Understanding Your Readers

I'm a little late posting today because I've been doing some catch-up reading. The Passive Guy posted excerpts from a Wall Street Journal article that triggered an insight:

Perhaps, for many readers, it does not make much difference whether a story is told in print on a page or images on a screen. The narrative itself is what matters. In fact, the Great American Read list confirms that there is a great hunger in our culture for grand, mythic narratives. The adoration of the Harry Potter books, like the nearly scriptural status of the Star Wars movies, involves more than just fandom. These are comprehensive universes, complete with their own laws and histories, heroes and villains, morals and meanings. They serve the purpose that was once served by epic poems like “The Iliad” or “The Odyssey,” or even by biblical stories: They dramatize the spiritual truths and longings that shape our world.

People will argue and wail and gnash their teeth (as some the comments on TPV show) of the main points of the article. But it was the highlighted one that made me understand why the Justice universe resonates with readers. Why more people comment on it. Why people want more stories.

All my other series are firmly rooted in contemporary society. The Justice universe takes our world as it was in the 6th century B.C.E. and twists it through an unimaginable conflict to become a nearly unrecognizable. But I try to make it firmly rooted in the (to me) natural progression of politics, economics, and technology if certain major factors are skewed a different way or if they never happened.

I'm not trying to compare my stories to Homer, J.R.R. Tolkien, or even George R.R. Martin. But I think readers do want a fictional world that's a little bigger in scope to escape to with all the craziness in the real world these days.

And there's not a damn thing wrong with that. I know I need a little quiet in another time and another place. I've been reading quite a bit of Gail Carriger and Jonathan Moeller the last couple of months. But now I know what some of my readers want and more importantly why they want it.

The Nine Worst Provisions in Your Publishing Contract

Yes, I've been rather quiet over the past week. For all of you readers who have patiently waited for three years, I'm working hard to get the last four books in the Bloodlines finished before the end of 2016.

If you're a writer though and are seriously thinking about a trad deal, here's an excellent little handbook from David P. Vandagriff. If the name is unfamiliar, he also goes by The Passive Guy, the head honcho over at the think tank otherwise known as The Passive Voice.

David's book is not legal advice since contrary to what certain people tell you, not all contracts are the same. His tome covers the ickiest provisions of publishing contracts, provisions designed to take all your money, your hard work, and your career away from you. He also gives you tips to avoid these soul-wrenching clauses. If nothing else, the book is great conversation starter for you and your attorney.

David's book will be free over the weekend!

Legal Shake-ups in the Publishing Biz

We're still in the middle of moving into the new place. The new mattress DH and I ordered won't be delivered until next week, so we're still crashing at the in-laws.

Which means I'm finally getting caught up on industry news. Two major events happened on the legal side of the publishing industry.

The first is the lawsuit by Ellora's Cave against blogger Dear Jane was removed to federal court. Both The Passive Guy and romance author/attorney Courtney Milan have more intelligent commentary than I can provide.

I will say that I've been on the receiving end of of a relatively mild rebuke by a federal judge. It was not pleasant. If Tina Engler thinks she'll get away with the antics she's pulled in Summit County, she's sadly mistaken.

The other big news is the resurrected case against Harlequin for its slight of hand with author royalties was certified as a class action suit by the trial judge. By no means does this indicate the screwed-over writers will win their case. But the judge's cert along with Torstar's quick divestiture of Harlequin to HarperCollins doesn't indicate good things ahead for the publisher. Once again, The Passive Guy has posted the legal paperwork for those who enjoy reading court documents.

Catch y'all on the other side of the weekend!

The Real Author Versus The Person on the Page

Last Sunday, the Passive Guy posted a snippet of Drew Hayes' blog post titled "Image Management." Drew talks about some basic, common-sense rules for portraying yourself on social media. He also made a couple of very good points that readers expect to interact with writers these days and that it's exhausting maintaining a fake persona.

Cal Rogers, one of the commenters at TPV, became very irate with Drew's statement concerning writers "whose entire image is just their body of work. It feels like trying to shake the hand of a cardboard cutout." Cal felt Drew dismissed a life's work in favor of a tweet about breakfast.

There's really two problems here:

1) Some writers are very uncomfortable with ANY social interaction. Let's face it--most of us are introverts. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as Jerry Seinfeld would say. But some folks get just as freaked about social media as they do attending a formal dinner.

For folks like Cal, please remember that you do not have to use social media. No one's holding a gun to your head to tweet about what you had for breakfast. If you find it uncomfortable, it will show in your interactions and will probably make your readers uncomfortable as well. Honestly, you don't have to do anything just because you think the everyone else is doing it.

