop after clearing security at the Rome airport; the bottles were sealed in tamper-free, see-through plastic bags; and he carried them on the plane, as Roman officials instructed him to do. His layover in London’s Heathrow Airport passed without incident. But the husband had another layover to contend with, a domestic one in Dallas-Fort Worth. And this is where he had trouble.
TSA agents at Dallas-Fort Worth told the husband he’d have to check the bottles of wine for his final flight home to Santa Monica, California.
Seriously? So he’d flown almost six thousand miles with bottles of wine essentially in his lap, but for the short 1500 mile flight from Dallas to Santa Monica, he’d have to check them? Yes, and all because of the TSA’s 3 oz. rule, which says you absolutely cannot carry any container of liquid larger than 3 oz. onto a plane originating in the U.S., no matter the destination. (As of this writing, baby products and medical supplies are an exception.) That left the poor guy with three options: pitch the bottles of wine, check them, or have one hell of a party at the airport before his final flight home.
The husband chose to check the wine, and to the airline’s credit, they were helpful with his decision.
But still, the TSA’s liquid rule is confusing and maddening. That’s because the rule raises questions that allow for no simple answers, has rare exceptions that most people can’t utilize, and is fraught with loopholes that make sense only to the TSA’s brand of logic.
For starters, the TSA’s 3-1-1 liquid rule for carry on luggage goes like this: each passenger is allowed one (1) clear plastic zip-top bag, sized one (1) quart, filled with three (3) ounce bottles (or less) of liquid. Sounds simple enough, right?
But what’s your definition of liquid? Hairspray, glass cleaner, contact lens solution? Obviously liquids. But what about toothpaste? Toothpaste is more of a gel, but the TSA considers it a liquid, so into the quart bag it must go. Same with your hair gel, deodorant and fabric stain stick. All considered liquids. And how are you supposed to fit all your “liquids” into one itty-biddy quart bag? Most people can’t. Guess what? More shit for you to stuff into your checked luggage.
(Here’s one “liquid” that you’re banned from carrying on a plane that most people don’t think of: gel shoe inserts. My husband wears these everyday except on days when he’s traveling. Too much of a hassle to travel with, so he goes without.)
Now, if the subject of the story didn’t need to go through security again in Dallas en route to Santa Monica, he would’ve been in the clear; he probably would’ve been allowed to carry those bottles of wine onto his domestic flight. That’s because the 3 oz. rule is a TSA rule, not the airlines’ or airports’ rule. Without a security checkpoint, who’s to stop him? He could tuck those bottles of wine into a carry-on bag and no gate agent, flight attendant, or any other airline or airport rep would even know. But he did have to go through security again upon arriving from Heathrow (as well as Customs), so he was nabbed by agents and told no way, Jose. He’d have to check that wine or throw it away.
And if the bottles of wine were 3 oz. or less per container? Well, that’s perfectly fine, as long as the bottles would’ve fit inside his one-quart bag. He would’ve been able to sail through security because the wine falls within the TSA’s magic 3-1-1 scenario. But if the 3 oz. bottles of wine didn’t fit inside his zip-top quart bag, he’d be back to where he started. He’d have to check the tiny bottles or throw them away; he’d be adhering to one part of the rule, while breaking another, and that’s a no-no. With the TSA, it’s all or nothing.
Confused yet? I know, I know. See how maddening the rule can be? The TSA claims it’s working on software that will someday make it possible for us to once again carry liquids onto a plane, thus abolishing the 3-1-1 rule that even the organization itself admits it’s tired of justifying. They even want to get to a point where passengers will be able to keep their shoes on. What a happy day that’ll be. But of course that day isn’t here yet, so what’s a weary passenger to do? Whether it’s wine or whiskey, perfume or stain stick, how can you avoid the 3-1-1 madness?
First off, try like hell to get a non-stop flight. That’s tough to do if you’re flying to/from some far-flung or hard-to-reach area, or if you live in the middle of nowhere. But if you live within a few hours’ drive of a larger airport, like Dulles, Philadelphia, O’Hare, Newark, JFK or LAX, it’s decidedly easier, because those large airports have tons of non-stop, round-trip flights all over the world. (My husband and I flew non-stop from Newark to Beijing in 2009; it was a chaotic three-hour drive to New Jersey and then a grueling 14-hour flight, but it was worth not having to layover or change planes.) Suck it up and drive to/from a larger airport, staying overnight if need be, to reap the benefits of a non-stop flight. You won’t have to worry about missing a connection, for one thing. But more on topic, you’ll be able to bring home larger containers of liquid without worry (if you’re flying home from an international destination, that is.)
If a non-stop flight isn’t an option (and even if it is), consider buying the liquid toiletries you need once you reach your destination, if possible. On the flip side, on the return flight home, throw out any and all liquids you no longer need before packing your bags. Also, if you absolutely must have that bottle of Paddy Irish whiskey (like my dad did, because it’s not sold in the States) consider having it shipped home. And of course, you could always wait until you get home to buy your booze—or not buy any booze at all.
But what fun would that be?
Got a nightmare TSA or 3-1-1 story you’d like to share? Let’s hear ‘em! While you’re at it, sign up to receive all my travel-related blog posts. They’re frequent enough to keep you in the know, but not too frequent that they clog up your in-box. Sign up to the right.
Know Someone With an Unique or Unusual Job? Pick Their Brain, Then Send 'Em My Way
To contact us Click HERE
I never thought being a novelist was a particularly interesting occupation. The way I see it, I’m just an average person with a side career as a writer, a job just like any other. I may be writing about extraordinary or unique or unusual people doing extraordinary or unique or unusual things, but honestly, my job as novelist—the process itself--is kinda boring.
So imagine my surprise when a few people told me over the past couple of months, while discussing my debut novel The City of Lost Secrets, that they thought writing was a fascinating career. (It’s not, just ask my husband. But thanks for thinking so.) These same people went all Freud on me, wondering what motivated me to write about biblical archeology, asking how my husband felt about my long mental absences, and drawing conclusions about the autobiographical nature of the book.
It freaked me out at first. I don’t necessarily want people to know certain personal things about me, and I feared that I unknowingly revealed my innermost thoughts through my fiction. But whatever. What did I expect would happen after “putting myself out there” as a creator of fictional worlds and characters? It’s cool though, because these people are now fans of my work and just want to know more about me and the psychology behind it all, so of course I give them honest answers—and continue to let them think being a novelist is the shit.
So while I think “novelist” isn’t exactly the coolest gig in town, I believe there are plenty of truly interesting and unique jobs out there, occupations you just don’t hear about everyday. Like Industrial Hygienist. And Pet Therapist. And Rag Picker (more on that in a minute). And those people who travel around the country firing other people from their jobs, George Clooney “Up in the Air” style. I think the correct job title is Corporate Downsizer.
You don’t bump into people like that everyday who actually do those jobs for a living. Those are the types of people who show up in novels, right? Because let’s be honest: successful books (and movies and TV shows) are populated with interesting people doing interesting things. Lisbeth Salander, the damaged computer hacker goth girl from Stieg Larsson’s books? Yeah, interesting chic, and a character I would’ve given my left arm to have created. Willy Wonka. Harry Potter. Sherlock Holmes. Hannibal Lecter. Interesting characters with unusual jobs.
I mean, no one wants to read about a copier salesman. He’s boring, right? He’s your best buddy. The guy you play poker with on Friday nights. He may be an upstanding citizen and a great family man who makes an honest living but sorry, that’s boring. He’s just an average guy. Nobody wants to read about the average guy with a boring life.
Now, if your best buddy was a copier salesman who had a secret identity…lived a double life as, I don’t know, an undercover government agent who roughed up Russian gangs illegally importing photocopiers…now we’re talking. That’s an interesting guy with a cool story to tell! I’d want to write about him and you’d want to read a story about him (but not necessarily my story).
The show Dexter works on the same premise: A forensics experts who moonlights as a serial killer, hunting down criminals who’ve escaped justice. Interesting guy with an average job and an extraordinary, um, “side job.”
Now, remember earlier when I mentioned the occupation Rag Picker? I watched a show the other day about 19th century Parisian “rag pickers,” people who made a living rummaging through trash in the streets of Paris to collect it for salvage. Rag picking was a career most prevalent in the 19th and early 20th centuries before organized trash collection came about. Here’s a picture I found of what a “typical” Parisian rag picker looked like:
Looks like a guy with an interesting story to tell, right?
Rag pickers still exist, most notably in India and Cairo, Egypt. What instantly grabbed me was the fact that picking through garbage was and still is a noble and honest occupation in some areas of the world. Who knew? Theirs is a story yet to be told, the plight of the rag pickers, and damnit, I’m gonna tell it. I’m going to write an historical drama set in 19th century Paris about an extraordinary boy born into a filthy world who must overcome great odds in order to realize his true power. It’ll be Oliver Twist meets Benjamin Button. I’m jazzed about it and have already written the first chapter.
I’ll write the rest of that story later, right after I tackle the ones about the industrial hygienist, the pet therapist, and the copier salesman/government spy. Oh, and the eight other novel ideas that are floating around in my head. (But I’ll let the Corporate Downsizer story die—“Up in the Air” is perfect as is.)
So, if you know anyone who has a unique or unusual job, pick their brains. Talk to them. Engage them in conversation. I guarantee they’ve got some awesome stories to tell. And you just might learn a thing or two.
Once you’re done, you’ll sent them my way, won’t you?
I never thought being a novelist was a particularly interesting occupation. The way I see it, I’m just an average person with a side career as a writer, a job just like any other. I may be writing about extraordinary or unique or unusual people doing extraordinary or unique or unusual things, but honestly, my job as novelist—the process itself--is kinda boring.
So imagine my surprise when a few people told me over the past couple of months, while discussing my debut novel The City of Lost Secrets, that they thought writing was a fascinating career. (It’s not, just ask my husband. But thanks for thinking so.) These same people went all Freud on me, wondering what motivated me to write about biblical archeology, asking how my husband felt about my long mental absences, and drawing conclusions about the autobiographical nature of the book.
It freaked me out at first. I don’t necessarily want people to know certain personal things about me, and I feared that I unknowingly revealed my innermost thoughts through my fiction. But whatever. What did I expect would happen after “putting myself out there” as a creator of fictional worlds and characters? It’s cool though, because these people are now fans of my work and just want to know more about me and the psychology behind it all, so of course I give them honest answers—and continue to let them think being a novelist is the shit.
