Technological Evolution Stirs A Publishing Revolution

This article originally appeared on the Knowledge@Wharton site on 8/5/09.

For publishing, 2009 may go down as the year of the machine.

Consider Amazon’s electronic-book reader, Kindle. Though the first version launched in late 2007, a lighter, faster, cheaper version went on sale this spring. And while the online-only retailer doesn’t release sales figures for the reader itself, its cultural impact was clear by late July, when USA Today announced it would include Kindle editions in its popular weekly list of best-selling books.

With slightly less fanfare, 2009 has also seen the emergence of the Espresso book machine, which will make its New York bookstore debut this fall, having already popped up on campuses in several states. Where Kindle offers consumers a chance to buy some 350,000 books at the touch of a finger — and then read them electronically — the Espresso allows them to print a professional-looking paperback book in about the time it takes to drink a cup of coffee.

At first glance, the machines are diametrical opposites — physically, economically and philosophically. The smallest Kindle weighs 10.2 ounces. The Espresso weighs in at about 800 pounds. The cheapest Kindle costs $299. The cheapest Espresso, produced by On Demand Books of New York, goes for at least $75,000. The Kindle is all about virtual books and online transactions. The Espresso is about physical objects that consumers buy in person.

Yet Wharton faculty who follow the complicated, emotionally fraught subject of how we buy and sell literature say the two devices share something even more important: A role in upending longstanding customs in the slow-to-change business of publishing.

In an industry where inventory problems and overprinting of books is a perennial money drain, the Espresso’s premise — not paying production costs until a reader buys a copy — is a revolution. And in a business where the cumbersome task of routing books to your local bookstore has been a continuing burden — not to mention a risk, since the book may be sitting on the shelf for years — the idea of cutting out the supply chain represents a major development.

"Inventory waste and/or printing time are very important drivers of profitability — maybe the key drivers," says Wharton marketing professor Eric T. Bradlow. "Now the marginal cost of production is zero and the cost of inventory is zero…. The impact that technology has had in both of these cases, whether it’s a Kindle or some sort of print on demand, is that it has increased the opportunities we have to interface with content."

For consumers, the new ways to buy and read books — and the new price points at which to do so — represent a rare expansion of the playing field. "Both [Kindle and Espresso] are great for bookselling," says Wharton marketing professor Yoram (Jerry) Wind. "They basically expand the range of choices that people have. What we must keep in mind is that markets are heterogeneous. There are many segments, and people’s preferences may vary depending on the situation. What we have here is technology offering more options. Some people, especially younger people, may find Kindle terrific. Print on demand is a great solution for people who would like to have a hard copy. They’re not mutually exclusive."

Different Values

The book business has always been more important for culture than for the economy. All the same, moving beyond five centuries of Gutenberg-style production raises questions about how consumers determine value, what they want to read and even how much shelf-space home-builders should design for the living rooms of tomorrow.

For instance, says Joseph Turow, who studies new media as a communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School, many readers are subconsciously affected by knowing that the book they see in a store was produced and shipped at significant expense by a major company — a sign that someone who knows the business saw fit to invest in the author. "A large part of the problem is psychological," says Turow. "The fact that publishers have to pay a lot for making a book is kind of a gate to ensure that it has value…. I think the fact that there’s a physical copy that has to go through hoops is part of how people judge the value of something. And that is going to be with us for a long time."

But just how long a time is open to debate. "There are real generational differences," says Wharton marketing professor Patti Williams, who studies the role of emotions in decision making. The rapid decline of news media brands, for instance, suggests consumers of other forms of media have been able to move beyond long-established hierarchies. "Look at what’s happening to readership of newspapers and magazines," she says. Many of those readers are turning to blogs, and in doing so they are saying that they do not "rely on some third party to validate" everything that they choose to read.

Read the rest of the article on Knowledge@Wharton.

Why Are We So Fascinated With US Literature?

This post, from British writer Stuart Evers, originally appeared on the Guardian.co.uk Books Blog on 2/11/09.

I have begun to wonder why I have quite so many books by American authors.

Spanning a period of some three decades, the autobiographical pieces that make up Poe Ballantines Things I Like About America are warm-hearted, witty and tender. Pinballing around the country, Ballantine describes a patchwork quilt of small town Americana, along the way meeting a rich cast of drunks, headcases and deadbeats. He is an engaging and endearing narrator, but it’s his vision of the US – of swap meets and boarding houses, fast food and battered cars – that is the real hero of his book.

I devoured Things I Like About America in one sitting, and, hungry for more, went to my bookshelves for Denis Johnson‘s Angels – a novel that captures that windswept, Hopper-esque America better than any other I know. Looking up and down the shelves, I realised that a good three-quarters of the books I owned were written by Americans. I’d always known that I preferred American writing: I didn’t, however, realise that this had meant the exclusion of writing from everywhere else in the world.

So why so many American books? It can’t just be that Americans are better at fiction than everyone else. After all, writing isn’t swimming or professional basketball, is it?

The reasons, I suppose, are ones of personal taste and individual prejudice. The fact is, I prefer American English: I like the way it sounds; its rhythms and its cadences. Give me a diner over a café, a sidewalk over a pavement, a bar over a pub and definitely a gas station over a petrol forecourt. Take that "gas station", for example. Because of its sibilance, it’s almost as though you can hear someone inflating their tyres. Not only that, but when I read those words, I have a very exact picture in my mind. Compare these two sentences:

Mary fills up at the gas station, then drives her Chevy Impala to Roy’s Diner.

Mary fills up at the petrol station, then drives her Nissan Micra to Roy’s Rolls.

The first could be the beginning of a heartbreaking tale of small-town American disappointment; the second a script instruction from Coronation Street. A petrol station is functional, a place to pick up charcoal briquettes and wilting cellophane-wrapped flowers; a gas station is a place to pick up a packet of smokes and a hitchhiker with a gun in his waistband.

Read the rest of the post on the Guardian.co.uk Books Blog.

The End Of Indie

This article, from Richard Nash, originally appeared on his website on 8/9/09 and is reprinted here in its entirety with his permission. In the piece, Richard proposes "indie" has become so mainstream that the term is now meaningless.

I awoke in the middle of the night last night and checked email and Twitter around 4am (they say when you can’t sleep, it’s best to get up, and tire yourself out, before returning to bed). A Twitter follow announcement came in from Kaya Oakes, with whom I had been trying to schedule an interview off and on in 2007 and 2008—I felt a pang of guilt as I checked out her tweets and saw that the book, for which the interview was to be conducted, was done. Finished, published. Slanted and Enchanted: The Evolution of Indie Culture is more or less what the subtitle says it is.

I’ll spare you the appalling copy from the publisher, which manages to be both glib and patronizing, and give you a little of Publishers Weekly’s description:

“[A] lively and highly literate explication of various American indie scenes and art forms . . . [Oakes’] focus on independent publishing and writing—provides a worthy parallel narrative to Michael Azzerad’s essential indie music history, [Our]Band Could Be Your Life . . . Oakes begins the book with a much appreciated primer on some of the intellectual forebears of her book’s central characters, including the poets Frank O’Hara and Allen Ginsberg and the revolutionary street theater group the Diggers. As an explanation and excavation of the already fading recent past, it is essential reading.”—_Publishers Weekly_

I was momentarily rather bummed that I’d missed out on a chance to discuss the topic with Kaya when it dawned on me that I’d have had nothing very useful to say eighteen months ago. All is changed, changed utterly. Indie doesn’t mean anything anymore. It’s dead. Which is OK, because it won. Open source, Twitter. Indie won. Etsy. The irresistible decline of major labels and network TV and corporate publishing. Indie won. We won, but at the cost to many folks personally of suddenly becoming unnecessary. This was most visible in the last few years in the magazines like Punk Planet, Kitchen Sink, Clamor. But it’ll come for us all.

You see, to the extent that indie meant anything, it was as its root word, independent. It was about seizing the means of production. Independently produced. Aesthetics can be imitated, ethics faked, attitudes mimicked, but large bureaucracies could not possibly replicate the indie production process—how could they seize the means of production? They already had it! And now the means of production has devolved yet farther down, past the indie publishers and indie record labels and pirate radio stations of yore.

This is not to say we’ve entered Nirvana. Just because we’d seized the means of production in the 1990’s didn’t mean that poverty had been eradicated, racism ended, and the intellectual property land grab thwarted. We all have to use the tools we’ve been given, find value in, rather than discard, the tools of the past, hold feet to the fire, undermine monopoly, and so on. All things we tried to do with the means of production we seized in the 90’s, we have to continue do with the means of production that technology has handed to us in the 21st century. Moore’s Law* is value-neutral, apolitical, amoral, just like Gutenberg’s press. It’s how we use it.

So now the phase of indie is over, now that the monopoly on the production and distribution of knowledge, culture and opinion has been broken, what next, a new phase, a drive to, perhaps, create, maintain, defend a New Authenticity arises?—Ah, am I opening myself up for derision with that…? Never mind, I toss it up there, a wounded duck. Power will try to hide behind the people, let’s use a new authenticity to stop them.

