Ahem.

Bleaders*,

In keeping with my proud and somewhat accidental tradition of always putting myself in situations where I am clearly totally out of my element (note my previous appearances at an Ayn Rand lecture and the time I showed up for the Marshall McLuhan-Finnegan's Wake Club reading group hoping to "fly under the radar") I can be heard this Saturday morning at 8 AM on KRLA (NewsTalk 870) -- conservative talk radio -- on the Home Wizards show to discuss ways to get rid of Stuff Ya Don't Want**.

In the unlikely event you are here in L.A. and up at this ungodly hour, please tune in. And call in if it sounds like I need to be bailed out. I beg of you.

And, thus, for those of you who assumed I'd reached my peak of fame when I was featured in a blurry, anonymous photo on the Santa Monica Express, stop your naysaying. My ascent from total obscurity to relative obscurity continues.

In other blog news, I am officially reducing my posts from every weekday to a Monday/Wednesday/Friday schedule, a move which I'm sure affects almost no one. Unless there's breaking news, of course.

Carry on.




*Yes, people, mark your calendars. I have coined a new term. Let it be my Wikipedia legacy someday.

**my environmental website

Interview with the Evil HR Lady

1) You reveal neither the company you work for nor your real name on your blog. Why do you choose to be anonymous, and what is your motivation for blogging at all under these conditions?

I actually don't care so much if people know my name, but it's important to me to keep my company anonymous. Why? Because what I write isn't about them, nor do I represent them in the blogosphere. I'm also very careful to not talk about specific situations at work.

2) How did you end up working in human resources? Was this something you actively pursued, and if so, what attracted you to this area?

I was in graduate school with the intention of becoming a political science professor because I love teaching. I found out rather rapidly that the teaching aspect of academia was not respected (at least in my program) and what was emphasized was research. Research is all fine and good, but it drove me crazy to spend thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars doing research which showed that "Republicans are more conservative than Democrats." Umm, thanks, but I could have told you that for free.

So, I set out to be a trainer, and figured HR was the place to do it. I still love training, although I don't do it very often any more. The development aspect of people is very appealing to me as well.

3) You occasionally talk about how some people are a little too eager to take their petty problems to HR. What do you see as legitimate concerns people should bring to you?

It's not that concerns shouldn't be brought to HR, but they should be addressed at the departmental level first. If someone is telling dirty jokes, before you come to HR have you said, "Karen, those jokes are offensive"? If you have and they haven't stopped, by all means come to HR, but if you haven't, try that first.

If an employee has a body odor problem, the manager should address the issue first. I understand that it's difficult and embarrassing and all, but think about the person. If HR shows up, that person knows that her odor has been discussed in meetings and probably the whole world knows about it. It has the potential to become a BIG DEAL when it's not.

In large organizations, HR doesn't necessarily have a relationship with all employees, so being pulled into an HR setting can cause unnecessary stress and make the person feel defensive. I'd prefer that a manager come for advice, if necessary, but that the manager should make the first attempt at handling the problem.

4) Your blog name, Evil HR Lady, shows that you recognize HR people are not always that well-liked. As someone who never goes to HR with problems, I would say it's because I know it's the job of HR to protect the company, not me. Is this an unfair perception?

It's not an unfair perception, it's just misunderstood. The primary purpose of Human Resources (in my mind) is to help the business by recruiting, developing and guiding the people. You have groups that are in charge of materials, R&D, logistics and facilities. Human Resources should be responsible for the people--frequently the largest expenditure of a business.

So, does that mean that HR is constantly causing problems for people in order to squeeze that last dime of profit out? No. (Well, it shouldn't.) It's cheaper to develop an employee than recruit and train a new one, so if we can solve a problem or help you gain a skill you lack, we're helping the business. Recruiting the best people can change a company from good to great. Performance appraisals? Everyone hates them, but they can be incredibly useful in identifying problems and solutions.

A happy workforce will be more productive than a miserable one. I see treating people well as a way to increase the business, not the other way around.

