Confessions of an Aromantic Asexual Conservative Christian

I've been sitting on this post for a few months, and I think it's time to bite the bullet and confess: I am an aromantic asexual.

It's something I've been confused about for quite some time, due to various factors. Lack of familiarity with the concept. Misunderstanding of what "aromantic" and "asexual" even mean. My mother's reaction when I casually suggested "Hey, this kinda sounds like me."

But waaaait a minute. If misunderstanding "aromantic" and "asexual" has been a problem for me, shouldn't I define my terms?

Yes. Yes, I should.

In fact, there are several terms I need to define before we continue this discussion, which I've found useful as a person and as a writer. Not all of these terms are "official" or widely used, but they're handy for comprehending the full issue, which has a lot more involved than many assume or realize. (I realize that the Bible only recognizes two biological genders. I'll address that in a bit.)

Definitions:

orientation

what classification of person you're attracted to, sexually and/or romantically

gender

biological sex + self-identification + orientation

binary

conventional male/female distinction

The traditional heteronormative male/female biology/self-identification + attraction to the opposite sex is called "binary gender" and is indicated by a prefix of "cis–".

libido

desire for sex

notice that there's no mention of sexual or romantic attraction here—this is independent of that

sexual attraction

interest in a sexual connection with another person

romantic attraction

interest in a romantic connection with another person (ex. cuddling)

---

intersex

born with biological features from both genders

this is more common than you probably think; evidently some places auto-sex assign without even explaining to the parents

transgender ("trans")

someone who identifies as a gender other than the one they were born with

Note that at least some of these are intersex folks who were given a sex assignment at birth and later realize that they're actually not that gender—and that an intersex person who transitions to a binary gender actually counts as "trans"

heterosexual ("het" or "hetero")

being sexually attracted to the opposite binary gender

homosexual ("homo")

being sexually attracted to the same binary gender

asexual ("ace")

feeling infrequent or no sexual interest in anyone or anything, as your natural state unaffected by biological issues or emotional stress

demisexual ("demi")

able to feel sexual attraction to someone ONLY after a strong bond has formed with that person

gray–asexual ("gray-A")

mostly asexual, but feeling sexual attraction on occasion

Note that "demi" is a form of gray-A, and someone who feels attraction on occasion" might call themselves an ace or a gray-A.

bisexual ("bi")

being sexually attracted to 2 different genders

Notice that this is specifically 2—so a woman who's sexually attracted to heterosexual men and asexual men actually qualifies as bisexual

polysexual ("poly")

being sexually attracted to multiple different genders

This could be used for everything from 2 to all.

pansexual ("pan")

being sexually attracted to all genders

So if you're sexually attracted to every type of person, you're pansexual—and notice that this has nothing to do with fetishes or being attracted to animals or things.

---

transromantic

someone who is romantically attracted to a variant or ambiguous gender

heteroromantic

being romantically attracted to the opposite binary gender

homoromantic

being romantically attracted to the same binary gender

aromantic (aro)

feeling infrequent or no romantic interest in anyone or anything, as your natural state unaffected by biological issues or emotional stress

demiromantic

able to feel romantic attraction to someone ONLY after a strong bond has formed with that person

gray–romantic

not on the extreme end, but on the spectrum of aromanticism

biromantic

being romantically attracted to 2 different genders

notice that this is specifically 2—so a woman who's romantically attracted to heterosexual men and asexual men actually qualifies as biromantic

polyromantic

being romantically attracted to multiple different genders

This could be used for everything from 2 to all.

panromantic

being romantically attracted to all genders

So if you're romantically attracted to every type of person, you're pansexual—and notice that this has nothing to do with fetishes or being attracted to animals or things.

What a mess, right? Raise your hand if you actually read all that.

Now, why did I go into all that to talk about my own aromantic asexuality?

People are complicated. Labels only work to give broad strokes—and even then, they require the party using the label to use the same definition as the person hearing it.

It's like me being an outgoing introvert. Many people conflate "introverted" and "shy", so they insist I'm an extrovert. But introversion actually has nothing to do with shyness—it's where you get your energy. I like people just fine. I just find them draining. So if I need to recharge after a long day? Going out to a party is the worst thing I can do, to get that energy back.

In my own case, calling myself an "aromantic asexual" is the simplest label I can use (and if I want to be more accurate, I'll still have to define that I'm on the extreme end and feel very little or no romantic or sexual attraction to anyone, but it works).

Where it gets sticky is in that "very little or no".

See, I have never been sexually attracted to anyone, nor do I have any libido. I'm admittedly curious, but as a Christian who believes that sexual intercourse should be reserved for marriage, it's not gonna happen unless I ever marry—which is something that could potentially happen someday, because although I feel no sexual attraction whatsoever, I may, on occasion, experience romantic attraction…

But that "romantic" attraction seems to be more appreciation for being respected in conversation and enjoying others' company. I don't get desire for anything beyond that. (And though I do have a hormone disorder, but this has been true even when my hormones are in order. When my hormones are acting up, thoughts of sexual or romantic relationships actually repulse me.)

But let's assume that my appreciation of respect and enjoyment of others' company is romantic attraction. If that's true, can call myself aromantic, because "infrequent romantic attraction" suffices to describe what I experience—but I can also call myself "heteroromantic" (because I get it with guys), "demiromantic" (because it's guys I have another bond with already), or "gray-romantic" (because I do feel it sometimes). Any and all of those labels work, and that's just a side effect of labels' limitations.

