My Sunday comment for this week was mostly about being ready to send out another query letter to a literary agent. I've cut 142 pages (28,000 words) from the previous version of the manuscript.
I also commented on when former Wisconsin Governor and former U.S. Secretary for Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson was talking with a group of Tea Party members recently, he mentioned the things he had to do after the 9/18 attack, and people assumed he meant 9/11. They ridiculed him for not remembering the right date.
Thompson meant the anthrax attack of 9/18. (September 18, 2001 was the date the first anthrax letters were postmarked.) Thompson evidently remembered that date very vividly, but, there probably wasn't a single person in his audience who remembered it.
That's the kind of mistake I made with the first version of my manuscript. I thought everyone - particularly literary agents - would vividly remember the anthrax attacks. But, it appears very few people do. So, when I made the changes, I cut out all the unnecessary detail and made it more readable for the average person.
The query letter I'll send out tomorrow uses a referral from a well-known author. If it fails, I have one more referral I can use before I either try to obtain more referrals or I self-publish the book.
Ed
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Sunday, July 8, 2012
July 8 - July 14, 2012 Discussions
My comment for this week begins with describing the progress I'm making on the overhaul of my book in an attempt to cut at least 150 pages. The statistics show that I'm on course. But, more importantly, the book also seems about 1,000% improved and much more of a page-turner thriller.
The comment then leads into a realization that Ivins told Mara Linscott about his KKG burglaries just after the FBI and postal inspectors discovered which mailbox had been used to mail the anthrax letters -- a mailbox just 175 feet from the KKG office in Princeton. The finding of the mailbox would really have shaken Ivins up, but what was he thinking when he started to tell Mara about his connections to KKG? And Mara quickly told Pat Fellows.
The mention of the mailbox used for the mailings also reminded me that I've never been able to accept and believe that the anthrax mailer used the same mailbox for BOTH mailings. I think that Ivins used a mailbox in Franklin Park for the first mailing, but the crude powder couldn't seep through the envelopes so easily, so no trace was left in the mailbox. The second mailing left spores in the mailbox in Princeton, so the only available evidence says it was the mailbox used for both mailings. It's a case where the "only available evidence" says one thing, but I really feel that reality is something a bit different. But, it's just a "feeling" that cannot be proved nor disproved, so I don't mention it in my book. If I had, it would have been another long explanation that I'd have to cut to get the book down to a "readable" length.
Ed
The comment then leads into a realization that Ivins told Mara Linscott about his KKG burglaries just after the FBI and postal inspectors discovered which mailbox had been used to mail the anthrax letters -- a mailbox just 175 feet from the KKG office in Princeton. The finding of the mailbox would really have shaken Ivins up, but what was he thinking when he started to tell Mara about his connections to KKG? And Mara quickly told Pat Fellows.
The mention of the mailbox used for the mailings also reminded me that I've never been able to accept and believe that the anthrax mailer used the same mailbox for BOTH mailings. I think that Ivins used a mailbox in Franklin Park for the first mailing, but the crude powder couldn't seep through the envelopes so easily, so no trace was left in the mailbox. The second mailing left spores in the mailbox in Princeton, so the only available evidence says it was the mailbox used for both mailings. It's a case where the "only available evidence" says one thing, but I really feel that reality is something a bit different. But, it's just a "feeling" that cannot be proved nor disproved, so I don't mention it in my book. If I had, it would have been another long explanation that I'd have to cut to get the book down to a "readable" length.
Ed
Sunday, July 1, 2012
July 1 - July 7, 2012 Discussions
The main topic of my Sunday comment was the progress of the overhaul of my book to shorten it by at least 15%. But, of course, it's not just a matter of cutting unnecessary material, I also have to make sure that the narrative runs smoothly and keeps the reader reading. So, there's a lot of polishing that needs to be done after the big chunks of unnecessary material are cut away.
One agent wanted me to cut 150 pages from the 706 page manuscript, another wanted me to cut 200 pages. I think I can cut 150 pages, but I'm not sure if I can cut 200. I'm also moving most of the pictures out of the text and into a separate picture section. I didn't realize why most books did things that way. Now I do. Putting pictures into the text can disrupt the flow of the narrative. I need to target the book to the people who read books for pleasure, not to students of criminology. People who read crime books for pleasure are a MUCH bigger audience, and unnecessary pictures can be a distraction to their reading.