*link added by Publetariat Editor

Richard Nash ran Soft Skull Press, now an imprint of Counterpoint, from 2001 to 2007 and ran the imprint on behalf of Counterpoint until early 2009. Here’s why he left.  He’s now consulting for authors and publishers on how to reach readers and developing a start-up called Cursor, a portfolio of niche social publishing communities, one of which will be called Red Lemonade.

Cross-Genre Writing

This post, from novelist Karen Chance, originally appeared on Penguin{Blog} usa on 4/4/08.

I suppose my last blog post is a good time to talk about endings: specifically genre crossover endings. A lot of books these days are hybrids of several genres. The Cassie Palmer series, for example, appeals mainly to fantasy, mystery and romance fans, with a sprinkling of horror and thriller readers mixed in there for good measure. The question I get asked most frequently is, does trying to please the readers of so many genres, each of which has its own rules and expectations, cause any problems?

Short answer: Oh, yeah.

Long answer: Since one of the biggest bones of contention is how a story ends, let’s use that as an example. And there are no two genres more disparate in that regard than romance and fantasy. In romance, the genre expectation is still the happily-ever-after ending (which is so common that it even has a widely understood abbreviation: HEA). Not that all romance stories conform to this anymore-romance, like most genres, has become more flexible in recent years-but a great many romances do follow the old formula because a great many romance fans still prefer it. In fantasy, happy endings are also the norm and have been for generations. It’s one of the main things that separates fantasy, even dark fantasy, from horror. The problem is that fans of the two genres often have a very different take on how they define the term "happy."

For romance fans, HEA means a Cinderella ending, in which the heroine gets her man and they go on to have many happy years of wedded (or these days, often unwedded) bliss together. Many times, friends of the main protagonist, vague acquaintances and, well, pretty much everybody except the villain of the piece, also live happily ever after. In fantasy . . . not so much.

Take Lord of the Rings for example. In the end, evil is defeated, good triumphs, and Aragorn becomes king. Seems pretty happy, right? Until you look a little more closely. Because Aragorn wasn’t the main protagonist, Frodo was. And what happened to Frodo? A fantasy fan would tell you, probably quite enthusiastically, "he fulfilled his quest! He grew as a person! He became more than he ever thought he could be, and did things that no one else in the story could have done!" HEA, in other words. But a romance fan, if you could tear them away from sighing over a poster of Viggo/Orlando/ assorted pretty, pretty elves long enough to answer, would likely tell you that Frodo got shafted.

I think I can explain this best by showing you, so look into your palantír and witness the following dialogue between a romance fan and a fantasy fan…

Read the rest of the post on Penguin{Blog} usa.

Why No One Links to Your Best Posts (And What To Do About It)

This post, from Jonathan Morrow, originally appeared on Copyblogger on 8/15/08.

Does this sound familiar?

You’ve picked a topic that your ideal readers are dying to know more about. You can write about the topic with authority. You’ve even chosen an interesting angle. In short, you’ve got a killer post that should bring your blog thousands of new readers.

You’re also smart enough to realize that you need to tell other people about it. So, you send an email to all of the top bloggers in your niche, pointing them to the post. Then you sit back and wait for the links to come rolling in.

But nothing happens.

You don’t get any links. You don’t even get a reply from any of the bloggers you emailed. You check your stats, and none of them even clicked the link that you sent them.

No, you got ignored. And worse, you now realize that no one is paying attention to you. You wonder, could you really be that much of a nobody, that no one would even read your email?

Yep. You could.

The Oldest Blogging Myth

“Content is king.”

It sounds good in principle. Produce a truly great piece of content, and you’ll get all the links you could ever hope for.

Maybe it worked too, several years ago. The Web used to be a fairly quiet place compared to what it is now, and it was easier for people to notice great blog posts.

But not anymore.

Now great is no longer good enough. The Web is full of so much remarkable content that bloggers don’t have enough time to read it all, much less link to it.

If you want links now, you need to be more than great. You need to be connected.

The Secret to Building a Popular Blog

Remember the saying “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know?”

Well, it’s kind of true. A mediocre writer that’s friends with every member of the Technorati 100 will become a popular blogger faster than a brilliant writer with no friends at all.

Why? Because bloggers link more often to their friends than anyone else. If you write a reasonably good piece of content that interests their audience, they’ll link to you, mainly because they like you.

The secret to building a popular blog isn’t just writing tons of brilliant content. It’s also having tons of well-connected friends.

 

Read the rest of the post, including How To Make Friends With Popular Bloggers, on Copyblogger.

DRM Is Not Evil

This post, from Michael Bhaskar, originally appeared on Pan Macmillan’s The Digitalist blog on 7/14/09. Agree? Disagree? Add your comments below. 

At Pan Macmillan we are no great fans of DRM. For a while now we have been selling a limited range of titles DRM free from our website; these are titles where the authors have requested that we retail sans DRM.

Many writers are in favour of this, and so we see as it as an important service. Recently we have added the novels of David Hewson to the non DRM stable and they can be found on the website.

Lets face it. DRM can be a nightmare – confusing, fiddly, prohibitively sensitive to basic uses of media. A couple of weeks ago I was setting up a friends Sony Reader and forgot quite how dis-orientating an experience setting up an Adobe ID can be. Ok, so most of us used to the web will not struggle. But what about all those other readers who get by without Twitter and Adobe IDs? No doubt, DRM isn’t perfect and makes life difficult for people legitimately using files they have paid good money for. Worse, it can lead to those files becoming unusable (a situation which is inexcusable).

However the anti-DRM lobby, as vocal as it is appealing, makes DRM sound like some cultural apocalypse. Culture, the argument goes, thrives on being shared and the modern mass media is a recent aberration that cuts against the grain of creativity and the natural flow of cultural production. Advocates like Cory Doctorow and Larry Lessig make a case that is compelling, persuasive and important. Yet in the hands of many acolytes this is converted to a simple outright denunciation of any DRM and the assumption that the presence of DRM provides a moral carte blanche for piracy. Google might not be evil, but DRM sure is.

The whole DRM debate is hardly a new one but it’s time someone in publishing said something positive for DRM. Yes, it often sucks, but it’s not evil. Why?

Firstly because paper is a form of DRM. If you buy a book you can lend it out to a few of your friends. Can you send it to all of them? No. You are inherently limited in the spread of that book. We don’t assume that it would ever be possible to distribute that book to everyone we know, only that we can do with it what we want. This is both sensible and sustainable.

Secondly and more significantly because mass culture relies on a mass business model undermined by piracy. An argument against DRM is that the web will engender a liberation and proliferation of culture free from the corporate bonds currently suffocating it; get rid of the suits and we end up in a grass roots web driven artistic utopia. This might be true. However in this scenario there will be no more Hollywood blockbusters, huge epoch defining albums and tours, door stopping bestsellers and all the other accouterments of mass culture that rely on a company infrastructure.

These require scale, a corporate scale, which requires direct and secure revenue which to date has existed in the form of unit sales. Last.fm, Spotify et al are pointing the way to a fantastic new business model, but alone it is not enough. DRM is one of the only tools available to prevent catastrophic loss of revenue.

My argument here is simple: if we want Harry Potter- the books, films, computer games, the whole phenomenon – then DRM has a role. While some of the web elite could happily do without this kind of mass market stuff, and while I believe the web is important in promoting material antithetical to it, I think most of us would not want to see it go away.

Read the rest of the post on Pan Macmillan’s The Digitalist blog.

RaceFail ‘09 – Why Horror Ignores the Elephant

This post, from Maurice Broaddus, originally appeared on the Apex Blog (of Apex Books) in March 2009.

A few years ago, I was speaking to a fellow black horror writer and she told me that she didn’t write characters of color in her work. She didn’t think it was important, even as a black writer, for her to write black characters (and descriptions of characters with dark hair and brown eyes were enough). It was more important for her to write for her chosen audience, who she perceived as white, and she didn’t want to in anyway alienate them.

This is how badly issues of race have infected and confused some people.

Yes, there is a current brouhaha brewing in speculative fiction that has since been dubbed RaceFail ’09. It started when Elizabeth Bear wrote a piece on writing the other which was then openly disagreed with. Hilarity ensued (catalogued here). I, too, wrote a piece on writing the other (in a response to something Jay Lake had written; mind you, both pieces came out a few YEARS ago) and have stayed out of this round of self-examination except to offer up a play-along cultural appropriation bingo card to go along with the fantasy/science fiction no racism edition” bingo card. And yet, as Chesya Burke laments, such a discussion has largely not reared its head in the horror community. I don’t expect it to, frankly. Not to be too pointed about a race discussion in horror, but the genre largely amounts to white folks writing about white folks for the consumption of white folks. In other words, horror circumvents the issue of “writing the other” by … not.

