Letters to a Young Creative

And as with any advice, YMMV. Nobody has the "One True Path to Success." Those who say they do are trying to sell you the book they wrote about it.

So there's another piece of writing (or creative life) advice that's making the rounds again and I think we need to talk about it. That piece of is, "You've gotta jump off the cliff and build your wings on the way down." And it's being misquoted, so let's start there. The full quote is…

“If we listened to our intellect we'd never have a love affair. We'd never have a friendship. We'd never go in business because we'd be cynical: 'It's gonna go wrong.' Or "She's going to hurt me.' Or,'I've had a couple of bad love affairs, so therefore…' Well, that's nonsense. You're going to miss life. You've got to jump off the cliff all the time and build your wings on the way down."
― Ray Bradbury

Now I like Ray Bradbury, and yes I know at the end of his life he got a little too right-wing for people at attempted to claim copyright over his title Fahrenheit 451, mostly because he disagreed with a certain filmmaker who used its concept and power to get attention. Yes, yes, yes, but I still like Bradbury, both his writing and what he contributed to the genre.

Let me start with what he means here. There comes a time with every endeavor that you have to take risks to gain anything worthwhile. You can always find a reason not to do something, not to take the chance. Not to make that jump. You aren't ready, you may fail, you don't know what will happen. What he's saying is screw all that, walk up to the cliff, take the risk and figure it out because somethings you learn by doing. This is a corollary to carpe diem. Notice how he's saying "all the time." There isn't just one cliff.

However we live in the age of EXTREMES and this phrase has come to mean something else entirely. All or nothing. Because many people have a fucked up view of life and must "live on the edge" and all that other shit, this is now considered to mean, "To get anything, you gotta leave everything you have, risk it all, and just jump."

Well, I'm standing at the base of that cliff and let me tell you there's a hellofalotata graves down here. Some of them, actually many of them, are literal. These people didn't figure out how to build their wings or forgot that they needed to bring materials to build wings with or even have some concept of physics and aeronautics that allowed them to make wings that would work. Some of them face planted and never got up. Some of them found the journey too tough and because of this ideal of "all or nothing" chose the latter and killed themselves because they didn't have success as soon as they thought they should. I'm serious here, that "give it all up and jump" concept is a killer.

We won't talk about the mass graves of dead dreams that are down here too. Because, damn, call the UN we have a crime against humanity.

So let me tell you about my life. I'm a moderately successful designer, I make a good living. There were two opportunities that would have involved giving up almost everything in my life to take a grab at the gold ring. And it might just be the allure of the road not taken, but they would have been great. I had invites, so it wasn't a total blind leap. I didn't take those for various reasons (most of which is I wouldn't have been gambling with my own life and I do know how tough it is to build your way up from nothing because I did). However I have taken about six moderate gambles like this in my life (probably more if I think about it, but here I'm talking about working as a creative). Times when I didn't know if I could do something, or if I would survive. At this point I'm batting 500.

I have had two "dream" jobs at really "great" design firms. Both of those crapped out for various reasons (one was because they were insane, the other because they were jealous). Am I doing the highest-end design work, grabbing those great clients (lots of money and a willingness to experiment), and landing in the awards? No. But I make well above the average in my market and I am worth it. I have a second job I love (that was another leap moment, that one worked, mostly). I am successful for various definitions of successful. And for the most part I enjoy the work I am doing.

But I also look at the smoking holes that were those 3 leaps where I face planted. Those things guide my decisions. How could they not?

There are people in the creative field who will tell you that you have to give everything up to do "art." I was told to my face that I might need to divorce my wife to get ahead (look at that crater smoke, will ya, maybe that was my "mistake" with that one, but I'm more than okay with that decision). That you should give up sleep, give up money, give up food (starving artist anyone?), give everything to be the "artist." Let me tell you, every single person peddling that narrative is out to rob you of your creativity, your money, or your life.

That doesn't mean you won't need to sacrifice things. You might not go out as often as you want. Sometime you have to make less temporarily to make more in the long run. And being a creative means being on the outside, even among friends (but it helps to find friends who understand what being creative means and how it warps your perception of the world). It means spending on equipment or training you need instead of a nice vacation. It means delayed gratification. It means knowing what is important to you, and what can be jettisoned without diminishment.

But I'll tell you something, that's life. Few people make it through life without those things, unless you start from a position of abundance. Scratch anyone who has "made it" and you'll find the scars of their sacrifices. Some are greater than others. Some are deeper wounds than others.

But I wanted to tell you that being a creative is not a "Cake or Death" decision. While you can't have it all, you also don't need to abandon the things you love. Life is hardly ever an all or nothing prospect. The fire of this creative life will change you, temper you, make you stronger. But it will also burn the dross away. Don't cling to it.

Cliffs come in all sizes and heights. You can choose your cliff. And you don't have to leave everything behind, you need something to build those wings out of anyway. Don't allow people to separate you from your world, from yourself, from people you love. But do take risks when you can. Don't be afraid to do things that scare you. Don't be afraid that you don't know everything.

You don't have to quit the day job.

Followup to those thousands making a good living

So, that article Barry Eisler pointed me to that I couldn't read at the time I finally got to read. Again, doesn't support his contention of thousands of writers making a good living self-publishing. Plus, half is him pontificating, and the other half if JA Konrath saying, "Yea, what he said, and I said it first."

Is book publishing hard? Yes it is. Is self-publishing easy? Yes it is. Is successful "legacy" publishing hard? Yes it is (see many previous posts on the low advances, low sales, and the three-book death spiral, if you make it to three). Is successful self-publishing hard? It's much harder than the legacy model. In both you pays you buck, you takes your chances.

However, if you get over the hurdle of legacy publishing the chances of your success are slightly higher than in self-publishing where the successful part is much harder (see various posts about having to do it all yourself).

Are their success story in self-publishing? Yes. And most of those end with getting "legacy" publishing contracts (Celestine Prophecy, etc).

So, again, Barry doesn't have proof of what he's talking about with "thousands of self-published authors making a good living", and the equation has stayed basically the same (there was self-publishing before Amazon and the Kindle, it just required more up-front money). And while what Barry and JA say about contracts is true, that's why your agent makes their money (I'll also point out that while Barry says you'll never get your rights back, he did get his rights back).