For what it's worth, here's a chart showing the number of visitors to my web site for the month of June versus the number of visitors to the main Anthrax Truther web site:
My site got about 3-times as many visitors as Lew Weinstein's site. The surge on June 12 was from the Cracked.com article. It's also clear that the patterns are somewhat similar, with mid-week peaks and weekend lows. I'm not sure what it means, but it seems to mean that more people are interested in the facts of the case than in the theories of the Anthrax Truthers.
Ed
One agent wanted me to cut 150 pages from the 706 page manuscript, another wanted me to cut 200 pages. I think I can cut 150 pages, but I'm not sure if I can cut 200. I'm also moving most of the pictures out of the text and into a separate picture section. I didn't realize why most books did things that way. Now I do. Putting pictures into the text can disrupt the flow of the narrative. I need to target the book to the people who read books for pleasure, not to students of criminology. People who read crime books for pleasure are a MUCH bigger audience, and unnecessary pictures can be a distraction to their reading.
For what it's worth, here's a chart showing the number of visitors to my web site for the month of June versus the number of visitors to the main Anthrax Truther web site:
My site got about 3-times as many visitors as Lew Weinstein's site. The surge on June 12 was from the Cracked.com article. It's also clear that the patterns are somewhat similar, with mid-week peaks and weekend lows. I'm not sure what it means, but it seems to mean that more people are interested in the facts of the case than in the theories of the Anthrax Truthers.
Ed
Sunday, June 24, 2012
June 24 - June 30, 2012 Discussions
My comment for Sunday on my web site was mainly about my desire to start working on the "final draft" of my book and to get it into print, whether via self-publishing or via a regular publisher. There are still things pending - such as the supposedly imminent release of Ivins' private emails, some additional pictures the FBI is sending me, and the General Accountability Office's (GAO's) review of the Amerithrax investigation. If any of it gets released before I actually send out the CD containing the pdf files the printer will use to print the book, I can always stop and incorporate something that is of great importance. But, I can't just keep waiting and waiting.
I also explained in my Sunday comment why I continue to argue with Anthrax Truthers even though there seems no way to change their minds about anything. That's something else that evidently won't stop until after the GAO releases its review and after my book is printed and fades into history.
I no longer argue with people who have theories about the JFK assassination.
I no longer argue with people who don't believe Americans went to the moon.
There'll come a time when I'll no longer argue with people who have alternative theories about the anthrax attacks of 2001. It's a matter of diminishing returns. I still find it somewhat educational, but it's becoming less and less so.
Ed
I also explained in my Sunday comment why I continue to argue with Anthrax Truthers even though there seems no way to change their minds about anything. That's something else that evidently won't stop until after the GAO releases its review and after my book is printed and fades into history.
I no longer argue with people who have theories about the JFK assassination.
I no longer argue with people who don't believe Americans went to the moon.
There'll come a time when I'll no longer argue with people who have alternative theories about the anthrax attacks of 2001. It's a matter of diminishing returns. I still find it somewhat educational, but it's becoming less and less so.
Ed
Sunday, June 17, 2012
June 17 - June 23, 2012 Discussions
While waiting for the agent who has my book to tell me what she thinks of it, I've been working on a new supplemental page for my web site. The new page is titled "The illogical al Qaeda Theory." It shows that no two people with an "al Qaeda Theory" about the anthrax case have exactly the same theory. Some believe the anthrax was made in a lab in Afghanistan. Some believe it was made in a lab at George Mason University. Or maybe it was made in a lab in Canada. It doesn't make any difference to these theorists that they don't agree with each other, or that the facts say that all their theories are wrong.
Meanwhile, since Richard Rowley resorted to personal insults in his posts to this blog, I'll be deleting any new posts he attempts to make -- unless he discusses the facts of the case instead of his beliefs.
And, "Anonymous" seems to be working another case these days - an art theft case. He evidently thinks his experience in determining that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks gives him good experience to work on this new case.
I'm waiting on some pictures from the FBI that I want to use in my book. I'm also waiting on some pictures from USAMRIID. I'm waiting on the FBI to release Ivins' personal emails. And, as stated above, I'm waiting on a response from the literary agent who is reading my book.
Waiting is really really really hard work.
