This Is Why Many Pro Authors Don't Re-Read Their Work (plus some news)

The audio edition of A Fistful of Fire is in progress. I'm hearing every awkward sentence, every this-would've-been-clearer-with-a-transition spot. I'm noticing anew all the "problem" areas—some of which were done on purpose to fit the overall story and narrator.

I suspect I'll be one of those authors like Kathy Tyers, who has gone back and revised some of her early novels. Now, she waited a decade before doing so, and one of the reasons she revised was to strengthen the Christian themes. (Original publisher was mainstream; second publisher was Christian.) But still—she's one clear example of someone who has two editions published for more than one book. (I own, er, all the originals, some signed. I used to have all the revisions, too, but I gave one away and haven't yet replaced it.)

I'll probably wait at least a few more years before I attempt such a revision myself, though. (One thing I do want to do is a third person, past tense edition of the series. I started the conversion for fun, and it's interesting how it changes the entire feel.) Even if I do that, though, I'll leave the earlier editions available in some fashion, for those readers who prefer the original over whatever I change. (S.J. Maas? If you read this, when you get your rights back to Queen of Glass, please release an edition of the original that was taken from FictionPress. I know the plot wasn't as tight and there were problems with it, but I actually liked it better.)

So while my fingers are twitching and my inner editor is wailing, "That's wrong!", I'm firmly reminding myself that it's exactly what I wanted it to be. (Well, except for the handful of typos we've found.) And for my first released novel to be precisely what I wanted it to be—that's something that wouldn't have been possible, if not for God's blessing on my writing and friends who critiqued it, and if not for self-publishing getting viable before I finished it, because there are reasons to avoid doing what I did. Good reasons.

And that was part of why I did those things to begin with. I wanted a story with a fairly passive narrator, for instance.

But that doesn't stop me from cringing when I read those things, now, because they aren't what I "should" have done. Or they could've been done better. Or differently, which can seem "better" when you're just looking at what's on the page.

Ah, the joys of being an ever-learning writer. ^_^

I've been working on that Realities of Self-Editing e-book, and I'm torn between the urge to expand it, making each section clearer and more applicable to both fiction and non-fiction, and the urge to just focus on clarity fixes and not worry about the rest. I'm trying to do the former, but I'm almost always tired, these days, and I keep catching myself doing the latter.

(I have an appointment for later this morning with a practicioner of integrative medicine who should at least be able to identify what's causing my myriad of health issues. [She's helped at least two people I know, and she's currently helping my mother.] The list of what could be causing my symptoms is as long as my arm, and there's probably more than one factor involved, but I'm not sick enough for conventional medicine to do anything but start me on the cover-the-symptom funnel of medication. I've started one, which is helping one thing and possibly another, but it seems to be making something else worse, so I'm…hoping I can find an alternative.)

On the bright side, God's been blessing me with a clear mind, regardless of how my body's feeling—and I know from prior experience with some of these symptoms that this should not be the case—so that's good. (Never fear, clients and fans: You're still getting my full quality work. I'm just not working for as long in a day because I'm sleeping more.)

But I'm still getting a nice amount done. My e-mail sign-up form for my fiction releases is all nice and pretty and set up…and still not embeddable due to something in the auto-setup that I've not yet figured out how to hack. (The embedded form is too narrow and cuts off text. So I'm working on that.)

In the meantime, my testing has shown it to work perfectly fine, and I've set it up so you can sign up for updates on everything or on specific names/genres. First e-mail is almost ready to go out. (And I'm probably going to send it out before I feel as if it's "ready", because I probably won't ever feel "ready", since I've never actually run an e-mail list before. Though I've known for years that I should.)

Finding that balance between too much caution and too little of it—it's far easier said than done.

Do you like it or dislike it when an author revises an old work? What do you think of revising your own already-released work?

—Misti

On Discoverability and Its Catch-22

First, if any of my many new followers over on Wattpad are over here, welcome!

Second, if you are here, mind letting me know how you found my story? Was it on the auto-recommend engine, in some other part of the site, on some 3rd party site…?

