Part 2: Why Indie Authors Will Break Traditional Publishers

This post, from Brad Vertrees, originally appeared on his Brad’s Reader site on 12/9/09 and is reprinted here in its entirety with his permission. You can read Part 1 here.

Independent ebook websites like Smashwords and Feedbooks are giving indie authors an unprecedented advantage by letting these authors distribute their work without the gatekeeper of traditional publishers. While the digital domain has not been perfected, indie authors are coming out of hiding and setting their writing free into the world.

Authors CaRIAAn Learn From Music Industry

For a long time large record labels controlled the music industry. If your band didn’t have a contract with a record label, your music career wasn’t going anywhere. But as the internet began to spread and music became digitized, the record labels fought these new distribution methods while musicians embraced the new technology.

The result? Bands have little need for large record labels today because they can do everything on their own thanks to the technology that’s available. Over the last decade the record labels have become less relevant and the RIAA has resorted to suing their own customers for alleged copyright infringement. Indie authors are following in the same footsteps as these bands who gave the virtual finger to the record labels.

I think the trend will continue and we’ll see more authors taking the indie route. There is still a stigma to self-publishing, but the stigma is slowly dying as self-publishing  becomes more mainstream and accepted. It helps that a lot of bestselling authors today self-published their book before landing a publishing contract. My favorite example is Lisa Genova’s book  Still Alice (aff link), which had been rejected by numerous publishers until she sold it on her own.

Large publishing houses still have one advantage

I will give credit where credit is due. Publishers do have the advantage of a vast distribution network and can get books onto the shelves of chain bookstores (i.e. Barnes & Noble and Borders) with ease. They have the infrastructure and network in place to move a lot of books all over the world.

To further complicate things for indie authors, however, the large bookstores usually won’t consider stocking a self-published book for one reason: The books can’t be returned if it doesn’t sell. This must-be-returnable policy has long been a controversial issue among publishers and authors alike, and a pain in the side for all indie authors. Again, this gives the large publishing houses an advantage because of agreements with the book chains and their large distribution network.

And as much as they have been criticized for putting the indie bookstores out of business, the large chain booksellers are vital for new releases and any author who wants to make the bestseller list cannot survive without the likes of Barnes & Noble. This might be a necessary evil, but it certainly doesn’t help indie authors.

A light at the end of the tunnel

I think it’s fair to say that not all indie authors have aspirations of making the bestseller list. Look at some of the titles on the list at any given time – a lot of those books are popular because they appeal to large audiences, meaning the writing can be mediocre at best. A good example is Dan Brown’s most recent book The Lost Symbol. Many around the web called Brown a hack and deeply criticized his writing.

Indie authors want to be independent for a reason. They want to write something unique, that probably won’t appeal to the masses. For indie authors, it’s not about reaching the largest possible audience, it’s more about reaching an eclectic group of readers that can truly appreciate a book or short story that is different than what you find in mainstream literature.

My own goal as a writer is not to reach the bestseller list, and not even to land a contract with a large publishing house. My goal is to write what I want to write and find a niche audience to cater to. I also want to control my own career and not be bound by a contract that takes away even the copyrights to my own writing.

Even the distribution advantage that traditional publishers have is being minimized. The internet is becoming the great equalizer and letting authors publish their works, many with great success, in digital format without the need for a large expensive distribution network. And if those indie authors want to release their novels in print, they can do so easily by self-publishing their books and selling them on their own via their author website/blog.

Indie authors becoming a formidable foe

In conclusion, traditional publishers have a lot to fear from indie authors. Their role as gatekeepers to the collective literary canon is being chipped away at with great speed. These publishers are decreasing the number of new authors they sign, and giving these new authors only minimal marketing support. They are throwing most of their money behind the big-name popular authors who can rake in millions of dollars.

Authors now have a choice when publishing their work. They can go the traditional route or the indie route. What real advantage does the traditional route to publishing offer?

Photo Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fcb// CC BY 2.0

Death and Taxes

Ah yes, the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. While I hate to harsh anyone’s holiday season mellow, this is something to which we U.S.-taxpaying authors need to pay attention, especially at this time of year.

Let me open by saying I am not a tax professional and nothing in this [post] should be construed as professional tax advice. For that, you must consult a professional tax preparer.

I just want to share some information and get my readers thinking about tax issues now, before the end of the year, when there’s still a possibility of making some changes to alter your tax situation and when the deadline for paying your personal income tax is still about four months off.


Is Your Royalty Income Being Reported to Tax Authorities?

By U.S. tax law, as of this writing (see Guide to Information Returns section), if you’ve earned $600 or more in income in a given tax year from a given source (e.g., employer, Createspace, Lulu, Amazon), the company or person who paid you that money must report it to state and federal tax authorities so the authorities can tax it as income. The minimum threshold for reporting at the state level may vary from state to state, so that’s something you’ll need to look up for your specific state of residence, and/or the state in which you do business as an author.

At the federal (IRS) level, if the amount of money from a given source is less than $600, neither you nor the payor MUST report it to taxation authorities, but those authorities prefer that ALL income is reported regardless of the amount. Again, we’re talking "as of this writing"; since tax regulations are subject to change, this is something you’ll need to verify on the IRS site or with a tax preparation professional if you’re reading this post months after it was published.


Amazon, Createspace & Booksurge Reporting Policies: Here’s The Scoop

Based on my experience with Amazon and Createspace in prior years, I’ve previously stated that neither entity will report the proceeds of your book sales on the Amazon or Createspace site(s) unless you’ve earned at least $600. Since Booksurge is now merged with Createspace, and Amazon has stepped up other reporting requirements and seems to be generally getting its federal reporting ducks in a row, I decided I should look into the matter once again before the end of the year.

