So--my question is, I suppose, is the entire world, including publishing, so gutless as to refuse to even take a flyer at a new idea or a new concept or a new perspective? Like tv series, does everything have to be a remake or a clone? And why IS that? Who actually thinks that's a good idea?

I'm going to cheat and borrow a bit from a rant I had on this same subject in LJ--

Basically, I kept flashing on Bull Durham

"You're gonna have to learn your clichés. You're gonna have to study them, you're gonna have to know them. They're your friends."

There were so many places in the book I was talking about where the author hinted at turning the story on its ear and even teased us with it, then at the last minute, would inevitably pull back and rely on the cliché. The book itself is well-written, many of the characters have got intriguing aspects to them, but overall, they were pretty much drawn from Central Casting, wound up, and sent on their merry way.

So, it's a good book that so easily could have been a great book if not for the clichés. Like you, Bev, I wonder what it is about them that makes them such a constant for readers. I mean, I can see why the majority of editors would choose them-- they're safe. It's the grounding force in the category romance subgenre, after all. They have the formula for X book, they know they're going to sell, ergo, they have absolutely no reason whatsoever to deviate from that norm. Doesn't make it any less frustrating for me as a writer, but in the end, what drives this business is sales and a constant readership and so reading through this book, what I'm taking from it is that it has a few things here and there that are different... but not so much that it's going to drive the reader away. It's safe. It's familiar. It's like Pleasantville before color came into their lives.

I think, too, that publishers are willing to take a stab at something that's maybe just a tiny bit different (emo!sparkly!vampires!) but that still has the feel of the familiar. And if something succeeds, well then, they will beat that horse well into the afterlife.

Dennis Hayes, along with the late Gaylord Nelson organized the first Earth Day. (Generally Hayes is though to be a lot more responsible for Earth Day than Nelson.) Is "Denis Hayes, founder of Earth Day" a good description? Is the word "founder" Ok for something like this? Can someone "found" a festival (as opposed to an organization or family)? Also if someone can, is "founder" precise enough, or do I need to say "co-founder"?

The online references I'm seeing Typo, all refer to him as "coordinator" which to me seems to carry a fair amount of weight.

Coordinator was his official title. But I noticed almost nobody mentions the late Senator Nelson, so probably I can omit him.

I don't know if "Coordinator" conveys that he basically created Earth Day. Organizer? That is the second most commonly used term.

Would Organizer and Co-founder I think would probably cover all the bases without you needing to mention Nelson, and not be inaccurate, whereas I think if you refer to him as "founder" in the singular, you risk the argument that Senator Nelson was the one who originally brought him on board.

I don't see any reason not to use founder or "a founder."

What about "Hayes, an organizer of the first Earth Day" or "Hayes, national coordinator of the first Earth Day." It appears to be too complex to boil down into one word.

Yeah, I think that will work. Thanks, Barb and Ginger.

I have a book proposal I'm ready to send to an agent. Anybody willing to looking it over? My profile addy is good. Thanks.

You don't seem to have a profile address, TB.

I'd like to look your proposal over for you. I'm working on one myself. Proposals are hard. Profile addy should work.

Ginger - insent. Thanks for being willing to look at it. And thanks for the heads up. Don't know how my profile address got destroyed. Now corrected in case anyone else is interested in looking it over.