1) Classic movies painted as Ottoman miniatures.
2) The six male characters women never get to see in movies. so many story ideas here.
4) Facial expressions of Olympic figure skaters. G forces take quite a toll.
5) Using two colors, this map shows where 50% of the GDP of the USA comes from.
6) A comic about economics and trade agreements. TW: mixed in with a lot of good information is some shitty treatment of Tea Partiers.
ObDisclaimer: I self-publish fiction and plan to self-publish more fiction this year. I am not philosophically opposed to the Author Earnings Report that Hugh Howey has begun. I am seriously dubious about several of its conclusions and some of the ways they are presented. For example, I don’t like that his comparison of reader ratings runs only from 3.0 to 4.5 instead of from 0 to 5, which is the actual possible range. Anyone who has looked at graphs knows that “zooming in” is a way to make minor differences appear more important than they are.
Also, Howey is planning to do additional surveys to include vendors like B&N but he’s already rushing to judgement on the “best” path for authors after only looking at Amazon data.
To be clear, I would like it to be true that self-publishing will bring in a lot of money; I’m just skeptical of Howey’s report and waiting for some expert analysis. As I find that analysis, I plan to link to it.
That’s what this post will be. I don’t plan to link to praise or skepticism here unless it actually examines the methodology of the report. So:
2/13/14:
Digital Book World points out that the AE report is heavily focused on successes. See also this unrelated post on Survivorship Bias which predates the AE report.
UK Crime Writer Steve Mosby points out an excluded middle in Howey’s conclusions, along with raising other questions.
On Absolute Write, author S.L. Huang points out problems with the statistics and what’s excluded, along with other issues.
Agent Joshua Bilmes points out this isn’t the first time someone has tried to calculate earnings based on a list of bestsellers and that Amazon’s rating system is hopelessly compromised.
In the comments of the AE report, author Ramez Naam points out some basic errors in assuming royalties (even if they could be accurately calculated by Amazon sales ranks) equal payments to writers going the traditional route. There are a great many comments on the report itself, but few are substantive.
A more in-depth comparison of pricing and rating.
Later:
Comparing self-publishing to being published is tricky and most of the data you need to do it right is not available by Mike Shatzkin
2/14/14:
Porter Anderson talks about the cultural push behind the report and against it. However flawed it is, it’s seen as a powerful argument.
At Futurebook, Philip Jones lays out the contradictions between Howey’s admissions of his flawed data and his sweeping conclusions.
Digital Book World, which had criticized Howey’s report yesterday (see above) now claims it supports their own (much disputed by indie authors) findings.
I’d meant to include only analytical posts, but this is something I see quite a lot:
So the data is “shonky” but the narrative is too exciting not to buy in. So far, this is a very common reaction.
Jim Hanas calculates his “Hugh Howey Income.” Mine is zero dollars, which is, I promise you, wildly incorrect.
2/16/14:
This post by a person who creates studies and databases will likely be the last one, because it’s just what I was looking for. The author of the critique has no bias one way or another in terms of how to publish fiction, and she has informed and detailed critiques of not only the way the data was put together but by the sweeping conclusions that Howey presents. h/t @mlvwrites on Twitter
I’ll add more of these as they cross my path. I think that last one does it. If there’s another critique as informed that touches other issues, I’ll add it but I won’t be actively looking any more. Also, I plan to write up a little something later on, summarizing what seems to be going on with this report and the furor around it.
Spoke too soon: This examination of Howey’s methods by Courtney Milan is really excellent.
Anyone who’s been reading my Randomness posts will recognize the name in the subject header: She’s one of the writers and editors of The Toast, and she’s hilarious. For example:
Your Constant Vigilance Is The Only Thing Keeping The Shape At Your Window From Coming Inside
It’s A Bunch of Years After The War And Everything Is Different
“Are You There God? It’s Me, MacGyver.”
A Gender-Flipped Version of “The Bodyguard” Starring Kanye West and Brienne From Game of Thrones
There Is A Book Inside Of You (I’m so, so sorry.)
She’s funny, and I’m not wildly envious of her ability. Just, you know, somewhat envious.
Also, I made my son read “After the war…” because he’s big on the dystopias and after he finished he turned to me and said “That’s every book I’ve ever read.” I didn’t tell him that was because he won’t read mine.
1) An alternate history of “Flappy Bird” a successful game that was pulled from sale because of the gamers abused its creator.
2) Marvel opens its image archive and api to the public. I’m pretty sure this is cool, and if I were ten years younger I might understand why.
