C h a z z W r i t e s . c o m

See all my books at AllThatChazz.com.

Writers: What are you worth?

At last week’s Writer’s Union of Canada conference in Toronto, an author asked the head of ECW Press: “Why should authors should get a royalty of 25% (of net) when they could get 70%  publishing on their own digitally?”

Good question. 

The question rose from a discussion of ECW’s new ebook imprint. The replies from the panel were interesting. First there was the assertion of the value of editorial input, an advance of $500 and a promotion budget of $800. Production cost was $1600. So, the publisher’s risk up front was $2,900. The ebook price was set at $9.95 (though Amazon dropped the price to $7.96.)

The publisher emphasized his risk, saying that most of these ebooks haven’t been runaway successes and, because they are solely digital, it’s difficult (or impossible) to get them reviewed in traditional venues. The Globe & Mail refuses to review ebooks, even though ECW is a traditional publisher. (Insert your own joke about the fragility of newspapers’  relevance here.)

By now, my objections to these answers are pretty obvious: 70% is more, the publisher’s price point is too high for the competition, hire your own editor (edit and hire a graphic designer for less than $1600 and format it yourself), $800 for promotion* , $500 advance and giving up e-rights  frankly doesn’t make me swoon.

Am I missing something here? And, as a writer, what about your risk? What about all your time and energy invested as a writer? It takes much more of your finite resources to produce a book out of nothing than it does to shepherd it through to publication. Right?

What do you think? I welcome your comments.

Next post: Promoting your book. 

Filed under: DIY, ebooks, publishing, self-publishing, Writing Conferences, , , , , , , , ,

Can Creative Writing Be Taught? (via Life and Art)

What do you think? Were you born with your facility with words? I used to believe in nurture so much more. Then I had kids.

Can Creative Writing Be Taught? Catching up on some reading yesterday, I came across an interesting item published in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago about whether you can teach creative writing. Unsurprisingly, it prompted mixed views. But I found it of interest because over the last few years I have found myself wondering about precisely that question in relat … Read More

via Life and Art

Filed under: publishing

21 Bold Predictions: The changing future of books

Sure, you need to write a good book to make it marketable. But what will be more marketable in the future? What will be different? Here are my sweeping predictions:

1. Non-fiction Shrink: Got a question? Got a problem? Ask.com or Wikipedia or any number of  quick searches will probably answer that question. What do I need you (and your book) for? In the future we still won’t have flying cars. There will also be less call for a lot of non-fiction. Instant, quick answers beat your treatise on bed bug infestations. I just want to know who to call and what to do to get rid of them.

Another instance: After faithfully reading the magazine for years, I don’t buy Writer’s Digest anymore. There is already more information than I can possibly read on writing blogs. For free. Um, like right here, three times a week, for instance.

2. Short form explosion: My horror and sci-fi writing friend Rebecca Senese articulated this for me first and it makes sense. People have less time and shorter attention spans as the web changes their brains away from the usual experience of deep reading. Cyber ADD aside, short stories are also 0.99 each, so people will download a little bouquet of short stories and take a chance on new authors that way.

Also, with ebooks, novellas and short novels are practical again from a manufacturing/pricing perspective. Think of the works of Albert Camus. 50,000 words for a novel was common. Then New York lost confidence in that formula and bigger books became the norm (so much so, in fact, that many authors now scoff at NaNoWriMo‘s 50,000-word winners.) Now, book length is less relevant. Ebooks don’t have page numbers.

3. Merchandise and books shall marry: Your platform and your content should optimally come together in a cult that wants more of your work. Witness all the Fight Club quotes, Youtube videos, tees and, well, actual fight clubs (years after the film phenomenon.) You’ll be spreading the awesome with passive income from whatever secondary sources you can manage. (I already started to plant my seeds here.)

4. Domination by Series: Having more ebooks available improves your marketability. Having more ebooks in a series improves your marketability even more. So, rather than sticking to a one off, consider how you can turn your masterpiece into the foundation for a series of books fans will clamor for. Your advantage as a self-published author is long tail merchandising. Your work shall be available until we embrace the Singularity and join ebooks in the cyberspace holodeck of our disembodied, fully-uploaded immortal minds.

5. Product integration: Slightly different from #3, here I’m talking about books as vehicles for products instead of the other way around.

You are a carpenter who specializes in bathroom renos. Order the book on how to renovate a bathroom in three days. The book pushes the advantage of your special caulking gun, available for immediate drop shipping before sledgehammering the bathtub.

