Who is the Gatekeeper

And is there a Key Master? (For those who don't recognize the reference, check out Ghostbusters. Of course, if marshmallow men give you nightmares, you will want to avoid the Stay Puft marshamallow man who comes to destroy the earth at Gozer's bidding. ;-p )

No, I'm not going to review the movie, although I may go watch it again later today. The original question actually comes from some earlier discussions we've had here as well as an interesting discussion on the Kindle boards at Amazon.com earlier this week. Someone asked if readers' expectations on books are being lowered because of the influx of free books available online. They weren't referring to all the books available through Project Gutenburg. Instead, they meant all the "new" books available for free either through Amazon, Smashwords, and a myriad of other online resources, including author websites. The basic question boiled down to, is the e-reading public more concerned with lower cost, or no cost, for a book than it is in quality of craft?

As of this morning, there are 57 books (assuming I counted correctly) of the top 100 best sellers in the Kindle store that are free. Of those, 33 are from Project Gutenberg or similar sites. The majority of the rest come from either major publishing houses, such as Harlequin or Random House, or small press houses. Only one jumps to mind as a true self-published and that simply because the author has been very active on the Amazon boards promoting her book. A quick check of the Sony e-bookstore reveals that they list their top downloads a little differently from Amazon. Their bestsellers are books that have a sales price on them and doesn't include free downloads. However, when you navigate through their links -- not quite as easily done as at Amazon, imo -- you will see they have basically the same free books available as does Amazon. My hunch is, if you compiled downloads for free and not free books, the results would be very similar to Amazon's numbers.

The consensus seemed to be that most of those downloading the free or almost free books may have initially done so because of the low cost, but they were just as quick to delete the book from their kindle or other device if the book didn't entertain them. Moreover, many of the responders said that they only downloaded the book if the description appealed to them. So, while the majority of those responding admitted they looked at the book's description because it was free -- or next to it -- they didn't necessarily download it for that reason.

Which led me to think about what I've downloaded since getting my Kindle in September. I currently have 180, give or take, books on my Kindle. Of those, three are current works in progress that I'm revising. Two are books I've purchased from Fictionwise. There are half a dozen I've bought from Amazon. There are three I've purchased from webscriptions (for those not familiar with it, this is where you go to get your e-books from Baen). There are a dozen or so I've pulled from author websites for free. I also have two dozen books from Project Gutenberg. That's roughly 50 books, if my math is correct -- not guaranteed this early in the morning. So, what about the rest?

The rest are freebies either from Amazon or from Baen. From Amazon, I've downloaded approximately 50 free books. Of these, there are 40 on my Kindle right now. Three of the Amazon downloads have been permanently deleted from my library because they were either so bad, imo, that I couldn't get past the first couple of pages or they were attempts by the publisher to hook the readers into buying a book by giving us a sample instead of the entire book as originally advertised. Of those remaining, they run the gambit from romantic suspense to sf/f to non-fic white papers. And all of them are from reputable publishers, some major houses and some small press. The remainder of the books on my Kindle are from Baen -- some I've purchased prior to getting an e-reader, some from the CDs Baen occasionally puts into its books.

Back to the question: has access to free books, many of them "self-published" and listed on Amazon and other e-book sites without having gone through a traditional editorial review lowered my standards on what I expect from a book? In a word, no. I still want books that are well-written, well-edited, and with a decent format. (Something a lot of self-published e-books lack.) I want the story to entertain me if it's fiction, even if the plot is uncomfortable. There has to be a reason for me to turn the page, even if all I do is hit a button. For non-fiction, I want a book that is well-researched, well-reasoned and not the same old tired schtick I've read for the last umpteen years.

Am I more likely to look at the description of a book because it's free or relatively inexpensive? Sure. I'm human. But I do read the description. And look to see if there are any editorial reviews. And check to see who published it and if the author has any other books available. Most of all, I'm not afraid to hit the delete button and to later remove the book from the archive if I didn't like it.

What has happened is that these free books offered through Amazon and other sources have broadened my scope of authors I read. There are a few publishers out there who aren't completely clueless. They offer the first book in a series for free a month or so before the latest in the series comes out. Guess what, it increases the sales not only of the new book but of the other books in the series. It has also taught me not to hesitate if there is a free offering that sounds good because these same publishers can turn around and be absolutely clueless -- offering the freebie for less than a day. While that might get word of mouth going, it isn't necessarily the sort of PR you want. Instead of readers talking about how good the book is, they're dissing because the book was available for such a short period.

But there's been another side effect from downloading free or relatively inexpensive e-books. My purchases of dead tree books has also increased. There are books I've read that I want physical copies of. True, most have been from Baen, but there have been some from Amazon as well. Also, while some of the books I've downloaded haven't exactly been my cup of tea, they have been exactly what my mother or someone else I know would like and I've bought physical copies for them. So while the publisher might have gotten nothing from me for the e-book, they made a dead tree version sale...that's money in their pocket.