So while I think “novelist” isn’t exactly the coolest gig in town, I believe there are plenty of truly interesting and unique jobs out there, occupations you just don’t hear about everyday. Like Industrial Hygienist. And Pet Therapist. And Rag Picker (more on that in a minute). And those people who travel around the country firing other people from their jobs, George Clooney “Up in the Air” style. I think the correct job title is Corporate Downsizer.
You don’t bump into people like that everyday who actually do those jobs for a living. Those are the types of people who show up in novels, right? Because let’s be honest: successful books (and movies and TV shows) are populated with interesting people doing interesting things. Lisbeth Salander, the damaged computer hacker goth girl from Stieg Larsson’s books? Yeah, interesting chic, and a character I would’ve given my left arm to have created. Willy Wonka. Harry Potter. Sherlock Holmes. Hannibal Lecter. Interesting characters with unusual jobs.
I mean, no one wants to read about a copier salesman. He’s boring, right? He’s your best buddy. The guy you play poker with on Friday nights. He may be an upstanding citizen and a great family man who makes an honest living but sorry, that’s boring. He’s just an average guy. Nobody wants to read about the average guy with a boring life.
Now, if your best buddy was a copier salesman who had a secret identity…lived a double life as, I don’t know, an undercover government agent who roughed up Russian gangs illegally importing photocopiers…now we’re talking. That’s an interesting guy with a cool story to tell! I’d want to write about him and you’d want to read a story about him (but not necessarily my story).
The show Dexter works on the same premise: A forensics experts who moonlights as a serial killer, hunting down criminals who’ve escaped justice. Interesting guy with an average job and an extraordinary, um, “side job.”
Now, remember earlier when I mentioned the occupation Rag Picker? I watched a show the other day about 19th century Parisian “rag pickers,” people who made a living rummaging through trash in the streets of Paris to collect it for salvage. Rag picking was a career most prevalent in the 19th and early 20th centuries before organized trash collection came about. Here’s a picture I found of what a “typical” Parisian rag picker looked like:
Looks like a guy with an interesting story to tell, right?
Rag pickers still exist, most notably in India and Cairo, Egypt. What instantly grabbed me was the fact that picking through garbage was and still is a noble and honest occupation in some areas of the world. Who knew? Theirs is a story yet to be told, the plight of the rag pickers, and damnit, I’m gonna tell it. I’m going to write an historical drama set in 19th century Paris about an extraordinary boy born into a filthy world who must overcome great odds in order to realize his true power. It’ll be Oliver Twist meets Benjamin Button. I’m jazzed about it and have already written the first chapter.
I’ll write the rest of that story later, right after I tackle the ones about the industrial hygienist, the pet therapist, and the copier salesman/government spy. Oh, and the eight other novel ideas that are floating around in my head. (But I’ll let the Corporate Downsizer story die—“Up in the Air” is perfect as is.)
So, if you know anyone who has a unique or unusual job, pick their brains. Talk to them. Engage them in conversation. I guarantee they’ve got some awesome stories to tell. And you just might learn a thing or two.
Once you’re done, you’ll sent them my way, won’t you?
Plots and Heroes Are Easy, It's the Bad Guys That Get Me Every Time
To contact us Click HERE
For the past two weeks I've been working on the second book in my Mara Beltane mystery series. Notice I said "working" and not "writing." That's because I'm in brainstorm mode, figuring out the plot and major characters--most notably, the antagonist.
I've got a good handle on the narrative arc and the "good guy" characters. As with the first book, those elements came easily. It's the bad guy who's being a pain in the ass.
I struggled with the antagonist with the first book, too. Every book needs a good guy with a goal and a bad guy that impedes the good guy's progress. That's what gives a book action and plot. I'm proud of THE CITY OF LOST SECRETS, but I do think the antagonist could have been a little stronger, a little more fleshed out. That being said, I need to up the ante with the second book.
I thought I had a lock on who the ultimate baddie would be, but then I realized he's appeared it lots of other books before in my genre, and he's, well, played out. Shame too, because everyone loves to hate the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church--the guy responsible for the property and revenue of the Vatican. We love him because of his silent power and his mysterious presence and his ability to run a tight ship. Secretly I think we all want to be that guy. But we hate him because, well, somehow "profit" and "Pope" seem oxymoronic and hypocritical and downright wrong. The papacy shouldn't be a for-profit entity, right? RIGHT? So he was turned into a bad guy because frankly, we didn't know what else to do with him.
But the Camerlengo-as-bad-guy thing is just plain cliche now, so I'll be having none of that in THE CITY OF SACRED BONES. Oh, right. The second book's called THE CITY OF SACRED BONES. Here's a little teaser video:
I've switched gears a bit, let go of the Camerlengo, and latched on to another, better idea for a bad guy. He's connected to the Church, and the Pope, but in a round about way. That's all I'm going to say for now; you'll just have to wait until the book is published to find out who he is. In the meantime, I'll throw you a bone. His official title is "The Custodian." How's THAT for a bad guy name?
I've got a good handle on the narrative arc and the "good guy" characters. As with the first book, those elements came easily. It's the bad guy who's being a pain in the ass.
I struggled with the antagonist with the first book, too. Every book needs a good guy with a goal and a bad guy that impedes the good guy's progress. That's what gives a book action and plot. I'm proud of THE CITY OF LOST SECRETS, but I do think the antagonist could have been a little stronger, a little more fleshed out. That being said, I need to up the ante with the second book.
I thought I had a lock on who the ultimate baddie would be, but then I realized he's appeared it lots of other books before in my genre, and he's, well, played out. Shame too, because everyone loves to hate the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church--the guy responsible for the property and revenue of the Vatican. We love him because of his silent power and his mysterious presence and his ability to run a tight ship. Secretly I think we all want to be that guy. But we hate him because, well, somehow "profit" and "Pope" seem oxymoronic and hypocritical and downright wrong. The papacy shouldn't be a for-profit entity, right? RIGHT? So he was turned into a bad guy because frankly, we didn't know what else to do with him.
But the Camerlengo-as-bad-guy thing is just plain cliche now, so I'll be having none of that in THE CITY OF SACRED BONES. Oh, right. The second book's called THE CITY OF SACRED BONES. Here's a little teaser video:
I've switched gears a bit, let go of the Camerlengo, and latched on to another, better idea for a bad guy. He's connected to the Church, and the Pope, but in a round about way. That's all I'm going to say for now; you'll just have to wait until the book is published to find out who he is. In the meantime, I'll throw you a bone. His official title is "The Custodian." How's THAT for a bad guy name?
How's the Writing Going, You Ask? Well, It's Going
To contact us Click HERE
Holy cow, has it really been since January that I’ve blogged? I’ve no excuses, other than to say I’ve been realllly busy promoting THE CITY OF LOST SECRETS, the publication of which will be celebrating its one-year anniversary in August. And I’ve been sorta busy writing the sequel, THE CITY OF SACRED BONES.
I say “sorta busy” because I must admit I’ve been slacking. The second book requires a lot more research than the first book, and well, I’m just not that into it. The subject itself is fascinating but the time commitment it takes is daunting. That’s my hang up. I’d much rather sit down and write, rather than sit down, research, and THEN write. But it’ll be worth it, because this novel has a lot more action and intrigue and a plot that’s pretty kick-ass, if I don’t say so myself.
So when people ask how the project is going, instead of going off on a tangent about how the research part sucks, and I can’t find the time to do it, bitch bitch bitch, gripe gripe gripe, I simply say, “it’s going.” It’s much easier that way, since no one wants to hear me bitch (they just want to read the damn book already) and because most days I don’t feel like talking about my slacker-ness. I’ve found it’s a win-win that way.
My curt two-word answer does seem a bit insincere, I realize, because if people didn’t care, they wouldn’t ask how the writing’s going. So for those people who persist and ask follow-up questions, I usually give them a little teaser like, “Mara’s been reunited with Uri in Rome, but he just threw her a curve ball and announced they’re going back to Jerusalem to meet with some very high-ranking but elusive people. People whose secrets are protected by none other than the Pope himself.” Or something like that. It only sounds that good in my head. But my verbalized version of that usually elicits an “ooh” or two anyway.
So for those of you who are interested, and who’ve been asking how the writing’s going, I wanted to offer a little bit more than just, “it’s going” and a dangling carrot about the Pope. I want to give you a sneak peak of the first two chapters of THE CITY OF SACRED BONES.
Sign up for my email list or shoot me an email and I’ll send it right out to you.Or you could just wait until I post the excerpt here, although I don’t know when that’ll be….
Oh, and here’s the trailer for it.
I say “sorta busy” because I must admit I’ve been slacking. The second book requires a lot more research than the first book, and well, I’m just not that into it. The subject itself is fascinating but the time commitment it takes is daunting. That’s my hang up. I’d much rather sit down and write, rather than sit down, research, and THEN write. But it’ll be worth it, because this novel has a lot more action and intrigue and a plot that’s pretty kick-ass, if I don’t say so myself.
So when people ask how the project is going, instead of going off on a tangent about how the research part sucks, and I can’t find the time to do it, bitch bitch bitch, gripe gripe gripe, I simply say, “it’s going.” It’s much easier that way, since no one wants to hear me bitch (they just want to read the damn book already) and because most days I don’t feel like talking about my slacker-ness. I’ve found it’s a win-win that way.
My curt two-word answer does seem a bit insincere, I realize, because if people didn’t care, they wouldn’t ask how the writing’s going. So for those people who persist and ask follow-up questions, I usually give them a little teaser like, “Mara’s been reunited with Uri in Rome, but he just threw her a curve ball and announced they’re going back to Jerusalem to meet with some very high-ranking but elusive people. People whose secrets are protected by none other than the Pope himself.” Or something like that. It only sounds that good in my head. But my verbalized version of that usually elicits an “ooh” or two anyway.
So for those of you who are interested, and who’ve been asking how the writing’s going, I wanted to offer a little bit more than just, “it’s going” and a dangling carrot about the Pope. I want to give you a sneak peak of the first two chapters of THE CITY OF SACRED BONES.