6. First-person non-fiction: More authors who did something stupid and dangerous (tour Iraq for pleasure or go skiing off the approved slopes) will write their own first-person accounts. They’ll self-publish and the covers won’t say “as told to” some ghostwriter. The results will be horrific and ubiquitous.

7. Excellent journalists will find their place in analysis: The freelance market sucks for writers. However, if you’re a journalist with extensive financial expertise a la Too Big To Fail or can write like Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone, you can provide the long tail analysis of WTF happened?

8. To be successful, freelance writers must own smaller niches: If you aren’t a genius like Matt Taibbi, there’s still hope, but you’ll have to think small. Maybe microscopic, like the asbestos beat in the tri-state area.

Generalist writing isn’t dead exactly. In fact, generalists are everywhere, but they are also free.  You may not think of it this way, but really, blogging is instant publishing. If I want a non-expert opinion, that’s the simplest thing in the world to get and the blogger probably isn’t seeing a dime from it. The writers who are making money now are either tech experts  or people who are plowing ahead to make way for the rest of us in the digital publishing revolution.

9. Cross-genre will be accepted: Cross-genre books (a la Scott Sigler, for instance) have long been a problem for publishers. Even if they loved it, if it was sci-fi and horror, they worried which bookshelf it should be placed on to sell. (For those of you who aren’t sure, go look up what a bookstore used to be. That worry used to be much more relevant.) Cross-genre’s stigma is fading. And self-publishers care not at all, though they will have to do a really good job with their promotion and publicity.

10. More humor: In order for a humor book to sell, traditionally it had to be penned by a celebrity or it had to have a Shit My Dad Says-worthy hook (in other words, a novelty book.)

Comedy writer Ken Levine has a long history of sit com hits, from Mash and Cheers to Frasier, among others. Despite his track record, he wasn’t famous in front of the camera so traditional publishing hasn’t given him a chance to screw it up. Who he was wasn’t enough for traditional publishing to invest.

However, Ken has an incredibly popular blog with a following. He could go back to trad publishing and ask them how they like him now. Or he could just publish himself and keep the profits.  He has a platform that heretofore went unrecognized. He’s a guy with a blog today. He could be the new Dave Barry tomorrow.

11. People will get better at platform: Not long ago a clueless agent told a baffled writer,”Go make a viral video.” Yeah, sure. But what makes a video go viral? As time has passed, we have a better idea of what elements make something go viral.

I’m not saying there’s a formula. However, I think we’re at the point where we recognize what won’t go viral. If your book trailer is going to catch fire on Youtube, it will have to be powerful or clever or charming or heartfelt yet funny or at least cute. If you don’t have any of those elements, you’ll know (and if you don’t know, I hope you have good friends who will warn you.) At least the tech has improved so if you’ve got GarageBand, you already have a shot at putting together a better book trailer. And if you screwed it up, you can take comfort in trying again since the costs of trying have come way down.

12. Curation will get worse, then improve: People are already learning to distrust Amazon reviews. Many reviews are by haters with nothing better to do but snark on others’ work. Other reviews are by friends of writers or even by the writers themselves. There are a lot of books coming down the pipe and you are going to need a filter. Goodreads, for instance, seems to be a place for real people to provide feedback on what they love. I’d trust that (or a friend with similar tastes) before depending on Amazon alone for a helpful review.

13. Eventually: Ebooks will boil down to one or two standard formats.

14. Eventually (after #13): Your device will get sophisticated enough to take the download and format your downloaded ebook however you like it, no matter what the Big Six decree. Proprietary defenses (DRM) will be cracked as fast or faster than they are now so prices will fall, many current publishers will be former publishers and if you want money to eat, you’ll have to make up the difference with volume.

15. And #14 won’t happen on an e-reader: I love my e-readers, but they are interim devices, like pagers and electronic planners were. When e-readers go, they’ll probably be replaced by tablets that can do everything. The screens will be expandable so you won’t be peering at books through the keyhole like on a smart phone. Also, we’ll be back to the two-page spread you’re used to with paper books.

Some say ereaders are already on the way out but they’re in a rush. Ereaders will be around for some time to come because lots of people want to read ebooks, but they can’t afford higher-end integrated devices. Ereader prices will fall so market saturation will soak much deeper and faster than previously thought.

16. Media integration: I tried to read an integrated ebook. The experience sucked.  It won’t suck forever. You’ll have that two-page spread, but you’ll be able to bop over to a cut scene of the story’s climactic event. Merch links will be embedded into the text so you can buy the t-shirt your hero is wearing and the villain’s yummy high heels. One click (only it will be a swipe and eventually, a voice command. Later, a grunt. Then, a thought.)

