A Glimpse Inside the Writing Cave

By Andrew E. Kaufman, author of psychological thrillers

It’s that time of year again.

No, I’m not talking about Fall or Thanksgiving or even Santa's much awaited visit (although, coincidentally, these things always happen around the same time). I’m talking about Deadline Fast Approaching Time. I’m talking about Deep Editing Time, or as I like to call it, That Whacky Time.

The Writing Cave in all it's disheveled beauty

The stakes are a bit higher this go-round, because, true to form, I’m running a little behind schedule (It’s a long story.You really don’t want to hear about it). That said, the Writing Cave isn’t exactly the Happiest Place on Earth, just a very messy one, with an occasional bottle rocket of angst firing through it. Guess you might say things are sort of rockin’ here, just not in a fun way—the other one.

Outside the Cave, it’s not looking a whole lot better. The dishes barely get done, we eat what we can scavenge or hunt, and we don’t come up for air unless absolutely necessary (translation: sleep deprivation, minimal human contact, personal grooming habits taken to a bare minimum). Hence, the reason why, while walking past a mirror the other day, I nearly scared the crap out of myself. Staring back was some crazed lunatic. We’re talking the whole nine yards: hair flying every-which-way, sweats and T-shirt beyond disheveled, and, oh… those sad, sleep-deprived eyes. The only thing missing was a sign that read: Will work for the return of my  life... and my sanity.

On the manuscript level, things appear a bit more hopeful, but only because the Cave administrator is a whip-cracking taskmaster (that’s me). Nothing is good enough, everything is out-of-whack, and the writing is in need of serious repair. While on some level, I know that none of this is actually across-the-board-true—on another, I’ve accepted that it’s part of my process. A crazy-making yet predictable process, yeah, but nevertheless, one that keeps me from bending to mediocrity. Well ... there's also the chocolate, the coffee, and of course, my fearless writing partner:

For evidence of my self-abuse, I present the following exhibits, where you will find a few excerpts from the manuscript:

A few minutes later, there are no more tears left to cry. <<You sure about that? 'Cuz so far in this chapter, I've counted ten. Bet he's got a few more>>

I gaze out, marveling at the miles of open-spaced freedom, a backdrop so stunning that it defies words. <<How about taking a stab at it anyway, since, like, that's kinda what we do here?>>

I look up toward the sky and see glistening stars against a velvety backdrop <<Brilliant. All we need now is a paper moon>>

I lean back and take in a cleansing breath <<He already took one of those in the last paragraph. I'm thinking he should be clean by now>> 

On the road, my mind begins lethargically wandering <<kinda like this sentence, huh?>> 

I smile at him, and he smiles back <<sure is a whole lot of smiling going on here. Did I miss the joke about unimpressive beat actions?>> 

The glimpses, although slow at first, were steadily building. The father I so deeply loved and admired, with whom I shared such immeasurable closeness, was gradually slipping away. << I'm thinking a few of those adverbs need to slip away, while we're at it.>> 

The point of this rather humiliating little display? If you think those words just flow onto the pages, think again. A lot has to come before that. Since I write thrillers, there is blood (but I try to keep that on the pages), then comes the sweat, followed by, of course, the tears.

And that, my friend, is how you make a book.

At least in my world.

The UnDone Book Paradigm Shift

Kimberly Hitchens is the founder and owner of Booknook.biz, an ebook production company that has produced books for over 1500 authors and imprints.

Hey, gang!  The full title of this post is actually "The UnDone Book Paradigm Shift and Why It Will Kill Your Authoring Career Faster Than Carbon Monoxide," but Google gets cranky about really, really, reeeeeeeeeaaaallly long blog post titles, so...it is as you see it.

Some of you may remember a blog post of mine from February, entitled "Amazon Ain't EBay, Folks," at which time I discussed the epidemic of "good-enough-itis."  That being, a sea change in the minds of people who are currently typists, who decide to become writers, and from there to authors...without stopping along the way to be absolutely sure that what they are publishing isn't merely "good enough," but is, rather, the very best that they can write. Today's blog post is about this also; it's about the phenomena of rewriting your books, after they've been published, which is part and parcel of this illness.

While I Was Minding My Own Business...

...playing hooky on a geek forum, I was involved in a discussion that started out as a request, from a new user, to "make light modifications onto mobi [A Kindle book] while [she was] reading them on [her] Paperwhite."  Now, mind you, this wasn't the author; this was simply a reader.

The discussion went back and forth a bit, with some of the geekier folks talking about how it would eat the battery, etc., even if it could be done, but the gist was, this was a reader who wanted to make changes to the author's original text.

The net result was that she was told that it couldn't, realistically, be done. However, another member piped up, saying:


"What would be good would be a mechanism (in the Kindle software) to report errors easily back to the publisher anonymously.

