F. P. Dorchak

Speculative Fiction Author

fpdorchak

Define Professionalism

by

A recent post of mine inspired some rather stimulating discussion. Good idea, I thought, just what is “professionalism”?

How should professionals behave (in this case, publishing professionals)?

Years ago, in a university ROTC military studies classes, we discussed the concept. What exactly is “professionalism”? It seemed, as I remember it, that we found the concept was applied differently across the boards. Today is not much different, I think, in terms of the “average person’s” concept. Sure there are definitions out there employing versions of “following an occupation as a means of livelihood, or for gain,” or just being really, really good at what you do, but a couple terms  I feel should be more included into all these definitions are ethics, discipline, and respect. This definition seemed to do a pretty good job of it.

Which brings me back to that earlier post about one reviewer’s action that spawned a bit broader discussion of behavior that touched on the topic of professionalism. Is it proper for industry professionals (and here we’re talking mainly about the publishing world, but it could definitely apply to any industry) to rip into other (granted the military or law enforcement professions are a bit different, here…)? And it’s not just about reviewers, it’s editors, agents, executives, you name it. But, okay, sure, reviewers are supposed to be honest in their review of books by authors, to be “hard hitting” and all that CNN/Fox News-speak in their efforts, but do all these efforts exist to nail authors to a wall? To publically intimidate and humiliate?

What IS the purpose of a book reviewer?

What IS the purpose of an editor or publisher? An agent?

In this link, take a hard look at the “Features” paragraph. Read it a couple times. Stare at it. Internalize it.

Never treat others as if they’re insignificant.

Always maintain the highest levels of integrity.

And here’s a really good one:

Consider how your actions affect the journey, not just the object at hand.

So, when you’re sitting across from an editor or agent, or reading a review of a book, what do you expect from industry professionals? Besides some truth, how about a little human decency?

In some of my previous discussions, many said they wanted to be told the truth, no sugar-coating. That it’s a tough world out there. And I told them I agree. But what I did not agree with was ripping a person a new one in the process–being rude, condescending, or overbearing. Sure, it certainly can be a tough world out there, but it’s only that way because WE make it that way. We’re the ones making this world one way or the other. Even in learning situations, I maintain (and I have been at both ends–I once did some editing/reading for a defunct publication) this can be done. It can be done graciously and with great consideration for the individual. Sure, we’re human, most of us, as far as you know, and there will be slips, but even with slips, we need to own-up and apologize if we go overboard for our own behavior.

In short, criticism doesn’t have to be wielded like a 2 x 4 from out of the blue.

Industry professionals of any kind need to have a deep understanding of the environment within which they wield their superpowers, and the capacity to restrain and properly throttle back said superpowers when needed.

To whom much is given, much is expected.

What is the point of tearing an individual apart in delivering critical analysis?

Because you can?

Because they deserve it?

Think about that for a second:  WHAT IS THE POINT?

If the importance of life is in the journey (or anything else, but the argument still fits the bill), shouldn’t we take greater heed in the method and delivery of our criticisms? Anyone can be rude. Anyone can be “hard hitting.” Anyone can just spit out whatever’s on their mind without regard to another, or in answer to their own egotism, arrogance, or inferiority complexes.

NOT everyone has a presence of mind and discipline.

NOT everyone can reign it in at the expense of their own gain.

NOT everyone can understand to whom their words are about and to whom will be affected longer-term, intended or unintended consequences.

NOT everyone can keep ego, arrogance, or any other emotion in check at “the critical hour.”

As the link describes, professionalism is not about you. It’s about the value you place on others and how you apply your superpowers.

Professionalism is about…rising head and shoulders above the rest in all areas of the performance of one’s duties…about going the extra mile…about giving and doing more than is required to get the job done…about respecting others…about consideration of your actions upon others and the outcomes themselves…about doing what’s right…about applying an ethic to all your efforts.

Sure, sometimes a hammer is needed…but if so, take the individual aside and wield that hammer deliberately and away from public view.

Being “professional” is many things to many people (as evidenced by all the books, papers, and courses devoted to it), but I think this article does a great job in boiling down the concept to a quick read. Tailor your superpowers to the situation in a respectful, value-added, and humane way. Make our world a better place to live in.

Peace.

STS-135, The Final Shuttle Flight

by

Live launch feed: http://livestre.am/rxR

The final space shuttle flight, STS-135, is set to go today, at 9:26:46 a.m. MT, barring weather concerns. The last crew to be sent into orbit on the space shuttle are commander Chris Ferguson, pilot Doug Hurley, and mission specialists Sandy Magnus and Rex Walheim. Another view of the crew’s backgrounds can be found here. Currently there is a 70% chance of storms, as I write this at almost five in the morning.