17. The future of reading is hearing: Audio will rise much higher in popularity. You don’t have time to read so you listen in your car, while you work out, while you walk the dog, while you do the dishes and/or have sex. Time management is more important than  money management (though they are often merely equated. that’s a different post for the glorious future.)

Audio will continue to be more expensive until voice tech improves. While we’re still paying actors to read (minimum $150 an hour and usually $300 an hour and up) audio will stay the indie authors last foray. No disrespect to actors. I know some. However, your computer’s voice inflection is improving so when that dramatic reading is up to snuff, this Jetson’s future will kick in. The voice of George Jetson will come from a computer, not a talented voice actor.

18. You’ll care less about grammar: Well, not you. But your kids probably, especially since in school they are already taught spelling (and handwriting) matter less. As an editor, I regret every grammatical and typographical error. But with the deluge of self-published books replete with typos, we’ll relax our standards. Instead of fetishizing a book’s typographic purity, we’ll freak out less when we spot a typo. Instead, high praise will be, “That one didn’t have that many typos.” Practical acceptance will ensue once today’s outrage becomes the new normal. Sure, you pride yourself on being a sharp word nerd, but anyone who can sustain the level of outrage required will be exhausted and have no friends.

On the plus side, a book that is well written and well edited will stick out more.

19. Instant will be prized more: Trad publishing works on long publication deadlines because of budgets and logistics. (Though it’s a factor for the editorial staff, contrary to what you’ve heard, quality is not actually Job One.) If they could pump books out faster than 16 to 18 months per book, they certainly would. That kind of agility would allow them to be more topical, hit trends and, most important, have more stuff for sale. Recently I read an ebook that mentioned the Japanese earthquake. Compare that to how long it took 9/11 to show up in traditionally-published novels out of New York.

There will be little to no delay in the future. An ebook on the ramifications of Bin Laden’s death was up for sale within a week of his death. You might think it was mostly prepared ahead of time, but actually it was a bunch of emails from socio-political experts contacted as soon as Seal Team Six did their job.

20. Romance will continue to dominate, but now it will be recognized: The love of the paranormal romance genre is not a new thing, but romance has never been recognized as the dominant force it really is. Amanda Hocking’s recent success is no accident, especially because she writes in a genre that dominates reader demand.

Look at bestseller lists. You’ll see “important literary works”  by big publishers. Good for them! Those are the sorts of books I like. However, those weekly bestseller lists are often based on booksellers reporting which books are sitting in front of them in the biggest cubes and stacks. Much of the math is suspicious, especially since bestseller lists don’t take into account sales from non-traditional book venues (Walmart, drugstores, the spinner rack at beach resorts or the vast call for romance books among ESL learners. Nope. Not kidding about that. If you’re learning english, simple stories of ribaldry and girl-next-door heroines are one way to do it.)

You won’t see Harlequin romances on bestseller lists. However, I used to work at Harlequin. I’ve seen the numbers. Romance sells huge. Romance sells much bigger than anything on bestseller lists. Why? Because english majors run Big Six editorial departments. They do not run the real world. Yann Martel writes great books. Nora Roberts writes fast, easy reads. Even snobby english majors read trashy, naughty novels for a break from lit that might be fresh and surprising. In the real word, the hare beats the tortoise.

21. Someday soon, everyone will make these changes in spelling: email, ereaders, ebooks. Of all these predictions, this is probably the one which will happen first.

And yes, #18 will probably happen last. As in, over your dead body.

Filed under: Books, DIY, e-reader, ebooks, Editing, publishing, Rant, self-publishing, , , , , , , , , ,

The Writer Rejection Scam

Stephen King signature.

Image via Wikipedia

Sometimes I hear writers take pride in the number of rejections in their file cabinets. The idea is that they compete with writer friends to pile up the rejection slips. The person with the most number of rejections by a certain date…er…”wins.” Riiiight. I don’t know how this myth got started but it’s a popular one.

It’s not that this is a totally useless strategy (and I’ll review the advantages in a moment) but first, let’s burst the rejection scam bubble:

If you are writing fast without second drafts or third or umpteenth drafts in order to pump up your submission rate, you’re losing. More rejection slips? That’s no measure of how close you are to publication. If that were true, the worst writers in the world submitting the most illiterate crap across the planet are all just on the cusp of bestsellerdom.

If you get a lot of rejection slips that don’t actually include personal notes on how the writing didn’t work for the reviewer, you’re losing.

It’s also very hard to get any personal notes on your work, by the way. Many agents and editors don’t believe in detailing the reasons for rejection. There are so many variables to evaluate writing that are idiosyncratic and peculiar to the editor, it doesn’t profit you to hear they rejected you for subjective reasons.