For me, I'll continue my path with the "legacy" system. I might do self-publishing in the future, creating a hybrid-career (which is actually the best advice at the moment). It's my unlearned opinion that "legacy" publishing still offers the better overall chance.

As always with writing advice, YMMV.

Those Thousands of Self-Published Authors Making a Good Living

To everyone else, Barry Eisler made a driveby comment (I doubt he's a regular reader) challenging me on my statement about his claim of "'I mean, there are lots of writers ... thousands of writers who are making a good living from self-publishing,'" in the previous linkee-poo. I haven't contacted him directly, yet, so I don't have his permission to post his comment on the top of this blog. You can read it here. Since my response to him is rather long, I've decided to make it a post of it's own.

Hey Barry,

Well, first my name is Steve. You don't even need to google for that, it's on the top of the right-hand column. It's right there.

So, okay, lets look at the articles you point to. Just as a reminder, my questions are about your contention, "'I mean, there are lots of writers ... thousands of writers who are making a good living from self-publishing.'" While it would help to define what "a good living" means, let's see what the articles you point to actually say.

First is the Atlantic Story, Authors of Kindle Singles Are Raking in Tens of Thousands of Dollars. The only quote I could find there for your statement was "A new report from PaidContent finds that… a few authors are doing quite well from their Kindle Single effort… PaidContent estimates that (Mishka) Shubaly has made about $130,000 from his three Singles. The other four writers in PaidContent's report have brought in amounts ranging from a bit less than $9,000 to $65,000. The Singles in PaidContent's round-up all sell for either $0.99 or $1.99 a pop, and authors see 70 percent of the revenue." Okay, well there are five, although the "bit less than $9,000" would qualify for "poverty" for a single person (as referenced in the original NPR story). So that article doesn't confirm your contention.

The Passive Voice's blog post KDP was my one shot at a lifelong dream we have an extensive reprint of Jeff Bezos' annual letter to shareholders (we'll pass by the obvious critiques of both "self-reporting" and "conflict of interest" here, as well as the fact that Amazon hasn't released the numbers as a legal disclosure). We have the personal stories of five Kindle Authors, all of whom are listed as Kindle Best Sellers, however not all talk about their income from those sales (who knows what it could be). Then Mr. Bezos' says "more than a thousand KDP authors now each sell more than a thousand copies a month, some have already reached hundreds of thousands of sales, and two have already joined the Kindle Million Club." Sounds good, except, again, no actual royalty statements included. All we can take away is that there are "thousands" of Kindle Direct authors (only one half of your contention) and that "some" are over 100,000 books sold. Mr. Bezos then goes on to say "A typical selling price for a KDP book is a reader-friendly $2.99", not the average, not the mean, but "typical", which means nothing statistically. So while this shows that there are plenty of Kindle Authors, there's nothing about how many of them are "making a good living." So this article is not only unverifiable nor does it have the imprimatur of an actual (verifiable) report it also doesn't prove your contention.

Next up is Digital Book World breakdown of Amazon's 2012 4th QTR revenue (the Christmas season) Amazon Fourth-Quarter Sales up 22% to $21.27 Billion. Here, at least, we have a quote from Mr. Bezos that "After 5 years, ebooks is a multi-billion dollar category for us and growing fast…." So, that sounds pretty good. However, the closest actual numbers reported comes in as, "Amazon media sales worldwide (including ebooks, books, DVDs, CDs, music and more) grew in 2012 to $19.94 billion." Down in the weeds of the actual earning report we see that "Amazon’s digital media selection has grown to over 23 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, books, audiobooks, and popular apps and games in 2012…" So for 23M titles, $20B isn't bad. But, again, no breakdown into actual e-books, profits, royalties, etc. But then we get to "Amazon announced that 23 KDP authors each sold over 250,000 copies of their books in 2012, and that over 500 KDP Select books have reached the top 100 Kindle best seller lists around the world." Well, the second half of that statement is meaningless, but the first part with 23 authors selling over 250,000 copies, that pretty good. But, alas, again no actual numbers on how much they made in royalties, and that's only 23 authors. So, again, doesn't prove your contention.

Next is another blog post from The Passive Voice, again they're quoting a press release from Amazon in their Over 150 KDP Authors Each Sold More than 100,000 Thousand Books in 2013. That title is a little poorly worded, but the relevant bullet point here is, "150 Kindle Direct Publishing authors each sold more than 100,000 copies of their books in 2013…" So, that's 150 authors, and again while they're "selling" books, no word on how much they made, and still no hint as to the average price of those books. But wait, "Kindle Direct Publishing authors sold hundreds of thousands of books in November through the new Kindle Countdown Deals…" wow. But how many authors, and how many each did they sell, and at what price? Still no word. So best scenario, 150 authors, but no indication how they're doing. This article doesn't prove your contention.

The next article is on Forbes (hey, okay, a news site), Amazon Pays $450,000 A Year To This Self-Published Writer. That sounds impressive, for this writer, Mark Dawson. And hey, he's got what appears to be a decent series that has "sold 300,000 copies" of his series. However, "sold" isn't what it appears to be because "… Dawson had sold 50,000 copies of The Black Mile over the course of a weekend… But (he) made no money whatsoever from The Black Mile" because "He gave The Black Mile away for free. Amazon recommends this as a promotional tool, and it’s one that many try." There's no word on how many other books he "sold" for free, but if he made $450,000 on 250,000 other books (remember 50K were free), I'm assuming he charged for the rest. While that's great for Mr. Dawson, and I'll grant you that $450k a year is a "good living", again it's one author. So this article also doesn't support your contention of thousands making a "good living."

