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!

The End of the Elloras Cave Versus Dear Author Saga

I waited a while before I wrote this post to collect my thoughts. My initial opinion is What A Gigantic Waste of Time!

That's the former lawyer in me raising her bleary head. Between a little litigation experience and clerking for a county judge, I figured the suit would end on October 22nd after perusing the latest documentation of the case. That was the date scheduled for the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing. I hate it that I was right. Except instead of a judgment, the parties settled prior to the scheduled hearing.

Here's my previous thoughts on why EC's lawsuit wasn't a good idea and how the whole fiasco damaged the principals' reputations.

Of course, the settlement has a non-disclosure agreement so neither party can talk about the actually terms. There's quite a few people upset over the settlement, thinking DA has paid off EC.

I really doubt that's the situation Based on my experience (which like this case, I can't talk specifics because of NDAs) and after wading through the pleadings and exhibits, my GUESS is the parties agreed to walk away and pay their own attorneys' fees.

Again, that's my GUESS. The only people who know for sure are Jennifer Garrish-Lampe, Tina Engler and their attorneys.

The important thing is that real discussions of events and companies within the publishing industry was not chilled. Silencing people helps no one in the fucking business. That fear of being blackballed is why so many publishers' contracts contain so many terms detrimental to writers.

I really can't add anything that other blogs haven't already covered, and covered much more extensively and eloquently. If you're curious, check out the following:

The Passive Voice
Deidre Saoirse Moen
Courtney Milan

All I can say is thank Goddess it's over, and I hope the other EC authors wanting their rights back get them. Unfortunately, I doubt if the authors, editors and artists will ever see another penny of what they are owed.

Why I'm Glad I'm Not Practicing Law Anymore

Was it only last Friday that Ellora's Cave filed suit against Dear Author? *shakes head* This mess makes me singularly glad that I no longer practice law.

On Monday, I posted links to the pertinent sites involved along with other bloggers commenting about the situation. As I said before, I would have handled the pleadings differently than the EC attorney. It's not in the plaintiff's best interest to put a copy of the alleged libelous statements directly into a pleading, especially since:

(1) It's been mentioned in other avenues and outlets that the plaintiff corporation is having financial difficulties. Whether the difficulties are factual or not, such information in the public record can lead to new or additional financial damage to the corporation.

(2) The screen shot of the corporate principle flipping off her critics on Facebook doesn't shine a particularly gracious light on the principle or the corporation. When you request a jury trial, you know your opponent will try to enter that screenshot into evidence, and she'll succeed because you opened the door. Ohio is a rather conservative state, and you're taking an awful chance that screenshot won't backfire.

Yesterday morning, both sides presented a Joint Motion for Continuance of Temporary Restraining Order. What does this mean?

Both sides agreed that their best interests are served by taking more time to collect and present evidence on EC's request for an injunction. They named as October 27, 2014. What's most interesting to me is Section 3 of the Joint Motion:

3.   In the interim, all parties agree that neither they, nor anyone under their direct control, shall post on the Internet any comments specifically and directly related to the factual allegations that form the basis of Ellora Cave’s defamation complaint; further, they agree not to comment online, directly or indirectly, on the allegations that form the basis of the defamation complaint. Nothing herein shall prohibit Plaintiffs from responding to defamatory posts or re-posts made by third parties related to the issues raised in this litigation. 

So what does Tina Engler, the principle of EC, do? She commented over at The Passive Voice.

What exactly was the point of the gag request if you negate it almost entirely in the last sentence of the section? This is not helping your client. You can't stop third parties from discussing the case. By filing it, it's matter of public knowledge, therefore it's hard to stop public discourse on the matter. But by not keeping your client silent, and I'm referring to both sides of this case here, you're potentially giving your opponent ammunition to shoot your case with on the 27th.

In fact, I commented of TPV that I was glad I wasn't Tina's attorney. Occasionally, an attorney will get a client who literally can't keep their mouth shut. I had my fair share when I still practiced law. As I told more than one client, sometimes all I can do is keep the damage to the client to a minimum. That didn't stop some clients from making their problems worse despite my instructions not to talk about their case.

On the other hand, either Jane Litte, the proprietress of Dear Author, understands her silence is necessary as an attorney herself, or she's listening to her counsel. Either way, Jane's been quiet on the matter since she requested witnesses on her blog on September 30th. Such a request is allowed under Section 4 of the Joint Motion.