In answer to my original question -- Who is the gatekeeper? -- I am. And you are. Every reader is the ultimate gatekeeper with regards to both e-books and dead tree versions. Publishers might be the key master, but right now too many of them are having trouble finding the door their keys fit. That leaves it up to us to decide what we like and don't like and what standards of professionalism we're going to demand in our books.

Have you noticed any changes in your book purchasing habits? Do you buy and read e-books? How about downloading free e-books? What do you require from a book and how do you choose what book to get? And who do you think is the ultimate gatekeeper? Inquiring minds want to know.

On being in the mood to write

This last year - and this one so far -- have been tempestous and very broken up. A roller-coaster of sadness, alt and chaos. I have always in the past managed to write -- at least to some extent -- through 'disturbances'. But selling up leaving what was once my beloved country and mum's death, and the confusion and uncertainty of settling in our new one (which so far - with the exception of my experiences with Telstra and Bigpond who should be providing the internet access I STILL don't have, has been a happy one) has really hurt my volume. As a professional you simly can't afford just to write when you're in the mood to do so. I have various tricks I normally use to try and channel mine (because yes, I am moody) Music, routine, and reading an earlier chapter help me. And if I am bleak or angry channeling that into parts of what I write - even if it means writing that segment out of sequence. Good news always stimulates me -- so sometimes I'll go and re-look at something positive (I hear SORCERESS OF KARRES got onto a bestseller list somewhere for eg, That had me burning to write and focussed on doing so) So what works for other people? I am not sure when I'll next have internet access so I may not be able to reply to this fo a week or so(this does not help my mood!).

Weather and Writing

We knew it was coming. Last night's national weather report on both the BBC and ITN ended with the words "And it will be particularly bad in the Medway Towns".

To some degree, the Medway Towns is weather-girl code for London. National weather forecasters are not allowed to mention London. It just provokes letters in green ink from pedantic autists in the provinces along the lines of:

Dear Sir
You always focus on London in your weather forecasts and you never mention my own village of Lower Fumbling in the Wold. We have been an important centre for sheep dung distribution since the times of Ethelread the Unready.........

Well you get the idea but I digress.

They said it was coming and it has. The car is snowed in. A nasty east wind is giving us a wind chill of minus twenty five centigrade and I have had to put a blow heater in the rabbit's hutch.

No 2 daughter has set off on a trek through the snow to get her hair done, the risk of freezing to death in a snowdrift somewhere being infinately preferable to a bad hair day. I am supposed to run her back around the M25, London's Magic Roundabout, on Sunday so she can get back to Uny in time for her lecture on the depiction of nude women on Greek urns.

Mind you, it's not all bad. I am averaging 1,000 words a day on my novel.

My novelette (novela? long short story?) Storming Venus, the sequel to Storming Hell, is up on eArc at Baen's Universe.

You can read it for free here:

http://www.baens-universe.com/articles/Storming_Venus

If you like it please leave a donation.

John

PS the first person to ask how much a Greek urns will get attacked by flying monkeys.

What is Characterization?

This is a question that has often baffled me. And it's not a trivial question. If you and your potential editor don’t agree on what good characterization is, then the relationship ends before it begins with the manuscript in the discard pile.

I have my own ideas about characterization. I like to see emotional depth, what matters to the character, some idea of what their personality is like and how they might go about getting what they want or overcoming their problem, all blended with the right amount of backstory. All this is best revealed gradually through the actions of the character and the events of the plot.

But for me this stuff is ‘internal’.

For others good characterization is ‘external’. They like to see particular actions or mannerisms in a character that can be readily recognized – and are often repeated ad nauseum through the story. From Harry Potter think of Hermione Granger’s ‘bushy hair’ or Hagrid’s large bulk. It seems like every single time these characters appear there is a reference to the 'key characteristic'. If I read another dark fantasy character who can't be separated from their cigarette, I think I'll choke. If subtle enough, I guess it works as a subconscious cue.

One of the reasons I stopped reading the Wheel of Time series was I got so sick of this. How many times can Nynaeve al’Meara pull her damn braid? Especially when nothing else was happening except a self-perpetuating word-mill of dialogue? I’d rather know more about what makes her tick.

I think a little bit of the external things can be an excellent part of the mix, but when this is supplied as the major component of characterization I start to get annoyed.

There is a lot in this though – it really appears to be a divide in the way writers approach the work (and how editors interpret it). Maybe its even deeper than that, maybe it’s a personality divide.

I was watching a local television program – the Tuesday Book Club – where various local literary luminaries wax lyrical about three or four books, each giving their considered opinion. Even these quite established and successful writers could not agree on this one. One of them was seriously bagging one of the books, criticizing what, in his opinion, was a very superficial characterization for the above reasons, while another could not give it higher praise in the same arena.