"Amazon could easily do this. Publishers wishing to join could provide Amazon with a 'typos' email address, and any reported typos could be automatically sent to the publisher with the exact location of the error.

"I would use it! Reporting typos to publishers is a tedious process. To be able to do it quickly and while reading would be splendid. And then if I ever re-read the book, the publisher will have (I hope) issued an update from the crowd-source proof-reading.  

"But I don't see that happening either, although it would be almost trivial for Amazon to implement."  [Italic emphasis added]

When I Picked Myself Up Off The Floor...

...after having nearly fainted, I decided to compose a reply.  Now, I know this poster, fairly well; he's an intelligent, thoughtful person.  I'm quite sure that any contributions he would make to a book would be of value.  However, after giving this some thought, here was my reply:


 "Oh, PLEASE, please, please, do not suggest that to Amazon, or even promote it as a good idea.

"Nothing against you, my friend; I'm sure your edits would be great. But as someone who often receives these little billet-doux from (authors who have received them from) Amazon, please don't encourage this. I can't tell you what it's like to get notices from Amazon to fix two 'typos' (one a British usage, BTW), in a 226K-word book. Or, to make changes because ONE letter is missing from a backlist book of 140K words, that was scanned and OCR'ed.

"I've ranted about this, privately, to Amazon, because it's the worst possible scenario--the dreadful books, those that are unreadable, receive no notices, no edits at all. Why? Because nobody reads them, thus the reading public doesn't submit errors, and Amazon doesn't (essentially) forward them. The amazing irony of the situation is that it's the popular books, the best books--the books that were edited in the first place, carefully constructed, formatted, etc.--that get read, and thus get these 'helpful hints' from readers. 

"So, the books that need it the most, don't get it at all, and the books that need it the least, do. Authors feel compelled to make the edits right away, and so end up remaking books more than once a year. And I'd point out: this never would have happened a mere 10 years ago; hell, not even five. The 'immediacy' and instant gratification of the digital age seem to imply that authors and publishers need to make those edits right away. Ten years ago, publishers would have taken any letters that they'd received about typos, stuck it in a file, and made the edits--if ever--when a second edition was published. Not even a second print run.

"While I see the advantages, to some publishers, of essentially 'crowd-sourcing' the proof-reading for a book, the change in the publishing world about 'instantly fixing typos' seems to me to be absurd, for, as I say, merely a decade ago nobody would have had their knickers in a twist about a few typos in a book. Now readers submit them as if they are the beta readers or proofreading personnel for a publisher--not the consumers. It's a paradigm shift, and I'm not sure it's a good one. 

"It's contributing to new phenomena in which the book is never done. We see books being updated, re-uploaded, authors imploring Amazon to send notices to the people who've already bought them--it's contributing to an environment in which Indy authors, particularly, have begun to think of Amazon as their critique group; that it's okay to put up a book that's not "really" done. It's not serving either the authors or the buyers/readers well. 

"I can see the point in sending notices to Amazon about a book that's rife with errors. But the types of notices we see, at least, are as I described above--1 or 2 errors in books of over 140-220K words. It's ridiculous. And as I said, I think it's contributing to a mindset that isn't serving either side of the equation very well, because when a reader buys a book, s/he should not be expected to contribute to the perfection of the book; it should be a complete work. That's what we thought ten years ago, and it's what we should think now. Amazon and Nook, Kobo, Diesel, et al, should not be Wattpad, and when an author/publisher puts a book up for sale, it should be polished, complete, and DONE."



Now, the poster to whom I was replying responded, saying he'd seen some good points my response, indicating his clearly superior intelligence (ha!), but I'm deadly serious about this.  At our shop, we see a plague of rewriting.  An absolute plague.  I mean, hell, we're easy--we'll take money to remake books all day.  But this mindset--that the book is never done--is a real detriment to authors.  An author should be working on her next book--not rewriting her last one.  Certainly not over and over.  

Nor should authors and publishers be falling prey to a mindset in which instant gratification needs to be indulged over a handful of typos.  It's simply not warranted.  We wouldn't be republishing a book in print, over those same typos, and it's flatly ridiculous to keep making changes of this nature just because a book is available digitally.  Why be held hostage to this?  A reader doesn't expect you to make changes today, if the book is in print, so why would you do it just because you are selling a book on Kindle?  

When that baby is done being birthed, authors need to stop trying to stuff it back into the womb.  If the baby is full term, great, give birth.  But if it isn't, stop pushing.  If all the labor is over, and the kid is out in the world, then get pregnant with your next.  Don't keep trying to re-birth that last book.  