I just spoke to a Createspace representative, and an Amazon representative, regarding their IRS reporting policies. If you sell your books on the Createspace site or on Amazon’s U.S. site, this information is applicable to you. If you sell through other outlets, such as the Lulu store, or another bookseller, you will need to contact that outlet directly to get clarification on their tax reporting policies. Here’s what I was told:

Amazon and Createspace (which now includes Booksurge) will both report ALL your earnings on book sales through their online stores to the IRS as income, regardless of whether you meet the $600 minimum reporting threshold or not. They are within their rights to do this, and the IRS prefers that payors report ALL payee income regardless of the amount, so don’t go hating on them for it. They will report this income on a Form 1099, also known as 1099-misc (for miscellaneous income). 1099 income is income that has not had any tax withheld, so you must be prepared to pay tax on this income when you report it on your annual tax return (both state and federal).


What If They’ve Reported Less Than $600?

There’s a bit of a wrinkle here though, in that if the income shown on a given 1099 is less than $600, as of this writing IRS rules don’t require you to report it on your tax return. This puts anyone with a 1099 form for less than $600 in a tax quandary. Theoretically, by law, you are not required to report it. But the tax authorities will learn about it when they get their copies of the 1099. You have two options here: either report the income on your return and pay the income tax on it (the safest, most conservative route), or consult a tax preparer for further, expert guidance.

I’ve always reported all my 1099 income, regardless of the amount, because I’m terrified of getting into trouble with the IRS and when in doubt where such matters are concerned, I always go the most conservative route. I may very well be paying taxes I don’t have to, but this is just the way I’ve chosen to handle things. In discussing the matter with my CPA, he’s agreed with me that while I’m not strictly required to report the income on a 1099 if it’s less than $600, doing so helps to validate any write-offs I wish to take for writing-related activity in a given year.


Why Report A 1099 That Shows Less Than $600?

If you’ve got one or more 1099s that each show something less than $600 and opt not to report any of them on your tax return, but you’re attempting to write off expenses related to your authorial activities, this may well raise a red flag in the tax authorities’ analyses because you’re writing off expenses without reporting any income. This makes it harder for you to prove you’re running a legitimate business and are entitled to expense write-offs, and generally makes you look suspicious in the eyes of tax authorities. Red flags can lead them take a closer look at your return. And at your prior returns. This is why I choose to report everything, but your tax preparer may advise you to handle your situation differently.


Improving Your 2009 Tax Picture

As to the matter of changing your tax situation before the end of the year, there are two major things to think about here: maximizing your legitimate expense claims, and minimizing your reportable income (where it’s both possible and legal to do so).


Maximize Expenses

Maximizing your legitimate expense claims just means that if you’re intending to invest in some goods or services that constitute legitimate tax writeoffs for you as an author (check with the IRS or a tax preparer for guidance on what constitutes a legitimate tax writeoff), doing so before the end of the year will increase your reportable expenses, thereby decreasing your net income and the tax you must pay on that income.

So if you plan to hire a professional editor, buy more promo copies of your book, book travel or pay registration fees for a writer’s event you’ll be attending next year (like the Author Workshop Cruise – shameless plug!), or something similar in the near future, you might want to consider paying for those things by December 31 in order to include the expenses in your 2009 tax return. It’s generally a good idea to book travel and pay event registration fees as early as possible anyway, since doing so usually gets you a discounted rate.


Minimize Income

Options for legally, legitimately minimizing your reportable royalty income are not as numerous, as you don’t have total control over how many people buy your books or when. However, you do have some degree of control, at least where promotion and marketing campaigns are concerned.

If you’ve been planning a big launch for new book, or a renewed promo push for an existing book, delaying your plans till after January 1 will put all the income you earn as a result of such activity solidly into your 2010 tax year. Of course, you must balance the desirability of minimizing your 2009 reportable income against the desirability of jumping on the holiday shopping gravy train at a time when you know lots of people are doing lots of shopping. If it looks to you like you can sell a lot more copies before December 31 than after, you may elect to just take the income tax hit.

Also, if you’re in a position to receive any other author-related income (e.g., advance on a book or manuscript you’ve sold to a publisher, speaker fees, etc.), if you can afford it, you may want to consider asking if the payor can wait till after January 1 to cut those checks.

Bottom line: be prepared, plan ahead, and when in doubt, consult a tax pro.


This is a cross-posting from April L. Hamilton’s Indie Author Blog.

#fridayflash: Untitled

As per usual, I’ve been struck with inspiration for a new novel at a time when I have a plate that’s already filled to overflowing. I’ve made some notes and will probably steal an hour here and there wherever possible to keep working on it in the months to come. It’s a crime drama, something I’ve never attempted before, but who can argue with the muse? Here’s the opening scene.

 

The tableau of the dead girl lying on her side in the bed of the truck was beautiful.

Loosely curled into a fetal position, her head resting on her backpack and her glorious, sable mane fanned out behind her on the irregular oval of dark red that could just as easily have been a satin sheet as blood, the girl bore a countenance of peaceful, contented sleep. The clear, pale skin of her face took on a translucence in the dawning light, and a silvery film of mist clung to the cardigan and skirt of her immaculate school uniform. Her small purse, cell phone, iPod and car keys, the totems and talismans of her life, were arrayed before her in a deliberate semicircle, and as the sun rose in earnest the shadow cast by her shoulder imbued the scene with the impression of a carefully constructed sundial. Maroon gapes ran from her wrists nearly to the inner bend of each elbow, the one on her right arm shorter and more jagged than that on her left. A box cutter lay directly in front of her abdomen, seeming to point to the 4 o’clock marker of her iPod. Her name was Lily.

 

 

The Inconvenient Truth about Voice

This post, from Dan Holloway, originally appeared on the Year Zero Writers’ Collective site on 12/5/09 and is reprinted here in its entirety with his permission.

(with thanks to @cinemamanche for his lovely description of voice as the aroma of a text)

Voice is one of the great mysteries of writing, and the bearer of a couple of inconvenient truths for any author. It’s the one thing you can’t do without; but no one will tell you how to get better at it.

So what is voice?

Put it like this. What do Stanley Kubrick, Radiohead, DBC Pierre, Frank Gehry, Bob Dylan, Elfriede Jelinek, Morissey, Anish Kapoor, and the Coen Brothers have in common? Apart from that night ten years ago, outside the Brixton Academy, when… The answer is obvious – and it should end the topic right there. But somehow it never does. What I want to do with this article is figure out why an article like this needs to be so long.