Labels work as descriptors, not as definitions.

A person who is their label is a stereotype, and while stereotypes exist because there's some truth to them, that truth tends to be true of a small subset of the whole group—and sometimes, the stereotype actually says more about how people view the group being stereotyped than it does about the group itself. (Case in point: In the US, nationality of the most recent influx of immigrants is always derided as dirty and lazy, regardless of what that has to do with reality.)

In my own case, I'm definitely an aromantic and asexual…but I might also be heteromantic, demiromantic, and/or gray-romantic, depending on the definitions.

Wait—my sexual orientation and romantic orientation may not exactly match up?

Nope. And that's actually not entirely unusual.

For instance, it's completely possible to be heterosexual and homoromantic, with or without a libido. You can be completely asexual and aromantic and have a libido. You can be completely Xsexual and Xromantic—where prefixes match—and lack a libido.

If you're a writer, stop and think about that for a moment… What would that do to your characters, to give some of them inconsistent romantic vs. sexual orientations, or to make their libido not coincide with their attractions?

Even as a hormone-ridden teenager, I had to learn to look at someone and consider their aesthetics. I was harassed about it quite a bit, by peers and family alike, who would ask if I found someone attractive and insist I was being coy when I answered, "I don't know."

(News flash: I actually didn't know, because I didn't—and don't—naturally think in those terms.)

These days, I've made a habit of asking myself about aesthetics upon observing people, but if I'm distracted or sick or tired or some other thing has my attention, I won't notice. Or I might think of it twenty minutes (or two hours) into a conversation.

But people like random compliments, and I like making people happy, so I seek to notice things. I'll walk up to strangers and say things like, "I like your boots" or "That color suits you."

The little problem with that is that…

• What I say: "Hey, that was a great discussion. I enjoyed it."
• What girls tend to hear: "Oh! She wants to be friends!"
• What guys tend to hear: "Oh! She's into me!"
• What I mean: "Hey, that was a great discussion. I enjoyed it (probably because it was intellectually stimulating). Maybe we could converse again sometime (but I don't yet know you well enough to cross from 'acquaintance' into 'friend')."

There is a reason more than one friend has joked that I'm a Vulcan.

For me, noticing that someone has an aesthetically pleasing face is no different from noticing, "What lovely architecture! or "Oh, I love the way the blues pop in that painting!"

Suffice to say, I accidentally ran face-first into some awkward situations before I realized the disconnect between what such compliments mean to me and what they tend to mean to other people. (Sorry, people I've misled. I wasn't trying to!)

I therefore pretty much stick to complimenting females and children, these days, and as a drive-by. (Walking up to strangers then passing on, or as a cinch to a conversation before I excuse myself.) That works out best.

What does this have to do with your writing?

First, I have an idea for a serialized novel set in the same world as the Overhill stories. I'm still hammering some of it out, but it looks as if it would be a mystery or thriller in an urban fantasy setting, with the female main character (FMC) as a werewolf. Avery Williams, to be exact, who was the first character I came up with, years ago when I first started plotting in that story-world, and I'm still not sure if I've finished anything with her in it.

Warning: Some spoilers ensue for a WiP, which will likely not be completed for at least 6 months.

This planned serial (which is tentatively planned to be 3 books of 7 episodes each) would feature her as FMC. The first one would have her at 13-ish, but the second and third would be later, with male main characters. For one of them, I knew from the start that guy would end up attracted to her, but I realized pretty quickly that she wouldn't return his interest.

But try as I might, I couldn't figure out what would interest her. I thought about all sorts of guys, dismissing one after the other… I even started considering if she might swing to her own gender, which also got a "Nope."

I finally realized that Avery Williams is an aro ace and does not experience any romantic or sexual attraction whatsoever.

And realizing that, she came together as a character I understood. I'd been assuming she would be interested in a relationship someday—in a spouse, in children.

Nope. Not a whit.

I suspect I'll be able to write some of her stories, now.

Mulling on sexuality, particularly the types of interest and the assumptions others make about it, has also given me ideas for some other stories (like one that I think y'all might really enjoy, because everyone I've mentioned it to has perked up even at the title—not that I'll be able to write it for a while).

It's also made me realize that I've already written more than one character on the asexual and aromantic spectrums.

Which now has me mulling on how to use that sort of thing consciously in my writing—no to preach about it, in my stories, but to be aware of it so I can demonstrate it overtly when appropriate, because people are people, and people are messes.

But the Bible says…

Yes, there are genetically 2 genders, recognized by Scripture—and interest is distinct from that. Per many of the conservative descriptions/definitions/assumptions about the differences between men and women, men are considered more sexual than romantic, and women are considered more romantic than sexual. That doesn't invalidate the labels as descriptors for people. People don't fit in perfect little boxes, unless you're speaking of specific defined either/or choices, like "trust in Christ as your savior vs. trust in something else"—but even then, you still have situations where, from the human standpoint, it's not that simple—because the humans have different nuances in their definitions for "trust", "Christ", "savior", etc.

There are intersex persons, which are a completely to-be-expected result of shoddy genetics stemming from the sin-infested world / from the second law of thermodynamics / from some other pertinent scientific factors that I won't bore you with. And then there are the folks attracted to the same gender or who perceive themselves as a gender other than what their bodies seem to be.