Neither does it profit them to take the time to give you a heads up that you were a near miss. Many editors have so many submissions on their desk that they really don’t want to encourage more people to resubmit. The mailbox will be full tomorrow regardless and your persistence is expected without free coaching and hand holding. (And just because you submitted a manuscript, no editor owes you free manuscript evaluations, feedback or reasons for rejection.)

If you’re clearing an alley of bad guys, use the twelve gauge with the .00 load. With manuscript submission, however, scatter shot is less effective than picking and aiming at your targets.

Submit everywhere without careful thought on how to target your market? Then you’re losing. It’s time you’re losing primarily, though the loss of confidence and self-esteem can’t be glossed over. It takes a lot of ego to put yourself out there, so choose carefully how you put yourself out there. Artists need all the narcissistic hope and unreasonable aspirations of a lottery player.

If you’re submitting everywhere in the slim hope that an agent or editor will take the time to take you under their wing, build you a nest and show you where you went wrong with your flightless novel, you’re losing. When dealing with mass submissions, editors and agents get impatient with bad writing, or even writing that isn’t bad but doesn’t suit them. I’ve seen it personally. Behind closed doors there’s even a lot of laughter at published writers’ work that’s bound for publication. (Oh, yeah, that’s right! I said it! I’ve seen it and endured it!)

If it’s feedback you’re after, alpha readers, beta readers, hired editors, writing and critique groups will get you more feedback than can be fit on a tiny rejection slip. Plus, you’ll be getting much more careful evaluation.

People going through a slush pile aren’t there to help the writer. They are there to evaluate whether your manuscript is a good bet for a business deal that suits their purposes and interests.

Much is made of Stephen King‘s pile of rejection slips. I think too much has been made of the rejection slips impaled on that spike in King’s attic. It’s not that some magic kicks in once you hit a special number of slips. It is, instead, what the rejection slips symbolize: sweat equity and time invested in improving craft. I’m not suggesting you submit fewer manuscripts per se. I’m saying, offer your work wisely.

A higher number of rejection slips is not an achievement to be celebrated any more than failing to complete every race you enter makes you a better runner. It might make you a noble aspirant. Or maybe you’re too bull-headed to train properly and learn. Either possibility has validity.

It was all the writing and reading King did while the slips piled up that mattered

It was the feedback he got from a newspaper editor that mattered

That editor sat down with King and went over a story about a high school basketball game. He showed King how to tighten his writing. A little mark up, some rearranging and red pen work et voilà!: The magic of editing improved the writer’s craft. (If you haven’t read Stephen King’s On Writing yet…well, just go do that and thank me later.) 

What are the advantages of piling up rejection slips? If you need to compete with a friend to get you to write, I don’t see anything wrong with that. Everybody needs some gentle  motivation (or a kick in the bum) sometimes. (Okay, maybe you don’t ever need a writing crutch, but that makes you an inhuman freak, Trollope!)

If you get personal feedback and encouragement from editors and agents, that’s a good sign you’re on the right track. If you just get a note or two though, that doesn’t constitute a trend you should necessarily heed. Editors and agents have their own agendas that may reflect very little on your writing and you’ll never know what’s in their minds.

Don’t rush to produce writing at the expense of quality. As Truman Capote said of Jack Kerouac‘s On the Road, “That’s not writing. That’s typing!”  (Granted, Capote could be a bitch and lots of people like On the Road.)

Still, getting a big pile of rejection slips is not the end game. Writing extensively (and well), reading broadly (and well) and getting righteous feedback will get you where you want to go.

Yes, I know: Rejection is part of the process. But neither should rejection be fetishized and assumed useful. Some lucky few writers are a hit right out of the gate. Are they still bad writers because they haven’t “paid their dues” and “jumped through hoops”?

That thick skin some say you’re supposed to develop through rejection would be used more effectively if you  got a manuscript evaluation or joined a critique group. (And thick skin is another thing that’s overrated and fetishized. Thick skin helps you take writing advice, yes. But when the reviews come in and someone writes something nasty in a comment about your book —your baby!—on Amazon, veteran author or newbie, you’ll be just as pissed.

Now, how do you target your submissions to likely editors and agents? 

Well, that’s a post for another day. Another day that will come soon.

Stay tuned. 

Filed under: Books, manuscript evaluation, publishing, Writers, writing tips, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Writers & Readers: I say something new & cranky

Joe Rogan

Image via Wikipedia

Alfred Hitchcock once said a painter needs a brush, a writer a pen and a director an army. The numbers needed to make a film are coming down, but it’s still a collaborative, team sport (or a war, depending how indie you are as a filmmaker.) Painting  is still a solo pursuit and for a long time writing was solitary. Then writing got decidedly less solitary. And now, with self-publishing, the game has changed again.