3) Calvin and Muad’Dib. Calvin & Hobbes cartoons with quotes from Dune to replace the dialog.
4) Teddy Roosevelt’s 10 Rules for Reading. Sensible guy.
5) Male artist creates art show with woman’s art, doesn’t feel he needs to name her.
6) An Infinity of Alternate Batmen.
7) Deleted.
1) Supervillain lair in Joshua Tree for sale. So incredibly gorgeous.
2) Here’s that bad advice you were looking for.
3) Frito-Lay crowdsources potato chip flavors, with the expected results.
4) Scientist who took on pesticide finds his reputation under assault from the corporation who makes it.
5) “Motherfuckers live in places that don’t exist, and it comes with a map. My God.” Ice-T records the audiobook for a Dungeons and Dragons novel.
6) The case for a big budget Hawkman movie. Video.
How surprised would anyone be to learn that Shay Festa, the “Quid Pro Quo” book review blogger I wrote about over the weekend has not only been called a cunt and a bitch but has also received threats of physical harm?
Over a book review policy?
I really, really hope that no one who followed one of my links to her site was involved in that at all, because if my blog posts start inspiring threats against women online, I’m not going to write them. It’s not worth it at all.
In the meantime, I want to thank Michelle Sagara for pointing out this blog post: Reviews: A Service for Authors? by Chrysoula Tzavelas.
The gist of Tzavels’s post is that the Bookiemonster site is open to reviews by indie authors, who constantly struggle to get reviews of their work so they can stand out from the crowd. She suspects (and the request for more reviewers seems to confirm) that they’re inundated with books from people with little other opportunity to find critical attention and who are desperate to stand out from the pack. Self-published writers are likely to be a major portion of the Bookiemonster readership, too. You know, in the old days of the turn of the century, it was a truism that the main readership for self-published fiction was other self-publishers. They were all reading each other’s work. I thought that had finally changed with the release of ereaders, but maybe not for everyone. Maybe it’s only the bestselling self-pub and hybrid authors with a readership beyond other authors in the long tail. I’d be interested to know where that stands.
Anyway, it demonstrates the way subtle pressures can drive people to make decisions they wouldn’t ordinarily make. Like doctors who, with only their patients’ best interests in mind (as far as they’re concerned), schedule as much followup care as they need to make their monthly nut, so too does a site like Bookiemonster respond to subtle incentives. I had recommended that Ms. Festa turn to her readership for the SEO books she was seeking; readers are incredibly generous, especially if they’re grateful for the writing being offered. What hadn’t occurred to me was that the readers and the writers might be pretty much one and the same.
In any event, none of that matters now. Ms. Festa has posted a mea culpa followup post called Sometimes We Just Get It Wrong, in which she expresses gratitude for the non-vicious, non-threatening feedback people have given her and withdraws the whole idea of asking authors for likes, follows, and upvotes. I will say: far too many people would have looked at the most extreme criticisms she received–the name-calling and the threats–and used that to dismiss all criticism. That’s what Bill Keller did after his disgusting editorial about cancer patients and social media, and that dude writes for the NY Times. It’s to her credit that she sorted the rage-aholics from the fair responses, even ones that were extremely critical, like mine.
And that’s that.
Last week, Kameron Hurley wrote a long guest blog on writers and persistence. If the descriptor ‘long’ makes you hesitate to click, be assured that she does that writer trick of being interesting the whole way through.
She makes a good point: Persistence is how it’s done. And by “it’s” I mean “become a professional writer”.
However, there are a few things I want to add, because I don’t think “You have to be persistent” is enough. I think it’s useful to talk about how, as well, and that sometimes persistence is bullshit because the goal is bullshit. So:
1. Persistence is just the pursuit of the goal via managed expectations and the certainty that writing professionally is a thing that can be learned. That’s it. If you can stop yourself from thinking “This book I’m writing is going to win an award/make me rich/get me laid/win the admiration of the right people” that’s half the battle. The other half is recognizing that, even if you fail this time, you can do better next time.
Okay, not everyone can improve. If you’re in a coma, no. If you’re so convinced you’re already a genius that you think every rejection Proves What Fools They Are, no. If you’re incapable of learning that text affects readers in ways that the writer might not intend, no. But for someone who can pick up a manuscript they “finished” last year and think “Look at this paragraph! I’m not still making this mistake, am I?” there’s no reason to expect they can’t make their goals.