So what's the message?  Deliver the very best book you can--but deliver it once. Not twice, or three times, or more.  Don't expect paying customers to be your beta readers, and don't rewrite the book once you've published it.  If you polished it enough before you published it in the first place, then you are doing nothing but distracting yourself from your real work, which is writing your next book.  If it's so awful that it warrants rewriting, you shouldn't have published it in the first place--and there's no excuse.  As discussed in my February blog post, there are tons of critique groups that are perfectly free, and plenty of sites like Goodreads and Wattpad upon which you can publish works-in-progress and get feedback.  

My blog post in short?  A book is not a Word document.  It's a BOOK. The faster you think of it as a book--as something that will be in print, immutable and stamped forever in history as your contribution to literature--the better an author you will be.

Got Junk?

By Andrew E. Kaufman, author of psychological thrillers

I’m in the middle of overhauling my kitchen. I didn’t mean to—it was an accident, but really, it was one that needed to happen.

It all started when I decided I needed a new fridge. One by one, the shelves had been busting until there was only one left, and I found myself cramming everything in at the bottom. Each time I’d open the door, food would come tumbling out onto the floor, and in some cases, even spilling. In addition to that, Old Fridge was starting to make weird noises, and I noticed the chill factor wasn’t exactly, well… chillin'. I knew it was junk, that I needed to replace it, but for some reason I tolerated the inconvenience until I no longer could.

Then I looked at Tired Old Dishwasher. I’d been tolerating him for quite some time as well; in fact, each time I ran a load, although the dishes were—in theory—clean, a lot of them still didn’t look so great, and I’d end up having to re-wash them by hand. I also couldn’t ignore the fact that Tired Old Dishwasher would look like hell next to Shiny New Fridge.

Then I glanced at Sad Old Stove and frowned at my shameful neglect.

Before I knew it, I found myself at the appliance store, swiping the card, biting the bullet, and kicking myself in the rear.

Once the new stuff arrived, I smiled. I was excited. Then I eyed my dishes, and again, I frowned—so many of them had outlived their usefulness, many with chips, and through the years I had added to the chaos by purchasing more, only to have them end up in much the same condition.

I opened my silverware drawer and through weary eyes, looked inside. The flatware was akin to what one might find in a college dorm, some mismatched, some bent, and some Just Plain Ugly.

How had I let all this go for so long? In the back of my mind, part of the reasoning was based on financial concerns. I could also blame my neglect on the fact that I’ve been working too hard, didn’t have time—but it only took One New Thing to make it painfully clear that the Avalanche of Neglect had started tumbling long before then.

So, why am I telling you this? For good reason. Bear with me.

I’m all about finding the lessons in life—I even see them in the smaller and seemingly mundane things. What was my lesson here? Junk accumulates, and while it’s often right in front of us, we sometimes fail to notice it until we’re forced to. Granted, some people are better at taking care of things than I, but on some level, and to some degree, I think we all do it.

The kitchen project happened to be running alongside my writing project—I was working on the new manuscript, and all at once the parallels were difficult to ignore. How much junk was hidden among the pages? How much of it had I failed to see? Granted, this is why we have editors—to help us see what we can’t, and that in itself is a strong indicator of why they’re so vital. But even so, as writers it’s ultimately our job to find as much junk as we can before the work falls into their hands—not doing so only makes the job that much harder, forcing them to focus their effort and energy on smaller things when they need to concentrate on the larger ones.

In many cases I’ve noticed that some authors even skip that step. They don’t bother hiring an editor (and sadly, in some cases, don’t even bother proofreading their work) before sending it out into the world, junk and all. Sometimes I’ll read entire passages—even chapters—and think, “Why is this even here? It’s junk.” I guess the reason is much the same as the one that caused me to allow my kitchen to fall into such sad shape. I neglected it.

And really, when it comes right down to it, ultimately, the responsibility is ours to not only see the junk, but also to get rid of it.

How about you? Got junk?

Getting Scroogled and Amazon Attacks, Part II

Kimberly Hitchens is the founder and owner of Booknook.biz, an ebook production company that has produced books for over 1,000 authors and imprints with over 2,000 produced books up on Amazon and other retailers.

Hi, Gang!  We interrupt this incredibly insightful blog on Amazon's Persnickety Punctiliousness, Part II, to talk about Being Scroogled.

Are You Getting Scroogled?

For anyone that hasn't seen the ads, or the kerfuffle on the Net, Microsoft has made a point of letting GMail or Googlemail users know that they are being "Scroogled" by Google.  What's Scroogling, besides something that sounds like Big Booty Sex?  Being Scroogled is what happens when you use your GMail account and email someone--anyone.  If you email someone, say, Auntie Flo, telling her that you're shopping for a car, you might find it a bit startling that suddenly, everywhere you go, you see GoogleAds for cars and car websites.  Is Google prescient?  No, they're not:  they're reading your email.

"We don’t need you to type at all. We know where you are, with your permission; we know where you’ve been, with your permission; we can more or less know what you’re thinking about."
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt at the The Atlantic Washington Ideas Forum in 2010

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt on Consumer Privacy

What did he say?  Seriously?