With a few exceptions, race isn’t discussed much in the horror genre. Most folks are afraid to discuss it or admit there is a problem. With good cause: the last horror brand RaceFail discussion involved the release of Brandon Massey’s anthology series, Dark Dreams. The bulk of the discussion revolved around the series being the equivalent of reverse discrimination (because, you know, there are no all-white, even more specifically, all-white-male, horror anthology series) or writer affirmative action (because obviously writers like Tananarive Due, L.A. Banks, Wrath James White, Eric Jerome Dickey, Zane, or, I humbly submit, myself, can’t be published elsewhere).

In some ways, I can see why RaceFail has gone on within the science fiction and fantasy genre/communities. By the nature of those genres, they explore (and are allowed to explore) big ideas. Horror too often prides itself on being the “lowest common denominator” genre, not built for rigorous idea exploration. “I’m doing an analysis of man’s inhumanity to man” usually amounts to puerile masturbatory fantasies of rape and torture justified by someone getting their comeuppance in the end.

Read the rest of the post on the Apex Blog

Will Publishers Ever Make Money Off Ebooks?

This article, from Paul Sweeting, originally appeared on Gigaom on 7/21/09.

Barnes & Noble’s launch of a full-scale ebook challenge to Amazon, including a deal to be the exclusive ebookstore provider to Plastic Logic’s would-be Kindle-killer when it’s released next year, means the emerging market for digital books will finally see some real competition. That’s good news for publishers concerned over Amazon’s iTunes-like dominance of the ebook business.

But not as good as it could have been, for Barnes & Noble’s pricing is keeping ebooks firmly in the loss-leader category, at least for the time being.

While Amazon has never disclosed the number of Kindles it’s sold since they were introduced in 2007 (analysts estimate it at roughly 1 million), the Kindle is clearly the most popular dedicated ebook device in the U.S., with a market share of at least 80 percent, probably higher. Thanks to the Kindle’s proprietary technology, however, there’s only one way for publishers to reach that audience of avid readers: through Amazon’s ebookstore (unless they’re willing to sell ebooks without DRM, of course, as most publishers are not).

Just as Apple did with its walled garden around the iPod, Amazon has used the leverage of its captive audience of Kindle users to set retail prices for ebooks. And, like Apple, it has set those prices largely to advance its own strategic interest in selling Kindles, not to maximize revenue for publishers.

Thus most new bestsellers at Amazon’s ebookstore can be downloaded for $9.99, less than half the list price most carry in hardcover. But Amazon still pays publishers a wholesale price of $12-$13 for those books, a loss-leader retail price that is quickly becoming the industry benchmark for new ebooks — to the deep chagrin of publishers, who worry that wholesale prices will eventually be dragged down as well. Google managed to bring a smile to publishers’ faces in June when it announced plans to launch an e-commerce platform for ebooks allowing publishers to sell directly to consumers at prices of their own choosing. But the big “get” for publishers was always going to be Barnes & Noble, the world’s largest bookseller and Amazon’s toughest potential competitor.

So what has Barnes & Noble done? Essentially, it’s gone and adopted Amazon’s pricing structure. Monday’s announcement boasts that the new Barnes & Noble e-book store will feature “hundreds of best-settlers” at — you guessed it — “only $9.99.”

Read the rest of the article on Gigaom.

About "The Rules"

This is a cross-posting of a blog entry which originally appeared on The Indie Author Blog on 8/4/09.

I’ve been away [from my blog] because I’ve been judging in this year’s Writer’s Digest Self-Published Books contest, and unlike some other contest judges I know of, don’t think it’s fair to reject any entry after reading only the first paragraph—or less. I read all of the 25 books allotted to me from cover to cover, and went back to re-read certain passages in most of them when compiling my judging notes. I say this not because I’m fishing for compliments on my judge-ery, but because the experience of reading all of those books, in a short period of time, in the context of a contest really opened my eyes to something: strict obedience to The Rules is more likely to ruin your work than breaking them.

You know about The Rules, right? That collection of unofficial, yet oft-posted admonitions purporting to warn fiction writers about the prose and story bugaboos that will result in instant rejection? Things like, "delete all adverbs," "vampire stories don’t sell anymore," and "publishers hate prologues"…ringing any bells?

As we all know, it’s not difficult to find numerous exceptions to any such rule among mainstream, bestselling books. But the response to these rebuttals is invariably some airy statement about how big name authors can get away with that stuff because they have an established fan base, whereas you, a mere beginner in the game, never could. This statement and all its variations are wrong.

Paradoxically, the only distinction between a flawed piece of prose and a flawless one is the question of whether or not the prose sings. In other words, if we feel it does not sing, we say the prose is flawed. It’s usually pretty easy to zoom in on problematic sentences or passages that seem awkward, and if certain aspects of those sentences or passages seem to repeat in other works you judge to be flawed (e.g., heavy use of adverbs), it doesn’t seem like much of a leap to conclude the repeated items are the root of the problem. It seems very logical to conclude that if only those specific items were eliminated, the prose would be flawless. But as it turns out, this is a HUGE leap and it’s NOT logical. There are only two possible reasons for finding broken rules in big-name authors’ books: either the broken rule wasn’t noticed, or else it was noticed but editors deemed it too minor to bother changing.

If a flaw was noticed but left unchanged, the author isn’t necessarily ‘getting away with it.’ Readers notice when prose is awkward, but they’re not generally peeved enough about it to return the book for a refund. Even so, many an established author has found his readership fading right in line with his attention to detail, so breaking The Rules isn’t some automatic privilege of becoming a big-name author. I’m sure anyone reading this can think of at least one former-favorite author whose books you stopped reading because the quality of the work seemed to be slipping, or getting repetitive. It’s not like authors have to toe the line right up until they hit the Times’ bestseller list, but can relax from there on in. Sometimes flaws go uncorrected simply because in terms of time, money and human resources, the publisher’s judgment came down on the side of "leave it alone".

If the so-called flaw wasn’t noticed, that was either due to a simple editorial oversight or because the so-called flaw wasn’t perceived as a flaw at all. In either case, the author still isn’t getting away with anything. The question of whether or not the prose is flawed ultimately comes down to each reader’s individual experience, and if a reader doesn’t like the work, it doesn’t really matter what his specific reasons are. That reader will come away thinking the writing was weak.

When a so-called flaw isn’t perceived by readers as a flaw at all, the work isn’t some exception that proves The Rules. It’s an example of excellent authorship, and excellent authorship isn’t about how many adverbs you use, or whether your story has a prologue, or whether your protagonist is a vampire. Excellent authorship in fiction is about storytelling. It’s about pulling the reader or listener into a world you created and convincing her to care enough about the characters in that world to invest many hours of time and effort on learning more about what happens to them. It’s about engaging the reader or listener so fully that he literally shuts off all awareness of the "real" world around him, whether because he’s immersed in the plot or fascinated by the characters—or both.

The thing is, excellent authorship cannot be defined in any fixed manner; what makes one piece of work wonderful may be entirely different than what makes another piece of work equally good. For example, many people would laud Terry Pratchett for the humor in his Discworld books, but that doesn’t mean that as a rule, all novelists should strive to inject humor into their work. Similarly, many others greatly enjoy the occult elements in Anne Rice’s vampire and witch novels, but that doesn’t mean adding occult elements to your novel will make it a surefire winner.

Conversely, choosing what to leave out of your novel by hewing to The Rules like they’re your religion will not make your novel a surefire winner, either. What it WILL do is drain all the life, personality and originality from your work. In judging, I read many books that were absolutely pristine in terms of following The Rules yet were so boring, predictable or colorless that reading them felt like homework. Many aspiring authors don’t seem to realize this, but an author’s unique "voice", his or her specific style of communicating, is defined by when and how that author breaks The Rules. If you never break The Rules, you will never find or develop your author’s voice. And as a reader, having recently read 25 novels from different authors in rapid succession, I can tell you that I’ll take adverbs, prologues and vampires over boring in my novels any day.

Some of the best work I read broke numerous rules, and in every one of those cases the storytelling was so powerful that I didn’t even notice any rules being broken until much later, when I went back to try and put my finger on the specific qualities that made certain entries so much stronger than others. At that point I had my eye out for The Rules, and having been schooled in them for so many years I suspected I’d find the stronger entries were stronger precisely because those authors managed to avoid breaking The Rules. But I was wrong.

In comparing the greats to the not-so-greats, there was plenty of rule-breaking happening on both sides of the fence. The only difference was, in the greats I didn’t notice the rule-breaking during my first read-through, whereas in the not-so-greats I HAD noticed. It became very clear to me that what separates successful prose from flawed prose isn’t the question of whether or not the author uses a prologue, adverbs, vampire characters, or breaks any other rule: it’s whether the author succeeded in pulling me in. Period. But since there’s no simple way to explain how to pull a reader in, no universal method or style that works for all writers in all genres at all times, we tend to find other, easier mile markers upon which to hang our hats. Hence, The Rules are born. Hence, huge populations of writers become convinced that good fiction writing is about following rules, not storytelling. I think this must be because it’s very comforting to believe there’s some secret formula or magic method that invariably leads to success, and very scary to think there isn’t.

