You don't have the chance yet to read OTHERS, my novel manuscript in the hands of an agent. If you did, you'd likely cut through the noise surrounding this national news story and find clear elements of the problem.
It comes down to confrontation. How one confronts someone else, and how that defuses a situation or escalates tension to psychotic and potentially lethal levels.
Once you read OTHERS, you'll get it, and you can imagine your own peaceful non-story, along the lines of this:
George Zimmerman puts on a perky attitude, and approaches Trayvon Martin.
"Excuse me, Sir. We've had some dangerous people breaking into houses around here. Do be careful. I don't want you hurt, okay?"
What does that do?
First, it shows zero threat, and some apparent concern for the safety of the intruder.
The intruder, possibly just a kid passing through, does not feel threatened in the least. In fact, he realizes there is a pair of eyes on him who may be watching out for him. He could conclude that there are others watching, too. All stereotyped assumptions vanish.
If the intruder has any negative intentions, he now knows the situation is not good for secrecy or criminal action.
Only a total idiot would escalate that moment into something ugly. Chances are astronomical against any lawbreaking, crime, threat, or violence.
Apply that point of view to the facts of this case and the evidence is clear: What occurred wrong and what should have occurred right.
It's common human nature not to defuse but to escalate tension or give the appearance of such, to show who has control of the moment. Tone of voice, movement, appearance. Those instincts--let's call them habits--are unrelated to a moment of rational thought that would keep the scenario just another quiet moment in a mediocre day.
A ten-second non-story, everybody lives, nobody goes into hiding, and the world has one less reason to babble around the water cooler or charge up useless emotions and not accomplish what needs to be done.
What needs to be done is peace.
I learned this technique from others. I've tried it. Wow, does it work. Unfortunately, the times I've used that technique never made it to the news.
Let's start, right here, right now.
--Dave
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
How To Change The Future In One Easy Lesson
If you knew that you could do one simple thing to save lives and redirect the course of the future to a safer and more beneficial path, would you?
Most people would get past the "absolutely" and ask, how?
I'll give you a simple (but not necessarily easy) answer, but I'm not counting on action out of anyone who hears it.
History tells us that the inaction of good people often leads to the death of thousands and maybe millions, with uncountable cost in other assets vital to daily quality life. Hitler was appeased by Chamberlain. Hitler survived at least one assasination attempt, and a successful one early in his infamous life may have spared the world a war, and altered how nations and their politics exist.
That's just one example.
Stephen King wrote an entire novel examining what could happen if President Kennedy had lived. This is no spoiler alert; you can guess that he concluded that life around the world became miserable and depressing for many.
That sort of turns people off to the idea that they can do something that may actually benefit the living in future years. Well, I guess that's his job as a legendary novelist.
What turns his novel into an escapist what-if story is the fact that people around the world are making real-life decisions that--with wisdom and sound judgement--save many lives and improve the lot of those who go after us, only his characters change history to do so. We don't have that option, but ours is more assured.
Jail is supposed to correct criminal behavior. War is supposed to stop whole nations from aggression and bring them into some sort of peaceful circle of international brotherhood.
Supposed to.
You can think of examples where the normal structures of law enforcement and international peacekeeping don't quite have the consequences the peaceful innocent would like to see.
But there is another way.
It, too, is not perfect, but the saving of lives and human assets cannot be measured. Because, obviously, we can never go into the future and see how horrible things could be.
If the world had an idea what Hitler was going to do--really knew--do you think someone, one person, could have done something, and Hitler would have been a footnote?
Probably.
That kind of future is largely unknowable--unless you're already immersed in a war... and then you can roughly guess. Maybe you can also guess if you know for sure that your neighborhood violent criminal is taken out of society in some way, through incarceration or misadventure.
Many people bet on keeping the future on a safe and peaceful path, every day.
When good people do something to bet that their actions will stop violence, prevent trouble, keep life peaceful, they're making the kind of bet that most would agree with.
It's quiet, barely noticed if at all. Some would call it vigilante justice, but if it's as simple as Momma punishing little Hitler for some childhood indiscretion, or the serial armed intrusions suddenly ending, most people of civility would have a difficult time questioning the method.
We all just want peace.
We all just want safety and security.
We all just want the violent to stop.
How that happens needs to be the worry of the violent.
The pressure should be all on them.
Monday, February 27, 2012
The Ultimate Crime Prevention
A NH man will not be charged of a crime for firing a warning shot into the ground near a burglar he confronted.
This is just one element of a worldwide wave of crime prevention and suppression of violence that forms the basis of OTHERS.
Gun advocates came out and supported this guy, hollering that he should not be charged.
They don't get it.
Neither do the people who reported that numerous gun advocates supported this man's actions.
Others who are not gun advocates wanted his charges dropped, too. Why were they not mentioned? Because they were not easy to categorize--even inaccurately.
Let's state this as it is: A moment in which a criminal was scared enough to surrender immediately, and maybe scared enough so he'll never rob again.
Could that be what the world needs to go for? Guns or not?
*********
Civility works best when the violent are terrified of revenge for their deeds, by people they'll never know.
Scaring the violent into peaceful behavior is one thing, but if that comes from who-knows-where, maybe from friends or relatives or outsiders, they don't know who to look out for or retaliate against. They'll not know who knows of what they've done, who forgives them, who watches them, who shuns them, who snubs them, who gives up on them. And who seems entirely at ease with them, because they're not faking it.
The violent need correction. They need some lack of trust with the outside world they live in. They need flipping to the good side. And constant concern about what may happen to them if they return to crime. Lifelong regret, maybe. They may prefer that. You think?