I honestly suspect the imperfection of genetics accounts for more of the confusion than many Christians want to consider. Whenever I've attempted to bring that up in conversation, it's promptly been dismissed as only accounting for a teensy-tiny number of people.

Well…that may be true, but dismissing it as a small percentage, without even bothering to check the actual numbers, is outright prideful. And it dismisses and ignores just how many people are affected by this.

At least 1 out of every 2,000 people is born intersex, if not 1 out of every 1,500. By some definitions of "intersex", more than 1 out of every 100 people is born intersex!

That means there are at least 157,000 intersex people in the the USA alone, and probably more. (That's with the lowball estimate. If you count 1 of every 100, that's 3,140,000 intersex people in the USA. Not world. USA.)

Even with the lowball estimate, that's about half as many people as are members of the Presbyterian Church of America, and 5 times the number of people who are members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church denomination. Hey, 157,000 is even more more people than are known to have neurofibromitosis. In comparison, there are an estimated 700,000 transgender people in the USA, and 3,140,000–7,850,000 homosexual. (Again, I'm working from USA numbers, here.)

When an infant is obviously intersex at birth, sex assignments can be automatic—and from first-person accounts I've read, parents aren't always informed properly, either.

Let's assume that, for those 1 in 2,000 people born intersex, doctors get the sex assignment right half the time—and ignore the detail that an intersex person who's had a sex assignment is technically transgender. That still means that a minimum of 78,500 people have been assigned the wrong sex, through no fault of their own.

That's a minimum of 78,500 souls in the United states alone that can legitimately qualify as transexual or homosexual for physical biological reasons that even the most conservative Christian should accept.

That's nice. But what about the millions who don't have that excuse?

First, before I offend anyone further, I need to point out that I am quoting the conservative Christian standpoint, here. If you are not a conservative Christian, I expect you to disagree and to not abide by the scruples of a conservative Christian. (I would actually find it really weird if you did agree with the reasoning I'm laying out, here.)

Seriously, expecting someone to abide by the standards of your faith—whatever that faith is—just "Because it's right" is one of the idiotic things that makes a person come across as a hateful, spiteful bigot, even if they mean well. Even Jesus bothered to, well, help the adulterous woman brought out for stoning, and chat with the Samaritan woman at the well, and guided the conversation into pertinent openings to instruct them in what to do from there.

He didn't walk up to them and say, "You're living in adultery! That's evil and wicked, and you need stop now!" That's the argumentative equivalent of telling a kid to stay away from a fire "Because I said so!" Sure, the fire will eventually hurt the kid, even if they're careful and think they know what they're doing (because it'll dry their skin out). But the kid enjoys the fire, liking the warmth or thinking it looks intriguing, so you have to give them a reason to trust and believe you before you can expect them to heed you over what their own senses are telling them ("It's so pleasant and fun and won't hurt you if you handle it properly.")

Since that "Because I said so!" method doesn't work on even small children, why does anyone expect it to work with adults?

I am admittedly concerned about the commonality of homosexuality, but that's due to Romans 1:26–27, which calls the desire for the same binary gender a sign of God's wrath/judgment on a nation (not individual). Do I believe the practice of homosexuality is a sin? Yes—but homosexuality is listed with things like lying, murder, fornication, idolatry, adultery, stealing, envy, drunkenness, and extortion (I Timothy 1:9–10, I Corinthians 6:9–10—all sins that Christians can experience and struggle with and still be Christian (I Corinthians 6:11).

Wait—what's my point?

My point is that everyone has their failings, and everyone has sins they're prone to.

The nature vs. nurture debate is irrelevant to a Christian. I've grown up being told to my face that I can't be telling the truth even when I am, which led to some years of me intentionally, habitually lying, because I was going to be accused of it, anyway. Whether those lies stem from biology or conditioning is irrelevant in the face of lies being of the devil, according to my faith. No matter how or why my childhood habit of lying (which I worked myself out of years ago) developed, I was still responsible for those lies—and even now, if I admit to that old failing or see someone who remembers it, I have to deal with the consequences of having been a onetime habitual liar.

(I believe one of the causes of the original accusations is my memory can be a bit delayed. If you ask me if I did something this morning, my memory's equally likely to not remember that I did it or to remember a time I did it two weeks ago as if it happened in the past 24 hours—so I not infrequently might give one answer, then say "Wait…" and try to puzzle it out. Due to some changes in my life that are resolving the causes for that, it's getting better, but it's still "off".)

So maybe a Christian lusts after someone of their own binary gender—or maybe they lust after all/any genders. So what? That's no different from a Christian being predisposed to drunkenness, jealousy, idolatry, or breaking one of the other commands, such as those found in the Ten Commandments.

• If a person claims to be Christian and abide by the Bible as God's word, then accepting those commands logically ensues. We all are imperfect and will fail sometimes, but we'll at least attempt to obey.
• If a person doesn't claim to be Christian, then the Bible's commands are irrelevant to them, from their perspective, and expecting them to abide by Scripture is ridiculous.
• If a person claims to be Christian then ignores parts of the Bible for whatever reason, then that can be problematic. Why they ignore certain parts of the Bible and how they chose what to keep and what to ditch? It's an awkward situation that necessarily indicates that God's too ineffectual to protect His word, and that humans are so much smarter than He is, which means He's ineffectual. And there isn't really any reason to follow an ineffectual god.