Yup:  Google is reading your email.  You can see Microsoft's discussion about it, here:  CLICK HERE.  Oddly enough, and maybe it's because it's Google, I haven't seen the big outcry that was heard 'round the Net when people had their knickers in a twist about Facebook invading their privacy.  Frankly, to me, what you say on Facebook is public, and if that "privacy" gets invaded, it's the same thing as the goodies from a criminal endeavor lying about in plain sight.  But reading my email?  I don't care if it's bots or a program--I don't want Google or anyone else reading my damn email.  I wondered why, recently, I was seeing Google ads for the very same project management system I am already using at Booknook.biz; now I know.  I'd answered a GoogleMail question I'd received, asking about project management systems, and I'd said that I use TeamworksPM.  Now, everywhere I go--everywhere--I see ads for this self-same system.  To say it's annoying doesn't do it justice.

What Happened to My Privacy?

But the bigger issue is:  Google, get out of my damn email. In a day and age in which privacy is ever-dearer and harder to find, I don't want someone, mechanical or otherwise, poking around in my email skivvies.  I mean, seriously:  if I became angry and referred to someone as a "dildo" in an email (not saying it's happened, but, hey, I'm human), I shudder to think at what ads I might be seeing afterwards.

###

 

Amazon Strikes Again!

 

Meanwhile, back at Booknook.biz:  you may recall, faithful readers (ha!), that sometime ago, I blogged about "Amazon's Punctuation Punctiliousness," referring to it as "persnickety."  Well, we've had another event at Booknook.biz that has simply reinforced my irritation at what seems to be the unequal treatment of better-selling authors with regard to mere typos.  Now, I'm as keen for clean books as the next guy (maybe not as much as Jodie, but, hey, I'm a bookmaker, not an Editor), but anyone who believes that any book out there is "perfect" is deluding themselves.  So, what happened?

 

Believe it or not, today we received a "Kindle Quality Notice" ("KQN") for one of our top author clients, a bestseller on several continents with a large list of books.  What for, you may ask?  The book in question is a backlist title, and was scanned, OCR'ed, etc., so as scanning causes errors it's not that surprising.  The KQN was for TWO--count 'em, TWO--"typos."  Both were mere spacing errors, where the scan created a slight amount of space between the first letter of a word and the rest.  Not quite a full space--but a small gap.  TWO errors. Now, mind you, this is out of a book that has 220,015 words.  Yes, Two Hundred Twenty-Two Thousand and Fifteen words.  In print, 800 lovely lusty pages. 

 

I'm not a math whiz, but I make that an error rate of 0.00001.  Yes--one one-millionth.  That's the error rate; one one-millionth of 1 percent.  I wrote to Amazon again, as I do on almost every KQN that comes in (invariably for the  best-selling authors, as I noted back in July of last year), and asked them once more to establish a clearer and better threshold--something like, 1 word out of every 10,000 can have an error, or whatever they think is a reasonable threshold--and to apply it evenly across the board, to all authors and publishers--not just the best ones.  It's grossly unfair for people who have already paid good money for scanning, OCR, proofreading, cover design, book creation, etc., to get the short end of the stick, simply because they are the ones that get read, and whose readers report errata. 

 

So:  Why Not Fix Print, Then, Too?

 

I noted that they wouldn't dream of asking someone in print to "fix" their book--why ask those who've submitted professionally-created ebooks?  I understand their mindset; the bulk of their self-published authors type up a Word file and submit that, so fixing it isn't that big of a deal.  But what about the other thousands of authors who paid someone, just as they would have paid for a print book?  What about authors who have both up?  Why is it always the ebook that gets the Quality Notice?  Why the double-standard, both about curation and ebooks versus print?  In this day and age, much of what's sold in "print" on Amazon is made at Createspace or other POD houses--so why not make print authors "fix" their books, too? 

 

And I'd really love, love, love to know if KQN's get sent to Random House and the other legacy publishers.  I think that while Amazon certainly has every right to seek the highest-quality content, they need to start curation at a much more fundamental level.  If they're not going to do anything about the Broken Bones of the world (see my July post), then really, they need to stop telling first-rate authors, the bread-and-butter of Amazon's world, to fix books that have an error rate of one one-millionth of a percent.  That's just ridiculous.  Amazon, c'mon, think about this, will you? 



This is Hitch, over and out, until next time.

 ###

Chatting with Thriller Authors Joe Moore and Lynn Sholes, Pt. II

Interview by Jodie Renner of the co-authors of The Blade and other thrillers.

See yesterday's Part I – The Challenges and Rewards of Co-Authoring a Novel.                                  

Part II – HONING YOUR CRAFT and INDIE PUBLISHING

JR: Learning to write compelling fiction of the caliber you two accomplish must take years of study and practice – as well as talent, of course! Do either of you ever go back and read your earliest writings?  What’s your reaction?