In conclusion, attorneys CANNOT save you from your own bad decisions. If you've spent a ton of money to hire an attorney, listen to her. If you really, truly believe an attorney is giving you poor advice, you have every right to fire her and hire someone else. But don't blame your attorney when you do something against her advice that hurts you.

How Ellora's Cave May Have Just Committed Suicide

In case you actually had a life over the weekend and missed the blow-up, Ellora's Cave Publishing, Inc. and Jasmine-Jade Enterprises, LLC filed a civil suit Friday morning against Dear Author Media Network, LLC, and Jennifer Gerrish-Lampe for defamation. Ellora's Cave was a ground-breaking e-book erotica publisher. Jennifer is better known as Jane Litte, the proprietress of Dear Author, an incredibly popular romance blog and review website.

The subject of Ellora's Cave (aka EC) has been a major topic on the internet for the past few months. Jennifer wrote a piece that was, in my opinion, fair and factual in regards to their business problems. I linked to it when I compared EC's current behavior to the events leading to Dorchester's demise. Everything Jennifer mentioned is a matter of public record. She laid out the facts, and she gave an opinion about what may be going on behind the scenes and what the end result may be. Her post went live fifteen days ago on September 14th.

Three days ago on September 26th, EC filed suit against Jennifer in Akron, specifically the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division. You can read the actual court documents here at the Summit County Clerk of Courts. I first heard about the lawsuit in an article on The Digital Reader. The Passive Voice has posted the actual filing, which is now a matter of public record, along with his own legal commentary. Inexplicably, EC's attorney attached a copy of Jennifer's blog post to the pleading.

*facepalm*

I know it's been a while since I've practiced law (and nothing I'm about to say constitutes legal advice or legal representation of anyone WHATSOEVER), but what the fuck was that attorney thinking? The apparent objective of the lawsuit was to suppress Jennifer's analysis of EC and chill any further discussion of EC 's business practices. Yet, he just made sure everyone in the world can read it. As Nate Hoffelder at The Digital Reader said, the Streisand Effect will ensure everyone on the planet knows about the Dear Author blog post and shine a very bright light on EC's behavior.

In a case like this, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, i.e. EC, to show that Jennifer deliberately lied to damage their business. Which means their going to have to open their financials to the court to prove one of the main allegations, that EC did in fact pay ALL their writers, editors and cover artists. Again, any evidence entered into the case will become a matter of public record. Considering how many EC authors are openly complaining about the lack of payment, these folks will be very interested in seeing the financial records of the company.

By Saturday afternoon, the Streisand Effect was in full force as bloggers spread the word about Dear Author getting sued. Outraged readers picked up the thread. Even Publishers Weekly broadcasted it through their Twitter account.

By filing this lawsuit, EC may have just hastened its ultimate fate. The company may not even survive long enough for this case to go to trial.

Every Minute You Write Counts

Over at The Passive Voice, PG has a long-running post about indie authors quitting their days jobs. The original reached the maximum number of comments WordPress would allow, so PG started a second one entitled "Indie Authors Quitting Their Day Jobs - Redux.

One writer was frustrated that she had only two books out. She literally had only her lunch break to write due to day job, family obligations, etc. This is the answer I gave to her comment on TPV:

[Writer}, I don’t know if you’ll pop in here again, but this is for you and anyone else in the same position. 

I’ve been there. Really, I have. 

That forty minutes? Those were the rare days I actually had a lunch hour. 2004 heralded the first novel that will forever remain under the proverbial bed. 2005 thru 2010, I produced four novels in between working full-time, my special needs child’s six surgeries, and my own serious illnesses. 

And no publisher or agent, big or small, wanted those novels. I got the same rejection over and over again. “Love your style. Love your voice. I can’t sell this.” 

It was discouraging. It sucked. But I kept at it. 

Then Amazon came along, and the rules of the game changed. I found people who enjoyed my snarkalicious heroines, and holy cow, they were willing to plunk down their own hard-earned cash for my stories. 

[Writer], those forty minutes each day add up. The words add up. No one is an overnight success. Not Joe Konrath. Not Hugh Howey. Not me. We all succeeded in our own way because we made those forty precious minutes count. 

Trust me, keep making your forty minutes count.

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.

Now Amazon's Whining Like a Little Girl

In the wee hours of Saturday morning, I received an e-mail from Amazon KDP. (The Passive Voice reprinted the full text of the e-mail sent to KDP authors.) It was a request to e-mail Michael Pietsch, the CEO of Hatchette Book Group USA, and tell him why he's wrong. Amazon even thoughtfully provided suggested language and provided Mike's e-mail address. Amazon also asks that they be copied on the e-mail the KDP author sent to Mike.