Sign up for my email list or shoot me an email and I’ll send it right out to you.Or you could just wait until I post the excerpt here, although I don’t know when that’ll be….
Oh, and here’s the trailer for it.
5 Temmuz 2012 Perşembe
No E-Reader? No Problem! My Books Will Always Be Available In Print
To contact us Click HERE
As a writer, I thought publishing my novels as e-books on Amazon’s Kindle was the way to go.
“Everyone has an e-reader, and most of them have Kindles,” they said. “Serious readers have Kindles and you should market to them,” they said further.
They being the self-publishing experts, and the novelists who were already making their work available as ebooks and apparently making good livings. So who was I to argue? They were walking the walk, so to speak, they were super successful, and were selfless enough to share the secrets of their own success. And the secret seemed to be: push out ebook after ebook for Kindle, price them low enough to attract lots of readers, and market the shit out them using social media. Rinse and repeat.
I read about writers who were selling thousands of ebooks a month and pulling in four figures a month. People like JA Konrath. John Locke. Karen McQuestion. Amanda Hocking. Ruth Morrison.
They’ve all found success publishing to Kindle almost exclusively. Some of them have gone on to find traditional publishing deals. And all of them are doing very well for themselves.
As ebook publishers, they have no overhead because there’s no print book and therefore no printing costs or inventory.
They need very little upfront money to get ebooks published because hiring an expert to convert a manuscript and create a cover costs maybe a hundred bucks each. And if you do it yourself of course it’s free.
Tons of readers. Oodles of devoted fans. Very little upfront cash needed. Pure profit. That’s what I was being promised—as long as my book was good and I marketed like hell.
The successful authors I mentioned didn’t start out that way, of course. At first, they were selling dozens a month, but persistence and years of practice and savvy marketing pushed them ahead of the crowd to a place where they could write full-time. It took a lot of time away from writing, and more time marketing, but eventually they were able to reap the rewards. Most of them are now selling thousands of ebooks a month.
How awesome for them!
Despite the drawbacks (less time writing, more time marketing) this sounded like a business model I wanted to get involved in.
So I hopped onboard about eight months ago and never second-guessed my decision to “go indie.” I ceased looking for an agent and decided to self-publish my writing as e-books.
Then a curious thing happened.
As I started going about the e-publishing process, I started asking everyone I knew and lots of people I didn’t if they had a Kindle. Or any other kind of e-reader. And the overwhelming majority of them said no. They didn’t have an e-reader and didn’t think they would buy one anytime soon. The readers in the bunch purchase print books, they like the simplicity that comes with owning print books, and oh by the way, they asked, when’s your book coming out in print?
I had to break the news to them that I was publishing ebooks only. In my mind, that equated to lost sales. I might have to do something about that. But more on that in a minute.
As predicted, my close friends and family wanted print books. But even the strangers and people I didn’t know too well expressed interest in a print book.
Huh. Go figure.
That went against everything I’d read about. About how while the publishing industry had expanded over all, print sales had been in steady decline. Mass-market paperback sales—those cheap, pulpy books you find in drug stores and airports—for example, had fallen 14 percent since 2008. A once robust paper-based industry was slowly being eaten away at by the digital revolution. Ebooks were chewing up the competition.
And it made sense why. Reading can be an expensive hobby. Hardbacks are priced at about $25, trade paperbacks at about $12 - $15. Voracious readers can easily plow through two, three, even four books a month, which means someone who liked to read a lot could easily drop $100 a month on books. That’s a lot of coin.
With the advent of ebooks, readers no longer had to purchase expensive hardbacks or wait for the discounted trade paperback. Within a matter of minutes, they can download a dozen novels to their e-readers for less than twenty bucks. Naturally, readers of the voracious and budget-watching variety embraced the technology. It was a natural fit.
But that’s not what I’m experiencing…
I asked a woman at work, whom I know to be a big reader, how many books she read a month. About two or three, she said. She doesn’t have an e-reader and doesn’t plan on purchasing one anytime soon. She prefers trade paperback but if it’s a writer she really likes (Sue Grafton, say), then she’ll spend the dough for the hardback in order to get it as soon as it’s released. Her house is full of books, most of which she doesn’t have the heart to get rid of. She doesn’t mind spending more money on a paper book and only shrugs at the thought of a house crammed floor to ceiling with them.
I asked professional contacts, people I usually only talk shop with, if they read novels and if so, if they preferred ebooks or print books. The overwhelming majority didn’t have e-readers; they preferred print books.
I dispatched friends and family members to ask their contacts (people I didn’t know) about ebooks vs. print books. Most of them still read books; no e-reader for them. One 40ish woman even was quoted as saying, “What’s a Kindle?”
Of the two dozen or so people who were asked, a whopping five had e-readers. Five! That certainly flies in the face of the experts who claimed that nobody reads books anymore. (Of course, some of them gave up reading altogether because of time and money constraints, but still…)
So while I don’t doubt that e-readers are here to stay, my independent research indicated that maybe they’re not catching on as quickly as all the experts claim they have.
Either that, or the print-book-reading people that were interviewed (most of them fellow Pennsylvanians) are way behind the times. Maybe Pennsylvania in general is way behind the times and slow to embrace new technologies.
If that’s the case, where are all these supposed Kindle and Nook nuts? Where are they hiding? My ebook novel, The City of Lost Secrets, has been on sale for a month now, and I’ve sold 22 copies. Nothing to shake a stick at (especially since I haven’t done too much marketing) but not exactly the first month goal of 25 I was aiming for. I’ve had almost as many people express interest in the print book. Which is the opposite of what the experts told me would happen.
Granted, I haven’t done a lot of publicity, because I’ve been too busy writing the second book, and because the experts told me to wait until I have at least three or four books written before I start branding myself and promoting my books. Which makes sense, because if someone really likes your book, you want to have more than just the one available for them. Plus, the experts also told me that I could expect first- and second-month sales to be low, because it takes time for the “Amazon algorithm” to kick in and word of mouth to spread. If what the experts say is true, I won’t begin seeing truly decent sales of my ebook until about the nine month mark.
But given that the opposite of what the experts are saying is happening to me, then maybe I’ll start seeing success with my ebook sooner than nine months. And I can expect to sell more print books than ebooks.
Which is why the print version of The City of Lost Secrets is now available in print version on Amazon. (You can buy it here.) It cost me a hell of a lot of money to make it available, but in the end it was worth it. That’s because becoming an ebook writer millionaire like John Locke was never my main goal, anyway. All I really want to do is tell a great story using likeable and relatable characters. Whether it makes me a millionaire or barely brings me back into the black makes no difference. It would’ve been worth it either way.
Because what matters most is putting out a good product and making my readers happy.
Therefore, from here on out, until we run out of trees and paper goes extinct, I’ll continue to fly in the face of the experts and have print books available for all my novels.
So there.
“Everyone has an e-reader, and most of them have Kindles,” they said. “Serious readers have Kindles and you should market to them,” they said further.
They being the self-publishing experts, and the novelists who were already making their work available as ebooks and apparently making good livings. So who was I to argue? They were walking the walk, so to speak, they were super successful, and were selfless enough to share the secrets of their own success. And the secret seemed to be: push out ebook after ebook for Kindle, price them low enough to attract lots of readers, and market the shit out them using social media. Rinse and repeat.
I read about writers who were selling thousands of ebooks a month and pulling in four figures a month. People like JA Konrath. John Locke. Karen McQuestion. Amanda Hocking. Ruth Morrison.
They’ve all found success publishing to Kindle almost exclusively. Some of them have gone on to find traditional publishing deals. And all of them are doing very well for themselves.
As ebook publishers, they have no overhead because there’s no print book and therefore no printing costs or inventory.
They need very little upfront money to get ebooks published because hiring an expert to convert a manuscript and create a cover costs maybe a hundred bucks each. And if you do it yourself of course it’s free.
Tons of readers. Oodles of devoted fans. Very little upfront cash needed. Pure profit. That’s what I was being promised—as long as my book was good and I marketed like hell.
The successful authors I mentioned didn’t start out that way, of course. At first, they were selling dozens a month, but persistence and years of practice and savvy marketing pushed them ahead of the crowd to a place where they could write full-time. It took a lot of time away from writing, and more time marketing, but eventually they were able to reap the rewards. Most of them are now selling thousands of ebooks a month.
How awesome for them!
Despite the drawbacks (less time writing, more time marketing) this sounded like a business model I wanted to get involved in.
So I hopped onboard about eight months ago and never second-guessed my decision to “go indie.” I ceased looking for an agent and decided to self-publish my writing as e-books.
Then a curious thing happened.
As I started going about the e-publishing process, I started asking everyone I knew and lots of people I didn’t if they had a Kindle. Or any other kind of e-reader. And the overwhelming majority of them said no. They didn’t have an e-reader and didn’t think they would buy one anytime soon. The readers in the bunch purchase print books, they like the simplicity that comes with owning print books, and oh by the way, they asked, when’s your book coming out in print?
I had to break the news to them that I was publishing ebooks only. In my mind, that equated to lost sales. I might have to do something about that. But more on that in a minute.
As predicted, my close friends and family wanted print books. But even the strangers and people I didn’t know too well expressed interest in a print book.
Huh. Go figure.
That went against everything I’d read about. About how while the publishing industry had expanded over all, print sales had been in steady decline. Mass-market paperback sales—those cheap, pulpy books you find in drug stores and airports—for example, had fallen 14 percent since 2008. A once robust paper-based industry was slowly being eaten away at by the digital revolution. Ebooks were chewing up the competition.
And it made sense why. Reading can be an expensive hobby. Hardbacks are priced at about $25, trade paperbacks at about $12 - $15. Voracious readers can easily plow through two, three, even four books a month, which means someone who liked to read a lot could easily drop $100 a month on books. That’s a lot of coin.
With the advent of ebooks, readers no longer had to purchase expensive hardbacks or wait for the discounted trade paperback. Within a matter of minutes, they can download a dozen novels to their e-readers for less than twenty bucks. Naturally, readers of the voracious and budget-watching variety embraced the technology. It was a natural fit.