Then there is the Hugh Howey's Author Earnings Report September 2015 Author Earnings Report. And in there, things look pretty rosy for "indie, non-ISBN publishers" (most likely self-published). Both their market share, and the percentage of revenue they make have increased significantly until Mr. Howey states that the market has inversed (well, not really, traditional publishing for the big and small houses still takes the majority). "Today, indie self-publishers are taking home 24% of the gross $ publisher revenue coming out of the Amazon ebook store. Amazon-imprints and their authors are taking home another 13%. The AAP’s 1200 publishers account for no more than 50% of publisher ebook dollar revenue." Note those don't add up to 100%. But still, that's pretty nice. And their new model of pay per page has some nice numbers, "Today, 34% of indie author earnings from the Amazon store — over a third of indie Kindle revenue — takes the form of KU payments for pages read: in July, KU accounted for 2 billion pages (KENP) and $11.5 million dollars in direct author compensation." Not bad. But, again, no data on how many authors and titles are being compared (only market segments). While there may be more money being taken home by self-published e-books, is that being shared by the same number of authors that make up the other segments (there's no data, but my wild-assed guess would be there are multiplication factors of more self-published than traditional published, so their pie share may be growing, the number of people eating that pie is outstripping the growth, but, again, that's my impression from the growing ranks of self-published authors that are referred to in the other articles). Also, there's no data on whom is getting what. So there is no way, with this article, to confirm your claim of "thousands… making a good living."

General notes, not all articles differentiated between self-published and traditional published e-books (except for the Author Earnings Report). Also, not all self-published books are e-books. There's six other notes I had, but it's late, and I'm tired, and you aren't compensating me for this research.

So, I've read all the articles you've pointed to, Barry. Most of which have troubles with sourcing, but none of which support your contention. At best, there are thousands of self-published authors out there. Given. If we add all the numbers up from the different articles over different years we get less than 500 self-published (well, actually e-book authors selling on Amazon which include traditional published authors as well) authors who are "best-sellers." Amazon considered books sold for $0 a sale. Conclude what you will. There are less than a handful who can be considered "making a good living" (again, from the articles you yourself pointed to).

Again, Barry, as I posted in my commentary on the linkee-poo, "I now want a list of those 'thousands of authors' that make a living form (SIC) self-publishing." You haven't provided. Not even close.

Also, you state that you couldn't find any evidence to support my contention that you overstated your numbers. That's a nice try, Barry. One, logic fallacy here in that you're the one making the extraordinary claim, you're the one that needs to prove your statement. I don't need to prove that I think you're shoveling BS here, as that's my opinion. Also, can't prove a negative, Barry, basic argumentative theory. You get no points for that cheap shot (and I'm going to take it as a cheap shot instead of thinking you were insulting my intelligence).

Barry, I know you're supportive of new authors. And for that, thank you. But you don't have the research to back up your position of "thousands of writers… making a good living from self-publishing." I know for you, self-publishing has been a fantastic boon, and good on you. However I'll note you had a following before going that route. Most authors who have done well self-publishing also have that first step up (having a following from "traditional" publishing) or write erotica (I know, I've done the research). Both sides of that require a hellalotta work from the author (either in promotions, or the number of titles published) to make a living. Very, very few have made a good living (for various values of "good") solely on self-publishing. Many have had "success", but that doesn't equate to making a good living (even with "traditional" publishing), which I know you also acknowledge.

Yes, Barry, I know who you are. For being an advocate for "publishing options," a lot of reporters get that wrong and call you an evangelist for self-publishing. Strange how that happens, every single time. There might be a reason for that.

If you wish to point out any discrepancies or facts I may have missed in the articles you linked to, please do. Note, I am asking your permission to post content from any such commentary to the top of the blog as a regular post.

I've noted how you haven't proven your point. I'm calling bullshit on your thousands of self-published authors making a good living. Since you haven't defined it, I will. A "Good Living" means writing income from self-publishing that's above poverty level for the circumstances the author has (single, married, married with children). No including income from other writing sources (such as commercial writing/freelance sources). I want to see that someone can support themselves without help (including the ever famous "spouse with a real job with real benefits"). That's my definition. Ball is in your court now.

Get it outa my head and on paper

Last night I ran out of spoons and went to bed early, only to have a series of early dreams (I don't often remember my dreams on waking, and mostly those times I do remember dreams it's around 3 o'clock or later, so this was unusual). They were very vivid and involved telling a story of a journey. Only, while I told the first story, I didn't tell the second story. Jeff VanderMeer did. Why Jeff was narrating in my dream, and why him, I'm not entirely certain (although I've been dipping into his Wonderbook lately, so his voice has been in my head).

But it was so strange that when I woke, I hand wrote almost two pages of notes. Here's the epiphany. Here are my notes transcribed.

I wrote a story about secret passages and getting from A to B. Jeff VanderMeer told a story about the same, but made it about seven different levels of passages. He added danger, cultural relativism, trust between two people gaining in their relationship, of decisions on all levels and by people not mentioned in the story. I told mine in the paper, he told his on the radio. Mine was a boy and girl getting to class. He was a girl must trust a boy she doesn't fully know to take her hand and lead her through dazzling cultural events, college parties and the underworld criminal drug gangs and opium users to get to the end where they realize only together could they have escaped with their lives and sanity.

You win, Jeff! (editors note: as I remember I said this out loud in the dream)

(editors note: these are single sentences I wrote around the periphery of the first page) People wanting to thwart the couple, try to distract them off the path. Underground circus life. I made it about a path, Jeff made it about a whole world. I made it weird and strange, Jeff made it a mad midnight carnival.

(Editor's note, I laid back down here, but got back up to write another page, it's slightly redundant, but since I'm being honest here I'm including it)

I told a story about getting from point A to B. Jeff made a story about trust, of putting her hand in his. In mine, he was clever. In Jeff's he was out of his depth and likely to get them both killed. In mine she went confidently. In Jeff's she was filled wiht doubt. There were internal journeys and passages (ie. traveling) of the characters. Did I mention the stilt walker stalkers Jeff added? The feeling I gave (was) "They're going to make it." How Jeff's story was filled with "ZOMG they're not going to survive." In mine, if they don't get there they missed out. In Jeff's if they didn't make it they lost everything. In mine they were going to make it. In Jeff's (it was) anything but making it.

I grok some of that now, but there was a lot more I understood when I woke up. I certainly hope my subconscious remembers it and has internalized those lessons.

I don't remember dreaming the rest of the night.

Also, this is why you should have writing paper and a pen or pencil by your bed (well, at all times actually).

And Early Linkee-poo by itself

From today's Writers Almanac.