If they don't care, well, somebody can make an example of them. Or maybe their remains.
Is there something wrong with the ultimate justice if it stops the violence and turns others from it?
Maybe that's distasteful to you, and not your way.
All it may take is one person to administer that kind of correction you may not agree with.
But, if it works, can you agree with the outcome? And if there is something there that bothers you, is it best to lay some sort of responsibility on the violent? Why should you take the concern, the worry, when they earned it?
This justice happens all the time, in some form. Always has.
Does the world need more of it? Might beat the peacekeeping we've got now.
That's the philosophy behind TAG.
The hitch is, no one else knows what's in our hearts until its shown. Is that real anger, is it venting, or genuine threat?
That's Ky's problem.
Not TAG. Not its operation. TAG can reveal something of itself, to terrorize the violent and allay the concerns of the peaceful.
Ky's problem lies in the hearts of those who don't care, for their own frightening reasons.
Let's see how a precocious and insightful young lady handles possible deadly threat.
From four directions.
This is just one element of a worldwide wave of crime prevention and suppression of violence that forms the basis of OTHERS.
Gun advocates came out and supported this guy, hollering that he should not be charged.
They don't get it.
Neither do the people who reported that numerous gun advocates supported this man's actions.
Others who are not gun advocates wanted his charges dropped, too. Why were they not mentioned? Because they were not easy to categorize--even inaccurately.
Let's state this as it is: A moment in which a criminal was scared enough to surrender immediately, and maybe scared enough so he'll never rob again.
Could that be what the world needs to go for? Guns or not?
*********
Civility works best when the violent are terrified of revenge for their deeds, by people they'll never know.
Scaring the violent into peaceful behavior is one thing, but if that comes from who-knows-where, maybe from friends or relatives or outsiders, they don't know who to look out for or retaliate against. They'll not know who knows of what they've done, who forgives them, who watches them, who shuns them, who snubs them, who gives up on them. And who seems entirely at ease with them, because they're not faking it.
The violent need correction. They need some lack of trust with the outside world they live in. They need flipping to the good side. And constant concern about what may happen to them if they return to crime. Lifelong regret, maybe. They may prefer that. You think?
If they don't care, well, somebody can make an example of them. Or maybe their remains.
Is there something wrong with the ultimate justice if it stops the violence and turns others from it?
Maybe that's distasteful to you, and not your way.
All it may take is one person to administer that kind of correction you may not agree with.
But, if it works, can you agree with the outcome? And if there is something there that bothers you, is it best to lay some sort of responsibility on the violent? Why should you take the concern, the worry, when they earned it?
This justice happens all the time, in some form. Always has.
Does the world need more of it? Might beat the peacekeeping we've got now.
That's the philosophy behind TAG.
The hitch is, no one else knows what's in our hearts until its shown. Is that real anger, is it venting, or genuine threat?
That's Ky's problem.
Not TAG. Not its operation. TAG can reveal something of itself, to terrorize the violent and allay the concerns of the peaceful.
Ky's problem lies in the hearts of those who don't care, for their own frightening reasons.
Let's see how a precocious and insightful young lady handles possible deadly threat.
From four directions.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Study Guide For Your Book
You may not be a fan of detective stuff on tv and in movies and books, but you may become a fan of my method of questioning I was told is highly effective in real life.
I'll say things or ask questions just to get a response out of others. I may say something I know they'll object to or refute, or state a point of view that I know will bring me information I may not have thought to ask for.
I'm using this method to work on a useful what-if: what if my book is published and it breaks huge and it becomes a topic of discussion in schools and reading groups? What questions can I anticipate, and can I answer them now? If so, I may see the structure of my book in a brighter light, and see ways to improve it, or develop subsequent books.
A few examples:
I didn't introduce my m.c. immediately and broke a rule. I had a reason for that: I needed to set up a feel for the mindset of the world as it now is, now that the mysterious vigilantes did so well to clean up most of the violent people from the streets. I wanted to show up-front that it's okay for the innocent to defend themselves, and possibly in a way that will stop the violent and save other innocents. I had to show that this defense may not be considered excessive, no matter what the outcome. I also had to show some remorse on the part of the defendant. I had to show that--according to the prevailing wisdom--there should be minimal--if any--ongoing cost to innocent lives except for the memory and the attitude towards the act of defense. The burden should all be on the violent--but there should be some consideration for the humanity of the violent.
I could call that the ongoing theme, or the thread that ties it all together, or possibly the m.c., in a sense.
I also needed to have something immediate that a reader could hook onto and relate to and understand, something unusual but by no means strange. I had to get the reader thinking about their own feelings right from paragraph one.
I couldn't do it with much description, either. It's the amateur novels that open with a description of the scene. I had to show, not tell, and show feelings and moods and thoughts, and break up moments of description with stretches of dialogue.
My main question is, did I manage to sustain the right mechanics, the right moods and interest, to keep a reader reading, even past what I could call quiet moments (some would say slow) that I hope would show their reason for being later in the book?
I tried to maintain interest by recalling several earlier elements, not saying, "remember?" but mentioning those elements a second time, showing how they may later have meaning that didn't appear there earlier. In comedy this is called a callback, but I'm not sure if literature has a name for it. And some of it was not funny at all.
I also needed better closure than just to defeat four different deadly threats. That's lame, and I suppose I could have had my m.c. just go into an antique store and buy the Stone Of Infinity or the Sword of Omigod, and just zap her foes. but what I wanted to do was create an entirely plausible universe, one that readers could relate to in a variety of ways, one that may seem mundane, but possibly familiar and accessible.