But that’s not what I’m experiencing…
I asked a woman at work, whom I know to be a big reader, how many books she read a month. About two or three, she said. She doesn’t have an e-reader and doesn’t plan on purchasing one anytime soon. She prefers trade paperback but if it’s a writer she really likes (Sue Grafton, say), then she’ll spend the dough for the hardback in order to get it as soon as it’s released. Her house is full of books, most of which she doesn’t have the heart to get rid of. She doesn’t mind spending more money on a paper book and only shrugs at the thought of a house crammed floor to ceiling with them.
I asked professional contacts, people I usually only talk shop with, if they read novels and if so, if they preferred ebooks or print books. The overwhelming majority didn’t have e-readers; they preferred print books.
I dispatched friends and family members to ask their contacts (people I didn’t know) about ebooks vs. print books. Most of them still read books; no e-reader for them. One 40ish woman even was quoted as saying, “What’s a Kindle?”
Of the two dozen or so people who were asked, a whopping five had e-readers. Five! That certainly flies in the face of the experts who claimed that nobody reads books anymore. (Of course, some of them gave up reading altogether because of time and money constraints, but still…)
So while I don’t doubt that e-readers are here to stay, my independent research indicated that maybe they’re not catching on as quickly as all the experts claim they have.
Either that, or the print-book-reading people that were interviewed (most of them fellow Pennsylvanians) are way behind the times. Maybe Pennsylvania in general is way behind the times and slow to embrace new technologies.
If that’s the case, where are all these supposed Kindle and Nook nuts? Where are they hiding? My ebook novel, The City of Lost Secrets, has been on sale for a month now, and I’ve sold 22 copies. Nothing to shake a stick at (especially since I haven’t done too much marketing) but not exactly the first month goal of 25 I was aiming for. I’ve had almost as many people express interest in the print book. Which is the opposite of what the experts told me would happen.
Granted, I haven’t done a lot of publicity, because I’ve been too busy writing the second book, and because the experts told me to wait until I have at least three or four books written before I start branding myself and promoting my books. Which makes sense, because if someone really likes your book, you want to have more than just the one available for them. Plus, the experts also told me that I could expect first- and second-month sales to be low, because it takes time for the “Amazon algorithm” to kick in and word of mouth to spread. If what the experts say is true, I won’t begin seeing truly decent sales of my ebook until about the nine month mark.
But given that the opposite of what the experts are saying is happening to me, then maybe I’ll start seeing success with my ebook sooner than nine months. And I can expect to sell more print books than ebooks.
Which is why the print version of The City of Lost Secrets is now available in print version on Amazon. (You can buy it here.) It cost me a hell of a lot of money to make it available, but in the end it was worth it. That’s because becoming an ebook writer millionaire like John Locke was never my main goal, anyway. All I really want to do is tell a great story using likeable and relatable characters. Whether it makes me a millionaire or barely brings me back into the black makes no difference. It would’ve been worth it either way.
Because what matters most is putting out a good product and making my readers happy.
Therefore, from here on out, until we run out of trees and paper goes extinct, I’ll continue to fly in the face of the experts and have print books available for all my novels.
So there.
Does The TSA's 3 oz. Liquid Rule Still Hold Water?
To contact us Click HERE
I recently returned from a trip to Ireland, which I find to be one of the easiest European countries to travel to. You can fly there non-stop from Philly and the New York airports in as little as six hours, and because Ireland is a very popular American tourist destination, you can sail through customs without hassle.
Flying home from Ireland couldn’t be any easier either. The major airports in Dublin and Shannon have U.S. Customs kiosks right there in the airport; U.S. officials stamp your passport and essentially welcome you back to the U.S. before you’ve even boarded your home-bound flight, eliminating the need for your travel-weary butt to wait in a long customs queue on the other side.
Because of the ease with which I’ve traveled to Ireland in the past, I didn’t even worry when my father (who traveled with us this time) bought two large bottles of Irish whiskey at the Shannon Airport last minute before boarding our flight. As predicted, airline officials waved him and his Paddy onto the plane with no problem.
Talk about a system that works and is user-friendly. (Now how come the rest of the country can’t get its arse in gear?)
So when I recently read about a woman whose husband had an issue returning home from Rome with a few bottles of wine, it got me thinking a little more closely about traveling with liquids. I’ve flown enough to know by heart the TSA’s 3 oz. rule; I can recite it as easily as the Star-Spangled Banner. But I’m a light packer and try to avoid bringing liquids home with me, let alone booze, so I’ve never found myself in a similar situation. Plus, my father had had no problem with his whiskey. So I was curious: what had gone wrong with this poor sap and his wine?
The husband in the story seemed to do everything right. He’d bought the wine at a duty-free shop after clearing security at the Rome airport; the bottles were sealed in tamper-free, see-through plastic bags; and he carried them on the plane, as Roman officials instructed him to do. His layover in London’s Heathrow Airport passed without incident. But the husband had another layover to contend with, a domestic one in Dallas-Fort Worth. And this is where he had trouble.
TSA agents at Dallas-Fort Worth told the husband he’d have to check the bottles of wine for his final flight home to Santa Monica, California.
Seriously? So he’d flown almost six thousand miles with bottles of wine essentially in his lap, but for the short 1500 mile flight from Dallas to Santa Monica, he’d have to check them? Yes, and all because of the TSA’s 3 oz. rule, which says you absolutely cannot carry any container of liquid larger than 3 oz. onto a plane originating in the U.S., no matter the destination. (As of this writing, baby products and medical supplies are an exception.) That left the poor guy with three options: pitch the bottles of wine, check them, or have one hell of a party at the airport before his final flight home.
The husband chose to check the wine, and to the airline’s credit, they were helpful with his decision.
But still, the TSA’s liquid rule is confusing and maddening. That’s because the rule raises questions that allow for no simple answers, has rare exceptions that most people can’t utilize, and is fraught with loopholes that make sense only to the TSA’s brand of logic.
For starters, the TSA’s 3-1-1 liquid rule for carry on luggage goes like this: each passenger is allowed one (1) clear plastic zip-top bag, sized one (1) quart, filled with three (3) ounce bottles (or less) of liquid. Sounds simple enough, right?
But what’s your definition of liquid? Hairspray, glass cleaner, contact lens solution? Obviously liquids. But what about toothpaste? Toothpaste is more of a gel, but the TSA considers it a liquid, so into the quart bag it must go. Same with your hair gel, deodorant and fabric stain stick. All considered liquids. And how are you supposed to fit all your “liquids” into one itty-biddy quart bag? Most people can’t. Guess what? More shit for you to stuff into your checked luggage.
(Here’s one “liquid” that you’re banned from carrying on a plane that most people don’t think of: gel shoe inserts. My husband wears these everyday except on days when he’s traveling. Too much of a hassle to travel with, so he goes without.)
Now, if the subject of the story didn’t need to go through security again in Dallas en route to Santa Monica, he would’ve been in the clear; he probably would’ve been allowed to carry those bottles of wine onto his domestic flight. That’s because the 3 oz. rule is a TSA rule, not the airlines’ or airports’ rule. Without a security checkpoint, who’s to stop him? He could tuck those bottles of wine into a carry-on bag and no gate agent, flight attendant, or any other airline or airport rep would even know. But he did have to go through security again upon arriving from Heathrow (as well as Customs), so he was nabbed by agents and told no way, Jose. He’d have to check that wine or throw it away.
And if the bottles of wine were 3 oz. or less per container? Well, that’s perfectly fine, as long as the bottles would’ve fit inside his one-quart bag. He would’ve been able to sail through security because the wine falls within the TSA’s magic 3-1-1 scenario. But if the 3 oz. bottles of wine didn’t fit inside his zip-top quart bag, he’d be back to where he started. He’d have to check the tiny bottles or throw them away; he’d be adhering to one part of the rule, while breaking another, and that’s a no-no. With the TSA, it’s all or nothing.
Confused yet? I know, I know. See how maddening the rule can be? The TSA claims it’s working on software that will someday make it possible for us to once again carry liquids onto a plane, thus abolishing the 3-1-1 rule that even the organization itself admits it’s tired of justifying. They even want to get to a point where passengers will be able to keep their shoes on. What a happy day that’ll be. But of course that day isn’t here yet, so what’s a weary passenger to do? Whether it’s wine or whiskey, perfume or stain stick, how can you avoid the 3-1-1 madness?
First off, try like hell to get a non-stop flight. That’s tough to do if you’re flying to/from some far-flung or hard-to-reach area, or if you live in the middle of nowhere. But if you live within a few hours’ drive of a larger airport, like Dulles, Philadelphia, O’Hare, Newark, JFK or LAX, it’s decidedly easier, because those large airports have tons of non-stop, round-trip flights all over the world. (My husband and I flew non-stop from Newark to Beijing in 2009; it was a chaotic three-hour drive to New Jersey and then a grueling 14-hour flight, but it was worth not having to layover or change planes.) Suck it up and drive to/from a larger airport, staying overnight if need be, to reap the benefits of a non-stop flight. You won’t have to worry about missing a connection, for one thing. But more on topic, you’ll be able to bring home larger containers of liquid without worry (if you’re flying home from an international destination, that is.)
If a non-stop flight isn’t an option (and even if it is), consider buying the liquid toiletries you need once you reach your destination, if possible. On the flip side, on the return flight home, throw out any and all liquids you no longer need before packing your bags. Also, if you absolutely must have that bottle of Paddy Irish whiskey (like my dad did, because it’s not sold in the States) consider having it shipped home. And of course, you could always wait until you get home to buy your booze—or not buy any booze at all.
But what fun would that be?
Got a nightmare TSA or 3-1-1 story you’d like to share? Let’s hear ‘em! While you’re at it, sign up to receive all my travel-related blog posts. They’re frequent enough to keep you in the know, but not too frequent that they clog up your in-box. Sign up to the right.
I recently returned from a trip to Ireland, which I find to be one of the easiest European countries to travel to. You can fly there non-stop from Philly and the New York airports in as little as six hours, and because Ireland is a very popular American tourist destination, you can sail through customs without hassle.
Flying home from Ireland couldn’t be any easier either. The major airports in Dublin and Shannon have U.S. Customs kiosks right there in the airport; U.S. officials stamp your passport and essentially welcome you back to the U.S. before you’ve even boarded your home-bound flight, eliminating the need for your travel-weary butt to wait in a long customs queue on the other side.
Because of the ease with which I’ve traveled to Ireland in the past, I didn’t even worry when my father (who traveled with us this time) bought two large bottles of Irish whiskey at the Shannon Airport last minute before boarding our flight. As predicted, airline officials waved him and his Paddy onto the plane with no problem.