My initial reaction was the same as Selena Kitt's. Except with a lot more swear words.

So of course, when PG posted the letter on his blog a few hours later, I put my two cents in:

I read this shortly before I went to bed. I shouldn’t have checked my e-mail because I ended up tossing and turning as I composed a response to Jeff Bezos. 

I didn’t appreciate Hatchette’s efforts to pull me into their little war. And I know I’ll be in the minority here at TPV, but I don’t appreciate Amazon’s either. 

Yes, I’ve watched Hatchette harm friends’ careers over the years. I don’t agree with their pathetic propaganda campaign. And it makes me sick that Hatchette and their one-percenters spread their elitist BS across the world when it’a all about how many extra Benjamins they can collect. 

On the other hand, Amazon isn’t innocent, and they have caused me direct harm when they’ve removed my books from their retail site by arbitrarily and randomly changing the rules of what’s acceptable erotica. They also froze my account for several hours in December because I dared to question their policies even though it was a polite, professional e-mail. Frankly, I don’t trust Amazon any more than I trust Hatchette. 

So my question becomes why should I support either of these multi-million dollar companies in what amounts to a public schoolyard fight? 

There’s no reason to. Hatchette already lost the e-book/change war when they entered into a conspiracy to price-fix with four other publishers and Apple. As for Amazon, someone else will replace them as the top U.S. retailer in twenty or so years. 

My only concern here is my own company and my own bottom line. Because it’s just business, right? Or at least that’s the line both companies have dished out when they screw over someone. 

So here’s my answer to both Michael Pietsch and Jeff Bezos: When you pay me, I’ll do your company’s dirty work. Until then, leave me out of your playground slap fight.

I hoped that someone would pick apart my points, show the flaw in my logic. The regular commenters at TPV are a bunch of really smart people.

What did I get? A list of people who agreed with my points. And it unsettled me.

Then Barry Eisler popped in, and his take unsettled me even more. He talked about the "revolution in publishing" and "becoming a victim in someone else's war." When Toni McGee Causey disagreed with him, Barry ripped into her for using flamboyant, over-the-top language.

So of course, I had to jump in the middle:

Barry, I respect your opinion and normally, I agree with you on how things are developing in the publishing industry. 

But “smart alliances” for you is not necessarily a good choice for me. Amazon treats you very differently than they treat me. If James Patterson walked up to another Hatchette mid-list author not as well known and said exactly what you said here, how would you take it? Because to me, it sounds like a subtle threat, even though I sincerely doubt that’s how you meant it. 

I’ve learned an important lesson from the Big 5, and that’s not to put all my eggs in the one basket. Thankfully, I learned that lesson before the Kernel Pornocalypse last fall. Who stood up for the erotica writers then? It sure wasn’t Amazon. 

As you and Joe Konrath have said numerous times, we don’t know the exact terms Amazon and Hatchette are fighting over. Oh, we can guess, and I have a suspicion about which guesses are correct. But right now, I have to wonder if Anonymous B. is also correct in his/her comment above. Why do supporters need to CC Amazon if they write to the Hatchette CEO?

I fully expected to be ripped into as Toni had been. I got a bare acknowledgement of my points and that the effect on KDP authors wasn't his "primary interest." In other words, this has turned into an ideological battle for him as much as it has for James Patterson and Douglas Preston. And he avoided my specific questions, something he often rails at Patterson and Preston for doing.

I thought Barry Eisler was better than that. I'm disappointed at finding out yet another hero has feet of clay.

Through all of this, no one's asking the bigger question: Why the hell does Amazon think they need the help of a bunch of indie authors, whom Hatchette is going to ignore anyway?

Will the Hatchette Insanity Ever End?

You know how last Friday I mentioned the abnormal number of hits from French IPAs? Later that afternoon, I suddenly had two sales on Amazon France, the first books in the Bloodlines and Seasons of Magick series. Was it someone defying her government's cultural edicts and trying a bold indie writer's work? Or was it someone at Hatchette looking for works to prove that indies write crap? Inquiring minds want to know.

Meanwhile back in the States, THE Authors Guild issued another screed claiming they represent the interests of ALL authors, including non-member indies.

Um, no.

And several indies, including me, told them so until they shut down comments about noon yesterday. Hey, if you're going to claim to represent us indies, maybe you should listen to your alleged constituency.