2) Drew, on the other hand, makes a good point that writers who only talk about their books can come across as one-dimensional. This is true of any profession. Haven't you been to some social function where there's this one guy who can only talk about his job? The other people at the function avoid him because his stories about asphalt or stocks or whatever becomes repetitious and boring.

That's what social media is for professionals. It's the cocktail hour where you don't drink too much, avoid politics and religion, and try to stick to chitchat where you can make a connection without going overboard. That is, you talk about the upcoming Avengers movie, but not the five-pound tumor that was removed from your stomach.

I knew there's probably someone reading this who's thinking, "But, Suzan, you write under two different names, and you don't reveal to people that they're both the same person. How do you call that honest?"

As Shakespeare said, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." I'm a geek girl who likes love, romance, and freaky sex. The geek aspect is emphasized under the Suzan Harden name. The rest is emphasized under Alter Ego. That doesn't mean the two don't meet.

This morning, Alter Ego and one of her readers had a long, online discussion about last night's season premiere of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. As for Suzan, take a closer look at the Bloodlines and Seasons of Magick series. A lot of my characters get busy and fall in love in those books. In neither case, do I come out and say I love fishing and hunting because I don't. On the other hand, both personas mention ice cream. A lot.

What it comes down to is if you plan to use social media to further your writing career, be yourself. Trust me, you're cool and readers will love you for it.

You Just Don't Understand

"You just don't understand." I've been hearing that phrase a lot over the last few years.

I can't possibly understand having a seriously ill spouse, even though DH was diagnosed with Stage 3 colon cancer and dealt with two surgeries and ten months of chemo. I can't possibly understand having a chronic illness, even though I been dealing with an endocrine system that decided to shut down in the middle of my pregnancy, it hasn't restarted, and there's a medicine cabinet full of drugs that I have to take to stay alive. Apparently, I also don't understand what it's like to:

- Lose a job
- Lose my savings because of a medical catastrophe
- Have a child with special needs
- Have a parent who's alcoholic

...and the list goes on and on.

The same meme permeates my professional life as well. "You don't understand how trad publishing works!" has become the battle cry of some top-level publishers and writers.

Over the last week, Lee Child has popped into The Passive Voice. Yeah, Jack Reacher's creator. That Lee Child. You can check out the conversations here and here.

In my personal opinion, neither side acquitted themselves in a mannerly fashion. But I agree with one commenter who noted that Lee came in with guns blazing, telling us how we're wrong and we just don't understand trad publishing. And Lee did use one of Passive Guy's posts entitled, "We. Don't. Care. How. Traditional. Publishing. Works.", as proof that indies are ignorant.

What Lee is not considering is that there's a HUGE difference between "understanding" and "caring".

A lot of writers who have gone indie have been trad published. They're very much aware of how trad publishing works. And they see its limitations, which is one of the reasons those writers are taking their careers into their own hands.

In my case, my trad publishing career consists of five years writing a legal column for a regional magazine and having a short story accepted into an well-known anthology. In Lee's case, he's one of the best-selling novelists in the world and makes millions per year. Are we going to see trad publishing at the same level?

Hell, no! And that's part of the problem. Lee's forgotten what it's like to be at the bottom of the trad publishing totem pole.

Is it envy or bitterness on my part when it comes to trad publishing? I don't think so. I spent the first twenty years of my professional life figuring out that I'm not a company ladder-climber. Some folks can do it naturally (my brother-in-law Tim is one), but I'm "too independent" as a psych evaluation, given to me by a potential employer, said.

Do I want Lee's level of success? I can honestly say no. First, because my time will never be my own again if I reach that level. Second, because I've seen how a modicum of success in this field changes people. Sometimes for the better, but most times, not so much.

As I read through the conversations on the two TPV posts, I had one of those stuck-by-lightning realizations. Lee thinks he's talking to other writers.

He's not. He's talking to publishers. Small publishers who figured out how to eliminate the bloated overhead that's killing the Big Five in New York. Small publishers who are tapping the markets/subgenres that the Big Five feel aren't worth their time. Small publishers who have connected with the ultimate end users in this business--THE READERS!

So yes, indies do understand trad publishing, but to use it as a model will kill our businesses. While I may not get advances with seven digits like Lee does, I make enough collectively from my readers to pay most of my bills. And frankly, that means more to me than Lee Child's approval of how I publish.

More from The Passive Guy

Some of you may have watched the NYPL "discussion" about Amazon.

One of the panelists, David Vandagriff aka "The Passive Guy" did an interview the following morning with Len Edgerly on his popular podcast, The Kindle Chronicles. You can listen on your PC, or download the pod cast from Len's website or the iTunes Store.