The answer , in case it’s not self-evident (or in case there really was a night 10 years ago…), is that most people with a basic knowledge of the field in question – be it film, music, literature, architecture or art – if shown a piece of hitherto unseen work by one of them, would instantly be able to tell you who’d made it. And that, in fewer than 200 words, is all there really is to say about “voice”.

And yet we keep talking about it. Everywhere writers meet there is almost as much hot air and verbiage about voice as there is jealous bile about the latest vampire hit. Why? Simple, really. Editors, agents, publishers. They all agree on this one (and possibly only) point – voice is the essential ingredient a writer must possess. The “experts” also seem to agree on one other point – that of the key elements of writing – including characterisation, pacing, plotting – the one that can’t be taught is voice.

I want to look briefly at why It is that these two things make voice so controversial, and then ask the questions – is voice really essential? Where does it come from? What do we mean by saying it can’t be taught?

It’s obvious why saying voice is the one essential quality for a writer should make it controversial, especially when “experts” seem to go out of their way to be obfuscatory about what they mean by it. It’s true that in much genre fiction voice is slightly different, because there are genre norms, and what is valued most is often that elusive quality of “transparency” – an author who doesn’t intrude on their world. But I don’t want to get too het up on that distinction because if one does it can become an excuse for “literary” authors like us here to start sticking their nose into their text and, unless you’re making a point of that a la Kundera, it’s no more acceptable here than in genre fiction. A novel should (Ooh, I used the “s” would – spank me), even if it’s cross-referential, be a self-contained world in which the reader can lose themselves.

“Voice can’t be taught.” Publishers, agents, and editors seem, in my experience, to say this in the sense of “if someone comes to us and they can’t plot very well we can, and will, work with them on it. But if they have no voice, there’s nowt we can do.” There’s a very obvious reason why this is controversial, and it has to do, I’m afraid, with political correctness. I had a girlfriend once who took (more than) umbrage at my supervisor’s assertion that first class academic work could not be quantified but was evident when he was faced with it. Her complaint, that it wasn’t fair because it gave people nothing to aim for, that it discriminated against the hard-working and perpetuated an elite, was understandable. The need for fairness is one of our deepest yearnings.

But in this case, I’m afraid the complaint is utterly irrelevant. Artistic merit is nothing about rewarding hard work. It’s about, well, artistic merit. And that, I’m afraid, is unquantifiable but evident when you’re confronted with it. Which means that the thousands of writers who “write beautifully”(how often on sites like Authonomy do we hear reviewers say “this is beautifully written it should be published”?) are naturally going to feel aggrieved, but their beautiful writing is, frankly, very little to do with the artistic value of their book. If it was, the Tate would be full of Royal Doulton special edition plates.

So that’s why voice is controversial. But hang on. There’s a deeper question. Are people right that it matters at all? Well, it sounds like a dogma, and dogmas are things we at Year Zero dislike, er, dogmatically. And to an extent it IS nonsense. The value of much art lies in what it does for the people and communities that produce it – it gives hope, aspiration, self-esteem, vision – a sense of future, and to be honest, no aesthetic bollocks I spout in the next 500 words is going to trump that. As a punk ideologist and humanist, voice means precisely bugger all in art.

Except. Well, except look at those things – self-esteem, hope, vision. What do they mean? How are they real to an individual unless those hopes are specific? Unless the art produced has meaning to the community/individual? And a lot of that is about distinctive voice. So there IS, kind of, a crossover with “art for art’s sake”. And so there ought to be, because we’re not JUST absinthe drinking dilettantes.

Nonetheless, I’m part of Year Zero because I DO care about the arty nonsense. I want my writing to be the best it can. I want to push boundaries, connect with readers in unique ways, produce a body of work that (a subject for another blog) “matters”. And that means I need voice.

Which brings me to how to develop voice if it really is unteachable, and how to know if I have it because, if I don’t, I might as well leave the Zeroes now.

I want to start with Malcolm Gladwell’s oft-cited rule of 10,000 hours. His work on this is really at the heart of all the “learn the rules to break them” vs natural genius debates. He showed that most of the people we think of as geniuses – in the arts and in sport – actually did nothing of any real brilliance or originality until they’d put in 10,000 hours of practice.

What does this mean? Well, it means the “I don’t need rules, I’m a genius” brigade really are, as we thought all along, just lazy and will probably never produce anything any good. It also means something very useful. It means, if I understand correctly, that a natural aptitude for following the rules well is a good indicator that you may at a future stage develop an original voice. So that “beautifully-written” prose isn’t valueless. But it’s an indicator of what might be to come and not of the work in which it is displayed.

So what, practically, does that mean? Well, it means it’s a great thing to experiment. Which we kind of knew already. Why does it mean that? Well, first because it will accelerate the progress through your apprenticeship (question: why, when we hire a plumber, or go to a doctor, do we consider it essential they have served a full apprenticeship but as writers we expect to have a hit with our first novel?). If you spend them all on just one area of writing, it’s unlikely you’ll emerge fully formed. It’s also important that you find what suits you, pick up new tricks, borrow from here, pastiche from there until slowly something begins to emerge that’s you.

So it turns out there are not two but three inconvenient truths about voice. It IS essential. And it IS something that’s unquantifiable and unteachable in itself. he good news is that one can work on it, practising the basics until one’s voice emerges. The third inconvenient truth is that the practice will take a lot of time and angst and sweat and pain. Just like anything else worth doing.

Do discuss at will and leisure – I’d also like to hear your examples of great, original voices – in any form of the arts.