As several folks at The Passive Voice pointed out, THE Authors Guild's latest moves smack of desperation to be relevant in this rapidly changing world. To me, it shows that TAG is clearly in the back pocket of Hatchette and the other BPHs. If you're going to claim to represent ALL writers, then you need to be working for ALL writers, not just the one-percenters like King and Patterson. Because let's face it, those guys get an entirely different deal than Sharon Sala or Stephanie Bond.

Oh, wait. Sharon and Stephanie went indie. *snicker*

Angry Sheep signing off to go sniff paint fumes...

Whiny Agents

Once upon a time (March 5, 2009), there was #QueryFail.

Then came my favorite tweet from Colleen Lindsey from April 6, 2011--"OMG would you people please STOP with the "indie" vs. "legacy" thing! These are meaningless buzz words that make you all sound ignorant."

Donald Maas stepped in the cow patty when he said writers needed to be culled. (Moo!)

Now, we had Amanda Luedeke fuck up last Thursday and call writers "schmucks". And fuck up bad she did.  [Note: She has since changed the wording of her blog post, but the original paragraph wording can be seen at The Passive Voice.] But she apologized and tried to fix the problem.

Only to have her efforts torpedoed by her own boss, Chip MacGregor. Read the comments he left at TPV, and you'll see what I mean.

What is it about agents, who are supposed to understand PR, who berate writers for doing stupid things, who are supposed to be professionals, that makes them stick their foot in their collective mouths? They are doing all the things that they chide us writers for doing.

I've said it before.

Fear.

Fear of losing power in what is a really, really small industry. Fear of losing their livelihood. Fear of losing their prestige.

Maybe some agent somewhere will post the following list to their wall (and hopefully, some writers too):

1) DO NOT EVER insult the people you depend on for making a living. In the case of agents, that means writers. In the case of writers, that means readers.

2) If you do accidentally insult someone, say "I'm sorry." That's it. Nothing else. Anything else is an excuse to justify your actions.

3) If you screw up, fix the problem. It you can't fix it, own your screw-up and vow never to do it again.

4) DO NOT EVER post anything online while tired, angry, upset, drunk, etc.

5) Always remember Wheaton's Law, aka "Don't be a dick."

Angry Sheep doesn't like seeing people lose their jobs and is feeling very sad right now. But she doesn't feel sad about agents who call commenters from super popular blogs "dicks". That's not very professional, Mr. MacGregor.

Change Is Inevitable

One of my great-grandfathers was very fond of the saying, "The only constant in the universe is change."*

Great-grandpa Ed was born in 1888 when farming was still the main occupation for the United States. Cars, electricity and telephones were toys for rich city folk. He was a teenager when Wilbur and Orville tested their airplane at Kitty Hawk. His eldest child was born the same year Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated.

All four of his sons dabbled in farming, though it was more a hobby than a living. Newspapers, then radio, then television in turn were the primary method of disseminating information. He watched Neil Armstrong walk on the moon. PCs were in their infancy when he passed away.

Why am I telling you all of this? Great-grandpa never complained when a new method came along. Pick-up trucks were a hell of a lot easier to deal with than a stubborn mule team. Tractor-driven rakers and balers? The best things ever invented. And how amazing is it we can get fresh fruit from South America!

Yesterday smacked me just how much people become so settled in their lives they resent change.

The first kicker was David Letterman's announcement that he was retiring next year. The hue and cry went up. "Late night will never be the same!"

First of all, late night talk shows are nearly as old as television itself, which a fairly young medium compared to dirty hieroglyphics in Egypt. They all follow the same general format, even my beloved Craig Ferguson (though he generally has read the book an author plugs on his show). Someone will step into David's place, just as Jimmy replaced Jay who replaced Johnny who replaced Jack.

The second kicker was a quote on Neil Gaiman's blog: "So many books are being published. Why don't people just stop making new books and read the ones that are already out there?"

Now I could take that quote TOTALLY out of context like someone did with Tracy Hickman, which would be an evil and terrible thing to do to a writer I admire. Neil was talking about the feeling of being overwhelmed in a big box store compared to a small bookshop he recently discovered. This made me think that he won't be having this feeling for too much longer if certain big chains don't get their act together and innovate. They cannot continue to ignore the changes in the publishing and book retailing industry.

The third kicker was the report of an interview of fantasy writer Tracy Hickman at AnomalyCon this year. Both The Passive Voice, J.A. "Joe" Konrath, and their respective followers had a lot to say about Tracy's statements in that interview, as did the commenters on the original post. And a lot of what was said was terribly inaccurate.