In my critiques of those 25 books, my notes on how the books could be improved had to do with things like characterization, phrasing too awkward to be easily understood, story arc, plot logic and pacing. I didn’t advise anyone to kill the adverbs, strike the prologue, or eliminate the undead from their stories. I’d already read plenty of work that had done all those things and more in service (or servitude) to The Rules, yet still failed to hold my rapt attention. In the end, the books that piqued my interest and held it were the ones I judged most promising, regardless of The Rules. Plenty of these needed a good edit, a little work on pacing or character, or improvement in some other area of mechanics, but all of those things are easy to fix. If your story lacks personality, originality, or imagination, neither I nor anyone else can tell you how to fix those problems. It’s like telling a musician to play better.

If you must have rules, I’d say these are the only two you need:

1. If it weakens, or adds nothing to the work, change it.

2. If it strengthens the work, leave it alone.

I think you’ll find that these two rules alone cover everything from spelling and grammar to plot and pacing, and that there’s no flaw you can think of in a piece of prose that can’t be fixed through the application of one or the other of these two rules. Even murkier areas like character, theme and tone are covered by these two rules, because every choice you make in drawing character, conveying theme and setting tone will weaken, add nothing to, or strengthen the work overall.

But as I’m sure you’ve noticed, these rules are fairly useless unless you can tell the difference between what weakens/adds nothing to, or strengthens, a piece of work. And if you can already tell the difference, then you don’t need these rules to begin with. Unfortunately, there’s no rubric to which you can refer on this, it comes down to your gut and the reactions of your readers. Even spelling and grammar aren’t so clear-cut as you might think; believe it or not, there are times when purposeful misspelling and incorrect grammar really can strengthen a story; just ask Burroughs or Vonnegut.

In the end, the inherent problem with conventional wisdom is that if you follow it, you end up with a conventional product for conventional people. And when was the last time you heard a novel praised for being conventional?

 

April L. Hamilton is the founder and Editor In Chief of Publetariat.

Redhammer’s Peter Cox Partners With Publetariat Vault

The Publetariat Vault , the groundbreaking new service that connects successful self-published books with publishers and content producers, announced today it will be partnering with Redhammer Management, a literary agency headed by Peter Cox.  

Publetariat Vault founder April Hamilton says, "The Vault provides a listing service only. Authors who list their books don’t enter into an agency relationship with the Vault, and the Vault has no involvement or stake in contract negotiations arising from Vault listings. Still, authors in that situation definitely need a qualified representative at their side to protect their interests, and that’s where Redhammer comes in. Upon the author’s request, Peter Cox has agreed to represent Vault authors in contract negotiations on a one-off basis. Peter’s agency is well-established, international, and represents some top, bestselling authors, including Michelle Paver, author of the hugely successful Chronicles of Ancient Darkness young adult series."
 
"Peter also founded the Litopia  online writers’ community, and he is well-known for all the guidance and feedback he and his clients offer aspiring authors on the Litopia site; he’s truly a friend to authors, and that was important to me."
 
For his part, Peter says, “The Publetariat Vault is an inspired and much-needed idea. Until now, there was no easy way – in fact, no way at all – for the publishing business to discover tomorrow’s rising stars in the burgeoning self-publishing sector. But now there is – The Publetariat Vault makes it easy for publishers to spot the hottest manuscripts that have real traction in the market. It’s brilliant!” 
 
The Vault is currently open for self-published authors to create listings, and expects to open for publisher and producer searches in late August.
 

[Publetariat Editor’s Note: the Vault is running a promotion for its grand opening, in which the first 300 published book listings will be free of charge for 90 days from the date the Vault opens for searches.  It’s a no-cost, no-risk opportunity for self-published authors to try the service. If you’re seeking mainstream publisher/producer attention for your self-published book, sign up for your free Vault account and get those listings in!]

Publisher Spotlight: Interview With Flying Pen Press Publisher David Rozansky

David Rozansky is the founder and publisher for Flying Pen Press and its numerous imprints. In this interview with Publetariat founder April L. Hamilton, David discusses how and why he got into book publishing, what it’s like to work with Flying Pen as an author, and his opinions on matters related to the economics of publishing and self-publishing.

ALH: Following over two decades of experience as a writer, journalist, and then magazine publisher, you decided to launch Flying Pen Press. Why?

DR: There are two forces at work here.

As I entered publishing, I started with magazines back in the early 1990s, mostly because it was easier for a struggling writer to launch a magazine on a shoestring than to start a book publishing house, but my real interest was in publishing books. Then, not too long ago. it became possible to launch a fully functional book-publishing house with no capital outlay. I had the knowledge, the passion and the contacts, so launching a book-publishing house was a natural progression of my career.

The other factor is that in 20 or so years of writing, I often came upon unfair or predatory practices among publishers. I wanted to give my fellow writers a place where they would be respected, and where their work was the reason for being [in] business. Once it became practical to launch a book-publishing venture, I felt like I had an obligation to do so.

ALH: Flying Pen initially faced some serious skepticism from authors who believe a publisher which doesn’t offer sizable advances isn’t a legitimate publisher at all, but when the Harper Studio imprint launched last year, it was with the announcement of the imprint’s intention to forego author advances entirely in favor of a profit-sharing approach to author compensation. It seems Flying Pen was a bit ahead of the curve on this new trend of reducing author advances and looking for alternative compensation schemes. How does Flying Pen compensate its authors?

DR: Before I answer, I would like to say I don’t see any reversal of any trends. There have always been small publishers that could not afford to pay advances. An advance requires a great deal of speculative capital on the part of the publisher. If the book does not earn enough to clear its advance, that publisher is out of money. The larger publishers have enough cash reserves to entice the bestselling authors with large advances, and with their large title lists, they can afford to gamble. But smaller houses just can’t take that risk, because it only takes once for a poorly performing title that does not earn back its advance and then that company is bankrupt.

I also believe that writers should stand behind their work, as I always have with my own writing. That means sharing the risk that the writing will not find a following with readers. I don’t mind giving writers a better-than-average share of the rewards for sharing that risk, but authors that demand an advance before they have proven themselves with a fan following are telling me that they are not sure of their writing, and authors who are well established in the trade with a large number of readers have told me that they prefer more royalties over any advance.

When an author has enough of a fan following that bestseller status is almost all but assured, then advances become a way for large publishers to convince a writer that they are more dedicated to the book’s success than their competitor. But small publishers just don’t have the money to play that, and the large publishers, in this economy, have been bitten pretty hard by their overestimations and are shying away from big advances.

I have instituted a fairly innovative royalty schedule, however, one that no one else has tried. Instead of paying a royalty that is based on cover price or on net sales, I have set it up so that authors earn royalties based on shares of gross profits of each book sold. Gross profits is based on the net sale price less printing costs and some marketing costs that both publisher and writer agree on, such as review copies printed or special ads.

This changes the publishers-author dynamic a bit. Instead of seeing authors as vendors of content, where we try to drive the price for content down with creative accounting, Flying Pen Press becomes a partner with the author. As a typical example, the author earns 100 shares, Flying Pen Press earns 115 shares, and the cover designer and the contracted book editor earn about 30 shares each. The only way that Flying Pen Press can make more money is if the author makes more money, since we all get a cut of the same profit numbers. This falls in line with my philosophy of giving as much respect as possible to authors.

We are now playing around with the idea of giving authors profit shares of the company, as well, over and above their royalties, provided they continue to write books each year and they communicate regularly with their fan bases. Once we have more cash flow, my plans are to offer authors health benefits, disability insurance, and other perks that are sorely lacking among my competitors, but that will have to come only once we have developed a rich and successful catalog.

We also pull from our authors for staff positions. Authors make the best editors, I have found, and as an author-centric publisher, it pays to bring on my fellow writers as key decision makers.

ALH: On your website, under submission guidelines, it says Flying Pen has "an immediate interest in science fiction, fantasy, and mystery novels, and in poker books and role-playing-game books." Is Flying Pen evolving into a genre-specific imprint, or do you have plans to broaden your range in acquisitions?

DR: While we have a strong interest right now in those particular genres, it is because we have developed inroads into those markets. Our acquisitions interests, however, are in most all fiction genres except for erotica, children’s, young adult or poetry, and our nonfiction interests can include most anything except new age or religious titles.

I have always said that Flying Pen Press would determine its own direction, regardless of what my interests are. That is, it is easier to market books to people who are already familiar with your company than to try and beat a path into a new genre. Two of our first three books were science fiction novels, and then last year, we decided to fill the catalog with science fiction because the World Science Fiction Convention came to Denver, our home town. As a result, we have strong roots with science-fiction bookstores and readers, and so it is less expensive to operate along that path. Thus, our predilection for science fiction. As we draw on our authors for staff, the staff comes form this pool of science fiction writers, and that causes an even deeper association with that genre.