[Publetariat Editor’s note: you may prefer to join the discussion over on the Year Zero site, where Dan and the Year Zero community will be sure to see your remarks, rather than commenting here on Publetariat]

Part 1: Why Indie Authors Will Break Traditional Publishers

This post, from Brad Vertrees, originally appeared on his Brad’s Reader site on 12/7/09 and is reprinted here in its entirety with his permission. Part 2 will run tomorrow.

 think large publishing houses are scared, and for good reason. They’re faced with an enemy that they see as a threat to their business. I’m talking about the growing number of indie authors – those who totally bypass the large publishing houses and self-publish their books in print and digital format. Indie authors aren’t afraid to trek out on their own and play by their own rules.

brokenlightbulb

Indie authors have several advantages over authors who go with a traditional publishing house. And it’s these advantages that could be the downfall of  the traditional publishing business.

 

– Indie authors can distribute their books in any manner they please. They can sell ebooks online and sell print books out of the trunk of their car. The distribution channels for authors is opening, thanks to the internet (the great neutralizer, as I call it).

– Indie authors can seriously undercut large publishers’ prices on books. These authors don’t have a very high overhead and can offer their books at much lower prices and still make a tidy profit.

– Indie authors become their own brand. They create an online presence through their own websites, Twitter, Facebook and other sites. They sell their books to a built-in fan base.

– Indie authors can control the copyrights to their works.

Example: Joe Konrath

Even when publishers do get into the ebook game, it does not always benefit the author – at least not financially. One of my favorite author blogs is A Newbie’s Guide to Publishing by Joe Konrath. He talks about making a living as a writer, including a lot of discussion about ebooks.

In a post he wrote back in October entitled Kindle Numbers: Traditional Publishing vs. Self Publishing. Joe “spills the beans” about his earnings and posts what he has made on ebooks from Hyperion (a traditional publisher) that have been published on the Amazon Kindle. And then he posts his earnings from ebooks he has self-published on the Kindle. Here’s how it breaks down:

Ebooks from Hyperion sold on Kindle

– Earnings from Jan. 1 to June 31, 2009.

– 6 titles published on Kindle.

– Price range per book: $3.96 -$7.99

– 1237 ebooks sold in 6 months.

– Total royalties: $2008

Self-published ebooks sold on Kindle

– Earnings from Jan. 1 to June 31, 2009

– 4 titles published on Kindle.

– Price range per book: $1.99

– 9800 books sold in 6 months.

– Total earnings: $6860

Joe made $4853 more self-publishing his titles on the Kindle. He offered fewer titles sold at a much lower price ($1.99). Why so much success with self-publishing? I think this big difference is due to the fact that when Joe self-published on Amazon, he got roughly $0.70 per book sold (35% of the price he sets).

For the books published by Hyperion Joe receives 25% of whatever the publisher receives. It’s also worth noting that Hyperion and Amazon have to strike an agreement regarding these prices. This leaves Joe with a lot less control and a lot less money in his pocket.

Here’s the interesting part, however, Joe does not own the rights to the books sold by Hyperion. If he did?

If I had the rights to all six of my Hyperion books, and sold them on Kindle for $1.99, I’d be making $20,580 per year off of them, total, rather than $4818 a year off of them, total.

Just by owning the copyrights to his own works, Joe can increase his own earnings by several thousand dollars. This makes a great case why copyright (especially in the digital realm) is becoming such a hot button issue.

Do you think I’m right in my assessment that indie authors will eventually bring the large publishers to their knees? Leave a comment below and share your thoughts.

In Part 2 (to be posted on Wednesday) I’ll be writing about the one large advantage publishers have over indie authors and how that advantage can be minimized.

Photo Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kylemay// CC BY 2.0

Curmudgeoning is Getting Older Faster Than I Thought! Thanks!

Well, at least it’s getting somewhere! I’d like to extend a Holiday Thank you to all the Publetarians and various assorted other readers out there who’ve enjoyed, or been annoyed by my rants and articles.  Thanks, especially to those who’ve left me comments I could actually use — there have been quite a few of them. I may be an old crank, but I’m still learning, and the cranking is beginning to get easier as I turn the handle!

My day job will be taking all together too much of my time through the Holidays, so my curmudgeonly output may become a bit sporadic.  If any of you have the desire to read my weigh-in on any subjects close to the heart of book marketing techniques, or anything else, for that matter, please feel free to contact me by leaving a comment below. 

The past few days have had lots of breaking news that seems to be "all good" for Indie Authors and Publishers.  I’m going to concentrate on doing whatever I can to maximize the benefits for my own publishing, and I’ll let you all know what I think, of course, as I get results worth thinking about.  There are quite a few bumps in the playing field that are getting in my way, so something will have to be done.

Now, get out there and work your levels and shovels — we still have a long way to go until the field is indeed, democratic!

 

 

What's The Right Way To Respond To A Critique?

This post, from Lynn Price, originally appeared on the Behler Blog (of Behler Publications) on 11/30/09.

“Thank you.” Nothing more, nothing less.

Are they attacking me personally?

Eh, sometimes. Face it, there are some real wheezbags who, for any number of reasons, enjoy ripping the heart out of writers  – anyone seen Authonomy lately?

Maybe they were dropped on their heads at birth. Who knows? Regardless of their motives, they took the time to read your work. Don’t own those critiques, even when they’re good. It’s one opinion of many. Look beyond the sting or the joy, and see if they may have a valid point. If they do, great. If they don’t, great.

The long and short of crits is that they are designed to point out flaws that the reader felt existed. Remember, our writing doesn’t come directly from the hands of the Great Cosmic Muffin, and we all need to be critiqued and edited.

Am I ready for crits?

My philosophy is that anyone who reads crits and goes into the fetal position and cries while sucking on a pound of chocolate may not be ready to put their work out there. The only time you’re allowed to drink heavily, eat pounds of chocolate, and cry is when you’re writing your book and when you get your edits back from your editor. Everyone else is navel lint and not worth expending such emotion. [Edited to add: Ok, fetal position, drinking, eating chocolate is also allowed with crits PROVIDED you understand you’re being unreasonable] …thanks, Pelo.

I remember one a friend of mine blew his stack over a tepid review from Publishers Weekly. He was ready to contact the reviewer and read him the riot act. I told him that under no circumstances would he do anything of the sort. First off, the reviewer took his time to read the book. Secondly, out of the thousands of books that come into the magazine each week, he chose his book. That’s nothing to sneeze at.