Talk about a system that works and is user-friendly. (Now how come the rest of the country can’t get its arse in gear?)
So when I recently read about a woman whose husband had an issue returning home from Rome with a few bottles of wine, it got me thinking a little more closely about traveling with liquids. I’ve flown enough to know by heart the TSA’s 3 oz. rule; I can recite it as easily as the Star-Spangled Banner. But I’m a light packer and try to avoid bringing liquids home with me, let alone booze, so I’ve never found myself in a similar situation. Plus, my father had had no problem with his whiskey. So I was curious: what had gone wrong with this poor sap and his wine?
The husband in the story seemed to do everything right. He’d bought the wine at a duty-free shop after clearing security at the Rome airport; the bottles were sealed in tamper-free, see-through plastic bags; and he carried them on the plane, as Roman officials instructed him to do. His layover in London’s Heathrow Airport passed without incident. But the husband had another layover to contend with, a domestic one in Dallas-Fort Worth. And this is where he had trouble.
TSA agents at Dallas-Fort Worth told the husband he’d have to check the bottles of wine for his final flight home to Santa Monica, California.
Seriously? So he’d flown almost six thousand miles with bottles of wine essentially in his lap, but for the short 1500 mile flight from Dallas to Santa Monica, he’d have to check them? Yes, and all because of the TSA’s 3 oz. rule, which says you absolutely cannot carry any container of liquid larger than 3 oz. onto a plane originating in the U.S., no matter the destination. (As of this writing, baby products and medical supplies are an exception.) That left the poor guy with three options: pitch the bottles of wine, check them, or have one hell of a party at the airport before his final flight home.
The husband chose to check the wine, and to the airline’s credit, they were helpful with his decision.
But still, the TSA’s liquid rule is confusing and maddening. That’s because the rule raises questions that allow for no simple answers, has rare exceptions that most people can’t utilize, and is fraught with loopholes that make sense only to the TSA’s brand of logic.
For starters, the TSA’s 3-1-1 liquid rule for carry on luggage goes like this: each passenger is allowed one (1) clear plastic zip-top bag, sized one (1) quart, filled with three (3) ounce bottles (or less) of liquid. Sounds simple enough, right?
But what’s your definition of liquid? Hairspray, glass cleaner, contact lens solution? Obviously liquids. But what about toothpaste? Toothpaste is more of a gel, but the TSA considers it a liquid, so into the quart bag it must go. Same with your hair gel, deodorant and fabric stain stick. All considered liquids. And how are you supposed to fit all your “liquids” into one itty-biddy quart bag? Most people can’t. Guess what? More shit for you to stuff into your checked luggage.
(Here’s one “liquid” that you’re banned from carrying on a plane that most people don’t think of: gel shoe inserts. My husband wears these everyday except on days when he’s traveling. Too much of a hassle to travel with, so he goes without.)
Now, if the subject of the story didn’t need to go through security again in Dallas en route to Santa Monica, he would’ve been in the clear; he probably would’ve been allowed to carry those bottles of wine onto his domestic flight. That’s because the 3 oz. rule is a TSA rule, not the airlines’ or airports’ rule. Without a security checkpoint, who’s to stop him? He could tuck those bottles of wine into a carry-on bag and no gate agent, flight attendant, or any other airline or airport rep would even know. But he did have to go through security again upon arriving from Heathrow (as well as Customs), so he was nabbed by agents and told no way, Jose. He’d have to check that wine or throw it away.
And if the bottles of wine were 3 oz. or less per container? Well, that’s perfectly fine, as long as the bottles would’ve fit inside his one-quart bag. He would’ve been able to sail through security because the wine falls within the TSA’s magic 3-1-1 scenario. But if the 3 oz. bottles of wine didn’t fit inside his zip-top quart bag, he’d be back to where he started. He’d have to check the tiny bottles or throw them away; he’d be adhering to one part of the rule, while breaking another, and that’s a no-no. With the TSA, it’s all or nothing.
Confused yet? I know, I know. See how maddening the rule can be? The TSA claims it’s working on software that will someday make it possible for us to once again carry liquids onto a plane, thus abolishing the 3-1-1 rule that even the organization itself admits it’s tired of justifying. They even want to get to a point where passengers will be able to keep their shoes on. What a happy day that’ll be. But of course that day isn’t here yet, so what’s a weary passenger to do? Whether it’s wine or whiskey, perfume or stain stick, how can you avoid the 3-1-1 madness?
First off, try like hell to get a non-stop flight. That’s tough to do if you’re flying to/from some far-flung or hard-to-reach area, or if you live in the middle of nowhere. But if you live within a few hours’ drive of a larger airport, like Dulles, Philadelphia, O’Hare, Newark, JFK or LAX, it’s decidedly easier, because those large airports have tons of non-stop, round-trip flights all over the world. (My husband and I flew non-stop from Newark to Beijing in 2009; it was a chaotic three-hour drive to New Jersey and then a grueling 14-hour flight, but it was worth not having to layover or change planes.) Suck it up and drive to/from a larger airport, staying overnight if need be, to reap the benefits of a non-stop flight. You won’t have to worry about missing a connection, for one thing. But more on topic, you’ll be able to bring home larger containers of liquid without worry (if you’re flying home from an international destination, that is.)
If a non-stop flight isn’t an option (and even if it is), consider buying the liquid toiletries you need once you reach your destination, if possible. On the flip side, on the return flight home, throw out any and all liquids you no longer need before packing your bags. Also, if you absolutely must have that bottle of Paddy Irish whiskey (like my dad did, because it’s not sold in the States) consider having it shipped home. And of course, you could always wait until you get home to buy your booze—or not buy any booze at all.
But what fun would that be?
Got a nightmare TSA or 3-1-1 story you’d like to share? Let’s hear ‘em! While you’re at it, sign up to receive all my travel-related blog posts. They’re frequent enough to keep you in the know, but not too frequent that they clog up your in-box. Sign up to the right.
Know Someone With an Unique or Unusual Job? Pick Their Brain, Then Send 'Em My Way
To contact us Click HERE
I never thought being a novelist was a particularly interesting occupation. The way I see it, I’m just an average person with a side career as a writer, a job just like any other. I may be writing about extraordinary or unique or unusual people doing extraordinary or unique or unusual things, but honestly, my job as novelist—the process itself--is kinda boring.
So imagine my surprise when a few people told me over the past couple of months, while discussing my debut novel The City of Lost Secrets, that they thought writing was a fascinating career. (It’s not, just ask my husband. But thanks for thinking so.) These same people went all Freud on me, wondering what motivated me to write about biblical archeology, asking how my husband felt about my long mental absences, and drawing conclusions about the autobiographical nature of the book.
It freaked me out at first. I don’t necessarily want people to know certain personal things about me, and I feared that I unknowingly revealed my innermost thoughts through my fiction. But whatever. What did I expect would happen after “putting myself out there” as a creator of fictional worlds and characters? It’s cool though, because these people are now fans of my work and just want to know more about me and the psychology behind it all, so of course I give them honest answers—and continue to let them think being a novelist is the shit.
So while I think “novelist” isn’t exactly the coolest gig in town, I believe there are plenty of truly interesting and unique jobs out there, occupations you just don’t hear about everyday. Like Industrial Hygienist. And Pet Therapist. And Rag Picker (more on that in a minute). And those people who travel around the country firing other people from their jobs, George Clooney “Up in the Air” style. I think the correct job title is Corporate Downsizer.
You don’t bump into people like that everyday who actually do those jobs for a living. Those are the types of people who show up in novels, right? Because let’s be honest: successful books (and movies and TV shows) are populated with interesting people doing interesting things. Lisbeth Salander, the damaged computer hacker goth girl from Stieg Larsson’s books? Yeah, interesting chic, and a character I would’ve given my left arm to have created. Willy Wonka. Harry Potter. Sherlock Holmes. Hannibal Lecter. Interesting characters with unusual jobs.
I mean, no one wants to read about a copier salesman. He’s boring, right? He’s your best buddy. The guy you play poker with on Friday nights. He may be an upstanding citizen and a great family man who makes an honest living but sorry, that’s boring. He’s just an average guy. Nobody wants to read about the average guy with a boring life.
Now, if your best buddy was a copier salesman who had a secret identity…lived a double life as, I don’t know, an undercover government agent who roughed up Russian gangs illegally importing photocopiers…now we’re talking. That’s an interesting guy with a cool story to tell! I’d want to write about him and you’d want to read a story about him (but not necessarily my story).
The show Dexter works on the same premise: A forensics experts who moonlights as a serial killer, hunting down criminals who’ve escaped justice. Interesting guy with an average job and an extraordinary, um, “side job.”
Now, remember earlier when I mentioned the occupation Rag Picker? I watched a show the other day about 19th century Parisian “rag pickers,” people who made a living rummaging through trash in the streets of Paris to collect it for salvage. Rag picking was a career most prevalent in the 19th and early 20th centuries before organized trash collection came about. Here’s a picture I found of what a “typical” Parisian rag picker looked like:
Looks like a guy with an interesting story to tell, right?
Rag pickers still exist, most notably in India and Cairo, Egypt. What instantly grabbed me was the fact that picking through garbage was and still is a noble and honest occupation in some areas of the world. Who knew? Theirs is a story yet to be told, the plight of the rag pickers, and damnit, I’m gonna tell it. I’m going to write an historical drama set in 19th century Paris about an extraordinary boy born into a filthy world who must overcome great odds in order to realize his true power. It’ll be Oliver Twist meets Benjamin Button. I’m jazzed about it and have already written the first chapter.
I’ll write the rest of that story later, right after I tackle the ones about the industrial hygienist, the pet therapist, and the copier salesman/government spy. Oh, and the eight other novel ideas that are floating around in my head. (But I’ll let the Corporate Downsizer story die—“Up in the Air” is perfect as is.)
So, if you know anyone who has a unique or unusual job, pick their brains. Talk to them. Engage them in conversation. I guarantee they’ve got some awesome stories to tell. And you just might learn a thing or two.
Once you’re done, you’ll sent them my way, won’t you?