Much has been written about the termination of the shuttle program, for good or ill, but I write about this flight not only for its historic final flight, but also because Rex Walheim and I worked together while I was in the Air Force. Rex and I were missile warning crew commanders in North Dakota as young lieutenants. Well, a couple years back, when I was researching a science fiction novel manuscript, I came upon his name, and thought, what the heck, I’ll drop him a line–and sure enough, he responded. Long story short, we got together, relived some old times, and he gave myself and one of my brothers and his son a tour of Houston’s Johnson Space Center. I also was able to talk with Rex about some technical information in researching my SF novel my agent and I are still shopping around. He had so many interesting things to say about his space flights, one of which was that there’s no knowing who will barf bag it in space; some pilots who’ve never “lost it” have lost it in zero G, while those who have “lost it” in conventional aircraft have not barf bagged it in zero G. There’s just no way to predict, and I found this quite interesting. I also liked how they play “Superman” and “Superwoman,” as they “shoot” (float) from one end of the ISS to another. Fun can still be had in space, too,it seems!

It was great getting together with Rex (he looked the same as I last recalled seeing him), and even continued to exhibit that same boyish charm and humbly outgoing manner I also remembered, and it was fascinating talking with him about his training and orbital experiences. I sent him (and his crew) well wishes on this final launch.

Here’s to a successful launch!

Taking Potshots at the Wrong Target

by

Last week I read a review in a major publishing magazine that really kinda bugged me. It reviewed a nonfiction work soon to come out, and though it had some good things to say about the book and author, I was extremely disappointed when it took a shot at the author’s writing ability.

Since when did that ever matter?

Now, rhetorically speaking, why would someone do this?  Think about that for a moment. This was a nonfiction piece, not fiction. Not a memoir, nor an essay. And it definitely wasn’t literary fiction. It’s a book written by someone who obviously had a passion, an energy about a topic enough so that s/he wanted to share it. Within the review there was no mention made by the reviewer that the author had a professional background in writing, just that the author had a professional background in the topic, and had an obvious passion and knowledge about what s/he had written about—so why take the unnecessary potshot at this person’s writing ability?

Give this person—and those like him/her—a break.

Sure, you put yourself “out there,” you’re gonna take a hit or two by the public, but this professional reviewer should have known better, and for that matter, so should have the editor. It matters not one wit about “being professional,” with everyone in the media field priding themselves at being so “hard hitting,” “factual,” “take no prisoners” in their approach. Instead, it broaches that fine line between honoring reviewing and being overly and unnecessarily critical. Take issue with the book’s structure, its content, maybe even with a frigging singular word choice, but (to me) taking issues with a “non-writer’s” lack of writing ability—which of course may or may not get better with practice, but does nothing for the current moment in which the book is published—is like taking issue with a physical or mental deformity. Great, you professionally pointed it out, professionally rubbed their nose in it, now, what the hell do you expect the person to do about it at this point?

Let’s not forget our humanity for each other, people.

Liberty Belle Down In Flames

by

The B-17G, Liberty Belle

The B-17G, Liberty Belle, which I’d previously posted about, met its end in an Indiana farmer’s field after an in-flight fire was detected, on June 13, 2011. See the Belle’s site for more information.  I’d heard of the news from Janet and Richard Fogg’s, Fogg in the Cockpit. My hat’s off to the skilled and quick acting pilots who brought the Belle and their passengers to a safe landing.

All things must come to an end, and in way, this really is a fitting ending to the Belle, though some may disagree, and it is disappointing and quite halting to those who worked and flew her, and the Belle’s Liberty Foundation…though the foundation itself can go on. Sure it would have been great to continue flying, performing its static displays, et cetera, but the Belle was first and foremost a war bird. An instrument of death and destruction. It was not designed as a museum piece, but as a functional piece of war machinery. And it did its job well. It was a tough old bird and could take quite a pounding and still returned many an aviator home. It did what it did best, and in retirement and refurbishment, continued to fly. Sure, it’s an inanimate object, but in a Zen way, it died doing what it did best (without  the bombs and bullets)—it died flying.

And, in the end, isn’t that what we all probably hope for ourselves?  That we (short of dying unconscious in our sleep, or in some heroic manner in service to others…) die doing what we love doing most?

The Belle reawakened awareness in many in its refurbishment years, helped awaken some Zen moments in myself as previously mentioned, so it was not a waste. Death is never a waste. It is simply a time to go, whether in people, ideas, or inanimate objects. It was simply time to go, and as dramatic a piece of machinery as it was—again, in a Zen way—it chose a similarly dramatic exit.

And as for the aviators and passengers inside…any landing you can walk away from is a successful landing.

Bon voyage, Liberty Bell!