Lynn: Yuck. Yes. When I first decided to take writing seriously, I wrote a book called TALISMAN ROSE, mostly to see if I could sustain about 100,000 words. I wrote it on a typewriter, which convinced me to get a computer and printer. Well, I discovered that I could write my way through 100,000 words. But that manuscript rests in a box I never intend to show anyone, high in the closet. Every time I write a book, I learn something new. Sometimes I look back in horror and slap my forehead asking myself, Did you really do that?

JR: Did you have any mentors who helped you learn your craft?

Lynn: Hundreds.  Let me explain. One day my husband commented on how many books I have on shelves and suggested I get rid of some of them.  I asked him to follow me, and I led him out to the garage and asked him to look at all the stuff (probably called it junk) he had—all the drills and wrenches, saws, screwdrivers, etc. and politely suggested that he clear out some of that. He was mortified. “But those are my tools,” he said. I answered, “Exactly. That’s what my books are to me. My tools.” There are tons of times I have had a scene in my head but have had no personal experience related to what I wanted to write—like a fistfight, or a car chase, or holding someone I loved in my arms as they bled out and died.  That’s when I go to my shelves and see how other authors handled that kind of scene.  I study the passages for sentence structure, rhythm, word choice, punctuation—all things related to the craft the author used.  I read as many as I can find.  That builds my repertoire that I pick and choose from when I write that scene I had in my head.  Essentially, I have the cream of the crop writers as my mentors and they are available 24/7.

JR: Back to your most recent thriller, THE BLADE – as I was editing it, I could really visualize it as a box-office hit movie. As I mentioned in Part I, I really loved your characters Maxine Decker and Kenny Gates. And Reverend Applewhite was so creepy! If it was made into a movie, who would you choose to play Maxine, Kenny and Applewhite?

Joe: I see Naomi Watts as Maxine, Jude Law as Kenny, and Brian Cox as Applewhite.
Lynn: Maxine –Julianna Moore, Kenny – Hugh Jackman, Applewhite – Tommy Lee Jones or William H. Macy?

JR: You two have published a lot of novels! And they’re selling very well. Do you have any advice you’d give to writers trying to break into the industry?

Joe: There are no shortcuts. No silver bullets. No secret handshakes. Just write the best book you can and once you’re done, find an experienced freelance editor who specializes in your genre, like Jodie Renner, to go over it with a fine-toothed comb while you start planning the next one.

JR: Thanks, Joe! And I agree about the importance of finding an editor who specializes in your genre. A nonfiction editor or someone who doesn’t even read your genre for pleasure is not a good choice to help you fine-tune and polish your novel to captivate readers and garner great reviews.

JR: Joe, as you mentioned in your recent post on The Kill Zone blog, this is your first venture into indie publishing. Joe and Lynn, what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of going the indie route? Do you find that authors are doing more and more of the work that publishers used to do?

Joe: With the advent of indie publishing, writers have become a self-contained business and must handle most or all of the facets of sales and marketing. It takes away from writing time, but it’s also liberating and fulfilling. And with publishing The Blade ourselves, we enjoyed the direct contact and ongoing back-and-forth communication with you as our editor.

Lynn: I have found that more is expected from writers now than when my first book came out in 1991, especially in the marketing and promotion arenas. But the entire publishing industry has gone through tremendous change.

JR: And it’s continuing to change. I find more and more of my clients are choosing to publish their novels themselves, and are enjoying the control they have over the process – not to mention more frequent payments! Personally, I love that I can go in and update my e-books on Amazon-Kindle, and in 12 hours or less, the new version is up there for sale!

Thanks for dropping by Crime Fiction Collective, Lynn and Joe. Readers are in for a real treat with this fast-paced roller-coaster ride! Kudos to you both on collaborating together to create a stellar novel! I enjoyed playing a small part in the final editing.

And I can’t wait to see what you two come up with next…

Readers and writers - Do you have any questions for Lynn and Joe?
 

Lynn Sholes & Joe Moore are the international bestselling authors of THE GRAIL CONSPIRACY (#1 Amazon Kindle bestseller), THE LAST SECRET, THE HADES PROJECT, THE 731 LEGACY, THE PHOENIX APOSTLES (#1 Amazon Kindle bestseller), and their latest, THE BLADE. Their thrillers have been translated into 24 languages including Chinese, Russian and Greek. Visit them at: http://www.sholesmoore.com.

 

Jodie Renner is a freelance fiction editor specializing in thrillers and other crime fiction, and she also writes craft-of-fiction articles and books. Jodie’s website: www.JodieRennerEditing.com. Jodie’s books: Writing a Killer Thriller and Style that Sizzles & Pacing for Power.

 

Amazon Ain't eBay, folks!