I never thought being a novelist was a particularly interesting occupation. The way I see it, I’m just an average person with a side career as a writer, a job just like any other. I may be writing about extraordinary or unique or unusual people doing extraordinary or unique or unusual things, but honestly, my job as novelist—the process itself--is kinda boring.
So imagine my surprise when a few people told me over the past couple of months, while discussing my debut novel The City of Lost Secrets, that they thought writing was a fascinating career. (It’s not, just ask my husband. But thanks for thinking so.) These same people went all Freud on me, wondering what motivated me to write about biblical archeology, asking how my husband felt about my long mental absences, and drawing conclusions about the autobiographical nature of the book.
It freaked me out at first. I don’t necessarily want people to know certain personal things about me, and I feared that I unknowingly revealed my innermost thoughts through my fiction. But whatever. What did I expect would happen after “putting myself out there” as a creator of fictional worlds and characters? It’s cool though, because these people are now fans of my work and just want to know more about me and the psychology behind it all, so of course I give them honest answers—and continue to let them think being a novelist is the shit.
So while I think “novelist” isn’t exactly the coolest gig in town, I believe there are plenty of truly interesting and unique jobs out there, occupations you just don’t hear about everyday. Like Industrial Hygienist. And Pet Therapist. And Rag Picker (more on that in a minute). And those people who travel around the country firing other people from their jobs, George Clooney “Up in the Air” style. I think the correct job title is Corporate Downsizer.
You don’t bump into people like that everyday who actually do those jobs for a living. Those are the types of people who show up in novels, right? Because let’s be honest: successful books (and movies and TV shows) are populated with interesting people doing interesting things. Lisbeth Salander, the damaged computer hacker goth girl from Stieg Larsson’s books? Yeah, interesting chic, and a character I would’ve given my left arm to have created. Willy Wonka. Harry Potter. Sherlock Holmes. Hannibal Lecter. Interesting characters with unusual jobs.
I mean, no one wants to read about a copier salesman. He’s boring, right? He’s your best buddy. The guy you play poker with on Friday nights. He may be an upstanding citizen and a great family man who makes an honest living but sorry, that’s boring. He’s just an average guy. Nobody wants to read about the average guy with a boring life.
Now, if your best buddy was a copier salesman who had a secret identity…lived a double life as, I don’t know, an undercover government agent who roughed up Russian gangs illegally importing photocopiers…now we’re talking. That’s an interesting guy with a cool story to tell! I’d want to write about him and you’d want to read a story about him (but not necessarily my story).
The show Dexter works on the same premise: A forensics experts who moonlights as a serial killer, hunting down criminals who’ve escaped justice. Interesting guy with an average job and an extraordinary, um, “side job.”
Now, remember earlier when I mentioned the occupation Rag Picker? I watched a show the other day about 19th century Parisian “rag pickers,” people who made a living rummaging through trash in the streets of Paris to collect it for salvage. Rag picking was a career most prevalent in the 19th and early 20th centuries before organized trash collection came about. Here’s a picture I found of what a “typical” Parisian rag picker looked like:
Looks like a guy with an interesting story to tell, right?
Rag pickers still exist, most notably in India and Cairo, Egypt. What instantly grabbed me was the fact that picking through garbage was and still is a noble and honest occupation in some areas of the world. Who knew? Theirs is a story yet to be told, the plight of the rag pickers, and damnit, I’m gonna tell it. I’m going to write an historical drama set in 19th century Paris about an extraordinary boy born into a filthy world who must overcome great odds in order to realize his true power. It’ll be Oliver Twist meets Benjamin Button. I’m jazzed about it and have already written the first chapter.
I’ll write the rest of that story later, right after I tackle the ones about the industrial hygienist, the pet therapist, and the copier salesman/government spy. Oh, and the eight other novel ideas that are floating around in my head. (But I’ll let the Corporate Downsizer story die—“Up in the Air” is perfect as is.)
So, if you know anyone who has a unique or unusual job, pick their brains. Talk to them. Engage them in conversation. I guarantee they’ve got some awesome stories to tell. And you just might learn a thing or two.
Once you’re done, you’ll sent them my way, won’t you?
Plots and Heroes Are Easy, It's the Bad Guys That Get Me Every Time
To contact us Click HERE
For the past two weeks I've been working on the second book in my Mara Beltane mystery series. Notice I said "working" and not "writing." That's because I'm in brainstorm mode, figuring out the plot and major characters--most notably, the antagonist.
I've got a good handle on the narrative arc and the "good guy" characters. As with the first book, those elements came easily. It's the bad guy who's being a pain in the ass.
I struggled with the antagonist with the first book, too. Every book needs a good guy with a goal and a bad guy that impedes the good guy's progress. That's what gives a book action and plot. I'm proud of THE CITY OF LOST SECRETS, but I do think the antagonist could have been a little stronger, a little more fleshed out. That being said, I need to up the ante with the second book.
I thought I had a lock on who the ultimate baddie would be, but then I realized he's appeared it lots of other books before in my genre, and he's, well, played out. Shame too, because everyone loves to hate the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church--the guy responsible for the property and revenue of the Vatican. We love him because of his silent power and his mysterious presence and his ability to run a tight ship. Secretly I think we all want to be that guy. But we hate him because, well, somehow "profit" and "Pope" seem oxymoronic and hypocritical and downright wrong. The papacy shouldn't be a for-profit entity, right? RIGHT? So he was turned into a bad guy because frankly, we didn't know what else to do with him.
But the Camerlengo-as-bad-guy thing is just plain cliche now, so I'll be having none of that in THE CITY OF SACRED BONES. Oh, right. The second book's called THE CITY OF SACRED BONES. Here's a little teaser video:
I've switched gears a bit, let go of the Camerlengo, and latched on to another, better idea for a bad guy. He's connected to the Church, and the Pope, but in a round about way. That's all I'm going to say for now; you'll just have to wait until the book is published to find out who he is. In the meantime, I'll throw you a bone. His official title is "The Custodian." How's THAT for a bad guy name?
I've got a good handle on the narrative arc and the "good guy" characters. As with the first book, those elements came easily. It's the bad guy who's being a pain in the ass.
I struggled with the antagonist with the first book, too. Every book needs a good guy with a goal and a bad guy that impedes the good guy's progress. That's what gives a book action and plot. I'm proud of THE CITY OF LOST SECRETS, but I do think the antagonist could have been a little stronger, a little more fleshed out. That being said, I need to up the ante with the second book.
I thought I had a lock on who the ultimate baddie would be, but then I realized he's appeared it lots of other books before in my genre, and he's, well, played out. Shame too, because everyone loves to hate the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church--the guy responsible for the property and revenue of the Vatican. We love him because of his silent power and his mysterious presence and his ability to run a tight ship. Secretly I think we all want to be that guy. But we hate him because, well, somehow "profit" and "Pope" seem oxymoronic and hypocritical and downright wrong. The papacy shouldn't be a for-profit entity, right? RIGHT? So he was turned into a bad guy because frankly, we didn't know what else to do with him.
But the Camerlengo-as-bad-guy thing is just plain cliche now, so I'll be having none of that in THE CITY OF SACRED BONES. Oh, right. The second book's called THE CITY OF SACRED BONES. Here's a little teaser video:
I've switched gears a bit, let go of the Camerlengo, and latched on to another, better idea for a bad guy. He's connected to the Church, and the Pope, but in a round about way. That's all I'm going to say for now; you'll just have to wait until the book is published to find out who he is. In the meantime, I'll throw you a bone. His official title is "The Custodian." How's THAT for a bad guy name?
How's the Writing Going, You Ask? Well, It's Going
To contact us Click HERE
Holy cow, has it really been since January that I’ve blogged? I’ve no excuses, other than to say I’ve been realllly busy promoting THE CITY OF LOST SECRETS, the publication of which will be celebrating its one-year anniversary in August. And I’ve been sorta busy writing the sequel, THE CITY OF SACRED BONES.
I say “sorta busy” because I must admit I’ve been slacking. The second book requires a lot more research than the first book, and well, I’m just not that into it. The subject itself is fascinating but the time commitment it takes is daunting. That’s my hang up. I’d much rather sit down and write, rather than sit down, research, and THEN write. But it’ll be worth it, because this novel has a lot more action and intrigue and a plot that’s pretty kick-ass, if I don’t say so myself.
So when people ask how the project is going, instead of going off on a tangent about how the research part sucks, and I can’t find the time to do it, bitch bitch bitch, gripe gripe gripe, I simply say, “it’s going.” It’s much easier that way, since no one wants to hear me bitch (they just want to read the damn book already) and because most days I don’t feel like talking about my slacker-ness. I’ve found it’s a win-win that way.
My curt two-word answer does seem a bit insincere, I realize, because if people didn’t care, they wouldn’t ask how the writing’s going. So for those people who persist and ask follow-up questions, I usually give them a little teaser like, “Mara’s been reunited with Uri in Rome, but he just threw her a curve ball and announced they’re going back to Jerusalem to meet with some very high-ranking but elusive people. People whose secrets are protected by none other than the Pope himself.” Or something like that. It only sounds that good in my head. But my verbalized version of that usually elicits an “ooh” or two anyway.
So for those of you who are interested, and who’ve been asking how the writing’s going, I wanted to offer a little bit more than just, “it’s going” and a dangling carrot about the Pope. I want to give you a sneak peak of the first two chapters of THE CITY OF SACRED BONES.
Sign up for my email list or shoot me an email and I’ll send it right out to you.Or you could just wait until I post the excerpt here, although I don’t know when that’ll be….
Oh, and here’s the trailer for it.
I say “sorta busy” because I must admit I’ve been slacking. The second book requires a lot more research than the first book, and well, I’m just not that into it. The subject itself is fascinating but the time commitment it takes is daunting. That’s my hang up. I’d much rather sit down and write, rather than sit down, research, and THEN write. But it’ll be worth it, because this novel has a lot more action and intrigue and a plot that’s pretty kick-ass, if I don’t say so myself.
So when people ask how the project is going, instead of going off on a tangent about how the research part sucks, and I can’t find the time to do it, bitch bitch bitch, gripe gripe gripe, I simply say, “it’s going.” It’s much easier that way, since no one wants to hear me bitch (they just want to read the damn book already) and because most days I don’t feel like talking about my slacker-ness. I’ve found it’s a win-win that way.