Having said that, we are interested in all commercially viable fiction. Key to that is the author’s fan base and quality of writing, not the genre.

When it comes to nonfiction, it is a little different. Our first nonfiction book is a poker rulebook. Finding nonfiction writers is harder, but marketing nonfiction is very easy. You don’t have to explain what the book is about, the reader gets it from the title. There is less of a "beaten path" associated with what subjects we can market, and more of matching the reader’s needs to the writer’s ability to fill it.

We do have specific imprints for certain nonfiction imprints.

Game Day is the imprint for game books and books about games. This includes poker and role-playing games. It can also include books about video games, board games, fantasy sports, collectible card games, party games and children’s games. We also look for books about casino games and gambling, as well as books about the gaming and gambling industries and books on game theory. Puzzle books also fall under this imprint.

Flying Piggybank Press is our business imprint. In this title, we are addressing the subjects of business management, small-business operations, personal finance, and career management. If we can get a juicy corporation expose, we’d love to have it.

Flying Pen Press Aviation is an imprint for aviation and aerospace topics, including fiction, how-to, technical, textbook, history, pilot travelogue, and any other subject that we can market to pilots and aviation enthusiasts.

Traveling Pen Press titles are travelogues. Such books don’t sell well, but I spent three years as an expatriate in Central America, and I have a soft spot for such writing.

Flying Pen Press Travel Guides is self-explanatory. We want to publish travel books. We don’t have the operating capital to compete with Fodors or Lonely Planet, but we can easily market quirky travel guides. I would say that being in Colorado, we find that there is a strong need for ski-resort guides that is not being met. One of the big challenges with travel guides, at least for Flying Pen Press, is that we publish in black and white only, and these books tend to rely on color photographs rather extensively.

We want to publish some regional titles. Flying Pen Press Colorado focuses on anything about the state. Flying Pen Press Southwest focuses on the Southwest U.S., and Flying Pen Press Rocky Mountain West addresses the mountainous states.

The one imprint that means the most to me is The Press for Humanitarian Causes. I spent three years as a volunteer in Central America during the 1980s, and I learned that there are many people in this world who are suffering but for the need to be heard. This imprint gives those people a voice, either written by the people in those places, or the volunteers who help them. Flying Pen Press keeps none of its profit shares from these titles but instead donates them to the volunteer humanitarian organizations helping the people who are the subject of the book. I believe that the freedom of the press goes a long way to bringing hope, peace and freedom to the people of the world, and this is my way of giving back to the community.

ALH: Within the preferred genres, what is it that Flying Pen looks for in its acquisitions?

DR: As you can see, we have a lot of preferred genres.

In fiction, we want a really good story well told, by an author who has developed a fan following and communicates with those fans regularly. This holds true for narrative nonfiction and memoirs as well.

In nonfiction, we want topics that appeal to readers by an expert that can actively instruct and answer questions about the subject matter. And we are looking for strong, ethical, thorough journalism.

I can’t really say that when it comes to "what we are looking for" in our acquisitions, I can’t say that we are really much different than other commercial publishers. We want books that can be sold in bookstores, of the quality such stores require.

Flying Pen Press doesn’t publish books, per se. We publish authors, and it is the attitude, skill and passion of the author that is more relevant in our acquisition process. We expect authors to write well and professionally, but we also expect them to write on a regular basis. If an author can write one, two or more books a year, we are far more likely to publish them than someone who will turn out only one brilliant book.

And also, Flying Pen Press does not buy manuscripts, we buy readers. If there is a demonstrated passion for the author’s work, then we are more likely to see value in that material.

ALH: What kind of experience can an author expect after signing with Flying Pen, in terms of editorial, cover design, marketing and support services?

DR: Flying Pen Press is a commercial publisher, so we do all of that. We are a virtual company, in that all of the staff work from their home offices.

How much we need to work on a book after the author turns in the manuscript depends on the book and the author, mostly, but we try our best to make the book the best it can be.

Generally, we bring on a book editor as a contractor that is best suited to working with the author, who agrees to work for shares of gross profit. We have found that this creates a fairly close working relationship with the author in the prepublication stage. However, we want to bring more of this in house because we find that freelance editors are not paying close attention to the post-publication marketing of the book.

In any event, I have a tight hand on the editorial side, and I am always ready to step in if there is any disruption in the editorial process.

As to covers, Laura Givens is our art director and designs the covers. She is an excellent artist in her own right, and as she has been designing book covers for some time, she has a fairly competent stable of artists to draw from. We engage the author in the cover design stage, but in the end, Flying Pen Press has artistic control over the cover design, and we have found that some authors nitpick at the cover so badly that it becomes a negative influence on the artwork quality, so sometimes we have to say, enough is enough. The author’s involvement, when reasonable, is very important to us, though, and we show authors every sketch and draft as the cover develops.

As to marketing, we do what we can. We primarily market on the Internet, like most small publishers do. We produce a catalog, and we call on bookstores. However, as the gap between author and reader closes, it becomes imperative that the author do more of the marketing. We focus on training authors on how to attract fans, how to connect with them, and how to communicate with them. We are establishing new routines where Flying Pen Press helps authors with blogging, newsletters and publicity, to help give the author more time to write, but ultimately, the readers follow the author, not the publisher.

I am not sure what you have in mind when you ask about support services. I forge personal friendships with each and every author, and I treat them as if they were family. I give them any support I can, and they have an open invitation to knock on my front door at any time, even at my home…which is also my office, being as Flying Pen Press has a virtual office. I want writers to succeed and to be respected, because those are the seeds of my own prosperity and self worth. There are no stockholders at Flying Pen Press, no bottom line, no ego. In my mind, as a publisher, I work for the authors, not the other way around. I give whatever support I can, though I cannot send company jets, pay for transcontinental book tours or put Oprah on speed dial. But I will be there with my truck when the author moves, and come with food when the author is sick, and clasp the author’s hand whenever we meet. I can only offer my friendship as a support service, but I can think of no support more powerful.

ALH: To what extent does Flying Pen employ, or plan to employ, Print on Demand and ebook technologies?

DR: We leverage Lightning Source, a print-on-demand printer owned and operated by Ingram, and we turn all of our books into ebooks, although we are still experiencing the learning curve on ebook technical matters.

Every day, more publishers are turning to Lightning Source. It is practically cornering the market on Long Tail publishing. Lightning Source provides more than just the highest quality print-on-demand technology in plants in the U.S. and U.K., they provide distribution through Ingram, Baker & Taylor, NACSCORP (a distributor serving college bookstores) and all the major wholesalers in the U.K. to serve all of Europe. More plants will be opening in countries around the globe. They also serve Amazon and the online arm of Barnes and Noble. Lightning Source allows Flying Pen Press to set our discounts however we want, so that we can offer standard terms to the trade. Lightning Source also handles returns, which is critical when marketing books to the trade.

In return for a higher print cost per copy, Flying Pen Press is freed from the costs of warehousing and the costs of inventory risk. No book is ever printed that is not wanted. Books ship directly from the Lightning Source Plant (wherever it may be) to the store, or more often than not, directly to the reader. Flying Pen Press never has to invest capital in a print run in the hopes that the readers will buy all the copies. This makes it easy to invest effort in new, untried authors, and to keep publishing their work even when their first title does not take off right away. It also allows us to make more profit with niche titles that may not necessarily find a large audience.

Should we ever get a large order, Lightning Source immediately sends our file to an offset printer, and the print savings are passed on to Flying Pen Press. Lower print costs increase gross profits, which helps increase the author’s royalties, because it is all based on shares of gross profits. That is the beauty of print-on-demand: it can use either offset or electronic printing presses, and never is a copy wasted. Waste in this business is very expensive, so it is no wonder that even the biggest publishers are turning to print-on-demand technology.

As to ebooks, it’s clear that the public is now hungry for more titles on more screens. Because we are more focused on having authors build their careers than on selling copies of a single title, we encourage authors to allow free ebook distribution for about half their books, or at least for their first few titles. Then, when the author has created a name for herself, it is a good time to begin selling ebooks for profit. This is always a controversial subject, and we follow the author’s lead when it comes to ebook pricing, but Flying Pen Press is not one of those publishers that demands that profits must stand in the way of the author building a fan base; we see that as counterproductive.

ALH: In recent publishing news, we’ve learned of an author who landed a contract with Harper Collins after acquiring a sizable following for the Podiobooks version of his novel, and another who got a 2-book deal with Simon & Schuster after self-publishing his book as Kindle edition and promoting it himself. It seems hardly a week goes by without similar self-publisher success stories; as a publisher, do you feel this is an exceptional blip on the radar, or the beginning of a new trend in acquisitions?