"It's the birthday of anthologist and writer Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch… remembered by writers today… for one of the most enduring but non-attributed pieces of writing advice ever given. He wrote in his 1916 book On the Art of Writing, 'Whenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it — whole-heartedly — and delete it before sending your manuscript to press: Murder your darlings.'… Now a popular catchphrase… 'murder your darlings' admonishes writers to refrain from being too precious about their prose and to trust in the values of simplicity and efficiency."

Do ye likewise.

Just in case that phrase was ever confusing (I've actually answered questions about this in several writing groups and even as a panelist).

Time is the fire in which we burn

Just as a warning to all you other wannabe writers, get the books you want to write written as soon as you can.

Many more years ago than I wish to think about, the ideas that formed the bones of the current WIP all came together. I won't bore you all with the various Big Ideas™ (trademark of John Scalzi's Whatever), but my elevator pitch is "the Left-Behind romantic comedy for those of us that will be Left-Behind." Sounds like fun, doesn't it? Also, it's a great joke Christmas Tree. But I also shouldn't go into all the details about what's in there because I want to talk about timing.

Let's assume for the moment I can pull this writing feat off and this is going to be a killer book, the kind that the young kids in college ask each other, "Have you read this? You gotta read this" (yes, those dreams of being a Douglas Adams keep coming back no matter how many times reality wants to stake them down). If I had finished it in a relative time frame from when I had the entire story structure down, that would have been about 3 years ago. Let's say a year to get an agent and then two years for the publishing process, the book would probably be coming out soon.

Which would have been great given this summer's movie preoccupation with "End of the World" stories (including not a few "Biblical Rapture" movies on all sides of the issue). That book would have hit the market at a time of high-tide for interest. I can't tell you how much internal strife is going on with that thought right at the moment. Seriously kicking myself over it.

Right now my guess is if I can get it done, we're looking at another 5 years until it might be out (unless a miracle happens - I'm looking at you Powerball). Who knows what the public interest will be then.

So, if you have that killer idea, the one you're not seeing on the shelves right now, write that bugger as fast as you can. Because by the time it's out for sale, you'll never know what will be fashionable or riding the wave of public attention.

And in case you don't see the other part of this argument, write what you want to write about, not what you think the market wants (except for short stories, this is one of the differences between shorts and novels).

Get to writing.

The Art of the, for lack of better terminology, Deal

There's a firestorm in the SF/F corners of these here internets. Apparently some Random House imprints decided they would attempt to buffalo new writers and use their good name to disguise the fact that their opening bid (as it seems they have made alterations to the boilerplate when authors negotiate) could charitably be called an overreaching rights grabs. Oh, and they ask that you give them your "profit" money first to cover their costs.

Random House was then pilloried by some of the more prominent defenders of the realms. And, IMHO, with good cause.

Random House, being the media savvy company they are, caught the sent of their good name being tarnished. Then they sent a response to the various defenders of the realm, putting their hand on their collective foreheads after falling to the fainting couch from the vapors. To be charitable, they did try to clarify their position and explain what they're doing.

And because of the tone of that letter and the not-exactly-advanced-hucksterism language used (seriously, using the language of SPAM and some of the lesser reputable self-publishing companies is not a good way to defend yourself from the charges that you are in that club) the ridiculing continued.

To someone desperate to be published, they may fall for this language. After all, Random House sounds perfectly reasonable and level-headed. Most people trying to get your money do, after all. They don't want to come off as the bully the 800 pound gorilla can be by not looking beyond themselves.

So for anybody who is thinking this may be a good deal, let me ask you a question. When they say, "When we acquire a title in the Hydra program, it is an all-encompassing collaboration. Our authors provide the storytelling, and we at Hydra support their creativity with best-in-class services…" they are specifically referring to their previous paragraph where they say "As with every business partnership, there are specific costs associated with bringing a book successfully to market…", and then they proceed to say they need to recoup those costs. Before you'll ever see a part of that "… potentially lucrative… publishing model for authors: a profit share." So Random House is going to recoup their sunk costs upfront. Will Random House offset my, or the author's, sunk cost in writing the novel? I would even offer to allow them to subtract their specific costs from my costs of writing the novel. You know, because this is a "all-encompassing collaboration."

BTW, I would calculate my costs at the rate that I charge my favorite clients for freelance work. You know, because we're "partners." That rate is $65 an hour. If I can write 2000 words in a four hour session, that comes to 200 hours for a 100,000 word book. So that's $13,000 before I add in all the rewrites and edits. Oh, and travel if I worked on the book at writer retreats. Oh, and my costs for Viable Paradise which helped me become a better writer. Etc, blah blah.

You'd do that for me, wouldn't you Hydra/Random House? You know, because we're "partners." Right? After all, as you say, "the publisher takes all the financial risk up front." I mean, I took the financial risk of writing the book first. That's worth something. Isn't it, partner?

Rules of Writing #12

When you have an idea, a cool snippet of text, and joke, the honey-dewdrops of grace from the muse, the epiphany that will allow you to tie your novel together in such a unique way the Pulitzer Committee will rise up as troop of meerkats scenting something new on the wind, write it the fuck down.

Just stole a joke from one of my co-workshoppers. She said it just before we went to dinner and I though, "oh, no, I don't need to write that down now. I'll remember it when we get back." Yeah, took me five minutes and I'm damn glad I remembered it.

This is a lesson I keep having to learn over. Strike while the iron is hot.

I think I read this first at the end of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance that you should pay attention to your ideas. Even if you think, "That's not what I'm looking for" or "That's not what I need," write it down. Sometimes those ideas are just the older sibling of the idea you need, but if you don't clear the way, that other idea won't come out. And if you ignore ideas your brain/muse/universe/whatever will learn that lesson and simply stop giving them to you. So, even if that idea may not be what you need, get it out of the way so the rest can come out.

It's like plumbing. If you stop up the drain, the water stops flowing.

I know this. I've experienced the long deserts of ideas when I haven't obeyed this simple rule. I should know better. I'm sorry, Muse. You keep telling me, I'll try to remember this time.

Oh great internet brain

I keep getting this impulse to post my evolving drafts of the query letter to my blog (for some reason). I didn't know if this was a faux pas or not, as I don't believe I've seen writers post their query letters. There's some agents that have (including the Query Shark link I posted the other day).