This interview was done on July 2, the morning after the NYPL event. David has some interesting follow-up from his view on the platform.

Non-Writing and Writing News

I haven't written in nearly a month so I swear it feels like I'm going through withdrawal. The final push of getting the house ready for the market has taken my full attention. Tiling, painting, gluing, caulking, etc. But my Inspiring Lilac and Bright White master bathroom looks pretty damn good! Once I get pics transferred from the iPhone to the PC, I'll show it off.

In the meantime, if you want a good laugh, watch the panel discussion that took place at The New York Public Library last night. David Vandagriff, aka Passive Guy from The Passive Voice, took part along with the likes of James Patterson. In addition to the comments on the library page, check out the Twitter stream via #amazonbau.

On second thought, if you're an indie writer, you might want to get good and drunk before you watch the video.

More Autharium Drama

I don't like bullies.

To me, using a bad faith DMCA to silence critics is blatant bullying. Even worse is when the attempt to censor is aimed at someone I like and respect, like David Vandagriff, aka The Passive Guy.

Because of my own screw-up, my spew session about Autharium's use of a bad faith DMCA appeared on Blood Lines on Friday, February 21, 2014, at 9:30 p.m. instead of 7:00 a.m. on Monday as I intended.

Before I go farther, I'd also like to point out that Blood Lines has seven followers and roughly seventeen regular readers as opposed to the thirty-two followers and 60-70 regulars that follow Wild, Wicked & Wacky. There's not a lot of crossover viewing between the two blogs.

At 4:35 p.m. on Sunday, February 23, I received an e-mail from Matt Bradbeer.

Matt is the co-founder and director of Autharium, though he failed to identify himself as such in his e-mail to me. Now, I can't repost the e-mail here without Matt getting a bug up his ass about me violating his copyright (which frankly, I find hilarious given the original terms in Autharium's Terms and Conditions from March of 2013). That doesn't mean I can't fisk the generic items of his message.


[First paragraph - statement concerning his knowledge of my blog post followed by snide comment]

One of the first rules of negotiation, kids, is that you never start by pissing off the person you want something from.

The gist of the entire e-mail is that Matt wants me to change my opinion of his company.

Matt wants.

Not me.

Matt.

Matt wants me to do something for him. And he starts his message with a snide comment.

Thereby irritating the shit out of an ex-attorney, born under the sign of Scorpio and who has just started menopause. Nope, he's definitely not the brightest crayon in the box.

P.S. All that information about me that I just stated can easily be found on the internet. ALL of it. Did Matt do his research before engaging someone he perceives as an opponent? Nope. Which leads to rule number two of negotiation--know the person on the other side of the table.


[Second paragraph - claim that Autharium tried to contact PG last March]

According to Matt, someone from Autharium tried to contact PG  after his blog post last March, twice by e-mail and once through social media, and that PG did not respond. PG's original analysis of Matt's company was coming up on the first page of search results when Matt googled his company.

Matt was not pleased by this fact.

In PG's second blog post about Autharium, PG says he never received any communication from Autharium before the DMCA takedown was filed.

For the record, I pretty much doubt everybody's story without proof, and Matt failed to send me any proof of his attempts to contact PG.

But back to the actual notice issue, there are three problems here:

1) Let's assume Matt is telling the truth about his attempts to contact PG. E-mails go awry. People don't always check their social media everyday. Basically, shit can and does happen.

So why did Matt wait eleven months? Why didn't he try to contact PG again? Why not try through other means? Leave a message on the blog? Look up PG's address and phone number?

I know other countries can send certified letters because I've received one from a solicitor in Dublin before.

And the most important question of all, why is it someone from Autharium had no problems whatsoever contacting PG on Monday, February 24th?

2) Other websites have mentioned the March 2013 contract terms, most especially Writer Beware. Victoria Strauss had similar opinions concerning the old contract terms. If you'll note, her addendum concerning the changes wasn't appended to her original post until November 2013. According to Victoria, she was accused of defamatory comments about Autharium.

[Legal note: It's not defamation when the facts are true and accurate at the time they were made. Matt really needs to hire a better class of laywers as you'll see later.]

3) While Google is the most popular search engine in the US, and arguably the world, why didn't Autharium send DMCA takedown notices to Bing? Or Yandex? Or Yahoo?

I'm really trying to give Matt the benefit of the doubt here, but he's making it very, very hard. Especially when he's the co-founder and director of eGurus, Ltd., a management consulting firm. You'd think with a name like eGurus they would know how the internet works and how to use alternate communication devices.