Do they have a point?

 

Read the rest of the post on the Behler Blog. Lynn Price is the Editorial Director for Behler Publications and the author of The Writer’s Essential Tacklebox.

Indisputable Facts I Learned After Becoming A Published Author

This post, from Patricia Volonakis Davis, originally appeared in the notes section of her Facebook page and is reprinted here in its entirety with her permission.

1) The writers on Oprah are not real. They’re cyborgs made the same way ‘Diz’ made the Stepford wives.

2) Oprah herself is not real, either. That’s why she keeps changing size- it’s a glitch in the graphics software they haven’t been able to fix.

3) Publishers want books they can immediately sell for films in which producers will star Tom Hanks and Jessica Biel. Librarians want books they can adore. And retail booksellers just want books they don’t have to return for credit. (And if those books could fly off the shelves by themselves as a customer is wishing for them, that would be very nice, too.)

4) A “bestseller” does not mean what you think it means. At all. In other words, you might still be BROKE.

5) Selling your book in Costco is no more demeaning than having your relatives and friends buy fifty copies each, so they can gift them on all their acquaintances.

6) Your spouse is sick of hearing you talk about your book, no matter how many times they swear otherwise. They were sick of it after the first week.

7) You say you’re embarrassed when people ask you to sign their copy of your book, but you’re not fooling anybody.

8) You wrote a BOOK, not The Declaration of Independence. Hundreds of thousands of people do the same every year. So please, get over yourself. (Note- I recently added this last not only as a reminder to myself, but for other writers and literary agents, magazine editors, publicists and publishers by association.)

 

Patricia V. Davis is the founder and editor-in-chief of the non-partisan HS Radio  e-magazine and podcast at www.harlotssauce.com, and her essays, opinion articles and celebrity interviews have appeared in various newspapers and magazines nationally and internationally. She is also the author of ‘Harlot’s Sauce: A Memoir of Food, Family, Love, Loss and Greece’. You can view her blog here, and her Red Room author page here 

Character and Personality Theory

This post, from The Denver Bibliophile, originally appeared on The Denver Bibliophile blog on 12/2/09.

In fiction, probably the most important question and certainly the very the first question that needs to be asked is, who is my protagonist character? This question invariably relates to another–who is a person? One may answer this question, as many writers do, by the seat of their pants, relying on personal observation and nuggets of insight gleaned from reading other fiction. But this leads to a poverty of ideas and a poverty of characters. There is a better way.

The question of the nature of personhood has been explored by theorists of personality. There are many theories out there, the most famous, to most people, being that of Freud.  But the writer of fiction would do well to familiarize himself with all of personality theories, adapting them for his own use. In this article, we will look at the Snygg and Combs theory of personality and the work of Carl Rogers and work with the  concepts to create a theory of story character. (A good introduction to personality theories, with citations for further reading, can be found here, http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/perscontents.html )

Snygg and Combs theorize that there exists something called the “phenomenal field,” which is a way to conceptualize our subjective reality, the world of a person’s awareness. It includes a person’s thoughts, concepts, beliefs, and ideas. If we wish to understand why a person behaves as he does, we need to understand their phenomenal field.

But the field is not something that can be observed and certainly it is not something the writer should explain in exposition.  Rather, the writer must present this phenomenal field to the reader through the character’s behavior. Specific action in specific situation becomes, then, like a snapshot of the phenomenal field. Character’s phenomenal field, therefore, is revealed continually through the character’s actions in the story.

Initially, the character’s phenomenal field is only hinted at and its totality remains unknown to the reader. In fact, the phenomenal field should never be revealed completely, nor can it be, for the character in a story may not go through the required range of behaviors to allow such a complete revelation. And this is as it should be, for a character that is completely knowable is boring. The character must be understandable, but not completely knowable, for no human being is.

Read the rest of the post, and many more excellent articles on craft, on The Denver Bibliophile blog.

End The Publishing Terminology or Be Damned

This post, from Mick Rooney, originally appeared on his POD, Self-Publishing and Independent Publishing blog on 12/3/09.

I read some wonderful things today. I also read a lot of crap. In my travails of the morning, afternoon and evening, I came across the words of writers I hold and respect dearly. There were also other words written by writers I know less about. I still discovered the occasional gem, and a few real stinkers. I browsed those words and felt various thoughts and feelings of bemusement, frustration, enlightenment, elation and inspiration. For all of us who love reading words – you know the path may yield beauty and charm, as well as its share of cruelty and ugliness.

No. I wasn’t on a carefree day off work sauntering through a bright book emporium with some spare cash thrust into my pocket eagerly before I left the house; hoping all the time, I might stumble upon a few literary gems tucked away on a shelf. I wasn’t inside a bookshop today. Here’s where I was.
 
AbsoluteWrite, here and here.
 
Rachelle Gardner, here and here.
 

I could add another ten, but I think this is enough to be going on with. all of the sites are excellent and highly reputable sources of information on publishing, digitization, author advice and writing in general. What is it that binds all the provided links together?
 
The self-publishing and vanity publishing debate was always there – the impetus to the most recent vociferous debates stem directly from this publishing news story from Thomas Nelson, and another from Harlequin over the past few weeks. The self and vanity publishing definition links are wikipedia’s. I will broadly go with their consensus. My take on it is that self-publishing is a process of book publication where all actions and rights are owned, controlled and directly implemented by the author. Vanity publishing is the process of a third-party company, for a fee, printing and publishing an author’s book often without the controls of professional literary merit and evaluation, editorial direction, structured and effective marketing, sales distribution, and physical store presence – and may also include the author committing to an agreed purchase of book stock.
 
What the hell. Sure you’re all at it now. So let’s throw in another label and definition into the pot. It’s a very simple one. A definition that has been around pretty much since the first printing press was rolled out of the yard.
 
It’s called PUBLISHING.
 
Here’s the definition.
 

Read the rest of the post on Mick Rooney’s POD, Self-Publishing and Independent Publishing blog.