Authors used to have publishers. Later, agents entered the industry and took pressure off editors by curating. They helped many authors get better deals. Now a lot of agents want to intermediate and perform more of an editorial function, possibly because other traditional roles they have fulfilled are shrinking. See this post for more on that and much more.

Now there can be fewer people between you and publication. Publishing isn’t necessarily a team sport anymore. Publishing with a group of lovers of all things literary  has produced many great books (and has probably interfered with the production of great books, too.) You may think many minds produce better material because all of us have more brain power than one of us. I used to believe that was true in all cases.

Then comedian Joe Rogan challenged that idea for me and articulated something that was slowly percolating through my cranium. In his experience as a comedian on The Man Show, he found that more suits on the set diluted the funny. His stand-up is a pure art form, moderated only by his own sense of humor and direct feedback from his audience. (I saw him at Massey Hall in Toronto recently. He rocks hard.)

It’s an old adage that too many cooks spoil the broth. Now science, as presented in the fascinating book 59 Seconds: Change Your Life in Under a Minute, has disproved the notion that more brains help a creative project. The most creative solutions are not arrived at by the most creative person in the room. They are directed by the loudest person in the room.

So, if your agent says “I’m not submitting your work because I don’t think it’s ready,” and you cede that power, your work isn’t going to market whether your agent is right or not.

This is the sort of thing that drives the traditional world of publishing nuts. Without those mediators, obstacles, curators, gatekeepers, shepherds and rabbis, the worry is that we shall be inundated with a slew of awful, awful books. The deluge shall be as a fire hose pointed at the tiny tea cup of our fevered minds. Without those helpful interlocutors, who will keep the bad books away?

Rather than address the curation question directly (and I’ve already addressed it many times on this blog), I’d like to say something new on the subject:

Even if that objection is valid, so the f**k what? I reject the premise. I say this is not about your convenience in going to a legacy publisher you trust for all your curation wants. This is about my freedom to express my art, which you can enjoy or not. As they say at the convenience store, “Buy or leave!”

The marketplace of ideas is opening up to a lot more shelf stock. Buckle up and put on your big boy Underoos and your big girl panties. Soon you might find more variety and much more current reading material to explore and fill your mind.

I value my sovereignty of expression more than your convenience.

I said this was a revolution. I asked you to join me.

Did you really think no one would get hurt along the way to the shinier, freer new world we’re creating? 

The results will surely be messy, but the cost of your tender sensibilities is really negligible. There will be a lot of bad books delicate grammar doilies will decry. You’ll see a lot of typos (though I see a lot of typos in traditional books, too, by the way, and yet the earth keeps on spinning.)

We value freedom and freedom of expression. A lot. The US Supreme Court allows the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at funerals with ghoulish signs without regard to the feelings of the families of the dead. Evidence obtained illegally is routinely thrown out and murderers are sometimes set free as a result. We accept some consequences far worse than inconvenience so that greater individual sovereignty is assured.

If it sounds like I’m saying your worries

about all the coming bad books don’t matter,

you’ve read this blog post correctly. 

Filed under: agents, authors, Books, censors, publishing, self-publishing, , , , , , , ,

Write your thriller in chapters: 10 tips for greater productivity

There’s no one way to write a novel. I do, however, have ten suggestions to make it go easier and faster:

1. Outline. Have some idea where you’re going and what the destination might be. It’ll save you time doubling back from dead ends. Believe me, I’ve written myself into cul-de-sacs and it’s a time suck no one can afford. (No, you’re not married to the outline and you don’t have to go OCD with the Roman numeral outline you learned in grade eight. I’m trying to increase your productivity and enhance your creativity, not shackle it.)

2. If you outline, you don’t have to write your story in sequence. With an outline, you already have the beats, the bases you have to touch as you tell your story. If you’re not feeling very inspired one day, no big deal. Focus on the high points of your outline on the days you don’t start off “in the mood.” Bonus benefit: you’ll get all your sex scenes written first.

3. Write each chapter as if it’s a short story. Your novel has a beginning, middle and end. So should your chapters. I often see substandard chapters which finish without the pulls of intrigue, a cliffhanger or a bang. Some writers reason that if they make the larger story interesting, they can afford to have a chapter or two that isn’t compelling. It does sound reasonable. It’s also wrong. Tension has one direction: up. There are way too many great books to read (and a million other things to do) so, for many readers, you bore them, you lose them. Sure, you’ve made this sale, but they won’t be burnt again.