By:  Kimberly Hitchens is the founder and owner of Booknook.biz, an ebook production company that has produced books for over 1000 authors and imprints.

Hi, gang!  This week, a look at what forms our thinking about various aspects of authorship, and whether that's a good thing or bad.

The Tao of eBay

After four+ years of making books, and seeing the ebook "gold rush" that has ensued since the first Kindle millionaire, I have been constantly surprised by something that seems to pop up often, on the Kindle forums. There is a pervasive theme of ill-prepared books being considered, by their creators, as "good enough."  You've read me say it here before:  it's the "The World is my critique group" mentality, when manuscripts are  published to Amazon before they are ready. 

 What does that even mean? Why is work that has not been proofed, edited, or even properly written in the first place, "good enough?" This has driven me nuts for the past eighteen months, since I started to really note the onset of "good-enough-itis," as I call it. Assuming that the average author has read a number of books, may have taken some creative writing courses, etc., how does this occur?

After giving it a lot of brainpower (okay, at least 5 minutes), I had a startling thought—had the hopeful authors of self-publishing confused Amazon with eBay?  Or, perhaps that their thinking had been formed by "the Tao of Ebay."

Beanie Babies and Bedroom Sets

After all, the Internet grew up not with Amazon, or eBooks, but with garage sales; with the gold mine that was created by the truism (the "Tao of eBay") that one man's trash was another man's treasure. Isn't that how the monolithic billion-dollar empire called eBay came into being? On the back of Beanie Babies? Essentially, someone's leftovers? And if we disregard eBay—and say that Beanie Babies were collectibles, not leftovers—it's hard to overlook Craigslist, which surely survived and thrived on detritus. What person living, under the age of ninety, hasn't bought something that they found on Craigslist? Hell, I once renovated an entire house's countertops with granite slabs I bone-yarded on Craigslist, being sold by a guy going out of business.  

Maybe this, then, is the source of the virus of "good enough." If we are all accustomed to listing our garage-sale items for sale online, maybe there are some hopeful writers that think that putting second-hand (second-class) writing on sale is also the way to go.

But a new book is not, by definition, second-hand. While on eBay, a seller is rated, transaction by transaction, on anywhere from one to tens of thousands of item sales, an author on Amazon (or Barnes and Noble, iBooks, Smashwords or Wattpad, etc.), is rated by his or her book. Today's book; the book most recently published; the book of the NOW.  Granted, there will be dozens or hundreds or thousands of buyers/readers, and some percentage of those will leave reviews, but if we have learned anything over the past few years, it is that people are more likely to leave reviews when they do not like a book, or feel that they've been ripped off, than they are if they are simply satisfied with their purchase.

I wonder if this "garage-sale" mindset has influenced some of the writers I see on the KDP Forums, who say "well, I couldn't afford an editor, so I've published it, and if it sells a lot, then I'll pay for an editor to edit it."  Or, "[s]ee, this is my first book, so, I've done as much as I can, I just thought I'd throw it up there and see what happens."   It reminds me strongly of things I've actually said--about eBay, Craigslist and garage-sale items.  "Well, I don't think that old bike of Bob's will sell, but I'll just throw it up there and see if I get any takers."  And, for garage sale items, gifts you can't regift, etc., that's not a bad idea at all, because your unwanted goods may very well be someone else's treasure.

But the problem is, if an item like Bob's old bike doesn't sell, that failure won't taint my life as an eBay seller forever.  My "experiment" simply doesn't sell.  Same thing at a Garage Sale, or a Craigslist ad.  But if you slap up a book before it's ready on Amazon, and it does poorly--or worse, gets scathing reviews because it was born before its time, that can taint your life as an author forever, particularly if you have more books already up for sale, or have some ready-to-go.  Sure, you can change your nom-de-plume (and many have), but if you have a perfectly good name of your own to use, or if you really love that nom-de-plume you picked out, why abandon it in the dust? 

Goodreads, Wattpad and Other Critters

It seems that many writers today eschew the idea of writing buddies, writer's classes and writing/critique groups, as I've noted here before, using the readers of Amazon as their "critique group."  I've never wrapped my head around that--I'd rather be humiliated in a small group than by dozens of strangers, for the eyes of possibly millions of people--but then I'm chicken that way.  ;-)  Maybe the feedback of people that they can't see, or don't have to see again, is somehow more palatable.