What’s going on? Please enlighten me!

Your life is on hold, we apologize for the inconvenience

So, it's been the day from hell today. My employers, a company of just under 100 people, bit the bullet and started the layoffs. All day, waiting to find out where the axe would land, and on whom. We are now a company of 85 people, and hope to still exist this time next year.

Right now, I'm hoping that I've managed to get the worst day of the year over with - and I was one of the survivors. I really feel for those who are now facing an ugly job market and putting their lives back together. Work, whatever it is you do, becomes a very large part of your life - and for writers, working a regular job of some description is usually part of the territory.

Since I'm not in any state to write a post, much less a coherent one, it's open thread time. A few thoughts to kick it off - what are you hoping this year will bring? Any bright shiny new things to discuss? Wonderful new toys?

As always, please stay away from the tar pits, especially the ones with the signs labeled "Contemporary Politics" and "Contemporary Religion". They bite.

I, Writer

I, the writer, a singular person, locked in my own head attempt to reach out to the reader and tell my tale in a way so convincing that he’ll feel he lived it.

That is the goal of writing, and the one thing that writing still has over movies, games, assorted other forms of entertainment becoming ever cheaper, more realistic and more portable. Reading can transport you into someone else’s head better than any of those. It can make you feel what he feels, live what she lives.

Which bring us to technique, point of view and various other things that writers talk about and which couldn’t interest the reader less unless they’re so badly done that they make you notice them. Which is, in fact, true of any other element of writing.

So, why is Sarah picking up her lance on this bright, sunny morning (this is put in purely for a cheery effect since I’m writing this at five am my time and it’s dark as a copy-editor’s heart out there) and tilting at this particular windmill?

Well, I’ll tell you why. (I know this shocks you, since I’m of such a shy, retiring and reticent disposition that it is an herculean task to draw a word or two from me.)

Lately it has come to my attention that there are readers who refuse to read writing done in the first, singular person and beginning writers who are terrified of using it. You see, they’ve heard it said, high and low, and, yay, verily, proclaimed with a megaphone from the four winds too, that writing in the first person is bad. Baaaaaaaad. Baaaaad, nasty, a disgusting habit that shouldn’t be practiced, even in private and even if you wash your hands afterwards. Possibly it makes you go blind or causes hair to grow on your palms – who knows? I know – because any number of writers, theorists and critics have informed me of this – that it is the mark of an amateur.

To which I say bullspit. (I say this, you understand, because I’m a lady – on odd days and Wednesdays, of which today is one – and wouldn’t stain my dainty fingertips by typing another ... product of the bull.) First person singular has not only been used extensively by most of the greats in the field: Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury but is still used for the currently-best-selling sub-genre of our field: Urban Fantasy. And it’s not JUST our field, either. Agatha Christie wrote in first person singular. Rex Stout wrote in first person. Any number of current bestsellers write in first person. Romance is a little different as it seems to prefer not just third person but shuttle-cocking between the heads of protagonists I guess so that you know the guy who seems cold and distant isn’t. It’s a specialized technique, which suits the narrative needs of a special form.

Which brings me to narratives and different needs. Those of you who have their hands up may put them down. I do remember that I’ve used third person singular (I’ve also used second person singular, occasionally third person plural and on one or two very rare occasions first person plural. Because that’s the kind of indiscriminate verb-orgy kind of writer I am!) Early in the morning though it is, and caffeine deprived though I am, I do indeed remember that the shifter series and the Magical British Empire series and even the Musketeer mysteries are third person, multiple POV. Can a bright boy or girl tell me why I used third person in those books?
Right, you, the young lady on the third row from the back, savoring a fresh dish of adverbs. (I hope you brought enough for everyone!)

I used third person singular in many – most – of my published novels (though not short stories) because it suited the story I wanted to tell which, for reasons of suspense, plot and pacing required that I follow multiple story threads, something that is difficult to do with just one person unless he has a slight teleporting problem, amnesia and multiple personality. And because first person, multiple pov’s is hard as heck to use. Even Heinlein didn’t do it better – or very well. (Even if, as a fundamentalist Heinleinian, unreformed, unrepentant and unashamed, I MUST inform you I’ll defend my right to enjoy The Number Of The Beast to the death, if need be.)

Other stories – Darkship Thieves comes to mind – are single-thread, single narrative and frankly dominated by such a larger than life personality that the only way to do them justice is first person. First person in effect locks the reader in a small room with this in-your-face character and lets her experience the character as a close and personal friend.
So, why do so many writers rail against first person? (Yes, I know. Editors, agents and critics do too, but those people have to have an opinion. It’s their reason for existing. Writers, in fact, do NOT have to have an opinion about any tool they choose not to use, so the fact that they do sticks out, rather.)