5) What would you say are some common mistakes made by applicants during the interview process?

I haven't hired people for many years, but Alison Green at Ask a Manager and US News has. I'd direct you to this article.

6) What are some common resume "red flags" that keep people from getting to the interview stage?

Not tailoring your resume to the position, typos, attitude problems, applying for jobs they are not qualified for, making unreasonable demands, etc.

7) How many jobs have you held in your lifetime?

Gee, I started babysitting when I was 11. I worked fast food in high school (I have a plaque for when I was Burger King's Employee of the Month)... Let's just say many. I've been with my current company for 7 years. During that time I've held 4 different positions. I like my current one the best.

More on young authors

For those of you who need more proof that very young authors have a leg up in the publishing world, consider this excerpted bit from literary agent Jenny Rappaport's post yesterday as she sorts through her queries and decides what to follow up on:

"This query is normally something I would turn down. It's not got the most compelling hook, and it has character names that are rife with accents, which drives me bonkers. But it's got an interesting take on fairies as secret agents, the author was recently a contender in the ABNA, and the author is 16. That's good enough for me to take a look at it. I'm asking for a partial."

And check out this followup in the comments, courtesy of yours truly:

Nancy Matson said...
Just curious -- do you consider the fact that submitter #1 is 16 to be a big selling point because you think if the ms* is good she'll be more marketable?

Jenny Rappaport said...
Nancy Matson, yep, the fact that she was 16 was a huge selling point. If the book is any good, I can market it in a way that shows how young and how talented the author is. Think of Christopher Paolini.

Young authors, get those queries out there! You're aging as I write this! Oldsters, pass the whiskey.

*ms = manuscript

Have a great weekend! Monday, interview with the strangely affable Evil HR Lady.

Books are not trash

On Tuesday I was walking through the neighborhood and spotted boxes of books by a dumpster in an apartment complex near my house. Being the shameless type that I am, I reached through the bars and started sorting through as best I could, plucking out a few choice volumes, until some nice man who lived in the complex took pity on me and let me in. He informed me that someone else in the building had attempted to to sell the books online, and, when it wasn't working out, left them out by the dumpster. Holy crap, neighbor. You put Dostoyevsky in the trash? And not just some marked up paperback, but a nice vintage hardcover edition? Ditto for Fitzgerald's The Last Tycoon, and A Shropshire Lad? To make matters worse, it's obvious from the bookplates that a lot of these books are from some old guy's collection -- probably someone recently deceased or moved into a nursing home. A guy who really loved books, who cut out reviews and newspaper articles about his favorite authors and put them inside the covers. A guy who actually used the blank pages of the book to write notes, such as this in The Brothers Karamazov, "I bought this handsome book ten years ago, discarding at the time a villainously printed Modern Library copy of the same masterpiece...." He then goes on to note that he tried reading the book recently "prompted by the heroics of Leningrad and Stalingrad." And you put this out by the dumpster?

I wish this was the first time I have seen a pile of old books treated so callously, but it is not. I have picked up many a fine book under similar circumstances, which offends me both as a reader and environmentalist. Is it so hard to drive a few boxes of books to your public library so they can sell them at their next book sale?

If you're in Santa Monica on Raymond just west of Highland, stop on by and reach through the bars. And, thanks, Geoffrey Wright, wherever you are, for all my new books.

Linky Wednesday

Economic woes are hitting people hard. According to a new poll, one in ten people over 45 are now borrowing money for every day expenses. One-third of participants stopped putting money into their 401(k)s. Their future selves aren't going to like that at all.

David Sedaris declares his stories "real-ish" in an article in the Christian Science Monitor. He goes on to say memoir lies are pretty minor compared to the government's, so what are we getting so upset about? Ummm...okay. Not sure I buy it, but if he's clocking in at 97% accuracy as he claims, that sounds good to me.

Check out this thing my friend Mark worked on, where you can see the links between famous people. It's a great (or horrible) time waster, depending on your time constraints.

At age 106, Bill Hargrove, the oldest league bowler in the U.S., has bowled his last string.