No matter your perspective, retorting "You're wrong!" isn't going to open an intelligent, reasonable discussion—and again, the only people I can recall Scriptural precedent of Jesus outright rebuking from the get-go are the people who knew better (like the Pharisees).

So what's my point of speaking on this as a writer?

So I'm starting to be bothered by the fact that I'm willing to write murderers and thieves and adulterers and yet shy from writing someone who isn't heteronormative. It's inconsistent of me—hypocritical, in a sense—and I don't like it.

I don't write to reflect life as the Christian ideal, but as what it is, and how everyone's struggling in their own fashion. Cherry-picking specific faults while ignoring others entirely is downright cruel of me.

I honestly started thinking about this back when working on A Fistful of Earth, when I was writing scene where Lallie's taking Aidan and Evonalé to the river crossing. Their trip through dockside (the part of Saf near the docks—so the northeast part of town) would of course encounter more rowdiness than they were used to seeing. I started writing a heteronormative pair, then realized that changing it would give another peek at how sheltered Evonalé has been.

But one…well, problem with writing a homosexual MC is that I would show problems with it, like I show problems with everything else (because everything humans fiddle with is necessarily imperfect). Homosexuality is prosecuted and vilified so much already that I fear that any such work won't be able to be received in the spirit I intend it.

I've been harassed for merely suggesting I might be asexual, and that's an acceptable orientation under conservative Christian theology. I'm physically attractive and apparently have an appealing personality—both things that some others have used as "proof" that I can't be an aro ace. (Don't ask me how others' attraction to me has anything whatsoever to do with my attraction to others.)

I'm certain other orientations get treated worse. I don't want to contribute to harassment of others.

Are you telling me you're going to start writing protagonists who aren't straight?

No, I'm telling you that I may possibly do so in the future—and if I do, it's a comparable choice to writing murderers, liars, and thieves.

And like any of my work, it would be up to you if you're going to be interested in reading it or not.

Have you noticed the aromanticism and asexuality in my work? What are your thoughts on genetics and how those affect attraction?

—Misti

Writers: Beware! (and Readers: Be Aware!)

If you haven't heard about Simon & Schuster joining forces with Author Solutions, well, it has.

And Author Solutions was recently bought by Pearson—the same corporate entity that owns Penguin.

That latter detail is…worrisome in itself, but when you pair it with Simon & Schuster jumping in…

First, for any readers who don't know, Author Solutions is the parent of many, many vanity presses, the type that are known in the writing world for charging would-be authors thousands of dollars to get their book in print—and screwing them over in further hidden fees, in the quality of editing, the layout, the printing, the…

I think you get the idea.

All you would-be authors out there: You can get your 80,000-word book edited, proofread, and formatted to self-publish in print and e-book form for $1,000. Or less. It's even possible to get another proofread and the cover design tossed in, at that price, depending on what kind of editing your book needs.

Thanks to POD (Print on Demand) technology, writers no longer have to buy thousands of copies of your book to self-publish it, which makes self-publishing a viable career option for more situations than it used to be. (That thousands-of-copies method is viable—and still ideal—in some situations, mainly business-type ones. But for most of us, POD is the better option.)

Readers: Thanks to the outlier success stories, self-publishing is currently a popular get-rich-quick scheme. I suspect it'll get worse before it gets better, but self-publishing is like Mary Kay makeup: Folks who dabble won't last long. Folks who make a business out of it can do well. Folks who jump in with unrealistic expectations will crash and burn, getting loudmouthed and bitter about it being a "scam" (though it isn't).

I dabbled in selling Tupperware, a decade back. I know how it goes. *wink*

The companies from Author Solutions are often termed "vanity presses", because most authors spend thousands of dollars and get nothing to show for it but a garage full of books and the ability to say "I had a book published."

That's why anybody who takes great pains to stress "We are not a vanity press!" is probably lying. A "vanity press" targets folks who are unlikely to benefit from its publication model and plays sales hardball to get them to dish out their hard-earned cash.

Sales hardball gets my hackles up. Softball, fine. Hardball, ulgh.

But I'm also an experienced copywriter. I recognize sales tactics pretty quickly. Not everyone does.

What does that have to do with the Author Solutions thing?

Author Solutions targets folks who don't know that they don't have to spend thousands of dollars—and give up half their income from vendors—to get their book(s) published. (To be fair, Harlequin has also been in this pond, but I'm not sure if they still are—though that company has some, ah, issues of its own that may not be unique to them—but it's hard to say, since these things often seem to get hushed up.)

Penguin and Simon & Schuster are now partnered with or connected to Author Solutiosn. Writers therefore need to beware of both vanity presses themselves—and to be aware of their connections. Do you want to seek or sign a contract with a publisher that has ties to such a vanity press?

Even as a reader, I personally am considering boycotting publishers tied to vanity presses like that, even though at least two authors' series on my auto-buy list are from those publishers, and a quick Google search says more such series are from subsidiaries of those publishers.

As an author, if I had a contract with one of those publishers, I would be very interested in my contracts' termination clauses, and I would be unlikely to sign with

Thus why I say "Be Aware!" to readers: Not infrequently, series are orphaned, end up unfinished, even when the author's willing to continue signing with a publisher. I suspect the number of unfinished or delayed series will increase, a few years from now.

Why "a few years"? Because that's when contracts signed today often end up being effective, in the publishing world.