Would it be bad if I did that? (Like prior publishing or something like that)

The writing things

I've been meaning to do a longer post, but haven't had the time. You can translate this to just how well the writing is going.

However, on listening to some podcasts I've decided to get some of Jim Butcher books. The Harry Dresden books, from what I hear are urban fantasy noir, which just happens to be a close analogy to "Bladesman". Right now I'm listening to "White Knight" and digging it.

So here's a small lesson for beginning writers, when you start out into new story territory and think that things are wonderful because it appears to be a desert, that is there aren't many other books or stories that have gone down the same path. Write fast. Because if it's true, you won't have long to enjoy that lack of competition. But more than likely the verdant forest that once stood where your story now stands had been trampled into the dust you now see. Some times this is bad, sometimes this is good. It all depends on what and how you're writing.

I'm just saying this because in the past two years since I started writing this book, the noir voice has really made a major comeback.

Here a brand, there a brand, everywhere a brand, brand

Reading widely can always help. One of the secrets of my career is that I read many business information articles specifically geared toward women and minorities. Why? Because those articles explicitly explained the things I was supposed to already know as a white male (information I never received as a part of the working class). The articles targeted to those markets knew they had to bring up the base level of knowledge and also had to show where their audiences fit within those "unspoken" rules, or ways to exploit them to their advantage.

Just because an article is targeted at a different demographic doesn't mean you can't learn something from them.

To that end, here's an interesting little article on positioning an in-house design team as a "Vendor of Choice." It's something that's a little on my mind. But, it has a little discussion about "Branding" the internal team. And her main points for doing that are:

• Part of the Corporate Culture


• Lower Costs than Outside Agencies


• Experts in Company’s Brand and Messaging


• Proven Performance Metrics


• Demonstrated Success


• The Intangibles (trust, partnership, commitment, close involvement)

Notice there is no discussion about internal logos, t-shirts, mugs, or any of that other crap. There is nothing about "product." Sure, all those things affect the "product" (or are effected by the product) but it isn't the product itself.

So when I hear writers talking about "brand" and they think that's their book, I have to internally sigh. No, the book is your product. Your brand is your reputation. That's a simplified word for it. What are you known for? If it's your book you're in for a world of hurt. If it's because of the entertainment people get from your book your in a much better position. If your brand is that people trust you to take them someplace blindfolded because they know it's going to be an entertaining ride and they're in good hands, then you've got something.

And yes, there's a nice corollary to being taken for a ride blindfolded and picking up a new book. In each case you need to trust the person driving. Building that trust, letting people become comfortable with you, letting them know you know what you're doing, all of that builds your brand.

Once you understand that part, then we can talk about how you build your brand. And that comes down to some other simple rules; exposure, consistency, reliability, and readiness. Most people understand the first part of that, but don't realize those other three parts need to be in place before that first one will have any effect.

To give an example. When I read American Gods I could tell I was in the hands of a story teller. (Spoiler Alert) When he killed the Shadow three fourths of the way through the book I nearly threw the book away. Nearly. By that time I had come to trust Neil Gaiman to drive. So I continued reading through my frowny faces. And you know what, by the end of that book I knew I would read whatever Neil wrote. I could trust him. He doesn't disappoint. That's his brand. Hell, I read The Graveyard Book which is specifically not targeted to my demographic. All because I know he's going to give me a good time. That's Neil's brand.

Same with Steven Brust. In his Vlad Taltos series, by the time (spoiler alert) Cawti leaves and Vlad goes into the wilderness, I would still continue to read his books even through that turn of the story seriously pissed me off. And Vlad's stories get deeper and more fun since that point.

Friday and just what am I talking about? I don't know.

From Jeff VanderMeer's Ecstatic Days, Jeff ProTem Lavie Tidhar gives some bulleted advice for writers. Yes. That. Loved it. "They don’t send people to Australia any more for stealing bread." Water through nose moment.

I've been getting asked for some of my "secrets" of landing the new job. Well, they aren't secret, first of all. Here's a good primer on interviewing. It boils down to do research, targeting yourself to that company, and being personable and open.

And speaking of secrets, well, I'm getting a little feed up with the media lately. We've now had both a Russian spy scandal and the wikileaks release of documents and I really haven't commented here about them. There's somewhat of a good reason for that, but maybe not so much anymore.

Here's the thing. Everybody in the media has been wrong about this. Dead wrong. Those Russian Spies? The media liked to portray that what they were after you could get the same with a CNN feed and home delivery of the NYT. The wikileaked documents only tell us what we already knew about Pakistan, civilians getting caught in the fog of war, and how it hasn't been going very well since we decided that Iraq was more of a problem. Well, if you believe that than you don't remember or know just what the spy game was all about and it points out just how far the internet has dulled our senses. Personally, I blame the Bush II Administration and their stance on the "Osama Plans to Bomb the US" briefing not having any "actionable intelligence."

Seriously.

Okay. First up, with the wikileaks, as it's being now reported in some places, the documents have names of locals who have helped us. Wave goodbye to those people. Either they'll go in hiding, be killed, or live in fear for the rest of their lives. It's not so much the problem of outing Valerie Plame, since she was in the US at the time and losing her as an asset meant at least we could still use her knowledge and skills, for a bit. No, it was the connection to a few people showing up dead in some of the former eastern block countries. People who knew her and had met with her over the years. The forth coming deaths in Afghanistan and those previous have one effect, it chills anybody who may have thought of sharing information with us (and now you know why there's all those cutesy code words for operatives). While I don't completely fault wikileaks for leaking the documents, understand they did it for no other purpose than to increase their brand (see earlier comments on "there isn't anything new here"). You all now know their name now, don't you. Isn't that great (for their monetary prospects). Thanks for that, wikileaks. Maybe you'll actually learn your job soon, or figure out it is a job and do the work so fewer people need to have to die. And yeah, if you don't think the Taliban/Al Qaeda isn't pouring through those documents, you really don't know how this war is being fought and won (or not as the case may be). We seem to have forgotten there is a dagger in that cloak and dagger work. Lose lips sink ships, but a knife in the dark can save or damn a country.