I love the fantasy/adventure stuff; don't get that wrong. At least once I left the movie theater, feeling as if I'm flying James Bond's rocket-laden gyrocopter or Luke Skywalker's X-wing fighter. Stopping my 2006 Subaru Outback wagon at a red light is a real mood-killer, however. I always hope, after that happens, that I could find a story that could possibly feel real for days after, and maybe make a positive difference in my life and that of others.
Or write one.
One beta reader regarded this vigilante-type of justice as an "interesting concept". I know that those who hook onto that may find it controversial. That's sort of the idea. I wanted to write something that had a "big idea" but not necessarily a high-concept thing, something that most anyone could express an opinion about. I may get some angry reaction, and I understand.
Those readers need to understand two things, however:
1. If you love the form of vigilante justice, or if you're fiercely against it, then mission accomplished.
2. It's only a story.
******************
I expanded on this and realized I could compose the equivalent of a study guide, running maybe three pages, maybe a dozen or more, answering questions and stating reasons for my structure, word choices, reasons for characterization and plot twists, and explaining what my thought process was at various stages.
Whether I actually compose it or not is moot. It could prove useful to me to understand exactly what I wrote, and for readers to understand. It could lead to refinements in word choice and structure, and it's somewhat along the lines of an expanded outline or synopsis that could be used on subsequent books.
I don't know of other authors who do such a thing, but, gee, maybe it's worth really doing.
Excuse me if you please... I have another job to do.
I'll say things or ask questions just to get a response out of others. I may say something I know they'll object to or refute, or state a point of view that I know will bring me information I may not have thought to ask for.
I'm using this method to work on a useful what-if: what if my book is published and it breaks huge and it becomes a topic of discussion in schools and reading groups? What questions can I anticipate, and can I answer them now? If so, I may see the structure of my book in a brighter light, and see ways to improve it, or develop subsequent books.
A few examples:
I didn't introduce my m.c. immediately and broke a rule. I had a reason for that: I needed to set up a feel for the mindset of the world as it now is, now that the mysterious vigilantes did so well to clean up most of the violent people from the streets. I wanted to show up-front that it's okay for the innocent to defend themselves, and possibly in a way that will stop the violent and save other innocents. I had to show that this defense may not be considered excessive, no matter what the outcome. I also had to show some remorse on the part of the defendant. I had to show that--according to the prevailing wisdom--there should be minimal--if any--ongoing cost to innocent lives except for the memory and the attitude towards the act of defense. The burden should all be on the violent--but there should be some consideration for the humanity of the violent.
I could call that the ongoing theme, or the thread that ties it all together, or possibly the m.c., in a sense.
I also needed to have something immediate that a reader could hook onto and relate to and understand, something unusual but by no means strange. I had to get the reader thinking about their own feelings right from paragraph one.
I couldn't do it with much description, either. It's the amateur novels that open with a description of the scene. I had to show, not tell, and show feelings and moods and thoughts, and break up moments of description with stretches of dialogue.
My main question is, did I manage to sustain the right mechanics, the right moods and interest, to keep a reader reading, even past what I could call quiet moments (some would say slow) that I hope would show their reason for being later in the book?
I tried to maintain interest by recalling several earlier elements, not saying, "remember?" but mentioning those elements a second time, showing how they may later have meaning that didn't appear there earlier. In comedy this is called a callback, but I'm not sure if literature has a name for it. And some of it was not funny at all.
I also needed better closure than just to defeat four different deadly threats. That's lame, and I suppose I could have had my m.c. just go into an antique store and buy the Stone Of Infinity or the Sword of Omigod, and just zap her foes. but what I wanted to do was create an entirely plausible universe, one that readers could relate to in a variety of ways, one that may seem mundane, but possibly familiar and accessible.
I love the fantasy/adventure stuff; don't get that wrong. At least once I left the movie theater, feeling as if I'm flying James Bond's rocket-laden gyrocopter or Luke Skywalker's X-wing fighter. Stopping my 2006 Subaru Outback wagon at a red light is a real mood-killer, however. I always hope, after that happens, that I could find a story that could possibly feel real for days after, and maybe make a positive difference in my life and that of others.
Or write one.
One beta reader regarded this vigilante-type of justice as an "interesting concept". I know that those who hook onto that may find it controversial. That's sort of the idea. I wanted to write something that had a "big idea" but not necessarily a high-concept thing, something that most anyone could express an opinion about. I may get some angry reaction, and I understand.
Those readers need to understand two things, however:
1. If you love the form of vigilante justice, or if you're fiercely against it, then mission accomplished.
2. It's only a story.
******************
I expanded on this and realized I could compose the equivalent of a study guide, running maybe three pages, maybe a dozen or more, answering questions and stating reasons for my structure, word choices, reasons for characterization and plot twists, and explaining what my thought process was at various stages.
Whether I actually compose it or not is moot. It could prove useful to me to understand exactly what I wrote, and for readers to understand. It could lead to refinements in word choice and structure, and it's somewhat along the lines of an expanded outline or synopsis that could be used on subsequent books.
I don't know of other authors who do such a thing, but, gee, maybe it's worth really doing.
Excuse me if you please... I have another job to do.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Random Detritus Of Some Actual Worth
Unless you've authored a novel yourself, you don't know that these ideas are often amorphous at first. I was asked where I got the idea for OTHERS, and that's unanswerable in a sound bite.