My curt two-word answer does seem a bit insincere, I realize, because if people didn’t care, they wouldn’t ask how the writing’s going. So for those people who persist and ask follow-up questions, I usually give them a little teaser like, “Mara’s been reunited with Uri in Rome, but he just threw her a curve ball and announced they’re going back to Jerusalem to meet with some very high-ranking but elusive people. People whose secrets are protected by none other than the Pope himself.” Or something like that. It only sounds that good in my head. But my verbalized version of that usually elicits an “ooh” or two anyway.
So for those of you who are interested, and who’ve been asking how the writing’s going, I wanted to offer a little bit more than just, “it’s going” and a dangling carrot about the Pope. I want to give you a sneak peak of the first two chapters of THE CITY OF SACRED BONES.
Sign up for my email list or shoot me an email and I’ll send it right out to you.Or you could just wait until I post the excerpt here, although I don’t know when that’ll be….
Oh, and here’s the trailer for it.
4 Temmuz 2012 Çarşamba
Is Flying The Friendly Skies Safer Post 9/11?
To contact us Click HERE
On this, the ten-year anniversary of 9/11, we will, as a nation, mourn the loss of thousands of souls who perished on that fateful day. There will be memorials and remembrances and celebrations and lots and lots of tears shed. Today is all about the lives lost and the families affected.
But in the days and weeks following the anniversary, the conversations will turn from emotional to political, from how we’ve healed as a nation to are we prepared for another attack?
The answer to that question is yes. But…
Of course there’s a but.
While flying the friendly skies may be safer than ever, it has come at a cost: safety procedures that test passenger patience and push the boundaries of personal privacy.
Say what you will about the occasionally stupid stuff that the TSA has done (pat downs for babies, anyone?), the federal organization has played a huge part in making airport security better. Don’t believe me? Then you’ve got a short memory.
Pre-9/11, airport security was bad. Abysmally so. Airport security was left up to private contractors, some with less-than-stellar stats. Convicted felons were hired as security screeners. Checked luggage was hardly if ever screened for explosives. People with outstanding arrest warrants were entrusted with keeping airports safe. Lax screeners allowed 20% of dangerous objects to pass through checkpoints. Performance was low and so were salaries; in 2001, agents were paid less than the starting salaries at airport fast-food restaurants. Naturally, turnover was high.
Then the TSA came in and put a few changes in place. Federalizing airport security lowered worker turnover from 125% per year to 6.4%. Professionalizing airport security meant better employees with higher salaries and enhanced screening that resulted in increased passenger safety. Gone were the “rent-a-goons” employed by private contractors that ran amok unscrutinized at our nation’s airports. Here to stay is a professional (albeit impersonal) federally-mandated organization that is not immune to public pressure. It’s an organization that continues to evolve as new threats come in.
That’s the good news.
Now, the bad.
A lot of people would argue that the introduction of the TSA has come at a huge cost—the surrender of personal comfort and privacy. Patdowns, luggage searches, shoe-removals, liquid bans. The rules continue to change and passengers struggle to keep up.
But are ever-evolving “nude-o-scans” and shoe-removal policies really that much worse than the incompetent and corrupt airport security companies that were in place before the TSA came along?
A little more than fifty percent of Americans say yes, I’ve sacrificed too much in order to achieve an increased sense of security. But 81% of Americans feel more safe at airports overall. What does that mean? Well, I guess it means that most Americans simply deal with the inconveniences that make airline travel safer (which says nothing of accepting the inconveniences), and the rest of Americans either don’t travel or don’t give enough of a shit to weigh in.
But if a shoe bomber had succeeded in the aftermath of the original shoe bomber Richard Reed’s failure because we hadn’t instituted the removal of shoes at security? What then? Well, there most certainly would have been public outcry that the TSA hadn’t done its job. “Why didn’t the TSA make the bomber take off his shoes?” national headlines would say. “Why isn’t there a shoe-removal policy at our country’s airports to prevent such tragedies?”
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
But keep this in mind: we haven’t had another successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.
So I ask you: Is impersonal customer-service and a sense of dehumanization worth it if it means saving your life? Or can we strike a balance between safety and comfort?
On this, the ten-year anniversary of 9/11, we will, as a nation, mourn the loss of thousands of souls who perished on that fateful day. There will be memorials and remembrances and celebrations and lots and lots of tears shed. Today is all about the lives lost and the families affected.
But in the days and weeks following the anniversary, the conversations will turn from emotional to political, from how we’ve healed as a nation to are we prepared for another attack?
The answer to that question is yes. But…
Of course there’s a but.
While flying the friendly skies may be safer than ever, it has come at a cost: safety procedures that test passenger patience and push the boundaries of personal privacy.
Say what you will about the occasionally stupid stuff that the TSA has done (pat downs for babies, anyone?), the federal organization has played a huge part in making airport security better. Don’t believe me? Then you’ve got a short memory.
Pre-9/11, airport security was bad. Abysmally so. Airport security was left up to private contractors, some with less-than-stellar stats. Convicted felons were hired as security screeners. Checked luggage was hardly if ever screened for explosives. People with outstanding arrest warrants were entrusted with keeping airports safe. Lax screeners allowed 20% of dangerous objects to pass through checkpoints. Performance was low and so were salaries; in 2001, agents were paid less than the starting salaries at airport fast-food restaurants. Naturally, turnover was high.
Then the TSA came in and put a few changes in place. Federalizing airport security lowered worker turnover from 125% per year to 6.4%. Professionalizing airport security meant better employees with higher salaries and enhanced screening that resulted in increased passenger safety. Gone were the “rent-a-goons” employed by private contractors that ran amok unscrutinized at our nation’s airports. Here to stay is a professional (albeit impersonal) federally-mandated organization that is not immune to public pressure. It’s an organization that continues to evolve as new threats come in.
That’s the good news.
Now, the bad.
A lot of people would argue that the introduction of the TSA has come at a huge cost—the surrender of personal comfort and privacy. Patdowns, luggage searches, shoe-removals, liquid bans. The rules continue to change and passengers struggle to keep up.
But are ever-evolving “nude-o-scans” and shoe-removal policies really that much worse than the incompetent and corrupt airport security companies that were in place before the TSA came along?
A little more than fifty percent of Americans say yes, I’ve sacrificed too much in order to achieve an increased sense of security. But 81% of Americans feel more safe at airports overall. What does that mean? Well, I guess it means that most Americans simply deal with the inconveniences that make airline travel safer (which says nothing of accepting the inconveniences), and the rest of Americans either don’t travel or don’t give enough of a shit to weigh in.
But if a shoe bomber had succeeded in the aftermath of the original shoe bomber Richard Reed’s failure because we hadn’t instituted the removal of shoes at security? What then? Well, there most certainly would have been public outcry that the TSA hadn’t done its job. “Why didn’t the TSA make the bomber take off his shoes?” national headlines would say. “Why isn’t there a shoe-removal policy at our country’s airports to prevent such tragedies?”
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
But keep this in mind: we haven’t had another successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.
So I ask you: Is impersonal customer-service and a sense of dehumanization worth it if it means saving your life? Or can we strike a balance between safety and comfort?
Does The TSA's 3 oz. Liquid Rule Still Hold Water?
To contact us Click HERE
I recently returned from a trip to Ireland, which I find to be one of the easiest European countries to travel to. You can fly there non-stop from Philly and the New York airports in as little as six hours, and because Ireland is a very popular American tourist destination, you can sail through customs without hassle.
Flying home from Ireland couldn’t be any easier either. The major airports in Dublin and Shannon have U.S. Customs kiosks right there in the airport; U.S. officials stamp your passport and essentially welcome you back to the U.S. before you’ve even boarded your home-bound flight, eliminating the need for your travel-weary butt to wait in a long customs queue on the other side.
Because of the ease with which I’ve traveled to Ireland in the past, I didn’t even worry when my father (who traveled with us this time) bought two large bottles of Irish whiskey at the Shannon Airport last minute before boarding our flight. As predicted, airline officials waved him and his Paddy onto the plane with no problem.
Talk about a system that works and is user-friendly. (Now how come the rest of the country can’t get its arse in gear?)
So when I recently read about a woman whose husband had an issue returning home from Rome with a few bottles of wine, it got me thinking a little more closely about traveling with liquids. I’ve flown enough to know by heart the TSA’s 3 oz. rule; I can recite it as easily as the Star-Spangled Banner. But I’m a light packer and try to avoid bringing liquids home with me, let alone booze, so I’ve never found myself in a similar situation. Plus, my father had had no problem with his whiskey. So I was curious: what had gone wrong with this poor sap and his wine?
The husband in the story seemed to do everything right. He’d bought the wine at a duty-free shop after clearing security at the Rome airport; the bottles were sealed in tamper-free, see-through plastic bags; and he carried them on the plane, as Roman officials instructed him to do. His layover in London’s Heathrow Airport passed without incident. But the husband had another layover to contend with, a domestic one in Dallas-Fort Worth. And this is where he had trouble.
TSA agents at Dallas-Fort Worth told the husband he’d have to check the bottles of wine for his final flight home to Santa Monica, California.
Seriously? So he’d flown almost six thousand miles with bottles of wine essentially in his lap, but for the short 1500 mile flight from Dallas to Santa Monica, he’d have to check them? Yes, and all because of the TSA’s 3 oz. rule, which says you absolutely cannot carry any container of liquid larger than 3 oz. onto a plane originating in the U.S., no matter the destination. (As of this writing, baby products and medical supplies are an exception.) That left the poor guy with three options: pitch the bottles of wine, check them, or have one hell of a party at the airport before his final flight home.
The husband chose to check the wine, and to the airline’s credit, they were helpful with his decision.
But still, the TSA’s liquid rule is confusing and maddening. That’s because the rule raises questions that allow for no simple answers, has rare exceptions that most people can’t utilize, and is fraught with loopholes that make sense only to the TSA’s brand of logic.
For starters, the TSA’s 3-1-1 liquid rule for carry on luggage goes like this: each passenger is allowed one (1) clear plastic zip-top bag, sized one (1) quart, filled with three (3) ounce bottles (or less) of liquid. Sounds simple enough, right?