So this all puts me in a weird position. Do I believe the attorney I've known for three years and have referred friends to for legal counsel? Or do I believe a total stranger?


[Third paragraph - claim that Matt was forced to file a DMCA]

Um, sorry, I don't buy it unless you can produce the guy who held the gun to your head. There's always choices in this world, folks. Matt chose a not-so-wise decision given the current Streisand effect he's suffering.


[Fourth paragraph - T&C terms were changed based on PG's dissection; original terms were drafted by publishing industry attorneys]

On the first part, great! I'm really glad Matt read PG's analysis, realized some of his mistakes, and fixed them.

On the second part, egads! *facepalm*

Matt doesn't appear to understand why writers are leaving trad publishers in droves, much less why we find indie publishing attractive. And he hired the same idiots that are helping to drive away the writers from trad publishing. Lack of this kind of knowledge could be death to his company. As Joe Konrath has said many times, indie publishing is a HUGE shadow industry that the trad publishing either fails or refuses to see. Trying to cash in on it without understanding it? *shakes head* Definitely not a good idea.


[Fifth paragaph - acknowledgement of free legal advice from PG; repetition of contact issue; expectation that PG monitors every single website that discusses Autharium]

I'm pleased that Matt recognized PG was right, and Matt fixed the problem.

I think Matt's expectation that PG keep up with every website that talks about Autharium shows a bit of a narcissistic quality. It's a bit unfair when Matt himself seems to have difficulty keeping up with indie publishing as shown by my commentary on the Fourth Paragraph.


[Sixth paragraph - quibble about a legal issue from PG's followup on Autharium on Friday]

I love it when a civilian tries to argue legalese. Again, know who you're talking to, folks. Frankly, if I were still licensed, I would say PG didn't go far enough.

If I were still licensed, that is. Which I'm not.

Unfortunately for Matt, I don't have a lot of respect for some who tries to come off as an expert in something when it's very obvious he's not.


[Seventh paragraph - claims that I lied; that I'm being mean; the soft threat]

Matt never specifies exactly what it is I lied about. If he does ever let me know what FACTS I stated that are incorrect, I'd be happy to correct them.

Then there's the guilt trip. Y'all just know a girl is supposed to be nice, don't you? Sorry, but my mother is much better at that than Matt. It's not going to work.

I do have to give Matt credit for going for the soft threat, an insinuation he might do something though he never comes out and says exactly what. Most men at this point go for the hard threat, a la Sean Fodera, an attorney at Macmillan, threatening to sue over 1200 people who reposted a story about insults he lobbed at a writer.

But still, really, dude? You might do something because some chick on the other side of the pond insulted you?


[Eighth Paragraph - released a writer from a contract when she received a trad deal]

So what? Matt did something out of the goodness of his heart. What would have happened under the old Terms and Conditions if she wanted to leave but didn't have a trad deal?

Under contract law, promises, issues, or ANYTHING not specifically stated in the terms of the contract means nothing. However, I'm no longer an attorney, so please double-check with your own legal counsel.

And if you haven't clicked the link for Matt's job history above, he used to work for Waterstone's. For those who don't know, Waterstone's is a UK bookseller chain, similar to Barnes & Noble here in the States.

Which I would use as evidence of his mental state when it comes to writers.

If I were still an attorney.

Which I'm not.


[Ninth Paragraph - another reiteration of I'm mean]


[Tenth Paragraph - request to change my opinion]


After all that, I have re-evaluated my opinion of Autharium, and I'm even more wary of the company for two reasons:

1) The Terms and Conditions

Has Autharium changed their terms and conditions since PG's original post based on his analysis? Yes.

However, there's a couple of things in Autharium's T&C that I still don't like, despite the changes that have been made. There's no guarantee Autharium won't change the T&C back to the way it was in March of 2013. And frankly, while I highly respect PG, it isn't his intellectual property on the line; it would be mine by signing up with Autharium.

Don't get me wrong. PG's a good guy, and I would hire him in a heartbeat. Also, Autharium has used him as free legal counsel (and maybe they should think about hiring him instead of the attorneys they are currently using), which he doesn't have a problem with..

I, on the other hand, am a bitch, and I don't give advice for free to people I don't know. So I won't state the problems with the T&C I see in this blog. If you know me, contact me privately and we'll talk. Informally. Because I'm no longer licensed, and I can't give legal advice. *grin*

2) Professionalism

Matt's thinking seems to be firmly rooted in trad publishing mentality, which is scary in and of itself. I rather get the impression he hoped to intimidate poor, little ole' me.

Because all the trad publishers and agents just know that writers are cattle to be culled. (No, Donald Maass, I will never let you forget that statement. I even have a t-shirt to commemorate it.)