Not that I think many authors are going to drop their publishers. Writers as a group put up with a lot of junk. Laura Resnick's essay collection Romance, Rejection, and Royalties comes to mind, and I could name more examples, but that would gett off-topic.

So writers: Beware of sales gimmicks—and be aware that you might be losing some readers for no fault of your own.

And readers: Be aware that some of your favorite authors might be having dry spells, soon.

What are your thoughts on vanity presses? Have any predictions about how things'll shake out?

—Misti

The Ethics of Product Reviews

It's no secret that my allergy list is longer than some students' homework lists. I also happen to mix my own homeopathic anti-allergy capsules (for regular maintenance) and can't use medicines like Claritin* because I develop a tolerance after a week.

Would it be ethical for me to review Claritin?

I've tried it, and it didn't work for me, so I have that personal experience to draw from for my review. I also know plenty of people who use it and are happy with it, so while that's not needed to review something, it can help a reviewer balance their review.

However: I mix my own anti-allergy capsules.

Does that make me a competitor? Would it be unethical for me to review a medication because I make an equivalent home remedy for my own personal use?

No? Okay. What about if I start selling my recipe?

…

Now, if I were given a free sample of Claritin to try and review, most folks would deem that acceptable.

But what if the company heard that the medication didn't work for me and gave me compensation for my trouble, like a $10 gift card to buy something that'll work for me? Would it be ethical for me to review the medication then?

Yes? No? I seem to be getting conflicting answers, there, and the compensation wasn't even directly for the review. I can imagine it would be sharper if I were paid for a review.

What about if I knew the company's CEO?

Hmm… Answers also seem to be conflicting there. Some folks assume that knowing the person would make you more likely to give a good rating, while others insist that knowing the person doesn't have to affect the rating whatsoever. And a few up here in the rafters with me say that knowing the CEO would make us more critical in our reviews.

You might or might not have heard the recent hullabaloo about people paying for product reviews, including John Locke of How I Sold 1 Million eBooks in 5 Months fame. (And for the record, I do still believe his book can be useful as a reference for some marketing techniques, or at least for nudging your imagination into ideas for further ways to market something.)

And then J.A. Konrath went investigating fake reviews and had so much fun reading them that he posted some himself, for fun.

Any argument about ethics appeals to morals—but it also relies on assumptions.

• Someone who says it's never ethical to review someone you know assumes that knowing someone means you won't say what you actually think.
• Someone who says it's never ethical to review a product for which you receive compensation assumes that compensation necessitates a positive review.
• Someone who says it's never ethical to receive money for a review assumes that money is compensation for the review.

Depending on the situation, any of those can be incorrect…or correct. ^_^

Have I ever paid for reviews? No—as long as you don't consider a copy of the story to be "payment".

Would I ever be willing to pay for reviews? Theoretically—because someone who writes a review has spent their time on the product, so the payment would be reimbursement for that time. But I'd have to 1. have a budget for that and 2. find reviewers I could trust to list what they actually think, rather than cater to what they think I want to hear…and I'd have to do damage control for folks who assumed the reimbursement was necessarily for a positive review… Really, my time's better spent elsewhere. ^_^

In the latter situation,would I be willing to rehire someone who posted a negative review? If they supported their complaints, sure! (That would, of course, be dependent on their willingness to work for me again.) I mean, if you're squicked by first cousins as spouses (which is perfectly legal in most municipalities and actually not all that unusual), then a paragraph or two in "The Corpse Cat" will turn your stomach. By all means, put that in your review so others like you will be warned.

Notice, though, that I'm saying I have no problem with reviews by friends or relatives or employees as long as they're honest.

And it's entirely possible to be honest when reviewing someone you know, are related to, or have been paid by.

Ergo, calling one of those things necessarily unethical is missing the point about what makes that something unethical.

(Note: Fake reviews are honest, too, because they're obviously jokes. Don't believe me? Check out some of Konrath's.)

Now, such reviews might still be good to avoid, to avoid the appearance of dishonesty, but that's an entirely different matter.

Do you agree with me? Why or why not?

—Misti

*I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Claritin. I know some folks who've used it for years, and it's still working great for them. I mention it specifically because it's a well-known antihistamine medication, at least in my area.

Yes, You ARE That Stupid (and so am I)

Even if you haven't heard about the agent Pam van Hylckama's carjacking by a rejected wannabe client, you've doubtless heard of the ill-informed mob swarming to take down the perfectly legal LendInk, or some other incident that makes you wonder "How could they have been so stupid?!"

You might've even been one of those "stupid" people and are therefore now kicking yourself for that stupidity.

If you are—whether you're sniggering or embarrassed about the stupid—stop. Stop being embarrassed if you did something dumb, and stop sniggering at those who did something foolhardy.

Because every one of us is just as stupid.

Our individual types of "stupid" just show up in different areas.

I wasn't one of the fools who helped take down LendInk or who lashed out at those folks who helped take down LendInk…but you do not want me in an argument with someone who's upset and not saying what's really bothering them. It takes me far too long to catch on when someone's being roundabout or figurative, and I therefore am gasoline on their indignation.

Yet every so often I forget and try to jump in and diffuse a situation.

Since it's never worked, expect me to know better.

You have your own areas where you do something that you know—you know—is foolish.

And if you put any of us in an echo chamber about one of our "hot button" topics, we'll be just as likely to do something dumb…because all we're hearing is "This is okay, not stupid."