Heady Times

Boy, these are heady times for Indie Authors.  The smoke is still settling so we’ll have to wait before all the implications are clear, but there are three developments that caught my eye, so far this week.

First, and to my old eyes, a healing sight indeed, is the recent announcement by Amazon CreateSpace (which also is my presonal POD Publisher) that their "Pro Plan" titles will have the option to add INGRAM DISTRIBUTION to their marketing plan. 

This is huge, as it will give self-published authors a much wider market exposure than they would have been able to secure alone.  It effectively can add you7r boo to the largest bookseller distributor and institutional sales catalogs. Book stores.  Libraries. Schools.  The markets I only dreamed of.

It meant that my cover price had to go up.  I had kept the price relatively low at $11.95, but that did not allow enough margin to allow the booksellers and distributor a rpoyalty/share, so I upped the cover price to $15.95, which will make me 52 cents per book sold, instead of my owing the publisher $2.70 eaqch time a book was sold.

The second thing to happen, was the reported reaction of various writer’s organizations when Harlequin rolled it’s POD operation into one of it’s imprint names.  It was reported in detail in Publishers Weekly. Sounded like a relatively smart way for a business to reduce operating costs and move forward into a leaner operations model, but I guess I was wrong.  Several writer’s groups, angered that they would now be in some way associated with self-publishing (Shudder! Horrors!), removed Harlequin from their approved publishers ranks.  Inclu8ded are such organizations as the Mystery Writers Assn. and the Romance Writers Assn.  Hmmmm.  I suppose none of the members of those organizations ever self-published any books at all. No…not that! 

Harlequin, responding in a puzzled mode, of course, indicated they would placate these organizations in some, to-be-determined manner.  We’ll have to see where this settles out, but it seems that "last one in" writers, too are resisting the changes in the wind leading to a more cost-effective publishing industry.  To me, under-educated, self-published writer that I am, to deny any fellow writer a recommended publisher in these hard times for fiction is ridiculous.

Last, a first edition EA Poe’s self-published 1827 first book — a book of poems, published in a run of 50 coipies when he was 18,  brought more than US$662,000 at auction.  Publishing Industry take note — some self-published authors work not only is quality writing, but some of them may actually be worth adding to one’s stable for a long-term investment.

All of this happened on the heels of a short four-day family vacation we take each December with our children and grand-kids.  We pile into a condo in the Berkshires and pray for snow.  This past week, while I was staring at the stark, bare trees and grey sky, a figure appeared from nowhere, hobbling along on a wooden staff.  She approached slowly and asked me "Have you ever seen a four-leaf clover?" I answered, "of course, but I’ve never found one."

She replied "I find them wherever I go" and extending her hand, with a fist full of bright green clover (It’s December, remember?) asked "Want one?"  I chose one, and thanked her.  I turned back to my unit’s porch, and by the time I looked back to give her a wave, she was gone!  But I have the clover — all four leaves, too!  Maybe my luck will change after all!  Maybe it will begin a much-awaited turnaround for the whole publishing industry — Indies included!

 

 

Significant Reader Trends

Shift in Topic Popularity

According to the Shelf Talker newsletter, the long run of vampire/werewolf fascination is just about over. The next fad is predicted to be post-apocalyptic novels.

A Major Shift in Some Readers’ Tastes

We have seen a very interesting trend at our bookstore, The Book Barn, in Leavenworth, Kansas just north of Kansas City. It started several years ago when the Harry Potter fad began, followed closely by the Eragon trilogy. These mid-grade and young adult fantasies became read by many parents. Although the books were long for the genre, these parents discovered they enjoyed the reads. This led them to read more of the shorter-length YA lit to see what it was like—partly to learn what appeals to their children, but more and more for their own enjoyment. When we asked them why they were reading more YA’s, they disclosed several reasons why:

  • Easy to read
     
  • Fun to read
     
  • Fits into their daily schedules

Ah, this last factor is the important key—Available Time. People have so many demands on their recreation time, they don’t have enough time to read thick tomes anymore. Much YA lit is designed to pull the reader through quickly with 1-3 page chapters. They are fun, if not challenging, and short. A good adult reader can speed through a book and be entertained while reading it. They have found they prefer tightly written books where every chapter leaves one hanging, curious to read what’s next. My wife and I believe we have discovered an important trend. We’re not alone. Some major NYT bestselling authors have begun writing YA novels—Patterson for one example. They are taking advantage of the trend we noted. Although their YA’s have young protagonists, the characters act more adult than is usually found.

I remember 20-30 years ago, during the height of Harlequin Romance popularity when some men were reading these books to put themselves to sleep. Then, as now, non-traditional readers sometimes emerge to make an impact on the book marketplace. There is a need for shorter adult books written specifically for the time-challenged market segment. Most genre novels are 70,000 to 100,000 words or more. We believe there is a need for some genre lit written within the constraints of 45,000 to 65,000 words. They need to be written tightly without too much description, focusing on rapid plot and quick character development. This approach reminds me of the 30,000 to 45,000 stories of the pulp fiction era.

I’m putting my money where my mouth is, as I have written four mysteries of place set in Leavenworth and consisting of 50,000 to 60,000 words that will appeal to our region, military officer couples, and time-challenged adults. Only time will tell if my take on this trend is accurate or not. I believe other authors, and more importantly publishers, should consider supporting this market segment, which should grow as more and more demands are made on our available time. I welcome your comments. Remember, I’m not saying all books should be written this way, but that there is a previously unnoticed market segment.

This is a cross-posting from Bob Spear’s Book Trends blog.

The Nuts and Bolts of Good Response

Now that we’ve discussed all the background concepts in producing and effective small ad, it’s time to create the artwork. Just following a few simple considerations through the process will insure that your ad will be read, and hopefully, retained by your targeted market reader.

 

Size and position count

First, once you’ve settled upon the best size for your budget, determine if the medium will allow you to request positioning. Where your ad falls on a page will affect it’s effectiveness. For most smaller ads – smaller than full page banners, right hand top positioning will give your message better visibility and retention. This has been tested by media wonks for years, and it follows the science of eye movement on a page of written material. If that is not available then try for the next slot down the right hand column. Left hand columns, or outside columns on left hand pages, in a two-page spread layout, generally are not as effective. This is because the readers eye doesn’t pass over this position as often during a full read. If the page where your ad will run has only other small ads and no editorial content, I’d think twice before making a commitment there. Your ad will not creqate as effective a response in that situation.