4. For each chapter, identify a purpose. If a chapter has no dramatic purpose, drop it. Too often I see manuscripts where the characters are up and moving around, but to no purpose. (When editing, purposeless activity is called “business” as in “busy-ness.” There’s movement, but nothing’s really happening.  A chapter without purpose signals self-indulgence, a writer who got lost for awhile, not enough editing or an author who insisted on a tangent at the expense of the book.

The other common problem? Too much world-building and not enough character. A writer once described to me in excruciating detail about the far out environment of his book. It was a very ethereal place in space with no points of reference between human readers and the gaseous clouds that were his characters. I had to shut him up. He was driving me crazy with exhaustive, pretty detail. “But what’s the story? How is your reader going to relate to that?” Science fiction is about people first. Fantasy is about people first. Stories are all, at their core, about people and the choices they make. Sift your world-building detail in amongst action and character development. Otherwise, it will be unreadable, confusing or the reader won’t care.

Chapters with purpose are compelling and propelling toward an conclusion the reader wants to discover. (But they also want to be fooled, too. So make them say, “Ah, I bet I know what happens next.” Then find a way to surprise them. Read any of William Goldman’s novels to really get this deep into the marrow.)

5. What are the scenes in your chapter and are they in the right sequence? Are you revealing too much early in the story? Are you being too coy with the reader in later chapters? Does the pace pick up as you reach the climax and solve the novel’s core problem? Is it really a surprise (and logical) when you get to that climax?

6. Are you taking shortcuts in logic or logistics? Somewhere in your book there’s a less favorite scene or something that requires more research that, frankly, you don’t want to do. If your heroine is in Paris and your hero is in New York, they can’t meet in the middle of the Atlantic on a train (unless your novel is set in the future or a past that never was, of course.)

Are you missing a bridge to get you from one event to another? This is a logistics problem. Your FBI investigators are in Virginia at Quantico. The kidnapping is in the Pacific Northwest. Do you need a scene of conflict within the team on the private or military jet to get to the crime scene? You may make that transition in just a single sentence or it might be a chapter, but without some acknowledgement of the travel issue, it will be jarring for the reader to have them materialize in Seattle. Time and space and placement of people in relation to each other is something to trip over if you don’t make the effort to handle it logically.

7. Do your chapters fit together? Suppose you have an entire book that takes place, A to B, sequentially over the course of the hottest August in a century. But there’s that one winter scene you’re slipping in with a flashback. Does this puzzle piece fit in with the tone of your other chapters? If not, is there a reason for it? For instance, if your hero needs a look back at an early Christmas morning for the one time he was happy to give him a clue or change of direction, it fits better than an odd chapter that seems plugged in.

8. Is each chapter satisfying? This is a little different from #3, and a larger, more esoteric editorial question. You’ve written each chapter as a short story. That’s fine and can help you face the challenge of writing an entire novel-length manuscript. Now I’m asking, does each chapter feel full? Is it contributing something more to the larger story arc? When all these short stories are cobbled together, will each contribute to a greater whole than the sum of the parts? Is there a richness in description, character and action that will leave the reader satisfied with the effort overall? Is the core problem big enough to bother with a full-length book? Do you force the reader through several hundred pages only to kill off the protagonist (can be done, but often iffy) or worse, find out said protagonist is a lummox they hate? Too often, authors make their obstacles too small, the villains too stupid, the stakes microscopic and the core problem not nearly big enough. You don’t have to save the world on every outing. Maybe you’re just saving one person, but make us care.

9. Does each chapter’s length make sense? When I say “make sense” here, I mean, do you achieve in the chapter what you need to accomplish at an appropriate pace? Chapters don’t have to have a uniform length. Mary Higgins Clarke’s chapters get progressively  shorter as she goes so it feels like a race to the finish. I find I like short chapters as a reader (and as an editor) because I feel like I’m making progress as I go through, marking up the milestones. Short chapters often feel like a breezy  read. As a writer, however, I find my chapters are longer so they have time and space to wind to their conclusion. However, some writers go so short they aren’t providing enough beats within each chapter. I sometimes see underwritten, choppy chapters where action isn’t happening and characters aren’t developing. When that happens, you don’t have a chapter yet. In that case, you probably have the components for scenes within one chapter.

10. Set a schedule. If you use each suggestion here as a guideline, you also have an estimation for how long it will take you to write your novel based in real time.  Since you’re writing your novel as short stories, progressing at a fairly predictable pace, set an end date for the first draft. Make a schedule to get to that date and stick to it.