(By "echo chamber", I mean a place where you only hear one opinion about what's "right" to do or say, with any problems with that opinion and alternatives to that opinion being non-existent or squashed whenever they're brought up.)

For example, take KindleBoards. If you're a self-publisher, common advice there is to go exclusive with the Kindle Select program and to price low-low-low, get as many readers as possible, as fast as possible. While that model fits some folks' publication goals, it doesn't suit everyone.

But considering the overall tone and population in the Writer's Café on KindleBoards, a writer could easily be convinced to do something that goes against their goals—like, for example, giving their book away for free. And that website isn't an echo chamber.

Oh, KindleBoards sometimes sounds like one or acts like one, but it isn't a literal echo chamber. (Ah, on most topics, anyway.)

All of us have our hot buttons, topics that bypass our analysis and get us riled. Put us in an echo chamber that appeals directly to one of those hot buttons, and…

We'll be just as stupid as those featured in our favorite "I can't believe he did that!" stories.

Do you agree with me that everyone's that dumb? Do you have any "dumb" stories to share?

—Misti

Should Authors Blog or Not?

Should the modern-day author blog or not?

Though that seems like a straightforward question, it really isn't. Some say authors should be on every social media site possible, pimping their book out for sales—and, to be fair, trade-published authors often do have a limited amount of time to make the majority of their sales. Some say authors should just spend their time writing the next book, not worrying about marketing.

And some of us just shrug, pick a few social media techniques we enjoy, and work on our next stories. *twiddles thumbs*

That said, I've kept an eye on online media and publishing information and all that jazz for… well, at least 7 years. I've seen very few folks (other than John Locke in his much-debated How I Sold 1 Million Ebooks in 5 Months) say that blogging nets them a worthwhile number of sales for the time spent.

Even if I speak as a blog reader or commenter, I haven't actually bought many books by folks whose blogs I've read. I could count on my fingers the folks for whom appreciation for their blog (or helpful online presence) led to me buying books I wouldn't have otherwise. I'd need more than one hand, granted, but we're talking over 7 years' time, here.

So, since I know it's usually ineffective marketing, why do I blog?

Short answer: I enjoy it.

Long answer: I have a big mouth and like having a place where I can share what I know (or think) and folks can listen (or not) as they prefer. I'm the type of person who will be shopping for a cupcake, hear the person behind me cough, and offer them a horehound candy, after checking if they're allergic to corn, fish, or mint.

(Horehound candies make fantastic cough drops, by the way, and they don't close your throat up like menthol. And genetically modified corn has a fish gene in it, so corn and corn syrup can trigger some folks' fish allergies.)

Back on topic…

Should an author blog?

Before I answer this question, I have a definition to share, as well as a small confession.

copy

writing that seeks to trigger a particular action in the target reader

(That's why ad text is called ad copy.)

Blurbs are copy. Queries are copy. Blog posts meant to trigger a comment or a sale are copy.

And that is the difference between a blog that successfully leads to sales and one that… doesn't. Its copy.

Some blogs are all information, no copy. Some have little (or downright bad) copy. In fact, my guess is that most blogs neglect to actually encourage their readership to take the action that the blog owner wants them to take.

Now, here's a secret to effective copy: It manipulates the reader's emotions to make them want to act immediately.

That's why radio ads tend to yell at you. They want you to get caught up in the emotion, the panic, and to buy Now—now—now! before you stop and realize, "Hey, I don't really need a new car…"

On a less obnoxious note, that's why some blogs (like mine) ask 1+ questions at the bottom of the post. The questions encourage you, the reader, to come up with an answer and to go ahead and share your thoughts with that "Comment" button. That's technically manipulation.

(Yes, my "small confession" is that I'm technically manipulating you into leaving that comment. But it's a kinder, more encouraging type of manipulation. Like when you're trying to get that quiet friend of yours to contribute to the conversation so you're not holding a monologue.)

Copy that produces sales is harder to write, particularly for things that are commodities, not necessities. A manual on how to efficiently write an essay, a guide on self-editing, a gas furnace—each of those is needed by someone, somewhere. Put your sales copy in front of one such person, demonstrate that they can afford it—and need it—now, and viola! Sale made. Probably. And the buyer will even be happy that they spent that money.

A novel about a runaway slave girl who's trying to avoid triggering World War III or a paranoid royal bastard who's heiress to a prophecy?

Who on earth needs that?

Add the detail that the more obnoxious and obvious your marketing tactics, the less effective they'll likely be, and I decided before I even started this blog that I would seek to build informational discussions here, not sales. Sales would be nice, but they aren't my purpose with this blog.

Discussion, commentary is. And I'm happy for all you who join in and make that a success. ^_^

So.

Should an author have a blog?

Depends on what you think the blog will do for you.

If you write fiction and your goal is to earn a bunch of sales, no. The learning curves for writing effective blog copy (and attracting an audience for it) will probably overwhelm you. Don't blog, not unless your background is in marketing. (Which is, not coincidentally, John Locke's background. Which is why his techniques worked so well for him—he jumped in already knowing how to gather an audience and how to write effective copy.)

If you write non-fiction, or if you write fiction and want discussion rather than sales, go for it.

But bear in mind that you'll start out in obscurity. A 2% action rate is often considered good. Most blogs only get comments from 1–5% of visitors, just like most books only get reviews from about 1% of readers.