It began as a simple story on a beach, and elements came in over the years to grow it towards a novel-sized work. the theme of handling violence in a swift and certain and respectful and just way came out of an observation I had about what you may call sweet justice or vigilante justice or a happy accident.
I'll let the manuscript expound on that kind of justice, as that's the theme I finally conjured up to allow the rest of the story to write itself.
************
Another idea--which turns out to be attention-grabbing--came out of my frustration with the recent Penn State story. What could have and should have been done at the earliest moment of this violence to absolutely stop it then and prevent attack on more victims? Too many people steer around that point, and it's totally lost in the overall discussion of this octopus they now view as the Penn State Evil Empire. It was an epiphany, a single line that popped into my head, that sums up the idea behind OTHERS:
Good thing someone assassinated Adolph Hitler back in 1932; imagine the millions of innocent lives that may have saved.
I'm using that line both in the ms. and as a basis for queries. Yeah, a single line that's technically not a logline may crash against the common rules and requirements for a query, but that line is definitely worth toying with for a possible variety of uses.
************
I got some interesting feedback from a reader.
I wrote OTHERS with details and ideas I'd hope readers would latch onto, figuring some may find this or that little tidbit powerful enough to them so they'd give the book an overall thumbs-up.
My reader, however, had other feelings.
She dodged the many callbacks and points I made, and burst into flames because of a few portmanteaus the main character created. She claimed they're fads that need to be purged from the public vocabulary, or something close to those words. I'm willing to bet, though, that's she has at some time stayed at a motel, eaten at Panera, and gets her cable TV from Comcast. The term was invented by Lewis Carroll, and it appeared in two of his most famous books, so that reference was missed... not that I'd count on any reader to be aware of that. True, some portmanteaus stink, but some have wormed into the vernacular without exposing themselves for the hybrids they are.
She was also unable to connect with any of the characters, stating that she felt they were not well-developed. "Interesting concept", she once said, about this form of justice, and I believe she camouflaged her genuine feelings with that statement, an unstated revulsion of the theme that may have therefore failed any connection to any of the characters.
She also said she had a hard time following things here and there, and I believe that was also from this revulsion, an inability to get past something she found unappetizing.
She mentioned that the dialogue was verbose in places, and that "people don't talk that way." I'm a fan of simplicity, but I'm also a fan of leaning away from it a bit at times so as to get points across and make the reader think a little. Some people may talk that way, which is one point, but the better proof of that is a transcript I have of an Oprah show with Jay Leno as guest. The broken sentences, the crashed trains of thought, talking over each other, page-loads of ellipses. What you think people say and what they actually do may be two far different critters.
What may be telling, however, is the line she picked out as an example. For someone who is all for the justice system as it is and is totally against any form of street justice, this line would get in their grille. I strongly suspect that's her mindset.
I realize that when this hits print, I'll have to state up-front and unequivocally that I'm not at all an advocate of what's espoused in the book. It's a story. I wrote it to provoke, and get readers to think. I advocate this no more than Stephen King advocates bleeding at the prom.
What may be telling, however, is the line she picked out as an example. For someone who is all for the justice system as it is and is totally against any form of street justice, this line would get in their grille. I strongly suspect that's her mindset.
I realize that when this hits print, I'll have to state up-front and unequivocally that I'm not at all an advocate of what's espoused in the book. It's a story. I wrote it to provoke, and get readers to think. I advocate this no more than Stephen King advocates bleeding at the prom.
Because she couldn't get past a couple of objections and missed many elements I incorporated, she felt the ms. is not commercially viable. Well, maybe not for her. Now she knows not to buy a copy.
***********
Which brings up a point I've mentioned before, and which is the thread common to creations such as books, music, and movies: How do you get someone to assume ahead of time that their purchase will be worth their hard-earned paycheck?
The most common solution is to have some track record, something the consumer is aware of and has adjudged worth applying to the creator's next effort. A safe bet, based upon reliability and confidence, if you will. Reviews and word-of-mouth are huge help, anytime, but for someone trying out the dogfood in the beta stage, it's a colossal risk, but one that has to be analyzed with care and depth if one wants to market their next effort.
Further reviews and opinions will be the most telling, so I do what I can to generate those, ones of worth--if I can wisely swing it.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Inside Baseball--Amazon Publishing, et al.
As a published nonfiction author and a novelist-to-be, I have experience with research, book publishing, and promotion, both hard-copy and electronic.
I've learned and found inside-baseball facts and observations that are generally not mentioned.
Here are a few to sit you straight up:
Self-publishing and publishing through Amazon's CreateSpace are viable ways to see one's book in print or on ebook readers.
Yes, the established publishers are still trying to figure out exactly how to handle this competition, and get a piece of this for their own profit and survival.
Yes, Amazon is a powerful presence in the world of books.
Consider these few points, however:
There is a difference between printing and publishing, and one or the other may be the route to go, depending on your personal situation, wants, and needs. And experience. Few understand the fine-line difference.
CreateSpace, and other self-publishing systems, offer a buffet of services one pays for up-front, costing anywhere from several hundred to several thousand dollars. They're one of several self-publishing businesses, and the best-known. If you're in a position to pay for whatever you want and need, or provide these yourself, and if your in a position to make educated business decisions about font, format, cover art, distribution, and marketing, this may serve you perfectly. If you're well-established, comfortable financially, and have a book idea you want to get out on the market, you may want to take this route, as Deepak Chopra just did. Or, if you want to get a handful of your books out as gifts or to learn the experience or to take a bet on a possible best-seller, this may work for you, too. The options are usually ebook, and some form of print-on-demand.