Tracy's been in the writing business for over thirty years. Hell, I read his Dragonlance books in high school. He responded to Joe's well-meaning advice and offer to help with a comment at Joe's blog and a post on his own blog. Tracy is adapting to the new publishing paradigm just fine, thank you, contrary to the dramatic reports of his great sorrow over his career.

On the other hand, Great-Grandpa Ed died in 1981 and never saw the downfall of the American family farm. I wonder how he would have handled it. Would he have accepted it and found an alternative occupation? Or would he have railed against fate and succumbed to despair? Given his disposition, I'd say he'd jump into the new world with both feet.

It's ironic to me that Dave, Neil and Tracy got their starts in their respective fields in the same decade Great-Grandpa passed away. My grandchildren will probably work in fields I cannot even envision.

Things change. The only choices we really have are adapt or die.


*It was decades before I realized how unusual it was to know five of my great-grandparents.

Lessons Learned - Misbehavior in the Internet Age Can Kill Your Career

The first headline that popped up on my MSNBC news feed yesterday concerned the nasty ass response Kelly Blazek, a woman named "Communicator of the Year", gave to an applicant on a job bank run by Blazek. When Blazek's response went viral, others came forward to say they had been treated the same way by Blazek.

In today's environment, nearly everything you say or do or type is recorded. It's simply the nature of the Information Age. The problems occurring today are no longer those of twenty-somethings posting pictures from the bong party they went to over the weekend. (Though you should watch what photos you post on Facebook.)

Now, we're seeing issues of people not thinking about the consequences of their actions, and those consequences come back to bite them on the ass.

Blazek's response to a young job-seeker was through LinkedIn, a social media site specifically for professionals. It was bad enough that the Cleveland newspaper, The Plain Dealer, picked up the story. Even worse was CNN and NBC. According to CNN, the backlash against Blazek was so bad she apparently deleted her Twitter account and her blog.

The last few weeks seem to be rife with people sticking their feet, or in the case of uber-agent Donald Maass their hoof, into their mouths. (Really, an agent shouldn't refer to writers as cattle to be culled.)

British author Lynn Shepard's first mistake in a Huffington Post UK essay was dissing beloved Harry Potter author, J.K. Rowling. Shepard's second mistake was insulting adults who read the Harry Potter books. You know, adults? The ones with the money to buy Shepard's books?

The backlash was immediate and fierce. Over fifty one-star reviews appeared on Amazon US for Shepard's latest book, The Solitary House. Nor was she spared on the book fan/review site Goodreads.

Last year's negative publicity for self-publishing distributor Autharium had already died down when the director of the company, Matt Bradbeer, stirred it up again by filing a DMCA take down against popular publishing blog The Passive Voice. Now, not only are the new articles at the top of the various search engines, the old articles are back up there, too.

Then there's Sean Fodera, a contracts attorney with publisher Macmillan, who made the mistake of dissing one of Macmillan's authors on a public forum. When the story spread across the internet, Fodera made matters worse when he threatened to sue anyone who linked to the story.

So what can you take from all of this?

1) Watch what you say on the internet. Never post or tweet while angry or upset.

2) Treat others with respect. If you can't, go back to Tip #1.

3) Learn when and how to disengage. Sometimes, it's not worth the fight. There's an old saying, "Never wrestle a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

4) There are competing opinions and there are trolls. Know the difference.

5) If it's not something you would say to someone in real life, you probably shouldn't say it online.

And most of all, remember the internet is forever!

If you have any additional tips, I'd love to hear them.

When an Agent Sticks the Cow Hoof into His Mouth

Wednesday was a train wreck writers just couldn't look away from.

Agent Donald Maass wrote a post over at Writer Unboxed. It was controversial. It was contradictory. It was derogatory. And at times, the Donald was out-and-out lying or woefully misinformed.

Initially, the Donald said indie stories weren't worth the electrons, much less the paper, they were written on.

One sentence started the cow bells clanging over at The Passive Voice, particularly, this phrase: "...print publishers have the luxury of culling the prize cattle from the herd." The Donald is referring to indie writers doing all the work, then folks like him swooping in to...

Do y'all have any idea what "culling" is? That's when the farmer/rancher separates the animals not needed for breeding or sale purposes and takes them to the slaughterhouse.

In other words, writers need to be culled for slaughter to keep the publishers fed. *facepalm*

The Donald's diatribe about the worthlessness of writers went downhill from there. Comments from opposing views were often blocked at Writer Unboxed. As writer Marc Cabot, who in his day job is an IP attorney, said, "It’s a rare glimpse of complete honesty as to how authors are usually viewed with a bonus Voltaire moment. Be grateful for it."