DR: Again, I would say neither. Small presses and self-publication have always been a great way for authors to build their fan base to a point that large publishers make offers. This is as old as commercial publishing itself. It only seems different now that self-publishing is so economical, but it is neither new nor a mere fad. Rather, it is the normal means of getting noticed.

It is important to note that getting published by a big name publisher is not the ultimate prize. After the publisher, distributors have to be talked into warehousing the book, then sale reps have to be convinced that the book is the best in the catalog, and then the bookstores have to take to it, and finally, the reader has to buy it in large quantities or it all comes tumbling down, with the author left in a pile of failure.

However, if the author takes care of her end of business first, by convincing enough readers to buy the book that there becomes a subtle buzz for the book, then everyone’s job at the bigger publishers becomes easy. And because of this, a successful (and I need to stress *successful*) self-published book stands a very good chance of snaring the big marketing dollars–even if it’s only self-published as an ebook or podcast.

ALH: Is Flying Pen open to acquiring the rights to successful self-published books?

DR: Yes and no. We are certainly open to acquiring a successful book of any type, but successful means that it has a following, not that it looks nice and has the pages in order. I have had many self-published books, ebooks, web books, audio books and print-shop books land on my desk. And so far, all but the print-shop book has been deplorable. The grammar is usually awful, spelling errors are rampant, not thought at all is given to style, plots have large open holes, Characters are stilted, and there is no skill or talent in the writing. The reviews on Amazon–if there are any–are often negative. When I Google the author’s name, nothing comes up. The core market of the author’s friends and family have been mined out years ago, making it impossible to ignite the spark of buzz marketing that is so crucial to book marketing.

For some reason I cannot fathom, many authors turn to self-publication as a way of sidestepping the vetting process. But self-publication means that the book has to be more attractive to readers than what a large publishing house puts out, and so a self-published book requires more vetting, at the author’s own expense. An editor *must* be hired. The author’s own online marketing efforts must be ten times more intense than her traditionally published peers.

Self-publication is often seen by authors as a way of avoiding the torrential demands made by commercial publishers, but in reality, it is actually a deeper immersion into the tempest that is the publishing world. Those writers who are prepared for the tempest have a great challenge before them, with a great reward waiting for them if they succeed, but self-published writers who think they are above the tempest will find themselves drowning in the whirlpool of an apathetic market.

Flying Pen Press will never want the self-published author whose attitude or record indicates that the author is burned out on marketing and promotion and just wants a commercial publisher to take over. Instead, it must be clear that the author has mastered these tasks with vigor before a self-published book becomes the least bit interesting to a commercial publishing house like Flying Pen Press.

Unfortunately, every publishing house is looking for the successful self-published books that have proven themselves. Chances are, a small house like Flying Pen Press cannot compete when one of these rare gems comes along. So Flying Pen Press is more likely to work with unpublished authors, or with midlist authors who have grown tired of the ivory-tower publishing establishment in New York City.

ALH: Can you tell us something about Flying Pen’s latest release, and what led you to acquire this particular book?

DR: Our latest release is actually part of our first acquisition.

The latest book from Flying Pen Press is Riders of the Mapinguari, the final novel in the Feral World series. Here is [some] information:

Riders of the Mapinguari.
The third novel of The Feral World series.
By Gaddy Bergmann.

Riders of the Mapinguari by Gaddy Bergmann is the final novel in The Feral World trilogy, a post-apocalyptic odyssey set 3,000 years in the future. Humanity has barely survived a near-extinction-level event – the collision of a major asteroid with Earth in the middle of the Twenty-First Century.
Riders of the Mapinguari takes The Feral World in a radically new direction. Blake and his friends have traveled through the Great Plains and are living peacefully in the Warmland, when they are attacked by an enemy quite unlike any they have ever faced before: the Terran army. Poised to conquer the Warmland, the Terrans not only greatly outnumber the natives, but they also have hundreds of mapinguari – giant beasts that can overpower anyone who would oppose them. Blake and his people must face them, though, if they hope to save not only themselves, but the entire Warmland. The Feral World trilogy is unique in offering an optimistic view of post-apocalyptic society, which has come to consist of local tribes that depend on hunting and gathering. Gaddy Bergmann (Denver) is an ecologist and zoologist, and he carefully crafted a world where the biosphere develops naturally in the absence of humanity’s misguided management of the planet.

Biography:
Gaddy Bergmann is a naturalist and scientist. He has performed research in both ecology and microbiology. He has also worked in education, teaching elementary, secondary, and university students in the subjects of math, science, and composition. An admirer of animals and wildlife since childhood, he was inspired to write /The Feral World/ books by the beauty of the natural wonders he saw all around him.

I first met Gaddy in October, 2006, at Mile Hi Con, a science fiction convention in Denver. I had just started looking into Lightning Source and realized that my dreams of book publishing without any capital outlay were now feasible, but I did not know if any writers would appreciate the no-advance, shares-of-profit payment schedule. So I went to the first conference where I might find writers to see what the response would be. I put a sign in my hat that said: "Writers and Editors Wanted." I arranged a pitch session at the convention, expecting no one to show.

Instead, I was surrounded for the entire weekend by aspiring writers, and the pitch session brought was well attended. I went to Mile Hi Con to get a feel for interest, but I left with eight manuscripts to review. One often hears from publishers that unsolicited manuscripts are usually dreadful, but somehow I was very lucky–of the eight manuscripts, six were very well written and worth publishing.

Gaddy Bergmann was the first person to hand me a complete manuscript, in a very large three-ring binder. I was drawn into his world of rubbletowns and feral dogs and Bebelishi culture. But it was much too long, twice too long. Fortunately, the novel had a major plot shift exactly at the halfway point, and Bergmann agreed to split it into two books, which required very little effort at all. Bergmann also mentioned that he was working on the sequel. This resulted in a three-book contract: Migration of the Kamishi (ISBN 978-0-9795889-1-4), Trials of the Warmland (ISBN 978-0-9795889-4-5) and Riders of the Mapinguari (ISBN 978-0-09795889-5-2).
 

I would like to end this interview by inviting people to ask me questions about the publishing industry. My email address is Publisher@FlyingPenPress.com, and I can often be found on Twitter: @DavidRozansky. I am happy to take calls at 303-375-0499, but please keep in mind that the nature of a virtual office means that I do not keep any regular business hours.

 

Learn more about Flying Pen Press at the publisher’s web page, http://FlyingPenPress.com, and subscribe to the Flying Pen Press newsletter by sending an email to newsletter-subscribe@FlyingPenPress.com (Flying Pen Press does not share its newsletter subscription list with anyone for any reason, and will only use it to send regular newsletters, press releases, and occasional special offers for Flying Pen Press titles). 

Blog Book Tour – The Wrap, With Stats

This is a cross-posting of an entry that originally appeared on alanbaxteronline.com on 8/2/09.

Right, so this will be my last post on the blog book tour.

[Publetariat Editor’s note: see links to individual stops on the tour at the end of this post].

I’m sure most of you are sick of reading about it by now. However, quite a few people have asked me to write up how it went, what kind of results I saw from it and so on, so this last post will be an attempt to wrap it all up.

To sum up there were eleven posts overall, but one was a no-show. The tour was scheduled with ten guest spots on ten different blogs, but I was fortunate enough to have Mark Coker, founder of Smashwords.com, interview me about the tour just prior to the start, so we had an early kick-off. The no-show was supposed to be a review of MageSign by Ruthie’s Book Reviews, but Ruthie is having computer problems. Hopefully that review will show up in a week or two. I’ll list all the stops of the tour again at the end, with direct links, so you can catch up on anything you might have missed. The tour was a lot of fun and hopefully generated a lot of interest not only in my books but also for the owners of the blogs that took part.

In terms of stats, I can report a few bits and pieces.

* Around the middle of the tour the sales rank for the print edition of RealmShift on Amazon.com peaked at around the 93,000 mark. For a book that usually floats between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 this is quite a good result.

* More impressive, Kindle sales of RealmShift were up 200% in July compared to the two previous months. MageSign Kindle sales remained much the same as previous months. Hopefully those RealmShift sales will result in people coming back to buy MageSign at a later date.

* As for Smashwords sales of ebooks, these were a little lower than I’d hoped for. With the special $1 offer on I’d hoped to make more sales. However, RealmShift had about a 30% spike in sales and MageSign about 50%. Proof that stats are pretty arbitrary and largely utterly random. Ghost Of The Black, my free novella on Smashwords, doubled its total downloads during the tour.

Of course, it’s impossible to tell how many of these sales were the result of the tour compared to general ongoing web promotion or anything else.

As for web stats, this site saw a 50% increase in visits for the period of the tour and people stayed on the site for nearly twice as long as the previous average. A couple of other participants have told me that they had their highest hits for the month on the day of their book tour post, with the exception of newly released baby pics. What an outrage, publishing new baby pics in the same month as my book tour. Who can compete with that? One participant reported ten times their usual hits for the day they hosted my post, which is excellent news.