Sure, you'll earn money all along (possibly), and that may help you pay for more services and bankroll later projects, and you may make more per copy on a percentage basis, but you should start to notice something creeping into this argument.
Imperfect, crazy, and sometimes dysfunctional as established publishing may be, it does offer a few things that you may miss when self-publishing.
People who'll lead and not follow.
First, if you have an agent, you have someone on your side, a cheerleader, a market-savvy and business-wise partner and advisor, to run interference and make open-field tackles for you. Sure, they'll cost you a percentage, but a good one will find what you consider your best deal by shopping your manuscript, and watching out for bugs and gremlins that will make the ride smoother. You're hiring someone who generally has their own business best-interest in mind, and they know things about marketing you haven't experienced, and need to know to maximize the benefits of all your hard work. If you have a publisher and an agent, it's the agent who'll be your stronger friend.
I'm not leaving out established publishers. Plodding and scary as they may be, they like not only to survive, but thrive. Partnering with authors who can sell books goes far for both. They also do publishing things generally correctly, out of habit. Things you'll have on your side with skill and efficiency. They, like agents, know how to avoid the little critters that take away from the embodiment of your hard work.
Most books are still sold in hard-copy, and most are sold to people browsing racks, in established bookstores. Yeah, it's cool to have an ebook, but it's generally far tougher to market books when lacking face-to-face word-of-mouth.
Okay, here I am, on a blog, an established electronic way to get the word out and provoke discussions with others who are somewhere else on the planet. So long as you understand electronic and tangible publishing, they're both a potential help toward your goals.
Just understand that a large part of conventional publishing is easy chatter among people with a physical presence. Office buzz, water-cooler talk, conventions, conferences, reading clubs, these are all habits of experienced figures in the world of publishing, and they open avenues to you and your work that are just not there well at all with electronic publishing. They're powerful, they'll go to bat for you if you light a spark, and it's a facet of the business that is rarely mentioned as a way that can make an author's career. Want that on your side?
Ebooks can now be autographed... did you know that? That's new tech, pretty cool, pretty fun, and possible from most anywhere to most anywhere. I've done some in-store book signings, and the personal interaction was a joy and an event for me and those I met. So long as something like that is not cut out of the process, I approve. I'll embrace that electronic personalizing, as it's just one more potentially fun way to connect with readers.
Indie bookstores and Barnes & Noble are not going away. There will always be readers and buyers who want that tangible product, that interaction, that joy of discovery in a physical bookstore. Real books can be bought and sold and lent and given away as ebooks cannot. Would you want to somehow handicap your presence on bookstore shelves due to your lack of marketing savvy because you went with a system that either cut out those business partners, or made it difficult to maximize a shopper's ability to discover and buy your book? Consider Amazon's CreateSpace route versus those bookstores. Oh, and Amazon doesn't have bathrooms. Or coffee shops. Amazon will naturally do something to make it difficult--if not impossible--for competing booksellers to handle your book. Bookstores generally offer printed books as well as most any ebook available, and you can have them right there and right then and right now.
I know people who published their own books. They're proud of those books, proud of what they did, and this was the best choice for what they published. I know others who had books published the conventional way, through an agent and then through a publisher. This worked for them, too.
All this comes down to two things:
1. What do you really want to accomplish, and are you confident that you can have in place everything you want and need to accomplish that?
2. Picking one route as opposed to another out of fear or greed or reasons counter to your goals is one stupid and harmful move, so for God's sake, do your homework. Know the business as well as you know your own manuscript. Maybe more. You have to do hard and heavy research just to assemble a competent nonfiction book. Well, you have to take the same mindset if you want to publish and market any book.
Your decision is based on far more than getting some text on pages of an otherwise blank book, or pressing SEND and transmitting a text file to an unseen someone.
There are developments in publishing that are exciting and possible traps, if you are not aware and awake. A knee-jerk reaction may cause harm to you and your goals. If you can say, "I've got a guy" or "I've got a gal", that likely beats "I've got software." Then, again, maybe I'm wrong, but it'll take someone's human judgement to decide. You can naturally assume that a second brain, one that knows the ways of the industry, will likely beat going alone.
And that's where my favorite inside-baseball tip comes in.
These changes are human-powered, human-developed, and human-operated, and there is a whole new style of human who may be the most powerful weapon an author could have.
I found a literary agent who offers--as a business service--advice, counsel, marketing and legal and financial advice to anyone with any interest in publishing, be it conventional or do-it-yourself. Which way do you want to go? What do you want to know? As a one-stop service offering, this agent covers all of it.
No matter how versed you may be in the publishing game, having someone at your side who can answer any question and pull any savvy move--with authority and drive--is the best business partner you could imagine.
You think clicking a mouse to deliver a copy of your book is the greatest development in publishing? You think a Flash-based website or a Twitter feed is the hottest? You think selling personalized copies through Ebay is the hottest?
The hottest development is the appearance of that agent who can do anything for you, and the realization of every author-to-be that part of the approach no longer is sending out queries to any agent who just might be some kind of match, but sending a query to an agent who is encompassing of most any author-in-waiting, no matter what their business goals and needs. Imagine an agent who is not in the rejection business, but one who is in the acceptance business. I found one!
Writers now can choose to reject agents, and reject them by the handful, and select the one who furthers their goals. A total reversal of a basic aspect of the process, an aspect that's traditionally been agony for both writer and agent. This new business model will always exist, so long as some form of books are published.