If that's the case, then, I'd highly recommend trying other platforms, to get a sense of whether your book is ready, before you make the big step of hitting the "publish" button.  Goodreads seems to have a lively and thriving "Creative Writing" community that gives near-instant feedback on sample chapters (or your whole book, if you're feeling brave!).  Wattpad, a free site, allows you to post almost anything for feedback.  Wattpad is targeted at a younger audience--it has a lot of teens, but if you're writing YA, it's absolutely spot-on for your demographic.  There are numerous online critique groups or Writer's Forums; I particularly like Holly Lisle's Writer's Bootcamps, which is for folks serious about becoming published, successful authors, and is moderated.  And, of course, NO list of critique forums would be complete without The Critters Workshop, which is legendary.  Scribd, I've personally found not that great...it seems to attract people looking for philosophical or political debate more than readers of genre fiction, if that's your "cuppa," as they say.  But I'm sure that there are dozens more--if you leave a comment, leave a spot for up-and-comers to post their work for excellent feedback! 

So, anyway:  above and beyond Mom and Dad, and your friends, give your manuscript a whirl at one of these places first.  You may have to shop a bit, to find a good fit--but the  results are quite worth it.  LJ knows more about Goodreads than I; I'm so busy at the shop, I don't get much of a chance to drop in over there, but I have seen some pretty damn fine creative writing in progress, and I've noted that some authors, like the fellow who wrote the very successful (in terms of fans and downloads and feedback) Harry Potter fanfiction books (the James Potter books) went on to do extremely well with his writing career, due to the fan-base he built, almost solely on Goodreads, which translated to his "for-sale" books at Amazon, etc. 

And isn't that what we all want?  For you, as an author, to do GREAT?  You betcha.

###

For a total HOOT this week:  http://lousybookcovers.tumblr.com/ 

This is a DO NOT MISS.  It's the "CakeWrecks" of BookCovers.

I now visit it daily, for my daily grin, or even LOL.  Seriously, don't miss it.  I'll post other "bad cover" outlets on my next visit!

Done Is Better Than Perfect

by L.J. Sellers, author of provocative mysteries & thrillers

I recently read this Facebook post, which had dozens of Likes: A little advice, writers. Don't think you have to put a whole lot of words on paper every day. What I find is a few words today will encourage more tomorrow. The point is for those few to be brilliant.

I respectfully disagree… that is, if you want to make a living as novelist, or least sell moderately well. If you're writing just for your own pleasure, you can do whatever you want. But striving for a few brilliant words every day will not produce a finished novel, let alone a body of work.

I realize many writers have full-time jobs and kids at home to take care of. I did too, for most of my writing career. But I found that setting aside blocks of time in which I could write whole scenes for chapters worked better for me than trying to write a little something every day.

And brilliance? Why even think about it? Most readers aren't looking for brilliance; they just want a good story with interesting characters. So laboring over every word and every sentence is too paralyzing. If you want to produce something for people to read, then you have to finish the story.

Done is always better than perfect.

I'm not implying that I don't care about quality or craftsmanship. I definitely do. In the second, third, and fourth drafts, I polish my prose as much as I can. But I don’t worry about producing beautiful turns of phrase or poetic descriptions. As Elmore Leonard says, "If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it."

In my prose, I strive for clarity, readability, and rhythm. In my word count, I strive for consistent daily production while I write the first draft. Getting the whole story down in a short period of time is my goal—because it works. The longer it takes to write the first draft, the more I struggle with keeping the whole story in my head and making the timing work out.

I've known people who spent five or ten years writing the same novel and never finishing it. That must be purposeful. They must not want to finish because finishing means letting someone read it. And that’s scary. I understand.

But I want people to read my stories, and I don't care if no one ever calls my writing brilliant.

The woman who wrote the post may have thought she was being encouraging to authors. But telling writers to strive for a few brilliant words every day is bad advice on both levels… unless she was trying to thin out the market competition.

What do you think of that advice? What works to keep you motivated?

The Mystery of the Missing Rejection Letter

By:  Kimberly Hitchens is the founder and owner of Booknook.biz, an ebook production company that has produced books for over 1,000 authors and imprints.

As some of you know, I spend a fair amount of time at the Amazon KDP (Kindle Digital Platform) author's forums, a task I was requested to do by KDP personnel when our company apotheosed to the Amazon Professional Converter's List.  Even though that was a few years back, I still visit the forum and provide helpful hints to DIY publishers, and a recurring thread has led me to this post.

Two of the most common posts at the KDP, in the General Questions forum, are variants of these: 

"Can you please take a look at my book listing here (insert link), and tell me what you think?" or, "OMG, I received a bad review!  I've read and re-read my book, and this is obviously a malicious review, this person is out to get me, and I want everyone here to agree that this is clearly evil."

Now, this inevitably leads to an unhappy author, as people will unfortunately tell him/her exactly what they think.  In the case of the former, often, the author has never asked a stranger what they thought of her novel--this is the first time that someone who isn't near and dear to them has viewed it.  Almost inevitably, when I view the "Look Inside" for someone in this category (of unaudited books) I wince.  It's usually pretty awful. 

In the case of the latter (malicious review complaint), another unhappy series of occurrences happens in rapid sequence, which usually inflames the situation.