Yep, we writers are cattle to be culled for slaughter.

The fabulous commenters at TPV started having fun with it. The cow jokes flew.

The Donald also said, "...print publishers instead are now gratefully relieved of the money-losing burden of the mid-list."

Wait a minute. Publishers are glad to get rid of us, but they still plan to cull us?

Now, I could go over the entire list, but Joe Konrath and Barry Eisler stepped in and royally fisked the Don. I needed a box of tissues when I was done reading because of the proverbial tears from laughing so hard.

One of the few opposing comments that got through at Writer Unboxed mentioned Dean Wesley Smith and Kris Rusch and their support and entrance to the indie world. The Donald claimed in the Writer Unboxed comments that he's buds with them, and that he'd have to talk to them. DWS had an interesting response. Make sure you read his comments as well. Later on Thursday, DWS made a point of updating one of his posts on agents.

Here's the kicker: if someone asked me for a recommendation on the basic elements of storytelling, I would, and have, recommended the Donald's book, Writing the Break-Out Novel. I've changed my mind about the re-writing until your fingers bleed section though. I don't think that really helps a writer to learn and grow. YMMV.

As for the rest, I think the Donald's statement is endemic of the state of traditional publishers. In other words, they are starting to panic. I'm hearing from more and more writers with the micro-press and smaller publishers that submissions are down, and what the editors are seeing is of lesser quality than before. These people are talking to me because they are looking to switch to indie publishing.

If this is the case (and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the people I spoken with), then agents and the Big 5 are going to have the same problem soon, if not already.

When people start flinging insults and use fear-based marketing for their services, it is usually coming from their own internal fear. And that's what I'm hearing from the Donald.

No route to publishing is easy. Success isn't guaranteed on any path. But I'll be damned if I'll be a cow led to slaughter.

Because I'm an Angry Sheep.

Baaaaa!

Lessons Learned: Return on Investment - Part I

In all the hubbaloo over The Passive Voice, Steven Zacharius of Kensington, Barry Eisler, Robert Gottlieb of Trident Media Group and the infamous Writers Digest poll, people are trying to frame the issue as traditional publishing versus indie publishing.

People are asking the wrong damn question. If you are writer who wants to be published, you should be asking, "What's the return on my investment?"

The return on an investment is when you divide the gain of the investment minus the cost of the investment by the cost of the investment. Or

ROI = (GOI - COI)/COI

I'm going to walk through two examples: one to show my ignorance as a indie publisher in the beginning and one to show how I did it right. I'm going to simplify a few numbers for math clarity.

Example 1
Seasons of Magick: Spring was the first book I put up as an indie author.

It's approximately 20K words. At the time, I wrote about 500 words per hour, so it took me 40 hours to write the story. Let's say I, the publisher, paid me, the writer, $10 an hour.

I paid a friend's teen daughter $25 to create a Photoshop file for my cover.

A friend and I edited each other's novellas over coffee, so throw in $10 for my Starbucks card.

I know just enough HTML to be dangerous so I formatted this myself using freeware.

My costs of investment? $400 + $25 + $10 + $0 = $435.

I priced the book at $0.99. 99 copies sold the first year it was on the market. Again, for simplicity's sake, let's say I made Amazon's rate of $0.35 for all the copies (which really isn't far from the truth). My gain on investment in Year 1? 99 X $0.35 = $34.65

Therefore, my ROI for this book is ($34.65 - $435)/$435 = - $0.92

Now the nice thing is this book will be available (hopefully) for the rest of my life plus seventy years. Odds are it will eventually earn a positive ROI.

Example 2
A year after I started indie publishing I wrote a BDSM erotic romance. Since I'm not ready to reveal Alter Ego, we'll call it Sluts in the City #1.

Again, this novella was 20K words so my costs as a writer remained the same. So did my editing costs.

By now, I'd learned my lesson about having a decent cover. I'd bought the picture to the left for $8 with the intention of using it for the cover until I saw how many covers, both indie and trad, used it. So I bought a different cover at Romance Novel Covers for $15.

I used freeware to tweak the picture and add the title and author's name by myself. (I had a lot of fun experimenting, too!) Again, I did my own formatting.

My costs of investment? $400 + $10 + $23 + $0 = $433

I priced the book at $2.99. My income per copy ranges from $1.05 to $2.68, so once again, let's use $2.00 for ease of math. The first year I sold 1,481 copies so my gain on investment was 1481 X $2.00 = $2962.00.

Therefore, my ROI for Sluts in the City #1 is ($2962 - $433)/$433 = $5.84

$5.84 versus -$0.92. See the difference?