This is the earth-shaking development that writers and readers and publishers and printers and agents have to appreciate the most. And the one that may be overlooked the most.
It'll potentially make more positive difference in an industry, a career, and a job, than any other.
In this brutally competitive business, this news flash is to your benefit.
See you later... on top of the game!
I've learned and found inside-baseball facts and observations that are generally not mentioned.
Here are a few to sit you straight up:
Self-publishing and publishing through Amazon's CreateSpace are viable ways to see one's book in print or on ebook readers.
Yes, the established publishers are still trying to figure out exactly how to handle this competition, and get a piece of this for their own profit and survival.
Yes, Amazon is a powerful presence in the world of books.
Consider these few points, however:
There is a difference between printing and publishing, and one or the other may be the route to go, depending on your personal situation, wants, and needs. And experience. Few understand the fine-line difference.
CreateSpace, and other self-publishing systems, offer a buffet of services one pays for up-front, costing anywhere from several hundred to several thousand dollars. They're one of several self-publishing businesses, and the best-known. If you're in a position to pay for whatever you want and need, or provide these yourself, and if your in a position to make educated business decisions about font, format, cover art, distribution, and marketing, this may serve you perfectly. If you're well-established, comfortable financially, and have a book idea you want to get out on the market, you may want to take this route, as Deepak Chopra just did. Or, if you want to get a handful of your books out as gifts or to learn the experience or to take a bet on a possible best-seller, this may work for you, too. The options are usually ebook, and some form of print-on-demand.
Sure, you'll earn money all along (possibly), and that may help you pay for more services and bankroll later projects, and you may make more per copy on a percentage basis, but you should start to notice something creeping into this argument.
Imperfect, crazy, and sometimes dysfunctional as established publishing may be, it does offer a few things that you may miss when self-publishing.
People who'll lead and not follow.
First, if you have an agent, you have someone on your side, a cheerleader, a market-savvy and business-wise partner and advisor, to run interference and make open-field tackles for you. Sure, they'll cost you a percentage, but a good one will find what you consider your best deal by shopping your manuscript, and watching out for bugs and gremlins that will make the ride smoother. You're hiring someone who generally has their own business best-interest in mind, and they know things about marketing you haven't experienced, and need to know to maximize the benefits of all your hard work. If you have a publisher and an agent, it's the agent who'll be your stronger friend.
I'm not leaving out established publishers. Plodding and scary as they may be, they like not only to survive, but thrive. Partnering with authors who can sell books goes far for both. They also do publishing things generally correctly, out of habit. Things you'll have on your side with skill and efficiency. They, like agents, know how to avoid the little critters that take away from the embodiment of your hard work.
Most books are still sold in hard-copy, and most are sold to people browsing racks, in established bookstores. Yeah, it's cool to have an ebook, but it's generally far tougher to market books when lacking face-to-face word-of-mouth.
Okay, here I am, on a blog, an established electronic way to get the word out and provoke discussions with others who are somewhere else on the planet. So long as you understand electronic and tangible publishing, they're both a potential help toward your goals.
Just understand that a large part of conventional publishing is easy chatter among people with a physical presence. Office buzz, water-cooler talk, conventions, conferences, reading clubs, these are all habits of experienced figures in the world of publishing, and they open avenues to you and your work that are just not there well at all with electronic publishing. They're powerful, they'll go to bat for you if you light a spark, and it's a facet of the business that is rarely mentioned as a way that can make an author's career. Want that on your side?
Ebooks can now be autographed... did you know that? That's new tech, pretty cool, pretty fun, and possible from most anywhere to most anywhere. I've done some in-store book signings, and the personal interaction was a joy and an event for me and those I met. So long as something like that is not cut out of the process, I approve. I'll embrace that electronic personalizing, as it's just one more potentially fun way to connect with readers.
Indie bookstores and Barnes & Noble are not going away. There will always be readers and buyers who want that tangible product, that interaction, that joy of discovery in a physical bookstore. Real books can be bought and sold and lent and given away as ebooks cannot. Would you want to somehow handicap your presence on bookstore shelves due to your lack of marketing savvy because you went with a system that either cut out those business partners, or made it difficult to maximize a shopper's ability to discover and buy your book? Consider Amazon's CreateSpace route versus those bookstores. Oh, and Amazon doesn't have bathrooms. Or coffee shops. Amazon will naturally do something to make it difficult--if not impossible--for competing booksellers to handle your book. Bookstores generally offer printed books as well as most any ebook available, and you can have them right there and right then and right now.
I know people who published their own books. They're proud of those books, proud of what they did, and this was the best choice for what they published. I know others who had books published the conventional way, through an agent and then through a publisher. This worked for them, too.
All this comes down to two things:
1. What do you really want to accomplish, and are you confident that you can have in place everything you want and need to accomplish that?
2. Picking one route as opposed to another out of fear or greed or reasons counter to your goals is one stupid and harmful move, so for God's sake, do your homework. Know the business as well as you know your own manuscript. Maybe more. You have to do hard and heavy research just to assemble a competent nonfiction book. Well, you have to take the same mindset if you want to publish and market any book.
Your decision is based on far more than getting some text on pages of an otherwise blank book, or pressing SEND and transmitting a text file to an unseen someone.
There are developments in publishing that are exciting and possible traps, if you are not aware and awake. A knee-jerk reaction may cause harm to you and your goals. If you can say, "I've got a guy" or "I've got a gal", that likely beats "I've got software." Then, again, maybe I'm wrong, but it'll take someone's human judgement to decide. You can naturally assume that a second brain, one that knows the ways of the industry, will likely beat going alone.