No, those numbers aren't typos.

Your first goal will have to be to increase your readership, so that your primary goal (be that discussion or sales) will be successful.

Notice that my own blog doesn't have all that many followers. (Yet.) Are there things I could do to raise those numbers? Sure. Could I do more SEO than I am already? Sure, even if search engine algorithms have gotten good enough that specific keyword phrasing doesn't matter as much as it used to.

But honestly, I had a hard time even convincing myself to put the questions on the bottom of my posts. Because it's manipulation. So I feel guilty about it.

Folks tell me I shouldn't feel guilty. I'm polite and don't pressure them.

But I do feel guilty.

And that is something else to bear in mind if you blog: Would (or does) it bother you to write copy?

If so, you might be better off not blogging. Depends on whether or not your blog's primary purpose is to trigger a response in readers.

Do you blog? If so, for what purpose? If not, why not?

…And now that you know these questions at the end of my posts are technically manipulation, are you upset with or mad at me? *looks worried*

—Misti

Darkness Too Visible?

The Wall Street Journal created a bit of an uproar this past weekend with its article "Darkness Too Visible". The article presumably laments how "dark" graphic topics and language are prominent in modern young adult fiction, and how parents who protest are accused of "banning" the books. (I'll explain that "presumably" in a minute.)

Folks like Josin L. McQuein and Pam van Hylckama Vlieg have posted rebuttals. Josin says that yes, topics are dark, and they well should be—only by putting the darkness under the spotlight will we actually be able to drive it back. Pam says that she wishes she had such dark YA available when she was a young adult, because then she would've known she wasn't alone.

The #yasaves hashtag on Twitter is filled with people who agree that the "dark" fiction has benefits. People also point out that the WSJ article might be an intentional attention grab, because it ignores the many "light" YA titles that are widely available.

I find myself in my usual middleman position. I actually find myself agreeing with everyone, here.

How is this possible? Because the two sides are talking about two different things. The WSJ doesn't do a good job of making the actual crux of the issue obvious, burying it under extremist comments, which is what's produced the wildfire response.

The crux of the issue: Some people find "dark" fiction useful, and others don't want to read it or to have their kids scarred by it.

Sure, some kids can handle it. But some can't. (Yet.)

I don't care for graphic language or sexuality, but I like dark topics. But I've had a fairly "light" home life. When I was 12, I had less exposure to objectionable language and sex scenes than was contained some PG-13 movies. I'm a visual learner, particularly from typed monochromatic words, meaning what I read impacts my memory. Reading graphic YA fiction wasn't educational for me—it was scarring. I talk to myself, and one day I caught myself muttering a curse.

I don't curse. I had to go cold turkey on reading anything that looked like it would have objectionable language to get the word out of my head. Which leads to another complaint that was in the WSJ article: finding "clean" YA fiction is hard.

Oh, sure, there are titles to find. But how on earth do you find them? Books don't exactly come with advisories. More than once, I've read a book and been startled about halfway through when some foul-mouthed character enters the scene. It makes me feel cheated, because the first half of the book is false advertising for the rest.

These days, "dark" is what's chic, so "dark" is what's before our faces. People remember negatives better than they do positives, and "dark" is a negative for some people. That means they remember the "dark" books they see better than they do the "light" ones.

Yes, "dark" fiction is a good thing. Yes, "light" fiction is also a good thing. And yes, "light" fiction, though it exists, is a bit hard to find at the moment.

—Misti

• "Darkness Too Visible" - Wall Street Journal
• "Darkness Too Visible" - Josin L. McQuein
• "TMI – YA Saves" - Pam van Hylckama Vlieg
• #yasaves

Disinformation and Publishing

Yes, that's "Disinformation and Publishing", not or. First, let's define some terms in Carradee-speak, so we're on the same page.

disinformation: false information intended to mislead
propaganda: biased information intended to mislead
misinformation: false information

Name a topic, and you can find misinformation about it, which some people use as disinformation. In my opinion, someone who spreads misinformation is only spreading disinformation if they know full well that the information is false.

So. An author writes a novel and intentionally posits it as a memoir? Disinformation.

An author who thinks that their Amazon ranking of #500,000 refers to how many copies have sold? Misinformation. (For the record, I've not seen anyone claim this, but I've heard it happens.)

For a non-publishing example, at my most recent surgery, I told the surgeon point blank "Do not give me Lortab; I'm allergic to Lortab due to the Tylenol in it, but I'm fine with hydrocodone."—an attending nurse even reminded him when he wrote the order—and what did I get?

Lortab.

And after that ensued other screw-ups, like me being ignored when I pointed to my surgery cut and said "Doesn't this look infected?" (It was.) But I know another nurse who's worked with that surgeon, and according to her, he does a fantastic job in surgery. Do I think she's lying or even spreading disinformation when she says that? No. Maybe the guy's a whiz in surgery but absentminded otherwise. Maybe he was distracted because his mother was dying. (Not saying that his mother was dying—the point is, I don't know.)

But in publishing discussions, particularly of late, I've been seeing some folks be downright dismissive of those on the other side of the fence, saying they're unreliable, untrustworthy, spouting nonsense, etc.

That dismissive attitude worries me.

When you have a strong opinion, it's easy to think that anyone and everyone with the opposing opinion, spouting examples from their own experience that you've never yourself experienced, is spreading disinformation.

