Well, it's not like every poem was stolen. XD And I think the guilt is probably already chasing her. -sigh-
Yeah, mom told me to look at it the same way and I am trying to. XD I suppose I should be proud, lmao? I am just sad the poems she made were worse than my originals. <o< And they were still the best out of them all. =o=; I am not trying to sound prideful right now, but yeah. I wasn't first to say that. <o<

I don't even know if I'm supposed to be making a portfolio on the Writer's Diary section.

No one appears to even be posting there. Maybe it's just for people who want to be Trisphee writers or something?

Bah. All my writing is on my deviantArt account anyways. I guess I should just stick a link to that somewhere.

Oh, and about self-publishing... Well, lot of people do that in our country since publishing companies don't really look for poets to publish poetry from. Some stories sometims get published, but not really poetry.

I never know when some thread is open, that's why I keep quiet. XDD

If there's no (under construction) or (do not post), you're free to post in a thread.

And... that sounds like a sad country for aspiring writers. Because self-publishing really, really isn't publishing. I only hope that it's more honest there than it is in the States and the UK and such. The self-publishing that I know of is... downright traumatic to writers. You have all the hope and joy of being published and then find that not only do you have to pay a printing fee, a title fee, and a $50-a-page "reader's fee", but you also have to sell the book yourself, design your own cover, and the binding is slap-dash quality and pages often fall out, are missing, are upside-down.

In real publishing, the publishing house finds manuscripts and pays the author a flat rate to begin with. The books have to make back that flat rate, and then for every dollar over the flat rate you get a percentage of the sales. It's a gamble for publishing houses, which is why they try and find the best book out there to publish, and why getting published when it's done right is such an honor to writers.

Well, unless you own/work for/parents own/you have connections with the publishing house. Then you get Twilight. And there is no honor there.

Well, she took it that way. XD I drew my own side of the cover and it was badly binded. There are more advanced options, of course, but those cost more.
And, yep, we're not very nice to new authors, except there are some contest for teenage books, but I haven't seen anything good win that one. >o> Well, it's not like we don't get any books published, but poetry isn't very popular and such.

We don't evevn publish translated books much anymore, due to crisis and stuff. <o<; And all the books are supah expensive now. Dx

Book prices have gone up everywhere but I still found the ones I buy okay...

Yeah, poetry is never the first step for writers to get published.

The best bet to get published is to write a one-off novel, or a novel that can be a one-off. Publishing houses don't like dealing with series, short stories, or poetry collections.

Unless you've got a really, really good agent and a really, really good series to sell to the publishing house, they would rather buy something that they can sell and make money from and then later ask you to do a follow-up, or sell and lose money from and try and forget it. Most writers probably have series in mind when they write - trilogies, quartets, indefinite series - but they're usually careful not to mention their story might be part of a series until negotiations are underway and the publisher has pretty much already bought the book. The fact that JK Rowling got away with Harry Potter is actually rather miraculous, considering how wary publishers are of new authors and untested series.

And short story and poetry collections are right out. There's the tiniest chance they'll be published, and an even tinier sliver of that tiny chance that they'll make you any money.

The biggest company here turned down translating and publishing Harry Potter. A very small company did instead and thanks to that they are still alive. That big company said it would "never" become big. Well they are stupid.

Yeah, you're right about publishing, Plushie. >o<;

lmao.

That's a bit like all the people way back when who said computers would never amount to anything important.

Makes you wonder what else people scoff at these days that, in the future, are going to be huge.

They also said Internet was a "fad". lul

lmao. XD
nbrb to eat.

People are funnny. :B

I think some people still say the internet is a "fad".

Seriously, it's like... what civilization revolves around now, and people actually still think it'll eventually die off.

Those people are most likely too old and have never gotten into it, never had a work that needs it. They are the ones that will die off.

I do have hope that the "digital media" deal will die off.

I. DO. NOT. LIKE. DIGITAL. MEDIA.

I hate e-readers, I hate e-albums, I hate e-movies. I hate e-games. If I'm paying money for that sort of thing, I want to hold it in my hand, not have exist on some other plane of e-xistance.

It's one thing to have a physical copy of something and then copy it into .mp3 format for your music player, it's something else entirely to only buy the digital version. I find that completely idiotic and detrimental to our society's posterity. Most of what we know about past civilization is what exists in physical form - pots, paintings, books, etc. If everything is digital, we're just going to be a black hole in history.

...

that was a rant, and I'm sorry. I just really hate that shit. D<

I'm talking about people that says "internet should be shut down". Thanks for making me feel like I have no life. <_<;

I agree with johnny though, I like books in paper.