Of course, if a poorly conceived, badly designed ad appears in the top-right position, it won’t be effective anyway, but it will get more visibility. Make sure your message is carried by as effective a vehicle possible. Then put it where it will do the most good.

 

Resolution, resolution, resolution.

The next most important consideration is to maximize the resolution of your ad. The majority of online venues will accept 72 dpi images. This is barely enough resolution to allow the legibility of small, or “fancy” typefaces. It can be adequate, if you choose your graphic elements, including type, for the low-resolution final product. If your medium will accept 96 dpi images, then produce your ad in this higher resolution, to allow better contrast, image detail, and type legibility.

You’ll be assembling your elements in your vector-based graphics program, using the import function to bring bitmapped images into the design. At this level, the type and linear graphics you bring into the program will be vector images, so that their resolution will be unlimited, sharp and very clean. From inside the vector program, adjust your bitmapped elements – logos, photographic elements, for best color, contrast and appearance on your monitor. Once you are completely satisfied with how your images appear, save a “baseline” copy of your design. Name it differently than the “working copy”. In case you have to return to the previous version.

 

Palettes – Color Fidelity

 You should also check the color palette used in your bitmapped image to be certain it will appear they way you intend it. First, in a transmitted light environment, such as a monitor screen, you want to be sure to use RGB palettes. If you are printing your ad on a paper page, then use CMYK Palettes, named after the four inks used in “process” printing: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and blacK. Choosing the correct palette is critical, and with RGB palettes, you can also choose a “web-safe” palette, which is a more limited range of color that is constant across platforms online – just to be safe, when the actual color match is important.

 

Headline Type: A Work in Progress

 Next, refine the size, and shape of your type. Use vector type fonts such as TrueType fonts, not bitmapped fonts, which can’t be manipulated without distortion and edge definition issues. Using the pointer handle tools found in vector programs, you can pull your type into in-between sizes and shapes, for example, making the headline a bit wider to fill the space better. Again, use the “arm’s length” technique to check for legibility as you work.

One of my favorite techniques in vector layout work is the ability to “overlay” a headline either in a darker color than the bitmapped image beneath it or a lighter color or white, without the edge definition issues that can develop. Vector type can be sized, refined and then slid into position over an image seamlessly. You may also have a vector graphic (“line art”) image you’d like to include, and if you’re using a vector program, you’ll be able to dot he same thing, without edge issues.

 

Testing…Testing…

When you’ve massaged all your elements into the most satisfying, legible design you can, it’s a good idea to create a test page, by saving an appropriate copy of a web page from the site where your ad will appear. Save it with a filename you’ll be able to find, in a “working” directory you’ll be able to find.

 

Bitmaps…again…

Next, export your finished ad as a jpeg or a gif image. If you are using flat colors – non photographic elements – and web-friendly color palette, you may want to reduce the size of your ad by exporting it as a “gif” file, which will reduce the color depth to 8-bits – check your color fidelity, if that matters, and save it with a filename which incorporates the word “adtest”. For example adtest01,gif or jpg (adjust as necessary if you’re using a Mac).

To run the test on your monitor (or to print a text page, if your ad will run in print), import your ad image file into an html editing program that already has the test page open. Insert it into what is probably a table, just above the highest element in the column where it will appear – lower if top is not a position you can choose.

For print, using your vector program, open the test page file, then import your ad, positioning it over another ad of your size. Back away, and see if your ad still catches the eye amidst other ads. If not, adjust it. For a print test, you can print up a few pages and show them around, remembering comments you get.

The idea is to be sure your ad works as well on a page of editorial copy and other ads as it does when it stands alone in your design program, or on a proof you’ve printed. These kind of proofing tests are a really good use of that Photo Printer we spoke about a few months back. You can also print out a proof of your ad, and your test page, and cut and paste your ad into position the old-fashioned way! Years of making up these dummy pages – as I did in one of my earlier lives – makes you very handy with a jar of rubber cement!

 

Export and upload…

Once you’ve tweaked, pulled and tested to your satisfaction, return to your vector program and save your ad file using a filename which incorporates the word “final” and the date. Then export your ad art into an image file (jpeg or gif) for uploading, at the resolution you have decided to use. I always keep these files in a separate directory and almost always name the file using the book name and a qualifier so I know where it is to run.

Most online venues will host the transfer process using their own web-based software – you’ll “browse” which file you want to upload, and the browser software will upload it from your hard drive into the venue’s file system. An alternative, if you also have your own website, would be to upload the file into your server’s directory – or a new directory especially for online ads – using your ftp program.

In a perfect world, you’ll start selling books right away, and your bank account will inflate quickly. In the real world, you may see some sales begin after a few days or weeks’ time, depending on how effectively you chose the medium, how well-designed and targeted your ad is and many other variables. It’s all really a process, not a single step or short sequence of steps. The process is ongoing while the ad runs, until your determine that another ad will work better, and change your artwork. I recommend you change your artwork every month or so, unless your ad is running primarily for recognition. Just a new headline can renew interest, or a new background image, and so on.

 

One more thing…

Of course, there’s another element whose importance can’t be overstated, and that is luck. If you can figure out how to manipulate that, then sit me down for a lesson! That’s the one I want to learn! 

 

The Trunk

When it comes to infidelity, experts always say it’s just a symptom of an underlying problem and the blame must be shared between the cheater and the betrayed.

In this case, Charlotte was pretty sure the blame was all Tim’s.

“Goddamn it, Charlotte,” he rasped, “We’ve been going around and around on this thing for…” he checked his watch and his shoulders drooped. “Nearly five hours now. I’ll do whatever you want, I’ll say whatever you want, but this has to end.”

“You’re a selfish bastard.”

“Absolutely.”