And that's where my favorite inside-baseball tip comes in.
These changes are human-powered, human-developed, and human-operated, and there is a whole new style of human who may be the most powerful weapon an author could have.
I found a literary agent who offers--as a business service--advice, counsel, marketing and legal and financial advice to anyone with any interest in publishing, be it conventional or do-it-yourself. Which way do you want to go? What do you want to know? As a one-stop service offering, this agent covers all of it.
No matter how versed you may be in the publishing game, having someone at your side who can answer any question and pull any savvy move--with authority and drive--is the best business partner you could imagine.
You think clicking a mouse to deliver a copy of your book is the greatest development in publishing? You think a Flash-based website or a Twitter feed is the hottest? You think selling personalized copies through Ebay is the hottest?
The hottest development is the appearance of that agent who can do anything for you, and the realization of every author-to-be that part of the approach no longer is sending out queries to any agent who just might be some kind of match, but sending a query to an agent who is encompassing of most any author-in-waiting, no matter what their business goals and needs. Imagine an agent who is not in the rejection business, but one who is in the acceptance business. I found one!
Writers now can choose to reject agents, and reject them by the handful, and select the one who furthers their goals. A total reversal of a basic aspect of the process, an aspect that's traditionally been agony for both writer and agent. This new business model will always exist, so long as some form of books are published.
This is the earth-shaking development that writers and readers and publishers and printers and agents have to appreciate the most. And the one that may be overlooked the most.
It'll potentially make more positive difference in an industry, a career, and a job, than any other.
In this brutally competitive business, this news flash is to your benefit.
See you later... on top of the game!
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Love Note To Caylee
You're in heaven, and not with those you loved here on Earth, we know.
There is good news coming, Caylee: Your killer will be leaving this Earth, too.
We don't know when, but it'll happen. Justice will be done.
Finally.
Your killer did not go to jail, and that angers some. Jail means getting a place to stay, however miserable, and food and clothing provided. Resources would have gone to your killer to maintain some sort of life, and that would have been unfair to those outside who really need those things. Innocent people who need and more deserve those things.
Anger towards your murderer is the wrong emotion. Love for you and the needs of innocents is the more noble one, the best one.
Your killer is outside, among millions, many who remember, many who will watch, many who will think about this, and at least one who will plan. And act.
All it will take will be one. And your killer will be as dead as you.
Life outside is scary and upsetting and torturous for your killer, thanks to the mystery of who will administer justice, and how, and when, and where. There's some noble and fitting justice. Your killer is not at all free.
So how will your killer's final moments be? Will they involve pain and torture? Will your killer's life fade towards nothing while knowing that death is taking over? We don't know. No one does. But that may be the purest form of justice for you.
Maybe this will give more juries an idea: The worst punishment could be a "not guilty" verdict. After all, you see the resources and imperfect justice administered by imprisonment. Done well, it won't be punishment, so much as appropriate. No more, no better, than your killer gave you. And no less. The least that's deserved. Exactly what is earned.
The free world would be a far worse prison. And it is, for your killer.
After the event, your killer's body may show evidence of agony and resistance, and then the news will spread to others who may consider killing. And those killers-to-be may think enough of the consequences about to be laid upon them by persons unknown, and they will not kill. The killer's end will be public, and for those who understand, and accept, and approve of justice in its purest form, this will be fitting.
For those who will kill anyway, why should we waste time and resources valuable to the innocent to imprison them according to rules and regulations and habits and politics of the so-called justice system? Where is the hope for correction? There is none. So why attempt it? Why maintain a life that no longer needs to continue? That should not continue?
Swift and certain delivery of justice has gone on since the birth of civilization, but it's been little-spoken and rarely discussed. Which is too bad. And unfair to every innocent being.
That kind of justice respects and demonstrates love for the innocent, for the victims. Our legal ways, our legal structures, fail to address that. Isn't that the most important part of working to keep the peace? Isn't that the most civilized, and heartfelt way to handle murder of innocents?
Thousands of innocents are murdered each year. Why are thousands of murderers not disposed of? Where is the respect for the life of innocents? Where is the respect for civilization? Why the delay, the avoidance, of the kind of justice that should be applied, out of fairness to the victims?
What is right and proper, what is the noblest act, is to dispose of those who have exercised the ultimate violence upon the innocent. No anger shown, no punishment meant. Just an even and certain delivery of death to the killer, a chore that is distasteful yet necessary, with no bureaucratic delay.
Some approve of the system as it is. But, it's odd how there is regret on some side of the issue, no matter how justice acts. There is no real end to the wheezing, puffing machine operation of the system as it now works; only when the killer dies, likely of a natural cause, many years in the future. As long as there is no end of the murderer, there is much picking at the scab, there is much high-minded yet misplaced unfeeling chanting of concepts such as, "we are not that way", or "we value life in all forms". Where is the teardrop for victims such as you? Is your life valued equally, or less, than that of your killer?
Imagine a quick finality, an ending of the warped story.
No cyclone of police and investigators and lawyers and judges and clucking bystanders and witnesses and cable TV and social buzz clogged with scandal and drama, as they did with your death.
Sounds a lot like many people want to get in on the pornographic self-pleasure of a murder story, doesn't it? Well, they did.
How low. How shameful. How pitifully wrong.
Don't they understand, don't they accept, it's about the victim, not self-pleasure of outsiders? Justice should minimize that, not fertilize it. Justice should take away the violent in quiet, in the shadows, wasting no time, using few people and human materials and processes and little exposure.