Plus, it’s the big goals–that vile four-letter word: hope–that breaks the will to write. Like a weary traveler, writers think their destination is just over this next hill. And the hill is so steep and muddy and exhausting, they force themselves to push on, only to discover that the other side is just more road leading off into the distance.
If you fervently hope this is the book that will win an award or become a bestseller, and it doesn’t? That shit is disheartening as hell.
Plus:
2. Nothing bad happens to you if you give up.
Sure, you probably won’t finish that book, but if you get more time to spend with your friends, go hiking, maybe volunteer at a food bank? I can’t really see how that’s a bad thing.
The point has to be this: Do you want to write more than you want to do other things? Video games/TV shows/Other time wasters notwithstanding, if creating literature is not really what you want to do, you might as well be doing something else. You’ll be better off. Fuck persistence.
3. I know some people will bridle at the word “literature” but that’s what writers make, even if it’s Bigfoot pron. Maybe it’s not great literature, maybe it’s rote, or trite, or commercial or derivative. Maybe it’s a big steaming pile of goatshit. Who cares?
4. The point is, it’s really really hard to put aside those big expectations, but one of the best ways to do that is to drill your focus on the book. Whenever I start daydreaming about the reception my book might get (basically, whenever I get weird, starry-eyed high hopes) I stop, remind myself that those thoughts are poison, then refocus my attention on the characters, the voice, the plot. Whatever. Not only does this help throttle the strength out of Hope, that miserable enemy of all good things, but it helps keep my energy and effort where it belongs.
5. What’s more, the idea of a “successful writer” (earning enough to forsake all other employment) is a really strange thing. As Ursula Vernon says, pro writers are simultaneously “fetishized and devalued.” As soon as you start finding fans for your work, people encourage you to toss your day job. Then they complain to you in emails that they got a computer virus from a pirate copy of your book and where can they find one that’s safe and free?
The truth is, writing as a day job is completely awesome and completely nerve-wracking. Not everyone wants to spend harrowing hours wondering if they can pay their rent, or tightening their food budget yet again until that check turns up. Add to that the unhappy fact that a great many writers outlive their own careers and you have a pretty stupid career choice.
And, even if you keep the day job, Persisting can take up a helluva lot of your free time.
But let’s say you want to go for it anyway and stick with Persistence:
6. As I mentioned above: big daydreams are poison. If you can be zen about how well the book will do after you finish, that’s great. If you can’t, there are a few tricks that can help distract us from inflated expectations: first, pay attention to how much a mid-list author makes and how many copies they sell. That’s where realistic expectations should be set. Whatever genre you work in, someone out there is sharing their numbers. Check them out.
Second, a trick I use is that I don’t write for a large audience. I pick three people to write for. They become my primary readers. I choose new ones for each book and never tell them, but when it’s time to ask myself how a scene will play for the reader, I don’t have to picture a long line of people in line at B&N. I have specific people in mind: Will she feel cheated by this revelation? Will he like the way this character changes?
Even if I don’t know anything about them except what they post on their blogs (and yeah, some of the primary readers are pretty much strangers to me) I can do the important work of imagining the effect of the story without poisoning myself.
7. Not matter what anyone says about talent, inborn ability, natural aptitude, or whatever, people can teach themselves to write better. I mean, seriously, if there’s a placebo effect for sleep, there’s a way to improve writing, too. Obviously, that subject is too big for this post, but knowing it to be true is the important thing. You don’t have to give up after any one particular failure.
8. But what if you do all these things but still can’t make persistence work?
Hey, for a person struggling with depression, who’s caring for a sick loved one, who is utterly freaked over impending job loss, or who is generally overwhelmed by life, no worries. Writing is secondary to all sorts of other things, like health and family. Don’t be hard on yourself.
If you’d like to be writing but you seem to spend all your time hanging with friends, checking Twitter, watching TV, or shooting zombies on your Xbox, see about about nothing bad happening if you give up that dream of being a writer. It’s kind of a dumb dream and you clearly would rather be doing something else.
9. Oh, what’s that? You really would like to put aside the games and internet and do the persistence thing, but it never seems to happen?
First, put the distractions away. Alternately, take yourself away from your distractions. I write outside my home b/c my family is very disruptive. I also have an app that blocks my internet for a set period of time. Maybe that will work for you or maybe not, but give it a try.
Second, keep in mind that it is much easier to fail in the face of luxury than in adversity. For many of us, adversity spurs the spirit to strive, but luxury gives us excuses to seek pleasure right now. (I used to have a sign in my office cubicle that read “Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.” My boss didn’t get it.) Take a hard look at the luxuries in your life–even if it’s something as simple as Bejeweled or Twitter on your phone–and limit them.