As to the Russian spies. Puh-lease. Do you really think that we say everything openly? Do you really think it doesn't matter to the Russians if we say we want, say, help on pressuring Iran to stop their nuclear program to know just how hard we're willing to press and what we're willing to give up? So we may say that we are going to talk, but if they can suss out that it's mostly for domestic consumption and we have no intention of giving the Russians anything (say, like freeing up their accounts of Iraqi money), their position is stronger. If you think that secrets are only "photocopy THIS", you're missing over 80% of the game. Let's say someone close to the President, or a CEO, suddenly isn't showing up on meetings and their house it dark, you can infer what is going on. Nobody needs to say anything. And we warren's even talking about what the poker players call "tells" (the former president had severals, including that annoying mouth twist when he was hiding the truth, the previous Bush did it with hand movements which is really why his handlers worked him hard to stop doing it).

No, I can't say more or some people out there will figure out my skills. And I'm not willing to let those out. Because I know what this game is and how it's played.

Talent Is Highly Overrated

This past week the story of the Tortoise and the Hare has been particularly on my mind. I think because there are plenty of parallels in day to day life. And there's something in there that I can't quite touch, yet. Something I need to learn or experience.

Slow and steady wins the race. Yeah, I know that was Aesop's moral. Frankly, he's wrong. The difference is in their motivations. See, the Tortoise and the Hare were running two different races with two different goals. The Hare's goal, and hence the race he ran, was only to beat the Tortoise. That is why once he was far enough ahead, he slacked off (depending on the version of the tale you read, he did different things). The Tortoise, on the other hand, was running the race to win. That was his goal. Not, "beat the Hare," but "win the race." The difference is subtle, but crucial. no matter what happened, the Tortoise was going to finish the race.

You may remember me talking about how I was dismayed that when I found out how low the bar was for me to get an A in my last class, that my brain went into sloth mode. See, I suffer from having been the mental Hare for too long in my life. It's easy for me to learn new things, to retain that knowledge, and to make it applicable. It wasn't until my third year in college that I turned that around. It had become comfortable to just do what was necessary and not pushing myself harder. Once the Hare, it's hard to change your perception.

I've also been thinking about it in terms of advertising. Many companies, well many companies that are doomed to fail, misunderstand who their competition is and what race their running. Many look out at their competitors and say, "I've gotta beat that guy/gal/company." And they're doomed to fail. They might win their goal of beating the other person, but they'll lose the race, which is what they're in to begin with. What your competition can do is set the pace and make you fight harder. However, if all you're doing is "beating that person," you'll soon find some excuse to slack off. What the real competition is about is getting orders/sales/moving product, whatever. Do that well and to the best of your abilities and you'll win. Do it especially well and you'll see that other goal accomplished in addition to winning.

And then there's the discussion about "Talent" and "Work," especially when it comes to "artistic endeavors" like writing. See, "talent" is "god given" and can't be adjusted. We should all use our gifts as we've all been told since childhood. There's the mythic projection that those who rise to "celebrity" have "talent", which some people have and some people don't. It's an immutable property. Which is bull crap. Sure, you may have an affinity for something. Someone who is "tone-deaf" (which is an actual medical condition) probably shouldn't try to make money singing or playing music. Someone who has no concept of grammar or how to string words together probably shouldn't be writing. However, I do know of several authors who struggle with dyslexia and are still published and well liked.

Now, the Hare has a talent for running fast. You really can't deny that. The Hare has never had to work hard at that, which is part of his problem. In his mind there is no chance of him losing. So when it happens, it shakes him to the core. You can take a poll of people you knew in high school, the ones who got the appellation "Most Likely to…" in the year book. How many of them have done what they were supposed to do? Not many, at least not in real life (unlike TV shows and soap operas). High School is a place were "talent" still will get you far.

And that was my problem. My talent for learning let me coast along in high school and still get good grades (Bs and Cs). It crippled me when it came to actually having to work for a grade. And I think I've stated before in all endeavors there comes a point where everything becomes work. It's that point that separates the people who will excel and those who will relive the glory days. With the help of Bette, a desire to be better than I was, and a professor throwing down the gauntlet, I passed that barrier (which is why I was so upset those old habits still were there).

This is like writing and art. I never did take art classes in high school. I wasn't all that good at it (there was some natural ability, but not refined). However, with hard work (and it still is hard work), I've made a living at it for almost 20 years now. With writing I also had a little ability. About ten years ago now I left behind that modicum of talent and in the realm of hard work. I'm relearning things other people knew by heart (because that had to work at it sooner than I did). That leaves me crippled, but I'm determined to get past those hangups. You may have seen many of them here (homophones, grammar, constancy, etc, are all my bugaboos).

By switching to the mindset of the Tortoise I'm determined to win in these endeavors. I've seen enough Hares sleeping by the roadside, or get lost partying with friends. I don't' want that path. I'm here to win. It doesn't mean other people can't win also (and in fact, I hope they do, and I've watched many of them go zooming by me on their way to their goals). But I will win also. It may take me longer, but I'll cross that line myself.

And that last paragraph was the secret kernel that didn't want to reveal itself until I wrote this post out. Like I said, I've been thinking about this for almost a week now an dI couldn't figure out why. There it is.

So the more complex moral of the story is know what you're doing, set your goals appropriately, and get moving towards them.

Future is so bright, I gotta wear shades

Because, as a writer (or even a human) you should look ahead and be prepared as possible (okay, maybe it's the latent boy scout in me or something that I do this), some posts about a part of the writer career I haven't made it to, yet.

An article on book bloggers and their gaining influence in marketing books. This is the one step beyond, "OMG, bloggers are destroying the newspaper book review," mantra of several years ago. So, if they are, doesn't it make sense for the publishers to pay them attention? Hell, many of my successful friends hold out ARCs to get bloggers to review them. And here I'll give a shout out to my friend the Lycan Librarian who posts reviews (although she's been kinda quiet for a few weeks). Oh, and she actually is a librarian (which is now excuse to give my semi-annual Librarians Rock! shootout). And you also have John Scalzi's Big Idea on his Whatever. And there are, quite literally, hundred of others. My guess is the next big push by "self-publishers" (the scam kind) will be to get the name of your self-published book on many "blogs" for a fee (and my guess is they'll set up most of those blogs and nobody will read them).