Two erotica novellas. Same length. Same amount of time they were on sale. Little to no marketing.

The two big differences were the covers and the price. Both had a significant impact on my income.

On Monday, I'll talk about determining ROI for an indie published project, an assisted publishing project, and a trad published project.

On Wednesday, I'll talk about why using a picture like the Handcuffed Girl above will hurt more than help you thanks to the Kernel Pornocalypse.

Until then, stay toasty this weekend!

When a CEO Has No Concept of Social Media

For the record, I have nothing against traditional publishing. My regular readers know that I advocate READING AND UNDERSTANDING YOUR FUCKING CONTRACT before you EVER SIGN IT! But that's the former lawyer in me talking.

I also have nothing personal against Steven Zacharius, CEO and President of Kensington Publishing.

But apparently, Mr. Zacharius has something against me as an indie published writer according to an article he wrote in the Huffington Post. His diatribe about how I don't make any money, how I don't have any editing done, how I can't get quality cover art felt pretty damn personal. But I let go because I had a deadline...

Until a Kensington writer crafted a blog post aimed at readers saying how she was not rolling in gold. Apparently, she was being hit up quite a bit for free books. I would link to it, but within four hours of her post going live, it was taken down.

And that one big difference about indies. We talk money. We talk business. We give each other recommendations on services. But then we have our big girl and big boy panties on. I've got friends who make a lot more than I do. I have friends who make a lot less. And frankly, y'all know what I made last year.

Trad publishers don't want writers talking about their contracts. The scary part is they treat their writers like employees when they are independent contractors. Unfortunately, many writers accept this treatment because they are afraid they will be blackballed. And shunning was a real problem when trad publishers were the only game in town.

But the game has changed, folks. Big time.

Why did the Kensington author take her post down? I can only speculate in my own warped mind, but there's another problem.

Whatever you post on the internet takes on a life of its own. Even though she took the post down, it was cached. And copied. And spread. And discussed. Including at The Passive Voice.

And Mr. Zacharius responded at TPV.

All I can say is if I were Kensington's PR person, I wouldn't have any hair left after he was done. He apparently didn't know who hangs out at TPV. Sure, we're all writers. But we are also attorneys, doctors, psychologists, accountants, game designers, military vets, and teachers, just to mention a handful of the occupations. And a great many of us have been trad published.

One person published at Kensington was brave enough to comment though she did it anonymously because she's trying to get her rights reverted and fears retaliation. PG posted her comment as a main post because he felt it was important. And it is important because it shows Mr. Zacharius isn't talking to the people he needs to--those already under contract with his company.

However, J.A. ("Joe") Konrath took the questions Mr. Zacharius posed at TPV and crafted his own answers on his blog. Mr. Zacharius has said in Joe's comments that he's sending a reply to Joe, and Joe has said he will post the reply.

Can Mr. Zacharius have a meaningful dialogue with writers, or will he stick his other foot in his mouth? It should be a very interesting and entertaining Monday indeed.

How Being a Douche Can Affect Your Sales

I don't know if it's the extreme weather we've been having. Maybe it's the flattening of sales. Or maybe enough chemicals are in our food and water it's messing up our minds. But a lot of writers have been acting like total douches lately.

Newsflash, folks. I read just about anything. From the Cheerios box to the latest best seller to Playboy. (Yes, I know the joke about reading the articles, but there was a time when Playboy had some great journalism.) And when I meet new authors, a lot of times, I will check out their books.

If the book grabs me, I'll recommend it to someone I know. Not just anyone, mind you. I wouldn't give my mother a Jim Butcher novel anymore than I would give DH a Debbie Macomber book.

So what does that have to do with writers acting like douches?

Why on earth would I pick up your book if I see you acting like douche to other writers? Or even worse, readers?

Because that's what I am when I interact with you. A potential reader. Not some ignoramus you feel you can insult. Not your competition. A reader

When I see you treat people like crap, it doesn't make me want to buy your book. And it obviously doesn't make other people want to buy your books either from your Amazon rankings and the way you bitch about low sales.

Here's a couple of examples:

I met L.M. ("Libbie") Ironside on The Passive Voice. She's witty, charming, and offers terrific insight in the conversations on PG's blog. When I learned she writes about Ancient Egypt (one of my favorite time periods for historical fiction), I immediately checked out her books. I bought them. I loved them. I've been recommending them to my friends who are into Egypt and/or great women in history.