When an author on the KDP posts that s/he has received a bad review, you can rely upon the instantaneous angry reaction from his fellow authors.  A mob mentality arrives faster than an ambulance to an accident scene, and the poor upset author is urged to report the malfeasant for "malicious reviewing."  Unfortunately, they almost always follow this advice and try to a) get the review removed, and b) "report" the reviewer for malicious reviewing.  It's enough to put me right off reviewing books, I can tell you that for nothing.

Now, I recently wondered why this happens.  I mean, I get it; a person's feelings are hurt, they're angry, and they want revenge/payback/gratification that they're right, and proof of their theory that the reviewer is secretly their 8th-Grade frenemy Charlotte who's come back to haunt them.  But--why does this happen?  I don't remember, even a mere 10 years ago, this type of crushed reaction to a simple "bad review." 

The Rejection Rumba

Then it dawned on me--we're now talking about an entire generation of authors who've never known a rejection letter.  I mean, think about this seriously:  authors who've never thrown a manuscript over the transom; who've never received a rejection letter.  Who've never been ignored, or turned down by, an Agent.  They've determined to write and  publish a book, and they do so.  Isn't the phrase itself, "author who's never received a rejection letter" oxymoronic?  Isn't it practically a fantastical creature?  When this struck me, I wrote a  post on the KDP, with words to this effect (the KDP "upgrade" seems to have nuked older entries, so I can't find what I originally wrote):

There was a time when a rejection letter was a rite of passage for any writer.  Everybody had them; everyone you know who wrote anything had them.  Some took them hard; some took them apparently lightly; but a rejection letter was always a cause for an authorial get-together, usually over a bottle of booze with ever-declining levels, during which everyone commiserated with you and diligently searched the rejection letter word-by-word, poring* over it, seeking any tiny pearl, any wording or phrasing that led you to believe that the Acquistions Editor didn't think that you were a completely hopeless loser.  Usually (in private), there might be tears.  Maybe the now-empty bottle would meet a hapless wall.  And always, a hangover ensued**.  But then life would go on; you'd curse the tasteless acquisitions editor, who after all, turned out to be a cretin (obviously); and you'd start writing again.  Maybe you'd rewrite bits of what you'd submitted; maybe you would start on something new while you submitted and resubmitted the rejected manuscript...but you'd keep writing.  And the cycle would repeat. 

And if it didn't...if you couldn't take the rejection letters...you'd leave the game. 

And that, I believe, is the difference.  The difference in why so many new authors, self-published through the KDP (or any other platform) never develop the traditional Rhino Hide (Of the genus Nauagahyde) formerly required for a writer to truly make it in the world.  They've never undergone the Rite of the Rejection Letter, or the abusive snark of an overworked Agent.  Nor have they, it seems, in ever-increasing numbers, used critique groups, editors, proofreaders, manuscript assessment services (caveat emptor), writing partners, or even beta readers that aren't their family or their best friends.  Like far too many politicians, they've only developed synchophantic "readers" of their work.  No one ever tells them what they don't want to hear. 

The Planet is My Critique Group

Thus, when they unwittingly decide to use the entire English-speaking portion of the planet as their critique group (Amazon, Barnes & Noble), they're devastated to learn what they should have learned in a Creative Writing 101 class, a good writing course, or simply by using a rotten human as a sounding board.  When I've mentioned this to those who've inquired, they reply that "critique groups are mean," and thus they won't use them.  Is it truly better, I must wonder, to use the public as a critique group?  How is that less painful?  How can they possibly be prepared for the reality of reviews, when they've never even had a critique?  Is there greater anonymity in being blasted with scathing reviews than suffering the slings and arrows of a writing partner or class or group?

I'm not sure when this happened.  I don't know when the tide turned, and people who'd always wanted to write a book simply sat down and wrote one, without what used to be "de rigueur" for a published work.  But turned it has.  If you spend a week of time glancing at the books promoted/asked about on the KDP, that much is clear. 

But now, in addition to the "kindness of strangers" known as the Amazon review, we also have Amazon itself playing the game, sending ever-more-frequent takedown letters to authors who have even the slightest of typos--never mind unreadably bad writing--in their books.  How will this affect these selfsame authors, if at all?

I'm left to wonder.  I wonder if reviewing, given the recent scandals and what I see daily on the KDP as near-hysteria over bad ones, will be eliminated from Amazon.  I wonder if the Customer Service burden of investigating every reported "malicious review" will cost Amazon so much money, and so much brain-damage, that they'll decide it's not worth it--either self-publishing or reviews. I wonder if the flagrant disregard of any type of pre-publication critique means that these lower-quality books will create a permanent underclass of books that tars Indies with the same brush. 

I hope not.

# # # 

* (Yes, I mean poring, not pouring.)
** Now I eat Haagen-Dazs, no demon rum for this girl, with far too many Irish ancestors.  ;-)