Cat Rambo talks about selling reprint rights. Which is where the money is really at, BTW. This much I've learned so far, if all you're doing is selling First NA Rights, you're only making half (at most) of your potential. Other countries have wonderful reading audiences. And they pay. No, seriously, as the next semi-successful author about secondary right and foreign right sales. As a poet I met once told me, making the first sale is just the toe in the door (well, for poets resale and grant gathering, which the first sale is just like a calling card, is were you make the money). As someone else once said, I have two hobbies; writing (which I do because it's fun and for me) and submitting (which I do for the money).

Manifestos and Misunderstandings

As linked to everywhere, Maureen Johnson writes a manifesto.

First, I come to praise Maureen. Yes. What she said. No, I'm not going to repost it here, go read it and give Maureen the page view love she deserves for this. What she writes in her manifesto statement is true, true, true.

Except for her last statement. And here I come to bury Maureen Johnson. Well, no, not really. But I do mean to correct her.

See, "branding" which creates "brands" is not what she thinks it is (or what the people she's encountered think it is). Product is not brand. Let me say that again, your product is not your brand. And brand is very important. Especially if you do have something to sell. And it's worth saying again, your product is not your brand.

The confusion here comes from outdated terminology. Most people know "brand names" and then equate that with "brand." These days they aren't referred to "brand names." They are called "trade names." Names that you trade your brand on. Names you can trademark.

So, since she used the example in her post, what is Coke's brand? Coke's brand is not brown, fizzy, sugar water. It's "refreshing." If it was just BFSW, you would have New Coke and that's it. Coke sells a multitude of products, including clear fizzy sugar water and just plain water. Plus, Pepsi sells BFSW. If that was their brand it would get awfully confusing in the market place. Also, Pepsi's brand is "Youthfulness."

If Toyota's brand was "Corrolla", this past half year would be nothing. Change "Corrolla" to "Sirus" and be done. However, Toyota's brand actually is "reliability and safety." That is why this past year's recalls are such a big thing.

What is Axe's brand? It isn't personal care products. It's "You'll get the girl." And this is why their latest advertising for their new product (underarm antiperspirant) isn't working (the agency got confused from their hair care products campaign). In the new commercial, the guy doesn't get the girl. AdFAIL.

So, as writers, what is our brand? Our brand is our industry, entertainment. If being entertaining isn't part of your brand as a writer, you're possibly doomed. However, many writers have expanded brands.

Stephen King is "entertaining gothic horror set in the modern world."

John Scalzi is "entertaining, accessibly written space opera" (which is why The God Engines is working for him, while I haven't read the full book, the abstract he posted reads like space opera with the SF part supplied by magic (fantasy)).

Steven Brust is "entertaining word play." This is how he can get away with such different works under his same name (including the Dumas riffs). It's also why I didn't toss his books aside when Vlad left Cawti. Also, the tone of the Vlad books has changed, drastically, but I still keep buying them.

Jim Hines just modified his brand and did it successfully. And if you read his blog you could see him struggle with it as he wrote Stepsister Scheme.

What Maureen is railing against are hucksters. And I agree, you shouldn't act that way. As Wil Weaton says, "Don't be a dick." Be entertaining, be accessible, be genuine, and be yourself. If people like you, they'll hopefully like what you produce. Battering them about the head and shoulders with it isn't the way to make sales or build your brand.

Sure, I've had it in the ear before

A bulleted list cribbed from Michael Moorcock on how to write a novel in three days. For certain definitions of "write" and "in three days." Hint, there's a lot of prework, and well, Moorcock is somewhat a freak of nature. Keep in mind that the Elric "novels", brilliant as they are, are really more like novellas. Several of them have been collected to make slim volumes. But good for pure "getting out of your own way" there some good stuff. And, as per the previous linked writing advice ala William Jones, YMMV. Take what you can use, leave what blocks you. (grokked from the marvelous eBear)

This morning's epiphany

Thanks to Laura Mixon, if you reward yourself before the action, you are actually rewarding the procrastination.

ie. If you say, because I'm about to write, I'll just check my emails or read this blog, you're not rewarding the writing, you're rewarding the procrastination. There are actual brain and behavioral studies to prove this.

As a writer who writes in a highly distracted state, I think I'll need to adjust that behavior.

Ding ding ding. Thanks Laura.

Writerly Linkee-poo

Because you all are getting tired of me ranting, and tonight is probably going to be a stressful political one, some links concerning writing which was what this blog was (supposed to be) all about.

Dear Editor, Help, I can't seem to finish my book. As I wind into the third act this is most timely. :) And while they suggest outlining they also remind you, "It's never carved in stone." Beware the tyrany of the outline. And having just written a small twist in Chapter 20 (not big, but for a second it had me saying, "Wait a sec, it's way to late to throw this into the mix" but I kept it in because my subconscious seems to be doing better planning than my conscious brain). (Grokked from Matt Staggs)

James Van Pelt on forward progress in novel writing. He also quantitatively defines a Lake Unit of writing. (Grokked, of course, from Jay Lake who, like me, has gotten a little screechy monkey about the health care debate and has decided to take a deep breath and let it out slowly, which is a similar decision I made last night when Bette told me I was getting near apoplectic watching C-SPAN)

Ken McConnell has his new novel, Null_Pointer out at the usual places.

And then a little of what to do once you're done (you know, besides the wild nights of debauchery) from Beneath the Cover, The Writing Heart of a Baboon. Which basically says, "Sell the hell out of it." Well, yeah. (Also grokked from Matt Staggs).

Everything I needed to know I learned in 6 years of college (except for everything I needed to know). - On the Spot!

One thing our visual design instructors instilled in us was the ability to be creative on demand. Design (graphic, information, way-finding, etc) is a business. You don't have time to wait for the Muse to come in, she has to be on the clock. You might get a new client at 8am and have to present ideas for an identity overhaul by the scheduled lunch at noon. No, really, you've gotta do.

