Michael Shilling's novel, Rock Bottom (Back Bay Books, 2008), is out as a paperback original and is a rollicking good read. It takes place during the final day of what will be the final tour for the former 'next big thing', the Blood Orphans. Told from the points of view of each of the four band members, as well as their manager, it's a difficult book to put down once started. Shilling's own experiences with playing in a band shine through loud and clear.
The fine folks from Back Bay Books have offered the Emerging Writers Network a handful (ie, five) of copies to give out as awards to the five best band name suggestions. Michael Shilling will be the judge of this contest, and while the official publication date is January 9, we'll hold off judging until January 15, with winners announced on the 16th. This gives everybody a little more time to come up with that perfect name for a band, and Michael's reading in the area that night and I hope to be in the crowd listening.
So, enter by posting your band name in the comments section of this post. Do so before the clock shifts from January 14 to January 15 and during the day of the fifteenth, Michael will make his decisions. From there, I'll post the five winners here on the 16th and they can email their addresses to me to pass along to Back Bay Books.
I'd quote Bret Michaels from Rock of Love 3 - The Love Bus, but the only line I can remember from last night is "Choking is a bad thing," and that really doesn't apply. Or does it?
Update: Per the question below, let's say that each participant may suggest three band names, but let's not go higher than that.
LIfEUNDERGROUND
Posted by: sarah | January 05, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Tongue and Groove
Posted by: Matt Moorman | January 05, 2009 at 10:35 AM
band name - Queen Kicktoria
(this is also my roller derby name, so DON'T STEAL IT)
Posted by: Whitney | January 05, 2009 at 10:38 AM
split shift
Posted by: Michelle Vandepol | January 05, 2009 at 10:45 AM
St. Dymphna and the Five Lunatics.
Posted by: Kathleen Maher | January 05, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Quidado and the Piso Mojados
Posted by: dustin | January 05, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Precious Bodily Fluids.
Posted by: Pete | January 05, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Can I have more than one?
Terlingua Jesus
Virtual Fridays
Reverent Slim & the Fervor
Posted by: Cowtown Pattie | January 05, 2009 at 11:46 AM
The Freudian Slips
Red Light Special
Alabaster Twin
Posted by: harmony | January 05, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Scowcroft Brzezinski
Bette Davis Lies
The Market Corrections
Posted by: Mike Wendling | January 05, 2009 at 12:18 PM
An Undefinable Word
The End Of The World As We Know It
Sitting In The Dark
Posted by: thelittlefluffycat | January 05, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Sorry, this is addicting:
Merely Traitors
Engines of Lust
Foolish Idle Boys
Theory of War
Overtures of Peace
Posted by: Cowtown Pattie | January 05, 2009 at 01:20 PM
1. Gandhi and the Gatt Gunners
2. RU-486
3. The Geologists
Posted by: kyle | January 05, 2009 at 01:24 PM
Allegra and the Dust Mites
Done and Done
Constellation Class
Zipp and the Do Das
Posted by: Matt | January 05, 2009 at 03:36 PM
A cover showing kids shooting the finger arouses the wonder of why any publisher with the vaguest aspiration of reaching a broad audience, whose readership is predominately older, non-I Pod men and women, would pander so narrowly. You're not alone. Tin House, in announcing their Winter Issue of fiction and poetry touted in its first paragraph "letters from a shit-house friend." Like you, immune to good taste, they reached out to our youth, our future, where sadness and humor, reflection and irony are all relics of an ancient age. And maybe they are.
Posted by: Ward Jones | January 05, 2009 at 04:05 PM
Agnostic Mouse and the Rude Polka Dots
Posted by: Amanda | January 05, 2009 at 04:54 PM
Tea Wrecks
Posted by: Caryn | January 05, 2009 at 04:57 PM
Ward,
Taste matters aside, are you seriously suggesting that there's something wrong for a publisher (which by the way, "You're not alone," I am not the publisher of this title, only one that enjoyed reading it) to try to develop a younger audience? Once that is currently less broad than the older, non-I Pod, etc. which I'll read into as "more mature"?
If you're instead stating that pandering to a younger audience by giving them lesser quality works, and only offering them something of a deviant nature to garner their interest, well, I'd say I concur. I don't believe that's what Michael Shilling has done with this novel though. But, again, tastes and opinions will certainly vary from reader to reader.
My own tastes have a pretty wide range, which is probably obvious if you look at the books I reviewed in the end of the year posting. Many much quieter titles within that list as well as a few very loud ones. I do think for the most part though, that the louder ones still bring with them quite a few redeeming aspects.
Your statement, "they reached out to our youth," just seem to go beyond the worrying about pandering - which is what led to my original question. I personally think publishers need to find a way to develop that younger audience, for without doing so, they will not have an audience to publish for in 20 or 30 years.
I might just be reading too much into a sentence or two from your reaction to the post. It may be that we agree in spirit, and simply have different tastes. Based on the "huge" volume of readership around here, if that's the case you probably aren't alone.
Thanks for stopping by and offering your point of view - it's appreciated.
Posted by: Dan Wickett | January 05, 2009 at 05:17 PM
I would like to reply further to Ward Jones' inane comments. (Did he say inane? Yes. To quote Chris Rock: I said it.) Dan Wickett is writing a review of a book. A book, sir. He is not writing about the cover. For you to quite literally judge a book by its cover and then rail against the reviewer of said book for allegedly pandering to bad taste is absurd. Do I agree that Tin House may be too cool for its own good in using vulgarities to sell its press? Yes. But to compare what Tin House did with Dan's review of a novel which happens to have a cover you dont like, well sir, the absurdity is there for all to see. Take your dog and walk it home, Ward. You came off the fool in this exchange.
Posted by: steven gillis | January 05, 2009 at 05:52 PM
Woah, Gillis.
You sound "wickett" angry. Chill out.
Ward's entitled to his opinion, just like you are yours. Do you only want those in agreement to read and discuss on this blog? If I wanted cheerleaders, I'd go watch a football game.
I own an iPod, probably look like someone from the cover of this book, and don't really agree with what Ward is saying, but I'm glad that he did. I immediately honed in on the middle fingers too, and paused to consider it for a bit.
Covers ARE important. Call me shallow if you want, but I always do a little judging based on them. One of my favorite blogs is dedicated just to cover designs (Readerville Journal). I was seriously turned off by Keysey's ALL OVER cover. Still am. Took me a while to read it.
It's important to me, it's obviously important to Ward. It's important to a lot of us.
I think you owe him an apology for calling him a fool, as well as for just being poopy in this exchange.
Posted by: Oskar | January 06, 2009 at 02:05 AM
hey oskar - dont tell me to chill out man. am I not also entitled to my opinion? Ward baby would have been fine with his comment until - repeat UNTIL - he made it personal and said in no uncertain terms that dan (and I quote) was immune to good taste. Once that comment was made the gloves were off. Understand?
Posted by: steven gillis | January 06, 2009 at 05:34 AM
Oskar, you've got me curious - was there a particular aspect of Kesey's cover you didn't like, or the whole thing?
Posted by: Dan Wickett | January 06, 2009 at 06:12 AM
The Monotones
Posted by: Jim Nichols | January 06, 2009 at 07:49 AM
Jughead
Posted by: Vic Gagnon | January 06, 2009 at 09:34 AM
the close up of the cigs just didn't do it for me. i found it obnoxious, and not really justified by the content.
Posted by: Oskar | January 06, 2009 at 12:19 PM