Well, my dears, I have two answers, the impolite and the polite. I’m going to give you the impolite first, because it’s early in the morning and I don’t have any caffeine in my veins. The impolite answer is that these writers, for whatever reason, don’t tell first person stories. Or perhaps were bitten by a first person story in their childhood and therefore hate them. Or even because someone told them first person is bad, they believed it and are therefore afraid of it.

They are, in fact, driven by the thing that drives most critics of other people’s choices: The terror that someone, somewhere is having fun. Mrs. Grundy, having been banished from the sexual arena by our modern, enlightened and permissive times, feels the need to hate something that others are doing and at which they have fun. First person it is.

The polite answer is that first person is both the narrative voice of choice of the raw beginner and the most difficult voice to write well. Most writers when they first start writing try first person and – frankly – suck at it. There is a tendency – though I never suffered from THAT because of my peculiar approach to storytelling – to make the character you call "I" exactly like yourself. Most of us JUST aren’t that interesting. It is also far more difficult to plot a first person story – and this I did suffer from – because you’re either stuck following a single line of plot (which means you might not know what the bad guys are up to, so that each attack comes without foreshadowing) or you have to give hints, foreshadowing and inference with a LIGHT brush, around the edges, through rumors, innuendo and the actions of other characters.

Particularly if you’re dealing with an unreliable narrator, which unfortunately most of my characters are. (The person who just made the wisecrack about creating them in my image can go and sit in the corner for half an hour.)

But because a technique is difficult, it shouldn’t be taboo. And there is absolutely no cause for the reader to feel he’s slumming if he’s reading first person. It can be a very powerful, vibrant way to tell a story. If you don’t believe me, go and read Friday (an unreliable narrator) or Puppet Masters or even Simak’s They Walked Like Men, or Barry Hughart’s Story Of The Stone. And there is absolutely no cause for the writer to shut this tool out of his toolbox.

Some writers might choose not to use it. Maybe they don’t think in first person but in collective unconscious. I wouldn’t know. It is their right, their prerogative, their way, and I’d no more tell them they must use first person than I would allow them to tell me I couldn’t. I’m just not my brother’s keeper.

Sure, you might fall on your face the first time you use first person. Or the second. Or the tenth. But that eleventh might be the best thing you ever wrote. Learn all the tools of the craft and use them. Invent new ones if need be. Treat each story as your best work and use the best tool for shaping it. Not the tool someone else told you to use.

And next time Mrs. Grundy sticks her big ol’ nose in your business, tell her to go meditate on the voices of humanity and their infinite variety and, yes, individuality. "I don’t like....." is a valid critique (at least as far de gustibus non est disputandum). "No one should do....." isn’t.

I notice I’ve had one of my customary attacks of word-incontinence and this is running rather long, so I can’t really take on the other "thou shall nots" of science fiction, fantasy or just writing. Excess adverbs? Too many adjectives? Aliens who act human? All of them have been used to great effect by a great writer. Since I presume this blog is read only by great writers – and readers – tell me what your least favorite prohibition is, and if you can of a masterpiece that broke it with elan and style.

New Cover!

Here it is, the cover for Book One of King Rolen's Kin. (No text yet).

The artwork is by Clint Langley, a UK based artist who has worked on comics like Judge Dredd, Dark Blade and Sinister Dexter. He's also worked in the gaming world for Games Workshop, White Wolf, Hidden City Games and others. Plus he's done covers for Black Library, Warhammer and Battletech amongst others. We were lucky he had time to work on King Rolen's Kin.

I love the cover. It's moody and says fantasy in a modern way. SOLARIS is pleased with it.

Covers are so important and writers rarely get a chance to give much input. I was lucky, in that SOLARIS asked me for suggestions, so I researched current covers, found some I liked and prepared a Resonance Folder for the artist with the look of the world and the people, as well as descriptions etc.

Not every author is consulted when publishers prepare covers. Here Jane Lindskold does a post 'Look what what they've wrapped around my baby!

And here Peter Terzian does an interesting post about cover designs in 'Kill your Darlings'. He says:-

'We asked eight designers to show us their favorite runners-up, and to explain how and why these covers were nixed. In most cases, the designers were surprisingly sanguine. “It’s actually a good exercise to have to redesign something,”says free¬lance designer Gabriele Wilson. “Quite often, the designs end up being stronger than when they started.”'

I used to work as an illustrator, so I found this article really interesting.

I'm hoping, looking at the illustration above, readers would tempted to pick up a copy of my new book. It is a new series by an author they've never heard of.

I bought Brent Weeks trilogy based solely on the covers. The books are sitting on my 'to be read' pile. Have you come across some cover art recently that made you pick up a book by someone you didn't know?