Sure, you're going to get it wrong (that's another post), but you have to present ideas. That means after the hour long meeting where you learn basically nothing you need to know and a lot about things that don't matter at all (like the hair gel the AD - art director - just switched to) you spend an hour doing "research" (now that means googling, back then it was sitting in your chair, head in your hands, thinking "OMG, OMG, OMG, OMFG!" over and over), which leaves you two hours to do a hundred thumbnails, twenty sketches, and three or more comps (doing this on computer now means the hundred thumbnails - maybe - and then right to the comps). And don't forget to include half an hour for paste up on presentation boards (or now, struggling with Powerpoint, merging with the sales materials being developed, and cursing BIll Gates' name unto the seventh generation).

Think I'm being overly dramatic? Heh. You probably actually won't get the assignment until 10 as the AD/Sales goes to get their second Starbucks. So, yeah, I gave you twice as much time than you really had. Now can you see why out of 24 or so fellow graduates, there's less than 5 of us still doing this two decades down the road.

The best job related functions you can learn is 1) be quick, 2) be precise (spelling fluorescent "flourescent" on the presentation to the lighting company won't keep the business, and your sales person doesn't know the difference), and 3) get the work out (all this wraps up to being competent, it's a rare job skill)

So, yeah, you can be creative when "cold." This is why it's important to be stocked with ideas and the creative pump primed by all the off-time research. Now, it's always better to allow the subconscious to masticate on something for awhile. Yes, the end result will be better with that, and if you're "inspired." The trick is being able to get "inspired" at the drop of a hat. That's a trick you learn by doing.

There are various group activities that can help you learn this trick. One is to have everybody in a group write the first line to a story. Then everybody trades and gets 30-45 minutes to spin out the full story. Now, more than likely you won't get a full story written, but you should be able to get the frame of it out (the voice, the overall thrust, somewhere at about 500-1000 words). Then everybody shares what they got. This exercise works because you're not invested in the story (it's not "your" idea - well, it is, but you can fool yourself) and there's a deadline, plus you need to share. You can see variations on the theme here (give everybody a character, a plot, a setting, etc, and have them write what they get in 30-45 minutes, pull a story from literature and write an extension/version/joke/etc based on it). Select any of the various "writing prompts" (Writer's Digest, Writing Excuses, there's several websites that have lists of them) and have at. After doing this several times you'll get faster and better with it. You'll also become more comfortable with being creative on the spot. It's like calisthenics for the Muse.

This post? I have a list of blog entries for this concept (what I learned as a designer translates to writing). I looked back at that list about 20 minutes ago and this post is a result. I can be "cold" and still write/design. That's what I learned.

I learned everything I needed to know in 6 years of college (except everything I needed to know) - Critiques

As I said, I have a BFA. That means a large whopping percent of my college career was spent in art classes. And while the other disciplines in the school had critiques less often (maybe twice a week), for the graphic design program we were critiqued on our output every single class. If you took a basic full load of courses that meant being critiqued at least two times a day Monday through Friday (sometimes 3 or 4 times a day). We critiqued thought processes, thumbnails, proofs, comps and final art.

One thing you notice about college is that the people you end up with the the junior level of courses is much smaller than those in the freshman level of courses. In computer programming that was because of General Programming II and Calculus II. In graphic design we didn't have "weeder" courses. Every damn course weeded out those who didn't have what it took to go on.

You may think I'm being overly-dramatic there, but these critiques were not gentle things. Usually once a week was the "did you really mean to put so much suck into this?" critique. Now student to student we were pretty light. However the teacher always got their say. Most where rat-ass bastards too. Sure, they'd help you in class, give you all the help they could outside class, but when it came to critique time, they would open with both barrels.

Seem cruel? Obviously you've never been in a client meeting discussing design work. The only thing better for us would have been to include mind-reading courses.

So after four years of that type of crucible you develop a tough skin. Or you drop out. By the senior year of classes if you haven't developed the mental calluses to allow scorn and ridicule roll off your back you would probably need to see a psychiatrist to help with the cluelessness problems. In my "freshman" class we had about 300 students. I graduated with 24 in the winter (and I believe there were only 20 that spring). That's what's called attrition.

Some people have asked me why rejection doesn't bother me like it does other writers. This is why. Sure it bothers me, but I get over it quickly and move on. In my critique group sometimes I want to tell the person critiquing me, "You're holding back, damnit, tell me what you want to say!" Of course you can't do that in the Milford/Clarion style.

See, there's two different kinds of critiques. There's the professional kind which talks about the work (art or writing), it may or may not include suggestions ("I thought you were going here..." or "I think this could be stronger if you..."). Suggestions aren't necessary (although they do sped the learning process). This is the kind of critique that as a writer you should be seeking out. The kind that points out the flaws in the work, the things editors would toss your manuscript in the bounce file over. Of course, there are always differences of opinion (many of my later critiques with the Hamsters have extra notes on the hard copy that say, "so-and-so is correct pointing this out," or "so-and-so is completely off base with this comment"). In that case you look at if the majority agrees you messed up the imagery, you'll want to look at it. If the audience splits, or if only one person points something out, it's author's choice (which doesn't mean ignore it, it means evaluating the critique and seeing if a change would make the story stronger or if it would lose something). And all these critiques, even the ones you think are most cruel, are an attempt to help you and your work be better.

Then there's the other kind. The poisonous personal attack where the critiquer decides that it's mostly a character flaw of the author for any problems in the manuscript. Ignore these people. Find a better group of critiquers. A critique about a piece of work is never about the person.

I think I related the story of my worst critique a long time ago (and it's a post by itself). Nothing, I repeat, nothing an editor can say or do, nothing a fellow writer could say or do, could come close. The #10 has been set. Most others don't get past #6 in comparison. I am invested in my work, and if you tell me my baby is ugly I'll be upset. But it doesn't come close to the inferno that was that critique (short story, it changed my life). Tell me that you don't want to publish my piece. Eh. I've had clients tell me to my face my work sucked and they weren't going to continue working with me/pay for it. Just giving me a rejection or telling me that this simile doesn't work for you isn't even close. This far down the road, there's only one person that could get close to affecting me that deeply. And it's not anybody in my critique group or any editor I submit to.

Unfortunately I don't have much advice on how to get to where I'm at. It involves walking through Hell. Once you do that a little flame doesn't bother you. And if necessary, you know you can do it again.