Young Authors

13-year-old Nancy Yi Fan is the most recent kid author to make a splash on the literary scene with her books from Harper Collins. Her first, Swordbird, about an evil hawk ruling the forest through meanness and intimidation, came out in 2007. She started writing it when she was only eleven, and wrote it in English -- her second language! Sword Quest, which just came out, is its prequel.

While she is the youngest such author of late (I mean, how much younger can they realistically get?) she does follow on the heels of several other very young authors who've had books published to great success. Probably the best-known is Christopher Paolini of Eragon fame, who I believe wrote his first book at fifteen. Amelia Atwater-Rhodes, who writes genre books at an incredible clip, based on this list I found on Amazon, was about the same age when she first got published.

While these kids doubtless have talent, reviews seem to suggest that they don't quite reach the standard of professional adult writers. I don't want to seem like a grump about this, like a parent, who upon being given a drawing from their child throws it back in the kid's face and yells "sub par, totally sub par! come back to me when you have something that's worth my time!" and cackling throatily, but I think it's pretty obvious that the age of these kids is a significant factor in their being published. Let's face it, Fan was on Oprah yesterday, the holy grail for authors, and I just don't think her scintillating prose was the only factor involved. A cute kid whose first book is inspired by 9/11, encouraging us all to work towards peace? While I'm not doubting this girl's sincerity, if the marketing team at Harper Collins could have ordered an author out of a catalog, she would have been their first pick.

And you know what? I think Fan's smart enough to know her worth extends beyond the value of her writing. She had the savvy to write to Jackie Chan for his help in promoting her book. And while my missives to the martial arts star go unreturned (why, Jackie, why?), her request was cheerfully fulfilled.

For those kid writers who are now adults and have continued to write, I'd be curious what they think the perks and pitfalls of being published so young is, and if they look back on some of their earlier work and wish they'd waited.

Interview with a pro* blogger

In which Siel tells us all about the blogging life.

1) I know before you started blogging professionally for the LA Times you maintained (and still maintain) your own environmental blog, Green LA Girl. Did they approach you to start blogging for them, or did you see the job listed somewhere and apply?

The LA Times saw my Green LA Girl blog and contacted me about blogging for them, but I strongly disagree with the contention that my "professional" blogging only started with the Emerald City blog on LATimes.com! I'm not so much claiming that greenlagirl.com was/is so professional.... My point is that the association with an established newspaper doesn't mean that my blogging suddenly became professional -- nor does it mean that my non-LAT-associated blogging was (or is) unprofessional. I guess I have a problem with the use of the term "professional" in general -- a term which has both positive and negative connotations.

I worked for a newspaper back in the day, and certainly used a different tone than when I write for blogs now -- and I use different tones depending on which blog I'm writing for. But to term one professional and the other not brings biases to how either of my blogs -- or blogs in general -- are read, especially at a time when pretty much everyone agrees mediums are changing very rapidly.*


2) Did you have other writing experience before you started your initial blog?

Yes. Back in the day when I was an impressionable teenager, I thought I wanted to be a "traditional" print journalist. I even have a few years of college newspaper experience, an internship at the Idaho Press-Tribune, and a scholarship from the Asian American Journalists' Association to show for that phase. I also interned for a PR firm and in marketing/communications for a couple companies, all of which involved a lot of writing. But most of my writing energy in the last decade or so has gone into creative writing -- poetry, fiction, etc. Oh, and blogging.


3) How much time would you say you spend per day generating blog posts for the Times? Would you say it's close to a full-time job?

I'd say I spend between 3 - 6 hours a day, but it's really hard to say because the delineations aren't clear. For ex, I'll often attend green-themed events with friends -- which may primarily be a social thing -- but end up also taking pics and thinking about what I'm going to write about the event while I'm at the event. Or another example: I may also spend time reading a Jane Austen novel on an eBook I've been sent to review. The choice to read Jane Austen may've been my own, but the choice to read it on an eBook not so much. Does that count as time spent working on the blog? Maybe, but not strictly.....