Follow these guidelines and you’ll make real progress toward your goals. 

Related Articles

Filed under: Books, Editing, getting it done, publishing, Writers, writing tips, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Massage & Bodywork: Good news

The magazine in which I write a column just won another major award: best digital magazine of the year, for the second year in a row.

In a word: Yay.

Here’s a sample (I’m also on the contributor’s page): http://bit.ly/fl59B4

Filed under: publishing

Publishing is sick. You should quit. Take up knitting.

I attended a lovely writing conference. The best value of these get-togethers is often not in the classes, but in the networking, either by finding an agent, getting  useful feedback or networking with writer allies who can hook you up with what you need (e.g. a graphic designer, beta readers, a photographer, an inexpensive website developer, software you didn’t know existed etc.,…)

A couple of instructors at this conference gave me some really great technical information. Much of the discussion was about stuff you’ll find on this very blog (Shameless plug. Subscribe and send love.) Much of the talk was yet another rehash of commonly known information (e.g. get yourself an editor for your self-published work). A bunch of it was stuff you see spread across the internet endlessly for free (e.g. a rehash of the Amanda Hocking/Barry Eisler unfoldment).

(Heh.Unfoldment. I like that.) 

There was also some bad advice. But today, let’s focus on the health of the publishing industry: It’s sick. Really sick. Especially for the ones upon whose brains and bones rest the cracked foundation: writers.

Of course, it has been thus for a long time. Even when it was healthy, publishers operated on thin margins and predicted imminent doom. Many of those publishing companies anticipating the end were right; I worked for several that are long closed. (I didn’t kill ’em, but I helped hold ’em down. Good times.)

We all know the common complaints today: fewer editors, the corporate profit-push squeezing the midlist, the crash of the bookstore (ask your parents, they’ll tell you what they were), the discount tyranny of the chains and the crush of all that self-publishing pressure and the ennui that sets in when you realize you’re a rusty cog in an old machine that needs a lot of parts replaced.

I’d like to  suggest a new measure of the health of the industry:

How many jobs do the major players have?

A short, relevant aside: I am currently a part-time massage therapist, columnist, feature writer, writer-writer, blogger and editor. Also, I’m a house husband and stay-at-home dad. That’s plenty of hats. Okay, I’m a freak, but not as much as I used to be it seems. And I’m cutting down my number of roles soon (Hint: keeping the sexy wife, brilliant kids and the horror writing that chills my victims’ readers’ blood.) 

Aside over. To business: 

Now watch what happens when we look at instructors at writing conferences:

People at the top of their game aren’t making their living from writing.

Of all the people I encountered at the writing conference, two were at it full-time. Andrew Pyper wrote a book I loved called The Killing Circle and gave a funny, charming and wise speech. Wayson Choi spoke briefly and he’s also plenty charming. (Just read Not Yet, liked it.)

Mr. Choi gave the same encouragement he did last year: You aren’t alone in this. We are all together in this. (As if writing and actually getting published is equal to a struggle with a terrible disease and all caregivers and support for the afflicted must be rallied.) As if the diagnosis is in and it’s not good. The doc is giving you that look that says you might make it, but the treatment is so horrible and there is so much pain to endure, refusing to undergo medical torture is a worthy consideration. Getting better (or published) is sort of like winning the lottery.

(Trivia bonus: Wayson Choi is not only published but once won $100,000 in a lottery. He also survived terrible lung and cardiac problems so he might be the sweetest, luckiest sumbitch you’ve ever heard of. Sure, lots of people win big prizes and survive heart attacks, but to be published? That’s rare!)

But are writing conferences really about getting published? There’s a lot of amateur desperation in that big hall. Nice people, but not all writers. Dilettantes and the terminally confused are also a large component from what I could tell.

I don’t count delusion against people, by the way. To be a writer at all, you must be deluded…well, for fiction writers,  it’s a job requirement.

Are writing conferences helping these people get published, or are they just  another income stream or promotional avenue for poverty-stricken writers? Several presenters used their seminar teaching position to flog their books and editorial services pretty hard (though I didn’t mind the guy who had the grace to be funny about being spammy.) The rest were so fed-up, sad or desperate they were perspiring audibly.

When the “stars” in an industry have to spend a lot of time doing non-writing activity to eat, that’s another indicator of an industry on life support.

If any other industry had this much necessary moonlighting (go ahead, name any one you like), you wouldn’t want your kid on that career path. Imagine if all the civil engineers also had to work as mail carriers and mimes to avoid starvation. Suppose all the doctors were also telemarketers/poets/screenwriters/dog walkers/financial advisors/supply teachers, just so they could cobble together one living income from all their part-time jobs. There’s nothing wrong with any of these jobs but…

But if you have to do it all…well, my point is, sorry…you should quit. 