“And I can’t trust you anymore.

“I don’t expect you to. I know I don’t deserve it. Check my email, voicemail, call logs, credit card bills…whatever you want. For as long as you want. Hire a private eye to follow me around. Cancel my Twitter account. I’m willing to do whatever it takes to make this right. Nothing is off-limits.”

Her reddened eyes darted from Tim to the walk-in closet. She knew this might be her only chance.  “Nothing?

His head jerked around. Oh, no. The Trunk. She was after The Trunk. His exhausted mind scrambled, came up with nothing. And still, words tumbled out.

“It’s mostly just Playboys, you know. I mean, it’s not like there’s…” His brain finally perked up enough to make him wonder where the hell he was going with this, but not enough to shut him up. “…a live girl in there or anything.”

Charlotte’s mouth dropped open. Without another word, she stormed into the closet.  

Tim followed, still stupid with fatigue. “Just the classic ones, then. At least let me keep them long enough to sell them online. You could use the money to buy something for you.”

Standing in front of The Trunk, she wheeled on him and bellowed, “I don’t want your porn proceeds! What would I tell Lynne and Shari? These are the diamond earrings that Barely Legal bought?! Thank God for my husband’s Girls Gone Crazy subscription; if he’d had just a few more months’ worth, I could’ve gotten the matching necklace?!”

She bent down to grab one of the handles and yanked. The Trunk didn’t budge. She rolled her eyes up at Tim, who tried to look surprised.

It's Hard Out There For Everyone

This post, from Henry Baum, originally appeared on The Self-Publishing Review on 12/3/09 and is reprinted here in its entirety with his permission.

One thing that is lost in the self-publishing/traditional publishing debate is just how hard it is to sell any kind of book.  It’s as if pointing out that it’s difficult to sell self-published books, it implies it’s easy to sell traditionally-published books.  It’s not – it’s hard to sell everything.  One of the criticisms of self-publishing is people saying, “But self-publishers need to market all the time! When is there time to write???”  Unless you’re Dan Brown, or some other high-profile writer, most writers have to spend a whole lot of time marketing.

This could be an argument against self-publishing: if it’s so hard to sell a traditionally published book, why even bother self-publishing, as it’s a potentially futile exercise. You won’t get a lot of argument from me there: it’s true, selling self-published books is hard. But so is getting traditionally published – precisely because it’s so hard to sell books, they look more towards those books that are more likely to sell more easily.

What it comes down to, though, is that we’re all in the same boat.  This whole debate should be us vs. them, but how in the hell can we get people to read more. A post at Digital Book World about the Rick Moody Twitter experiment (he posted a story in installments on Twitter) is particularly telling about how hard it is for all publishers and bookstore owners, not just us lowly self-publishers. The post links to another post by the manager of Vroman’s bookstore where he says:

The Moody Twitter experiment (and Moody wasn’t to blame for its failure, though I’m sure the first couple comments will be “ZOMG!1! Rick Moody is teh suck!1!!1?) depressed me for a number of reasons.  First, it made me wonder what we’re all doing on Twitter.  If so many of my followers are book industry people, am I wasting my time with it?  All this time, I’d hoped I was reaching customers.  To be sure, Twitter is useful for talking to colleagues in the book industry, and I’ll continue to use it for that purpose, but if it doesn’t have a reach beyond that, I’m not sure what the point is.  So much of the dialog that happens on Twitter and on the literary blogs feels masturbatory to me.  It’s the same couple hundred people talking about the same issues to the same audience.  Is that what I’ve been doing these past few years?  Is that what the book business is at this point?  If it is, then to quote the modern day philosopher Bunk Moreland “We ain’t about much.”

The book business is in major decline, and while we can all howl about the reasons why, the main one, it seems to me, is that not enough people read (and those who do, read less than they used to).  There are more ways than ever to get your entertainment and information, and books are having a lot of trouble keeping up.  Those of us who rely on selling books for a living need to devote a lot of time to finding people who are not readers.  We have to grow our market, or we are in for a very dark future indeed.   The reaction to this Twitter experiment seems to indicate to me that we’re not all that interested in doing it.  Or maybe we are, as long as it doesn’t interrupt our conversations about ebook formatting and the National Book Awards.

In other words, those at the top of the literary food chain – a major retailer like Vroman’s, where a self-publisher might dream of a book being housed – are having as much trouble unloading books as self-publishers themselves.  And just like a site like this might be an echo chamber of self-publishers reading about other self-publishers and possibly not buying anything, the same thing is occurring for everyone.

Which is one reason why the traditional publishing vs. self-publishing debate is so stupid.  We’re all trying to get people to buy our books.  There’s a lot traditionally published writers and sellers can learn from the sometimes-innovative approaches of self-publishers and vice versa.  Reading is on decline just as – somehow – there are more books being produced than ever.  I guess writers aren’t very voracious book buyers.  But basically, we’re all trying to reach readers in our own way in a very difficult environment, so criticizing self-publishing as the means of production should be the least of people’s worries – it should moreso be about how to make reading attractive to a new generation of readers.

Some might say that self-publishing dilutes the field even further by introducing books to people that should never be read and so turn them off of reading.  Possibly – but on the flipside, the possibility of being able to publish your own book could also make reading and writing more attractive to a new generation of readers. To me, that outweighs the former by a lot.

I read recently (can’t remember where) that McSweeney’s considers it a success to sell 3000 books of an edition.  McSWEENEY’S – a publisher that can get books reviewed most anywhere and has a huge built-in fan base.  That should tell you the state of bookselling.  The problem isn’t that it’s hard to sell self-published books.  The problem is that it’s hard to sell books.  Period.

[Publetariat Editor’s note: the quote to which Baum refers is probably this one, from Dave Eggers in an interview with Mother Jones from April of this year, discussing the Voice of Witness book series (published by McSweeney’s): "Small readerships can support small presses, definitely. If we sell 3,000 copies of a VOW book, for example, we’re in pretty good shape; we will have paid for the book’s expenses. But generally, we do try to keep expenses low, and operate more as a co-op than anything else."]