Yes, your experience might be vast, but does that really mean that someone else (who might also have a ton of experience in the industry) is unreliable because their experiences differ from yours?

When your experience is vast or long in an industry—or even a hobby—it's easy to get defensive. You don't realize things are changing, or implications of things you are seeing. You don't want to. You may not even be able to see what's happening, because that takes an ability to innovate, to see beyond the framework that currently defines your industry or hobby. (ETA: It's also easy to see changes and leap on them and go all doomsday.)

The last day job I had was for a few months in retail. I noticed that sales were remarkably slow. I wondered if sales were slower than usual—because from my extremely rough estimates of how much we were earning versus probable expenses, they couldn't afford to keep me. I noticed that a good week or two before I got laid off.

That isn't the first time I've noticed warning signs, either, though I usually can't tell you what, exactly, cued me in.

I don't think I'm particularly observant. Seriously, I tend to not notice that a bookcase is dusty unless I stop and think to check. But I'm willing to see things I don't want to acknowledge.

I have several in-person friends who read voraciously. None had heard of Amanda Hocking before I told them about her. Only two of them have ever read an e-book that I'm aware of (other than mine). None have e-readers. Yes, this is an entirely non-scientific sampling, but it's my experience. (It tells me that anybody who only e-publishes is missing out on a probably sizeable percent of the market.)

I've seen short story markets with contracts that end up taking more rights than a casual reader might realize. (Which makes me pay attention when certain bloggers give alerts about particular clauses they're finding in novel contracts—and I do mean more bloggers than Kristine Kathryn Rusch.)

I've seen the claims that a favorite author's novels aren't selling, when I've encountered many, many readers who tell me the books are exactly what they want to read—but they never knew about them because the publisher marketed the books as the wrong genre. (Which tells me that publishers' marketing methods don't suit certain types of stories.)

I've seen agents express confusion over how publishing clients' backlists for them with a 50/50 split could be a conflict of interest. (Which tells me those particular agents are either liars or not very business savvy, which gives me concern for the authors relying on those agents for business advice.)

Yes, I'm young. Yes, I'm a self-published author. I'm sure some readers will take those details as justifications to dismiss my point.

But I've been a freelancer for longer than you probably expect, if you know my age. I've been a proofreader/copyeditor for a newsletter company (which closed, by the way), which reinforced what I already knew about the workload publishers handle in editing, copyediting, proofreading, layout, graphics, customer satisfaction, etc.

I have my own experiences, just like the rest of you. My specific experiences differ from yours, and the conclusions I've drawn may differ from yours. My conclusions even draw on more experiences than my own. (Do you really need to personally see what would happen if you added cream to sweet tea with lemon, or can you trust my experience when I say the cream will curdle? …I'd forgotten I'd put lemon in the tea, okay?)

That difference in experience does not make either of our viewpoints disinformation. Propaganda, maybe, if we're claiming our experiences match everyone's, but not disinformation.

Can we stop the dismissive attitude, folks? Because if we keep the "So-and-so's experience is illegitimate" mindset, I have a feeling the real nastiness is yet to come.

—Misti

Negativity: Only Hurts You

Roni Lauren had a post today on writers judging other writers.

I once was one of those kids who complained about her little brother all the time. I decided as a teenager that, whenever I caught myself complaining, I'd force myself to say something good about him. I'd noticed even then that people notice and remember negatives better than positives.

It was hard. At first, I actually had to pause the conversation while I searched for something nice to say. I'd come up with things like "He can be helpful, sometimes, when he isn't more interested in teasing me." But the more I forced myself to practice this, the easier it became, and the more good things I noticed about my brother, and the less often I found myself complaining about him.

Over the years, other things have popped up that I've caught myself complaining about, though my friends are usually the ones who get those earfuls, and evidently I must be an interesting ranter or something because they actually encourage me and say I have reason for venting when I realize what I'm doing and apologize.

Negatives are easier to see than positives, unless you're biased towards a work (Ooo! UF w/ unreliable narrator!), in which case it can be easy to skip the negatives. My friends know that they'd better have time if they ask me about a story, because I often discuss a book or series for a half hour or more, naming specific good and bad things about them.

Take Stephenie Meyer. I actually respect her. Did I find her Twilight series incredibly melodramatic? Yep. But I read it through a veil of irony and thereby enjoyed it. After reading book 1 and the excerpt of book 2, I remember thinking: "Edward's personality so far would make him leave Bella to keep her safe, but that would make readers mad. I wonder what she'll do instead."

Upon reading book 2, I was actually shocked that she followed Edward's personality to the logical conclusion. Stephenie Meyer wrote precisely the story she wanted to tell, even when she knew some readers would be unhappy with her. (Breaking Dawn's anti-climactic climax, for example.)

Look, there are reasons for the bestseller lists. Okay, maybe author ABC is clichéd, and ZXY's sentence structure does resemble an academic paper [speaking of which, US or UK? Academic papers have different standards and appropriate writing styles between countries]. But instead of ranting and raving about why you can't get published when you have "perfect" grammar and sentence structure [yeah, 'cause that's possible], evaluate what those bestsellers are doing right.

Because they are doing something right. Otherwise, nobody would be wanting to read what they're selling.

Focus on those somethings. You might actually learn something that helps you write better.

Besides, do you really want to insult potential fans by dissing their favorite books?

What are your thoughts?

—Misti