What bothers me more are Matt's social missteps and his tendency to use a tactical nuke when a hug and kiss would have gotten him a lot farther in what he wanted.

Generally speaking, once the contract is signed the kid gloves come off, you are fucked by whatever is actually written on the contract. Therefore, you are at the mercy of the other parties to the contract. You have to ask yourself, "Is this someone you want to do business with?"

In the case of Autharium, my answer is no. You, the reader of this blog, have to figure out what your own answer is.

While I was drafting this blog post, someone from Autharium did contact PG some time on Monday. The Autharium representative supposedly said the DMCA notice should have been handled differently.

Well, it's good that they figured it out. Hopefully, they learned something about how to deal with negative publicity in the future. Such as, don't piss off a respected blogger who can measure his followers in five digits per day.

For example, I found out last night that Techdirt wrote about Autharium's attempt to white-wash it's past.

And that is exactly the problem with the Streisand effect, kids.

* * *
01/10/2016 - Since this post went live nearly two years ago, I had one comment which led to a follow-up post Autharium (aka Indie) Strikes Back.

Scam Distributor Autharium Versus The Passive Guy--Somebody's Going to Get Spanked...

...and it ain't going to be The Passive Guy.

About a year ago, The Passive Guy, aka PG, aka contract attorney David Vandagriff with 30+ years experience, talked about a new UK e-publisher/distributor called Autharium.

In Autharium's original Terms and Conditions, the company made an incredibly blatant rights grab that put the NY BPHs to shame. Basically, even if you remove your book from their database, they would still own all licencing and ancillary rights to your IP property.

Well instead of addressing the matter directly with PG, these slimy bottom-feeders filed a bad faith DMCA notice claiming copyright violation in an effort to shut up PG's revelation. Ironic considering their own method for stealing any meaningful copyright from authors, huh?

As PG noted, if you're going to pick a fight, you should know who your up against. Which is frankly what makes the folks running Autharium a bunch of dumbasses.

So PG has done another post on Autharium and their newer, sneakier wording to steal YOUR copyright. In the meantime, PG noted that the incredible Victoria Strauss at Writers Beware brought up the very same issues.

The best we can do as writers is to watch each others backs from slimeball organization like Autharium. If you're a writer, spread this story as far and wide as possible. Information is power, and we need to arm our fellows.

Update the Autharian Drama here.

Random Shenannigans

Yesterday, Random House threw a cow patty at a set of circulating blades. They seem quite surprised that writers are unhappy about the mess.

I wish I could say I was surprised that Random Hose [mistake or Freudian slip?] House decided open, not one, but several vanity press lines. Considering their proposed merger with Penguin, which is already using the notorious vanity publisher Author Solutions for their Archway imprint which now owns notorious vanity publisher Author Solutions, I'm not. Not at all. [Note: Simon & Schuster own the Archway imprint, which subcontracts work to Author Solutions. Mea culpa for the error.]

I first heard the breaking news from the lovely Angie Benedetti when she spoke about the kerfluffle on her blog. I didn't have the chance to do more than skim her thoughts before the family and I had to leave to meet some associates for dinner. My first thought was the situation is pretty bad if it pisses off SFWA president John Scalzi.

Several of our dinner companions are SFWA members and expressed their thoughts, none of which I'm at liberty to repeat here. But let's just say they weren't flattering towards Random House.

When I got home from dinner, I read Mr. Scalzi's full post regarding Hydra, Random House's questionable SF/F line. By then, he'd managed to obtain a copy of the contract for Alibi, RH's mystery line. I have to agree with John that if the tems are that egregious with Hydra and Alibi, they are equally egregious for Loveswept (romance line) and Flirt (New Adult).

Both Dean Wesley Smith and Kristine Kathryn Rusch talked a bit about the terrible terms. And today, a majority of The Passive Guy's headline gathering consists of stories regarding Random House's vanity lines, the scariest of which is RH's public letter to John Scalzi, the SFWA, and Victoria Strauss of WriterBeware.

HERE'S THE REAL DEAL, FOLKS-

If you want to be traditionally published, by all means, go for it. But a real traditional publisher DOES NOT FOIST ALL THE PRODUCTION COSTS ON YOU WHEN YOU HAVE NO SAY IN THOSE SAME PRODUCTION COSTS!!

Seriously, why are you paying Hydra, Loveswept or their ilk a huge chunk of your profits if they are doing nothing for you and you are paying ALL the costs?

Don't sign a contract with these assholes. Period. End of story.

If you really, REALLY want to pay the production costs, go indie.