So that’s about all the detailed info I can give you about the tour. It was hard work to organise, but definitely worth it. I’ve also learned a lot, so when I tour the next book I’ll hopefully make it even more worthwhile. Here’s a quick rundown of all the posts on the tour. These links are live direct to the relevant article:

Early Opener – Interview about Blog Book Tours at Smashwords

Day One: Guest post: Dark Fantasy – What is it exactly? – at The Creative Penn

Day Two: Interviewed by Leticia Supple – Tues 21st July at Brascoe Books Blog

Day Three: Guest post: Writing a good fight scene – Wed 22nd July at David Wood Online

Day Four: Interviewed by April Hamiltion – Thurs 23rd July at Publetariat

Day Five: Guest post: Demons and where to find them – Friday 24th July at Joan De La Haye’s blog

Day Six: Wily Writers publishing my short story “Stand Off” (featuring Isiah, the protagonist from RealmShift and MageSign) as both text and podcast – Sat 25th July at Wily Writers website

Day Seven: Ruthie reviews MageSign – Sun 26th at Ruthie’s Book Reviews – hopefully this will come up soon.

Day Eight: Pat Bertram interviews Isiah, the protagonist from RealmShift and MageSign – Mon 27th July at Pat Bertram Introduces…

Day Nine: Guest post: Indie authors and the future – Tues 28th July at Musings Of An Aussie Writer

Day Ten: Guest post: The inspiration for RealmShift and MageSign, what they’re about and what’s next – Wed 29th July at The Furnace

These are some really great blogs listed above, so check them out and have a look at what else they have on offer while you’re there. And don’t forget to find out where you can get RealmShift, MageSign and Ghost Of The Black at the Books page.

So, what did you think? Did you enjoy the tour? Any suggestions for things you’d like to have seen but didn’t? Leave me comments if you have any opinions, good, bad or indifferent.

 

Authonomy: One Writer's Experience

This post, from Mary W. Walters, originally appeared on her The Militant Writer blog on 8/1/09.

In theory, authonomy is a perfect way for writers to get their book manuscripts read by editors at a major publishing house without the intercession of an agent.

After reading about what authonomy is intended to do and why, a writer might decide that if her manuscript isn’t good enough to get the kind of positive reception from the other writers on the site that it needs to rise through the ranks to the top five (aka the Editor’s Desk)—where it will at least receive professional feedback from one of the finest editors in the English-speaking world, and at best be snatched up for publication—perhaps it isn’t as good as she’s been thinking that it is.

But is that a logical conclusion for her to draw when after several months on the site she does not, in fact, reach the Editor’s Desk and realizes that she probably never will?

For the benefit of other writers who may be weighing the same questions that I considered six months ago when I decided to post my novel, The Whole Clove Diet, on authonomy, I here offer a summary of my experiences and observations so that others may be better equipped than I was to assess the potential value to their writing careers of participation in the site.

What authonomy is

authonomy (the “th” is pronounced as in “author”) is an on-line community of writers that was established in 2008 by HarperCollins Publishers. Although the site is based in the U.K., HarperCollins offices around the world participate in evaluating manuscripts, and the site is open to writers, published or unpublished, living anywhere—as long as their manuscripts are in English.

On authonomy, participants read excerpts from books by other writers on the site, and they “shelve” or “back” the ones they find of merit. They are also encouraged to provide the authors of the books they read with some feedback in the form of comments. Those with the most backings (subject to an algorithm that recognizes users’ reviewing experience on the site) rise to the top and when they reach the top five, they are read and provided with an evaluation by a HarperCollins editor.

The authonomy site is still in beta format, but as of this writing it has more than 3,000 users–each with at least one and sometimes as many as three books posted on the site. Some users are very active (a recent forum question was “How many people spend more than five hours a day on authonomy?” and several people actually raised their virtual hands, albeit a little sheepishly). Many writers spend at least an hour or two a day on authonomy, reading, critiquing, commenting and sometimes contributing to the forum. Other writers show up only occasionally, and still others have not been on the site in months.

HarperCollins (HC) states that the purpose of authonomy is to “flush out the brightest, freshest new literature around” and on the last day of each month, authonomites gather around to see which five books will be whisked away for review by the HC editors. Approximately one month after starring them for selection, HC editors deliver critiques of the five top manuscripts to their respective authors. These evaluations ideally include suggestions for revision and some indication as to whether HC might be interested in seeing the manuscript again after the author has worked on it.

A word or two about the Golden Goose

The hope of almost all of those who officially join the site and post a book is that that HC will recognize their work of fiction, non-fiction or (less frequently) poetry for the masterpiece it is and want to publish it. Subsidiary hopes include that, as it is rising to the top but before it actually reaches the top five, the manuscript will be discovered by an agent, another publisher or even HC itself. This has, in fact, happened once or twice–although it hasn’t happened very often. Nor, to my knowledge, have any books that have actually reached the top five yet been selected for publication by HC.

Since getting an agent or a publisher is pretty much a crapshoot in this day and age no matter how you go about it, a more significant problem than the dearth of publications from the site is one that anyone can see who reads the HC editorial responses to books that have reached the Editor’s Desk in the past. (This feedback is almost always posted by the authors who’ve received it, although they are not required to make it public.) The problem is that while some of the editorial feedback is constructive and helpful, even insightful and brilliant, some is next to useless. The site administrators have said that HC editors for each book in the top five each month are selected on the basis of its genre or subgenre (young adult, for example, historical romance, or literary) and the location of the writer—but clearly, some HC editors are better readers and feedback-writers than are others.

I have read HC evaluations on authonomy that were little more than summaries of the excerpt. Others have contained errors that could only have been made if the editor had not read the submission very carefully, or had not consulted the “pitch” which is also a required part of the submission. Several comments from HC editors have been marred by typos and even grammatical errors, which seriously undermined their credibility.

After waiting months and months to obtain feedback from the powerhouse publishing giant that is HarperCollins—which is one big dream of a lifetime for many—to  receive a less than professional evaluation on one’s excerpt is more than discouraging. The recipients of such evaluations are upset when this happens, and so are the other authonomy community members who have also read the excerpt. Contributors to forum threads disgustedly point out the flaws in various HC reviews every month, sometimes out of loyalty, but often also on the basis of solid evidence.

My authonomy history

I joined authonomy in February of 2009, posting my novel in its entirety (at the outset) on the site. The Whole Clove Diet rose steadily albeit slowly toward the Editor’s Desk, garnering many positive reviews along the way. In the first few weeks I learned from comments left on the forum by site administrators and other users that by the time I reached number 50, particularly if I also maintained some visibility on the forum, I could feel fairly well assured that HC had seen my novel. If they had not by that point contacted me by email, I could assume they were not interested in it.

By then I had begun to appreciate how hard it was to reach the Editor’s Desk/top five and how small the advantages might actually be to getting there. I decided that if HC and other publishers and agents were trawling the top 50 on a regular basis, I would set my sights on reaching the top 45 or so.

In fact, I only made it to about 110 before I quit. Although I developed some rewarding on-line friendships at authonomy in the four months or so that I was a regular participant, and received some useful input that was helpful in the revision of my novel, and discovered a few writers who I really think are going to make strong literary contributions in the future, the experience of being on the site nearly drove me crazy—several times. And so I removed my novel, although I am still a member of the community and enjoy popping in from time to time to exchange comments on the forum with my friends and colleagues (and fellow-sufferers) over there.

authonomy intention vs. authonomy reality

authonomy has been described as a “do-it-yourself slush pile” in which readers (mainly other writers) do all the work for HarperCollins by finding the best books on the site and pushing them toward the top. This is fine: times are changing and most writers are willing to do a little work in order to attract professional attention to their manuscripts.

The only problem is that the way the authonomy system works does not contribute to finding the “best” books, no matter how you define that term.  It appeared to me that at least 90% of the writers on the site have joined with one goal in mind, which is getting themselves to the Editor’s Desk. (The others insist they are there only to receive feedback from other writers that will help them improve their work.) This means that the primary motivation for most people who will read and back other people’s manuscripts on authonomy is not to find good books for HC to publish—but rather to find other people to read and back their own books.

Read the rest of the post  on The Militant Writer blog.

The Fine Art of Feedback

This post, from bestselling novelist Joe Finder, originally appeared on the Writing Tips section of his website in July of this year and is reprinted in its entirety here with his permission.

     VANISHED hits bookstores in a month. As we get closer and closer to the publication date, I get more excited about finally putting the book in readers’ hands. There’s nothing like that excitement of seeing people read something I wrote, and few professional endeavors ever pay off with such a visible reward.

     Yet there’s a certain amount of nervousness, too, a kind of stage fright. Even after having published nine books (eight novels), I still feel it. I’ve learned the truth of Edna St. Vincent Millay’s remark, "A person who publishes a book willfully appears before the populace with his pants down. If it is a good book nothing can hurt him. If it is a bad book nothing can help him."