Last, friends of mine used to have this game they played every day called “Fresh Ten”. Every day they would write ten new words in the WIP, then post them online. After they did that, they could close the word processor and be done for the day, or they could write a little more.
Maybe even a little more than that. Just having to do ten new words a day gave them an excuse to sit down and start. Not every day was productive (and not every writer works every day) but it’s how we build our habits.
—
Well, that was longer than I would have liked, but I liked Hurley’s post and wanted to respond. I’ve struggled with persistence, too, and thought it might be helpful to offer a few mental tools that I’ve used to keep going.
Like Hurley, I hung a sign at my desk regarding persistence, but mine was a quote from Calvin Coolidge:
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
If you’ve been kind enough to read this far, you deserve a reward: Kameron Hurley’s book GOD’S WAR is available on Amazon and Indiebound
1) Artist paints murals, photographs them, then turns them into animated gifs.
2) Amazing fake signs in London Underground.
3) STAR TREK: INTO WHITENESS So, so funny. Screencaps for the win.
4) A great round of “Your novel is so” jokes.
5) Auteur Theory tries to take hold in the theater, leading to broken contracts and angry writers.
If you’re new here, I wrote a book for Evil Hat, not to mention all my other work.
I’ve been neglecting this space lately except for link salads and new announcements (Twenty Palaces print edition! Buying from B&N earns more for me than Amazon orders do!) mostly because I’ve been on a big push to finish initial major revisions for all three books in The Great Way.
That’s done and I’ve sent them to my agent. Next I have a short story to revise and more Kickstarter work to wrap up. Unfinished tasks unrelated to actually making the trilogy include:
* Fate game supplement for TGW.
* New revision for A KEY, AN EGG, AN UNFORTUNATE REMARK.
* Fate game supplement for KEY/EGG.
* Straighten out notes for Twenty Palaces short story.
* Write Twenty Palaces short story.
* Compile that story plus others (with introductions) into a collection.
* Assorted tasks associated with all that shit, including covers.
Actually, that list doesn’t look too bad from here.
However! In an attempt to remake the habit of posting here, let me resurrect a post that I started and abandoned last July(!) regarding British crime writer John Connor, spurred by this advertisement interview.
Mostly, I was annoyed by this quote:
He says: “It’s been a struggle all along. If you come at it from the point of view of wanting to write something interesting and worthwhile and entertaining, well, those are the three things that makes it hard if you want to produce something other than some stupid trite piece of content.
“You set yourself a goal of doing any of those things in one genre. It’s easy to do two of those, but doing all three feels like one long compromise. It ended up being a long way from doing what I wanted to do at the start.”
See, Connor (actually a pen name, for some reason) is a former prosecutor, and he pretty much hates the way popular mystery and thriller writers portray crime and its effects.
Which is completely fair. He has real world experience and he can call bullshit on what he (and others, too) call the torture pron aspects of the genre. Frankly, I’m not such a big fan of torture pron either, so I’m sympathetic.
And getting the emotions right–that is, treating tragedies like tragedies and not excuses for heroic rage–is a laudable goal. He earned another measure of sympathy with that one.
Still, it’s painful to see him blaming his perfectly ordinary midlist career on his integrity. Without having read any of his books:
First of all, as pen names go, “John Connor” is terrible. It’s bland. It’s easily misspelled (as “Conner” or “Jon”). It doesn’t even let the cover designer set his last name in huge type; six letters isn’t bad, but a four-letter long last name has size. It would be more memorable if he followed Donald Westlake’s advice of using a super-common last name and an unusual first name. “Connor Johns” is a better pen name than what he’s chosen.
Second, I’ve read plenty of books by actual cops and other people with law enforcement day jobs, and while it’s great for marketing, for the most part I prefer books by outsiders.
It’s not that I’m against realism; it’s that realism often has a certain plodding flatness to it. Every job comes with a certain amount of tedium, even the sort they make hit TV shows of. That’s why you don’t give the boring rote work to the lead character; that’s for the supporting cast to explain with a phone call. That’s why you don’t have them wander aimlessly through the clues; make that shit into a trail. Be fun.
Third, if you approach your own genre with this attitude:
“I have experienced those crimes – that’s half my problem. I’ve experienced them and I know what they’re like which makes me think: ‘You can’t do that just for entertainment!’”
Maybe you should be writing something else.
#sfwapro