Done.
Gone.
And mortal life can continue, lived free, by those who survive. By the billions who have a necessary job to perform, then go on with their own lives, little-threatened by those who would harm.
Every time justice is served as it will be to your killer, justice and peace will be all the more pure.
It won't do you any good, true, but maybe the world will be happier and safer and more secure for other children like you were.
That's the best we remaining mortals can do.
If we so decide.
And it appears we will.
At least in your memory.
Out of love and respect for your innocent life.
There will be a book, called OTHERS, that will show a world of peace, and how it may not be as beautiful and perfect as everyone would like it. OTHERS will not be a textbook, a cookbook, a how-to manual of bringing a better peace to the mortal world.
What it will do, Caylee, is at least make people think, and consider perhaps a more loving and respectful kind of justice.
For those remaining.
For others.
Others who most deserve love and respect.
There is good news coming, Caylee: Your killer will be leaving this Earth, too.
We don't know when, but it'll happen. Justice will be done.
Finally.
Your killer did not go to jail, and that angers some. Jail means getting a place to stay, however miserable, and food and clothing provided. Resources would have gone to your killer to maintain some sort of life, and that would have been unfair to those outside who really need those things. Innocent people who need and more deserve those things.
Anger towards your murderer is the wrong emotion. Love for you and the needs of innocents is the more noble one, the best one.
Your killer is outside, among millions, many who remember, many who will watch, many who will think about this, and at least one who will plan. And act.
All it will take will be one. And your killer will be as dead as you.
Life outside is scary and upsetting and torturous for your killer, thanks to the mystery of who will administer justice, and how, and when, and where. There's some noble and fitting justice. Your killer is not at all free.
So how will your killer's final moments be? Will they involve pain and torture? Will your killer's life fade towards nothing while knowing that death is taking over? We don't know. No one does. But that may be the purest form of justice for you.
Maybe this will give more juries an idea: The worst punishment could be a "not guilty" verdict. After all, you see the resources and imperfect justice administered by imprisonment. Done well, it won't be punishment, so much as appropriate. No more, no better, than your killer gave you. And no less. The least that's deserved. Exactly what is earned.
The free world would be a far worse prison. And it is, for your killer.
After the event, your killer's body may show evidence of agony and resistance, and then the news will spread to others who may consider killing. And those killers-to-be may think enough of the consequences about to be laid upon them by persons unknown, and they will not kill. The killer's end will be public, and for those who understand, and accept, and approve of justice in its purest form, this will be fitting.
For those who will kill anyway, why should we waste time and resources valuable to the innocent to imprison them according to rules and regulations and habits and politics of the so-called justice system? Where is the hope for correction? There is none. So why attempt it? Why maintain a life that no longer needs to continue? That should not continue?
Swift and certain delivery of justice has gone on since the birth of civilization, but it's been little-spoken and rarely discussed. Which is too bad. And unfair to every innocent being.
That kind of justice respects and demonstrates love for the innocent, for the victims. Our legal ways, our legal structures, fail to address that. Isn't that the most important part of working to keep the peace? Isn't that the most civilized, and heartfelt way to handle murder of innocents?
Thousands of innocents are murdered each year. Why are thousands of murderers not disposed of? Where is the respect for the life of innocents? Where is the respect for civilization? Why the delay, the avoidance, of the kind of justice that should be applied, out of fairness to the victims?
What is right and proper, what is the noblest act, is to dispose of those who have exercised the ultimate violence upon the innocent. No anger shown, no punishment meant. Just an even and certain delivery of death to the killer, a chore that is distasteful yet necessary, with no bureaucratic delay.
Some approve of the system as it is. But, it's odd how there is regret on some side of the issue, no matter how justice acts. There is no real end to the wheezing, puffing machine operation of the system as it now works; only when the killer dies, likely of a natural cause, many years in the future. As long as there is no end of the murderer, there is much picking at the scab, there is much high-minded yet misplaced unfeeling chanting of concepts such as, "we are not that way", or "we value life in all forms". Where is the teardrop for victims such as you? Is your life valued equally, or less, than that of your killer?
Imagine a quick finality, an ending of the warped story.
No cyclone of police and investigators and lawyers and judges and clucking bystanders and witnesses and cable TV and social buzz clogged with scandal and drama, as they did with your death.
Sounds a lot like many people want to get in on the pornographic self-pleasure of a murder story, doesn't it? Well, they did.
How low. How shameful. How pitifully wrong.
Don't they understand, don't they accept, it's about the victim, not self-pleasure of outsiders? Justice should minimize that, not fertilize it. Justice should take away the violent in quiet, in the shadows, wasting no time, using few people and human materials and processes and little exposure.
Done.
Gone.
And mortal life can continue, lived free, by those who survive. By the billions who have a necessary job to perform, then go on with their own lives, little-threatened by those who would harm.
Every time justice is served as it will be to your killer, justice and peace will be all the more pure.
It won't do you any good, true, but maybe the world will be happier and safer and more secure for other children like you were.
That's the best we remaining mortals can do.
If we so decide.
And it appears we will.
At least in your memory.
Out of love and respect for your innocent life.
There will be a book, called OTHERS, that will show a world of peace, and how it may not be as beautiful and perfect as everyone would like it. OTHERS will not be a textbook, a cookbook, a how-to manual of bringing a better peace to the mortal world.
What it will do, Caylee, is at least make people think, and consider perhaps a more loving and respectful kind of justice.
For those remaining.
For others.
Others who most deserve love and respect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)