     I’ve come to value criticism. But I admit, I used to take umbrage, I used to be offended or even hurt — until I realized that anything that doesn’t kill me makes me stronger, and that criticism/feedback/suggestions are the way my work gets better. Now I value it. Getting mad at criticism is like getting mad at a friend for giving you honest advice when you asked for it. Don’t get mad at criticism. Be grateful.

     We write to be read. We write for readers, not merely for ourselves, just as the village storyteller in the old days would refine and improve his stories by noticing what made people yawn and what made them jump or gasp or smile. Any person or business interested in producing a quality product goes looking for feedback, the way Hollywood holds test screenings or Coke does market testing. Good feedback is about making the end product better.

     But every writer – every artist – struggles with this, so I thought I’d spend this month’s writing newsletter on the issue of how best to solicit and process feedback.

     Let me start by saying that my ability to change something in a book, once it’s published, is minimal. Unless a book is libelous or dangerous, a publisher won’t pull it off the shelves to correct it, and even the ability to make changes between one printing and the next is pretty limited. Once the galley proofs leave my office, the book’s pretty well locked. So I have to make sure that what my publishers get is the best version of the book I can give them, and that involves asking for and processing a great deal of feedback before I turn the book in. But the criticism I get on one book does help me write future books, because I’m constantly trying to improve, and writers learn to write each new book as they go.
 

Ten Tips for Soliciting and Processing Feedback – Plus One

1. Don’t ask for feedback on material that’s not ready. Writing, in this sense, is like cooking. There’s no point in asking someone to taste a dish before you’ve finished cooking it, and there’s rarely any point in asking someone to read a work before you’re happy with it. The one exception might be when you know something is missing, but can’t figure out what it is – “What does this soup need?” – and in these cases, writers’ workshops can be useful. Two corollaries to this are: 1a) Don’t let your friends/spouse/parents/etc. read your drafts before the work is ready and 1b) Don’t ask people to read the same material more than once, unless they ask to do so.

2. Don’t give everyone’s feedback the same weight. The opinion of some is more valuable than others. Criticism from my editor or my agent, for example, is like taking a watch in for repairs; my editor and agent have specialized knowledge and an understanding of my work over time. Other criticism might not be as meaningful to me. How do I know which feedback to pay attention to? It’s a gut instinct, something that tells me how carefully someone’s read the book, how well they understood what I was trying to do, and whether they have a valid opinion about whether I succeeded.

On this subject, while it’s nice to get good reviews, I don’t learn as much from them as I do from other sources of feedback. Reviews seldom give me much new information; I’ve lived with the book longer than any reviewer has. I already know all the strengths and weaknesses. I’m like a carpenter — I know where the joints are, where the cracks are. You can’t look for validation from critics. The only thing that counts is your audience, whether they buy your books and keep buying them and recommend them to their friends, because that tells you whether you’re entertaining people. I’m not writing for critics; I’m writing for readers. I’m writing to entertain.

3. Don’t expect feedback – especially from reviews — to give you solutions. Hollywood holds test screenings in front of focus groups, surveying the audience for their reactions. I think of criticism in much the same way. At these screenings, producers ask the audience members what they liked and what they didn’t; they don’t ask for suggestions at how to fix the movie. That’s the filmmakers’ job.

When Paramount screened the great thriller Fatal Attraction for test audiences, they hissed when Alex Forrest (the wacko played by Glenn Close) killed herself at the end. They wanted her to get her comeuppance. So Paramount changed the ending. If you’ve seen it, you know what happened. (If you haven’t seen it, you should). Was it wrong for Paramount to change the ending based on a test screening’s reaction? I don’t think so. The changed ending is far more satisfying – not just to me, but to the many millions who loved that movie. Anyway, the test screeners didn’t tell Paramount how to change the ending. All they did was tell the studio they didn’t like the ending. The writers and producers had to solve that problem themselves.

Likewise, readers who offer criticism usually don’t have a solution; all they can do is identify the problem, and say what they don’t like. Here too it’s a matter of learning to discern the quiet voice within. Advice that resonates will click with me; I’ll recognize that I myself had a problem with a particular character, or plot device, or passage. Trust your instincts. Listen to that inner voice.

4. Know what your goals were when you were writing. That is, know whom your readers should be rooting for, what’s supposed to be a red herring, and what you want your readers to understand about the action at any given point. If an early reader says, “I don’t understand why Character X does that,” you should know whether this is something you need to fix, or the way it’s supposed to be.

5. Don’t ask too many people for feedback. If you ask a dozen people for opinions, you’ll get a dozen different opinions, and I guarantee that at least two of those opinions will diametrically oppose each other. Keep your feedback group small and manageable: three, four, five people at the very most. I once received a draft of a short story from someone I knew only slightly, who had apparently sent it to his entire address book; he asked everyone for feedback. I politely declined.

6. Don’t take it personally. Nothing is more personal than this beautiful manuscript you’ve sweated over for however many months, but your first readers don’t see this as a piece of your flesh and blood. What they see is a piece of work, separate from you, that could use a good trim or a new coat of paint or possibly a second floor. They don’t mean that you need a good trim or a different shade of lipstick or a better personality. (Except when they do.)

7. Pay particular attention to comments you get from more than one reader. If two or three people have the same question about a plot point, or the same criticism about a character’s decision, chances are that it’s a problem. I once had two early readers ask me how a particular character got from point A to point B. I was sure I’d explained it, but when I went back to look at the manuscript, I discovered I’d sent them a marked-up draft that was missing several chapters. Whoops!

8. Take some time to consider each criticism or question before you make changes in the manuscript. If you automatically make changes in response to every criticism or query you get, you may wind up changing things you don’t want to change, or creating inconsistencies within your manuscript. Keep a master list of recommendations, questions and issues your first readers bring up, and tackle your revisions as a whole, rather than piecemeal.

9. Don’t ask for feedback when what you want is praise. This is a tough one. If you ask for honest criticism, you’ll get it, and you need to be prepared for it. In fact, people asked for criticism will read with the goal of finding mistakes and elements that need improvement, because that’s what you’ve asked them to do. Don’t ask people to do this if you’re not prepared to hear their recommendations.

10. Pay as much attention to the praise as to the criticism. It’s so much easier to hear the criticism than it is to hear the praise, but the praise is just as important. In fact, I’d say the praise is even more important for the writer who’s already thinking about the next book. I need to know what readers especially like, so I can try to recreate that in future work. I still get emails from readers about how much they loved the character of Audrey, in COMPANY MAN. Audrey was a real stretch for me, and I was nervous about how she would be received – but kind readers have told me what they liked about her, and I’ve used that feedback to create other characters whom I hope are equally likeable.

And last, but most important:

11. Trust your own judgment most. Feedback’s important. Feedback’s necessary. But it’s your vision, your work, and your name on the book. No book pleases everyone. What ultimately matters is that you like it, that you’re happy with it, and that you’re proud to put it in readers’ hands.

     I’m proud of VANISHED, and sincerely thank all of the book’s early readers. I look forward to hearing what you think of it, and will thank everyone who writes to give me an opinion (joe@josephfinder.com), even if it’s criticism rather than praise.
 

Visit Joe Finder’s website for more of his monthly Writing Tips, which you can also receive in the form of a monthly newsletter when you sign up for a free subscription 

In-Book Ads Coming To The Amazon Kindle?

This article, from Kit Eaton, originally appeared on Fast Company on 7/6/09.

[Publetariat Editor’s note: what does this mean to authors? If an author’s poor word choice or odd bit of clunky dialog can pull the reader out of the story, is there much doubt that context-sensitive popup ads will do the same? And will authors who self-publish using Amazon’s DTP have any choice in the matter? We’ll keep an eye out for new developments in this area. Add your comments below.] 

Amazon’s just filed a number of patents that point to the inevitable but perhaps undesirable expansion of advertising onto its much-vaunted Kindle e-reader. If it happens, would you tolerate in-book or in-magazine embedded ads?

The patents are titled "On-Demand Generating E-Book Content with Advertising" and "Incorporating Advertising in On-Demand Generated Content," and they’re designed in part to tackle that irritating little problem that "out of print or rare books … typically do not include advertisements" and their content is thus fixed, and not at all "adapted to modern marketing." I don’t know about you, but I don’t recall seeing any advertising in books now, other than fluff for other publications by the same author, so Amazon’s words confuse me.

What the patents set out is that downloaded text content for the Kindle could be spotted with contextually-sensitive advertisements: Mention of a restaurant on a particular page could result in a dynamic-embed for a nearby restaurant to the user on the opposing page. It kind of makes sense as a more dynamic version of the way typical magazines work–after all, when you buy an interior decor magazine, you expect to find ads for furniture or sleek kitchen equipment, not for the latest computer games. And, since the Kindle is beginning to host blog content as well, this scheme begins to look like Amazon’s version of Google AdSense.

Read the rest of the article on Fast Company. Also see this related post on the adverlab blog.