If you think you can quit, then good. You’re free to move on to something that could give you the security of three squares, dignity, hope for the future and some level of satisfaction.

If you can’t quit, either….

Maybe my writing as a disease analogy wasn’t so inept after all. 

 Related Articles

Filed under: publishing, Rant, Rejection, Useful writing links, Writers, writing tips, , , , , , , ,

The Good, the Bad and the Freelancer (via Lorena’s Epiphany)

This is a great summary of freelance challenges. It’s a tough gig, or rather, a series of tough gigs. And even if you do really well with one client, you have to keep hustling to diversify your client base. If you have just one client and they dump you, you have instant problems.

This helpful post is a guide…or a warning. Freelancing is not for everybody.

The Good, the Bad and the Freelancer Whenever someone asks what I do and I explain that I'm a freelance designer working out of my own studio, I tend to get the same reaction "You're so lucky! I wish I could work on my own too." But becoming a freelancer wasn't something I really planned in advance. It sorta chose me. Yes, being a freelancer certainly has its perks – I won't lie. I get to wake up at 9 or 10am on most days and head to the studio at my own leisure. You also get the fr … Read More

via Lorena's Epiphany

Filed under: publishing

Writers: Choose choice, not ideology

Bertrand Russell's views on philosophy

Image via Wikipedia

Talking politics with someone the other day, they said a particular candidate was so stupid they didn’t know when a reporter was rude to them. I doubt that. Assuming the politician dressed himself that morning, he did know and instead of reacting to the rudeness, he stayed on topic. He was polite—or even too polite.

The guy I was talking to already didn’t like the politician, so he chose not just to disagree with him, but to assume he was an idiot.

People choose sides. Sometimes they don’t even know why, but they get heavily invested in one outcome, often before we have any facts. Sure, people like to think they’re logical, but in fact they’re often intuitive. They jump to their conclusion and the logic that’s recruited only feels like logic. It’s actually rationalization.

We’re hardwired to make quick decisions. It’s in our genes to choose a tribe, too. We stick with that tribe, even when the tribe doesn’t serve us. Even when it’s a bunch of  millionaire basketball players, fans think they’re somehow on the team. It’s a religious fervor to join, to believe, to be one with a larger whole.

And it gets goofy. Nationalism, for instance, is tribalism write large. If you own a Mac and extol its virtues, a bunch of disproportionately angry people will call you a wuss in some web forum or other. We take ownership of things we don’t own. We choose up sides to divide us and them where there is no us and them. Gay teens get ostracized and bullied, many to suicide. Liberals are too quick to write off all conservatives. People can’t seem to make a distinction between “supporting the troops” and “disagreeing with the mission.”

Or, for writers, watch traditionally published authors shit on self-publishing. But this post isn’t about traditional versus indie. I’m not talking today about which way is best (as if any one way is best for everyone.) This is not another one of those posts debating the use of terms, indie versus self-published and who gets to claim what (as if words are owned or static.)

This is a post that simply says: compared to all the big problems we have, traditional publishing versus the new publishing? Pretty trivial. (And it doesn’t have to be all one thing or the other thing, anyway.)

Lighten up. Choose your own path. If you’re shitting on somebody or telling others what to do, ease up on tribal tendencies and focus on you.

Man in the Mirror and all that.

You be you. I’ll be me.

Filed under: Books, ebooks, links, publishing, Rant, self-publishing, Writers, , , , , ,

Bestseller with over 1,000 reviews!
Winner of the North Street Book Prize, Reader's Favorite, the
Literary Titan Award, the Hollywood Book Festival, and the
New York Book Festival.

http://mybook.to/OurZombieHours
A NEW ZOMBIE ANTHOLOGY

Winner of Writer's Digest's 2014 Honorable Mention in Self-published Ebook Awards in Genre

The first 81 lessons to get your Buffy on

More lessons to help you survive Armageddon

"You will laugh your ass off!" ~ Maxwell Cynn, author of Cybergrrl

Available now!

Fast-paced terror, new threats, more twists.

An autistic boy versus our world in free fall

Suspense to melt your face and play with your brain.

Action like a Guy Ritchie film. Funny like Woody Allen when he was funny.

Jesus: Sexier and even more addicted to love.

You can pick this ebook up for free today at this link: http://bit.ly/TheNightMan

Join my inner circle at AllThatChazz.com

See my books, blogs, links and podcasts.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,063 other subscribers