Ed
Meanwhile, since Richard Rowley resorted to personal insults in his posts to this blog, I'll be deleting any new posts he attempts to make -- unless he discusses the facts of the case instead of his beliefs.
And, "Anonymous" seems to be working another case these days - an art theft case. He evidently thinks his experience in determining that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks gives him good experience to work on this new case.
I'm waiting on some pictures from the FBI that I want to use in my book. I'm also waiting on some pictures from USAMRIID. I'm waiting on the FBI to release Ivins' personal emails. And, as stated above, I'm waiting on a response from the literary agent who is reading my book.
Waiting is really really really hard work.
Ed
Sunday, June 10, 2012
June 10 - June 16, 2012 Discussions
My comment for Sunday, June 10 was mostly about the agony of waiting to see whether the agent who is reading my new book will want to represent it. I'm hoping to find out late this week. I'm afraid she won't want to represent a controversial book that wasn't written by someone with impeccable credentials, but times are a-changing, and credentials in today's Internet-driven world aren't always the same as they were pre-Internet. Plus, much of the book involves arguments between "experts" with opinions and experts with facts, where both parties have impeccable credentials. However, I'm hopeful that the agent will want to represent my book. It is very badly needed, since it shows the fallacy of most belief-driven arguments.
Meanwhile, I'm finding it hard to keep occupied. I can't work on the final draft of book for two reasons: (1) I need to hold changes to a minimum until the agent gives her opinion on the current version, and (2) I'm waiting on some FOIA requests for pictures and for copies of Ivins' emails. There isn't much point on making revisions until I see whether those requests will produce useful photos and information.
Also meanwhile, "Anonymous" and Richard Rowley continue to argue beliefs and opinions against facts on this interactive blog. Is it really that difficult to understand that opinions and beliefs mean NOTHING if cold, hard facts say that those opinions and beliefs are nonsense?
Ed
Meanwhile, I'm finding it hard to keep occupied. I can't work on the final draft of book for two reasons: (1) I need to hold changes to a minimum until the agent gives her opinion on the current version, and (2) I'm waiting on some FOIA requests for pictures and for copies of Ivins' emails. There isn't much point on making revisions until I see whether those requests will produce useful photos and information.
Also meanwhile, "Anonymous" and Richard Rowley continue to argue beliefs and opinions against facts on this interactive blog. Is it really that difficult to understand that opinions and beliefs mean NOTHING if cold, hard facts say that those opinions and beliefs are nonsense?
Ed
Sunday, June 3, 2012
June 3 - June 9, 2012 Discussions
My entire comment on Sunday June 3 was an analysis of Laurie Garrett's beliefs regarding the anthrax attacks of 2001. On this interactive blog and via emails, "Anonymous" keeps harping on how I haven't read Garrett's book "I Heard The Sirens Scream," which he seemingly feels is Holy Writ proving that Muslim terrorists were behind the anthrax attacks of 2001.
My analysis of Garrett's beliefs, based upon two lengthy interviews she gave to NPR (National Public Radio) and to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, shows that Garrett has NO real evidence that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks. All she has is a hodge-podge of scrambled, incoherent beliefs that the government screwed up and allowed 9/11 to happen, so they must have also screwed up when they found that Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attacks and not al Qaeda. She compares the FBI's investigation to the antics of the Three Stooges.
She never mentions the evidence against Ivins, so it's doubtful that she has even bothered to examine it.
She admits that "most experts" don't agree with her. So, she also acknowledges that "most experts" find the Three Stooges to be more believable than her. But, she's too "outraged" by the failings of the U.S. government in allowing 9/11 to happen to care about what "most experts" think about the anthrax attacks.
Ed
My analysis of Garrett's beliefs, based upon two lengthy interviews she gave to NPR (National Public Radio) and to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, shows that Garrett has NO real evidence that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks. All she has is a hodge-podge of scrambled, incoherent beliefs that the government screwed up and allowed 9/11 to happen, so they must have also screwed up when they found that Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attacks and not al Qaeda. She compares the FBI's investigation to the antics of the Three Stooges.
She never mentions the evidence against Ivins, so it's doubtful that she has even bothered to examine it.
She admits that "most experts" don't agree with her. So, she also acknowledges that "most experts" find the Three Stooges to be more believable than her. But, she's too "outraged" by the failings of the U.S. government in allowing 9/11 to happen to care about what "most experts" think about the anthrax attacks.
Ed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)