But what’s your definition of liquid? Hairspray, glass cleaner, contact lens solution? Obviously liquids. But what about toothpaste? Toothpaste is more of a gel, but the TSA considers it a liquid, so into the quart bag it must go. Same with your hair gel, deodorant and fabric stain stick. All considered liquids. And how are you supposed to fit all your “liquids” into one itty-biddy quart bag? Most people can’t. Guess what? More shit for you to stuff into your checked luggage.
(Here’s one “liquid” that you’re banned from carrying on a plane that most people don’t think of: gel shoe inserts. My husband wears these everyday except on days when he’s traveling. Too much of a hassle to travel with, so he goes without.)
Now, if the subject of the story didn’t need to go through security again in Dallas en route to Santa Monica, he would’ve been in the clear; he probably would’ve been allowed to carry those bottles of wine onto his domestic flight. That’s because the 3 oz. rule is a TSA rule, not the airlines’ or airports’ rule. Without a security checkpoint, who’s to stop him? He could tuck those bottles of wine into a carry-on bag and no gate agent, flight attendant, or any other airline or airport rep would even know. But he did have to go through security again upon arriving from Heathrow (as well as Customs), so he was nabbed by agents and told no way, Jose. He’d have to check that wine or throw it away.
And if the bottles of wine were 3 oz. or less per container? Well, that’s perfectly fine, as long as the bottles would’ve fit inside his one-quart bag. He would’ve been able to sail through security because the wine falls within the TSA’s magic 3-1-1 scenario. But if the 3 oz. bottles of wine didn’t fit inside his zip-top quart bag, he’d be back to where he started. He’d have to check the tiny bottles or throw them away; he’d be adhering to one part of the rule, while breaking another, and that’s a no-no. With the TSA, it’s all or nothing.
Confused yet? I know, I know. See how maddening the rule can be? The TSA claims it’s working on software that will someday make it possible for us to once again carry liquids onto a plane, thus abolishing the 3-1-1 rule that even the organization itself admits it’s tired of justifying. They even want to get to a point where passengers will be able to keep their shoes on. What a happy day that’ll be. But of course that day isn’t here yet, so what’s a weary passenger to do? Whether it’s wine or whiskey, perfume or stain stick, how can you avoid the 3-1-1 madness?
First off, try like hell to get a non-stop flight. That’s tough to do if you’re flying to/from some far-flung or hard-to-reach area, or if you live in the middle of nowhere. But if you live within a few hours’ drive of a larger airport, like Dulles, Philadelphia, O’Hare, Newark, JFK or LAX, it’s decidedly easier, because those large airports have tons of non-stop, round-trip flights all over the world. (My husband and I flew non-stop from Newark to Beijing in 2009; it was a chaotic three-hour drive to New Jersey and then a grueling 14-hour flight, but it was worth not having to layover or change planes.) Suck it up and drive to/from a larger airport, staying overnight if need be, to reap the benefits of a non-stop flight. You won’t have to worry about missing a connection, for one thing. But more on topic, you’ll be able to bring home larger containers of liquid without worry (if you’re flying home from an international destination, that is.)
If a non-stop flight isn’t an option (and even if it is), consider buying the liquid toiletries you need once you reach your destination, if possible. On the flip side, on the return flight home, throw out any and all liquids you no longer need before packing your bags. Also, if you absolutely must have that bottle of Paddy Irish whiskey (like my dad did, because it’s not sold in the States) consider having it shipped home. And of course, you could always wait until you get home to buy your booze—or not buy any booze at all.
But what fun would that be?
Got a nightmare TSA or 3-1-1 story you’d like to share? Let’s hear ‘em! While you’re at it, sign up to receive all my travel-related blog posts. They’re frequent enough to keep you in the know, but not too frequent that they clog up your in-box. Sign up to the right.
I recently returned from a trip to Ireland, which I find to be one of the easiest European countries to travel to. You can fly there non-stop from Philly and the New York airports in as little as six hours, and because Ireland is a very popular American tourist destination, you can sail through customs without hassle.
Flying home from Ireland couldn’t be any easier either. The major airports in Dublin and Shannon have U.S. Customs kiosks right there in the airport; U.S. officials stamp your passport and essentially welcome you back to the U.S. before you’ve even boarded your home-bound flight, eliminating the need for your travel-weary butt to wait in a long customs queue on the other side.
Because of the ease with which I’ve traveled to Ireland in the past, I didn’t even worry when my father (who traveled with us this time) bought two large bottles of Irish whiskey at the Shannon Airport last minute before boarding our flight. As predicted, airline officials waved him and his Paddy onto the plane with no problem.
Talk about a system that works and is user-friendly. (Now how come the rest of the country can’t get its arse in gear?)
So when I recently read about a woman whose husband had an issue returning home from Rome with a few bottles of wine, it got me thinking a little more closely about traveling with liquids. I’ve flown enough to know by heart the TSA’s 3 oz. rule; I can recite it as easily as the Star-Spangled Banner. But I’m a light packer and try to avoid bringing liquids home with me, let alone booze, so I’ve never found myself in a similar situation. Plus, my father had had no problem with his whiskey. So I was curious: what had gone wrong with this poor sap and his wine?
The husband in the story seemed to do everything right. He’d bought the wine at a duty-free shop after clearing security at the Rome airport; the bottles were sealed in tamper-free, see-through plastic bags; and he carried them on the plane, as Roman officials instructed him to do. His layover in London’s Heathrow Airport passed without incident. But the husband had another layover to contend with, a domestic one in Dallas-Fort Worth. And this is where he had trouble.
TSA agents at Dallas-Fort Worth told the husband he’d have to check the bottles of wine for his final flight home to Santa Monica, California.
Seriously? So he’d flown almost six thousand miles with bottles of wine essentially in his lap, but for the short 1500 mile flight from Dallas to Santa Monica, he’d have to check them? Yes, and all because of the TSA’s 3 oz. rule, which says you absolutely cannot carry any container of liquid larger than 3 oz. onto a plane originating in the U.S., no matter the destination. (As of this writing, baby products and medical supplies are an exception.) That left the poor guy with three options: pitch the bottles of wine, check them, or have one hell of a party at the airport before his final flight home.
The husband chose to check the wine, and to the airline’s credit, they were helpful with his decision.
But still, the TSA’s liquid rule is confusing and maddening. That’s because the rule raises questions that allow for no simple answers, has rare exceptions that most people can’t utilize, and is fraught with loopholes that make sense only to the TSA’s brand of logic.
For starters, the TSA’s 3-1-1 liquid rule for carry on luggage goes like this: each passenger is allowed one (1) clear plastic zip-top bag, sized one (1) quart, filled with three (3) ounce bottles (or less) of liquid. Sounds simple enough, right?
But what’s your definition of liquid? Hairspray, glass cleaner, contact lens solution? Obviously liquids. But what about toothpaste? Toothpaste is more of a gel, but the TSA considers it a liquid, so into the quart bag it must go. Same with your hair gel, deodorant and fabric stain stick. All considered liquids. And how are you supposed to fit all your “liquids” into one itty-biddy quart bag? Most people can’t. Guess what? More shit for you to stuff into your checked luggage.
(Here’s one “liquid” that you’re banned from carrying on a plane that most people don’t think of: gel shoe inserts. My husband wears these everyday except on days when he’s traveling. Too much of a hassle to travel with, so he goes without.)
Now, if the subject of the story didn’t need to go through security again in Dallas en route to Santa Monica, he would’ve been in the clear; he probably would’ve been allowed to carry those bottles of wine onto his domestic flight. That’s because the 3 oz. rule is a TSA rule, not the airlines’ or airports’ rule. Without a security checkpoint, who’s to stop him? He could tuck those bottles of wine into a carry-on bag and no gate agent, flight attendant, or any other airline or airport rep would even know. But he did have to go through security again upon arriving from Heathrow (as well as Customs), so he was nabbed by agents and told no way, Jose. He’d have to check that wine or throw it away.
And if the bottles of wine were 3 oz. or less per container? Well, that’s perfectly fine, as long as the bottles would’ve fit inside his one-quart bag. He would’ve been able to sail through security because the wine falls within the TSA’s magic 3-1-1 scenario. But if the 3 oz. bottles of wine didn’t fit inside his zip-top quart bag, he’d be back to where he started. He’d have to check the tiny bottles or throw them away; he’d be adhering to one part of the rule, while breaking another, and that’s a no-no. With the TSA, it’s all or nothing.
Confused yet? I know, I know. See how maddening the rule can be? The TSA claims it’s working on software that will someday make it possible for us to once again carry liquids onto a plane, thus abolishing the 3-1-1 rule that even the organization itself admits it’s tired of justifying. They even want to get to a point where passengers will be able to keep their shoes on. What a happy day that’ll be. But of course that day isn’t here yet, so what’s a weary passenger to do? Whether it’s wine or whiskey, perfume or stain stick, how can you avoid the 3-1-1 madness?
First off, try like hell to get a non-stop flight. That’s tough to do if you’re flying to/from some far-flung or hard-to-reach area, or if you live in the middle of nowhere. But if you live within a few hours’ drive of a larger airport, like Dulles, Philadelphia, O’Hare, Newark, JFK or LAX, it’s decidedly easier, because those large airports have tons of non-stop, round-trip flights all over the world. (My husband and I flew non-stop from Newark to Beijing in 2009; it was a chaotic three-hour drive to New Jersey and then a grueling 14-hour flight, but it was worth not having to layover or change planes.) Suck it up and drive to/from a larger airport, staying overnight if need be, to reap the benefits of a non-stop flight. You won’t have to worry about missing a connection, for one thing. But more on topic, you’ll be able to bring home larger containers of liquid without worry (if you’re flying home from an international destination, that is.)
If a non-stop flight isn’t an option (and even if it is), consider buying the liquid toiletries you need once you reach your destination, if possible. On the flip side, on the return flight home, throw out any and all liquids you no longer need before packing your bags. Also, if you absolutely must have that bottle of Paddy Irish whiskey (like my dad did, because it’s not sold in the States) consider having it shipped home. And of course, you could always wait until you get home to buy your booze—or not buy any booze at all.
But what fun would that be?
Got a nightmare TSA or 3-1-1 story you’d like to share? Let’s hear ‘em! While you’re at it, sign up to receive all my travel-related blog posts. They’re frequent enough to keep you in the know, but not too frequent that they clog up your in-box. Sign up to the right.
Kaydol:
Yorumlar (Atom)