4) Where do you get most of the information for your posts?

Emails and blogs and word of mouth.


5) Without getting too personal about your pay rate, would you say that these "pro" blogs pay competitive rates? Or is it the kind of thing that's only worth doing if it ties into something you're doing anyway?

Again, I quibble with your notion of "pro" blogs. Quite a few blogs that aren't associated with a mainstream news org are making good money, and hopefully paying its bloggers competitive rates. For ex, I also blog for BlogHer and Lime.com -- both of which are not tied to a major newspaper -- and both which pay v. competitively and treat its bloggers wonderfully. I really love the people there, and enjoy blogging for them. Of course, there are sites like Treehugger.com that have become hugely successful but still pay very crappy rates to its hardworking bloggers -- still under $15 a post, last I heard (before bonuses, which mainly go to auto/tech bloggers). If you're a total newbie blogger, this route might be a way to build writing cred, maybe. But if you already know you have good writing to offer, I think it's importantly to recognize that getting only $15 per post will only encourage you to simply crank those posts out as quickly as possible, instead of taking the time to enjoy the writing process a while more to craft and hone your post and/or engage more with the blogosphere to see what other bloggers have to say 'bout your topic of choice. IMHO, blogging joyfully for free's way better than blogging for $15 a post.

But speaking more specifically to my relationship with the LA Times, which I think is what you're really asking about: I'd say that the rate's v. competitive, but that the deal's v. different. For ex, both BlogHer and Lime.com pay per post -- while I have a set monthly salary with the LA Times. That cuts both ways -- meaning that individual posts for BlogHer and Lime usually take more time per-post, but that the LA Times blog actually creates a lot more stress and ends up being less money per post overall (if one really wants to calculate it monetarily), mainly because I feel responsible for the unity, tone, and overall success of the blog as a whole, since I'm the primary author for Emerald City.

But stepping away from the money for a second: To answer your second question, I really don't think anyone should blog -- for money or not -- if it doesn't "tie into something you're doing anyway." You gotta blog because you wanna blog, wanna write, because you're passionate about the issues you're engaging with. Otherwise, you may as well take a desk job that pays well -- It'll likely pay better, especially for beginning bloggers.

My main point is that money really shouldn't be your incentive for blogging, esp. if you're just starting out. See if you like it first, if it addicts you. What's important is not whether or not you can make money via blogging, but whether or not blogging's something you really, really enjoy and want to spend your time doing. I've recently had a friend who was making a decent living blogging quit because she ended up hating her blogging job.


6) I know you do other freelance writing, as I saw an article by you in Whole Times and you occasionally link to poems you've had published on online journals. What is your plan for the future as far as your writing goes?

The future of my writing is a hot topic of discussion between my shrink and me. I'll let you know if we come to any conclusions.


7) What would you be doing for work if you hadn't been able to get your current blogging job?

Honestly, I have no clue. The thought of working a 9-5er fills me with dread, for example. My guess is that I'd either cobble together a freelance writing career -- meaning more magazine articles -- or teach. Come August, I'll have a PhD in lit and creative writing, so I'd like to think it wouldn't be too hard to get a rewarding and satisfying gig at a community college -- we have so many of them in LA, and I'm a good teacher. It's not, however, what I'd like to do right now. I'm thankful for the bloggy life I currently have.


8) How many jobs have you held in your life?

I guess it depends what you consider a job. If you're talking full time, post-college jobs that provide health insurance (not internship or part time stints at bookstores or hotels or the like), I've had two. All the rest have been internships, or part time, or haven't provided health insurance. Meaning that in this count, none of my blogging gigs count as a "job" :)


*My distinguishing between "pro" and "not pro" was not based on the newspaper affiliation but on the simple fact of what pays and what doesn't. While there is a gray area for this, given some crappy pay rates like Treehugger and the fact that some blogs bring in varying amounts of money through ads, I wasn't saying an association with the LA Times making blogging somehow "legit." That's the kind of confusion that can arise when you interview someone over email.

Thanks for your insight, Siel!