Well duh there are bad things with the internet such as gore and weird porn but it is possible to stop that and they are working on it. :B At least some of thee porn. You know which one.

You can recycle old books and newspapers for new books. :v But I know what you're trying to say. I still want the option of paper books. Cause I don't pay for digital books.

Yes! Books should be on paper!

They have been on paper for thousands of years.

Paper is good, people!

Some might argue, "Well, they wrote on stone before paper was invented," but there is a big difference between stone-to-paper and paper-to-computer chip. For one, the paper was much easier to write on, transport, store, etc. than the stone - and now someone says that the computer chip can store lots of books so it makes it even better for transport. Frankly, the whole argument stops with "I once took my e-reader to the beach and got sand in it and lost my entire library."

If sand can take something down, it's not a worthwhile invention. I have books in my attic that have survived Florida heat and humidity for about forty years. Guarantee you an e-reader would last about a week in my attic before becoming little more than a rectangular paperweight.

PAPER IS WHAT BOOKS ARE MADE OF. D<

*runs around crying* that was horrible! ):

Books could burn down but how often does that happen? Maybe you have a kid and the kid decides to flush your fancy gizmo in the toilet. Oops. And what Johnny said.

Most of the world's oxygen is produced by algae (seaweed), not trees.

The leading cause of de-forestation (tearing down trees) is clearing land for cattle grazing, not making paper.

Books and making paper have a teeny, tiny effect on the environment.

Then people in rich countries should get less babies. :/

Well, I read online, too, there is stuff can't get in real life and stuff I wouldn't pay for, but I love having a book in my book shelf and the actual stuff.

Flaria, lmfao.

You're not really paying attention.

Algae is the leading producer of oxygen. That goes both ways - the leading producer of oxygen, and the leading consumer of carbon dioxide. Trees might make a difference, but they don't make that big of a difference. It wouldn't be pleasant if all the trees were cut from the planet, but at the same time that is simply not possible. Especially with regard to forestation laws in the Americas and other forest-heavy countries. Every time a tree is cut down, a new tree has to be planted, they can only be cut in "stages" (as in, "stage one" - new growth - trees cannot be cut down and must wait to be cut down in later stages, depending on the location of the trees and the type of tree).

And then we have grass, bushes, flowers, and every other plant on the planet, all of which are producing oxygen and consuming carbon dioxide. Trees are not the only front we have against suffocating.

I wouldn't read stuff I wouldn't pay for. I only read online if there isn't an official translation yet. If there are I'll buy the book and delete the files. Though I wont even be able to do that any more soon. I don't mind that much though. I'll just wait until there will be a translation, you could event suggest publishers to licence them.

... -wants to comment, but doesn't want to argue and start talking about side-stuff =o=-

Comment about what? Trees, making less babies, buying books, or cows?

This is a widespread topic, here, apparently you can't really get lost talking about side-stuff.

hmmm.. i feel ignored T_T lol

hey rainy!

I mean, the heck, if you look at how deforested some regions are and how many species of plants and animals have gone to extinction... it's not only about freakin' oxygen we're talking about here. DDx
Sure, I am not all about online stuff, but there can be other ways than chopping down woods. Humans are just going the easier route - to glass shield over cities and algea farms, for example. But, the heck, I wouldn't want to live in a world where a tree is just a freakin' hologram.

I just remembered the cows lol...only by living they screw up a lot. Cause they...burp..lol

I don't read books online, 'cause I can't find them, except maybe some classics. I read fan fictions, mangas (when I could) and such online, but, yes, I downlaod "illegal" stuff. 'Cause I can't buy albums of my favorite musicians here and I also don't have the money to do it, not here, not online. Heck, we can barely pay the bills, how can I spend it on something like that.

-hugs Sylvermyth- HAI. C:

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't make it right... >.< Though at least you got somewhat good reason. Many people are pretty rich but still wont buy. That's shit.

Like I said before, trees are not in danger. There are laws protecting most of the rainforests of the world (which, by the way, harbor a hell of a chunk of the earth's biodiversity and really should be conserved) and while it's unfortunate that many of these rainforests are found in corrupt countries with people who would gladly cut down a hundred-year-old Ebony tree to make a few knickknacks to sell to tourists, that's really not the fault of large civilizations and technological progression like people assume. The forests are protected (it is illegal to cut down any endangered tree in most rain forests), it's just a few poachers who break the law to make money.

And in North America, we have the forestation laws as well as natural parks. Most of our forests are protected under the title of "national park", and all the wildlife within them are protected as well. Some parts of forest are set aside for lumber (including paper) production, and some land is bought and leveled for the cattle fields mentioned earlier, but for the most part the large parts of the earth are protected by law.