Even sweeter, Libbie checked out my website and asked about the urban fantasy I'm working on based on Egyptian mythology. She did everything right by engaging and showing interest in a potential reader.

Then there's another writer, who I will not name, that I met on a website I will not name. This person was an award-winning trad published author before turning to indie publishing. And it's almost like they think indie publishing is beneath them. Or they think other indie writers are beneath them. Sometimes, it seems a little of both. When this person leave comments on this particular website, they are mean, derogatory, and mostly ignored by the other participants.

The sad part is this person also writes in a genre I adore, and I will probably never pick up one of their books because of their sour attitude and their insults.

While Libbie has a couple of hundred reviews and is ranking in the top twenty on Amazon in her genre for most of her books, the other writer has a handful of reviews and is averaging about a sale a day OUT OF OVER 20 BOOKS despite being an accomplished, talented writer.

Word-of-mouth is the greatest promotion tool in your arsenal, but it is a double-edged sword. A retailer I used to work for commissioned a study that showed for every good experience a customer has, they tell 5 people. For every bad experience, the customer tells 14 people.

Am I saying that you cannot disagree with someone? Of course not. If you're a regular reader, you know that my friend Angie (aka M/M romance writer Angela Benedetti) disagrees with me quite regularly and vice versa. But Angie doesn't insult me and she's respectful in her objections over whatever stand I've made that particular day. Because of HOW she argues with me, if I meet someone who reads M/M romance, I suggest Angie's books.

So think twice about your behavior online. Despite what you may believe, it really can affect your bottom line.

When a Writer Assumes the Role of Gatekeeper for Other Writers

Yes, I'm late posting today, but I wanted to think long and hard about what I wanted to say.

I thought while I bought a Batman outfit at Build-a-Bear for the teddy bear DH gave me for our fifth wedding anniversary. I thought while I decided on my birthday chocolate at Godiva's. I thought while I checked at Yankee Candle to see if they had any Witch's Brew left. (They didn't, but I'm definitely getting Cherries in Snow for Christmas!) I thought while I ate my birthday breakfast of a classic Cinnabon and Starbuck's black ice tea.

I didn't think when I saw a brand-new Ghoulia doll at Toys R' Us. I just squealed in delight, which made the clerk's day. We chatted about the New Hallowthanksmas retail season while it stormed like crazy outside.

But once the rain died and I could safely make it to the car without getting electrocuted or Ghoulia getting soaked, I started thinking again. So what caused all this thinking?

Libby Fischer Hellman is pissed off about EVERYONE self-publishing. Her sales are down! No one can find her books among the tsunami of swill! And everyone else needs to just stop publishing!

After reading her blog one more time before I started to write this post, all I can say is Genius Kid never threw a tantrum like this even in his Terrible Twos.

What's even sadder is that I've never heard of Libby Fischer Hellmann before her post was excerpted over at The Passive Voice (and her post caused a firestorm of comments over there). Is this how she wants to introduce herself to potential readers?

Because that's what other writers are. They are readers, too.

I wouldn't dream of stating on my blog that no other writer can publish because no one's buying my books. That simply DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!

Do I think writers should learn their craft before they publish? Hell, yeah. I don't know an indie writer who doesn't believe that. But once a writer is past the initial craft stage, the game changes.

If no one's buying my books, that means I'm not doing a good enough job entertaining my readers. That's no else's fault but my own. It means I need to step up my game, not "everyone needs to be gentle with poor widdle Suzan."

The whole point of indie publishing my books is that they're niche. I know they are niche. The Big 5 don't see how they can make any money on such a small market segment, but I do see how I can. And I have. And I wrote things that tickled me, and obviously tickled a few other people or they wouldn't have bought them. Or read them. Or asked when's the next one coming out.

I don't believe we writers are in competition with each other because readers are varied in their tastes and voracious. We're definitely not in competition with people too lazy to learn their craft or who plagiarize other writers, which, to me, is the real swill.

It's going to take me 120-150 hours of butt-in-chair time to write Zombie Goddess, plus another 40 or so hours of editing time. (That's me personally; that's not counting the editor and beta reader's time.) The average reader will whip through it in 4-5 hours.

What's the reader going to say if I tell her she can't read anybody else's work while I write the next novel? She's going to say, "Fuck you!" and rightly so.

Also, readers are very good about finding what they like. I've been choosing my own books since I was six. I'm pretty damn sure other readers can choose their own material as well.

So I'm going to keep writing and publishing whether Ms.Hellmann likes it or not. And if my zombie tabloid reporter is outselling her female PI, then maybe she needs to step up her game instead of whining.