Asking because I've I was fairly steady at around 20 follows per day… and suddenly skyrocketed to 200 followers in one day and have now been getting a good 500 new followers on Wattpad per day for a solid week. And at least a few hundred readers, if my "read" stats are any indicator. (The story only has 9 "parts" on the site… And I've gotten over 200 new followers since I went to bed last night. O.O)

Now, I'm downright elated that so many people who enjoy my work are finding me. (And, as a reformed presbyterian, I'm thanking God for His Providence.) I'm admittedly a bit boggled by the abruptness and the volume—and I'm unsure how, precisely, they're finding me—but that's fine. I'll probably never know, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I didn't advertise anything. I can't find any linkbait mention of my Wattpad page or any such thing. (And I've checked with backlink search engines.) Therefore, I can only assume that Wattpad's internal referral engine has kicked in.

That in-site recommendation is a form of self-propagating word of mouth. That's the point that most authors want to hit for their websites or novels, whereever their works are located. That's why some authors desperately spam "Buy my novel! Buy my novel!" on social media—or, if they have the funds, buy a bunch of their own books—to kick their books' placement in the rankings so it can get noticed in a way that'll hopefully linger.

It's the Catch-22 of life. You have to be noticed to get noticed.

Just think of those authors, actors, and artists who suddenly get popularized in the media. Usually, those folks have been building their audience for far longer than even the general populace who's just discovered them gives them credit for.

For example, when the Dutch band Within Tempation had their first official release in the US, some folks scoffed that they were Evanescence knock-offs…even though that wasn't the case. Technically, Within Temptation was formed a year after Evanescence…but they were the first to release an album.

Within Temptation also had their first major hit—Mother Earth, released in 2000—a few years before Evanescence released Fallen. Those are, in my opinion the most similar albums between the two bands, so if anyone ripped off anyone, it would've been Evanescence. (But there are enough differences—and each band has enough relatives on its respective continents—that I suspect the sort-of concurrent development was coincidental.)

The sort-of comparable Finnish band Nightwish formed the same year Within Tempation did. They just were faster about getting albums out and getting on national charts before Within Temptation did. (And, as someone who listens to that genre of music, more folks seem to know who Nightwish is than who know who Within Temptation is.)

Each band had to be "discovered" in its respective country before its audience could grow to the point that it reached the other band's territories…which made people in those other countries wrongfully assume that the native band necessarily came first.

Er, I may be just a bit annoyed when people ridicule others using bad information that could easily be corrected with a basic glance at Wikipedia. ^_^

You have to be noticed to get noticed.

The same principle applies if you're seeking a promotion or raise at your job, actually. That means doing something worth getting noticed and, often, drawing attention to what you do. (I suspect that's part of why men tend to get higher pay than women. Men are more likely to say, "Hey, when do I get a raise?" Another reason would be the detail that women often have career interruptions in the form of childbearing and childrearing, meaning their priorities can be on negotiating schedule rather than money—but I'm meandering*.)

*I'm actually not ADD. I just have an ADD mother and ADHD brother, so I've grown up with ADD-style communication being normal and non-ADD-style being…abnormal. You could argue that my mind's actually been trained to jump topics. Speaking of which—pardon me a moment, my cat's giving the "Belly rub?" meow—and since she's asking politely, it's best to reward that. (An tap and a single lick on my arm, plus a "request" tone to the meow. Much preferable over when she gets ticked off at the other cat and will only accept attention from me, because she gets demanding and can bear a grudge for a week. To be fair, the other cat does give her reason to be ticked off.)

Okay. Back on topic…

The thing about discoverability… It can only happen if there's something to be discovered.

On Wattpad, I have a public, clearly announced posting schedule: at least one scene in a first draft, every Friday (although I admittedly missed one when ill). That gives people who like my writing a reason to follow me.

I also have multiple stories available on the site, which gives the readers who like my writing a sufficient taste of it to probably—hopefully—remember me well enough so they'll see my name and think "Ooo! New story!" rather than "Man, I wish I could remember who wrote that book I liked with the purple flame…"

My only non-Aleyi story on Wattpad right now is Thrice Uncharmed, because it was my first "First Draft Fridays" project. But it's been reduced to the blurb and a "What happened to this story?" page, because it's contracted to a small press and currently for sale on Amazon (e-book = $1.99).

Aleyi has always been my "Let's try this free fiction thing…" world. I suspect it isn't a coincidence that it also has the most sales, though my sales are also low enough that the in-site discoverability hasn't fully kicked in, so far as I can tell.

Interestingly, posting on Wattpad seems to have started helping sales after I began posting book #2. (Thanks if you've bought any copies of my work, by the way. And please don't feel bad if you haven't or can't. I intentionally participate in the "complete free fiction" style of marketing because I mostly grew up in the "Can't afford to buy even used books" bracket. That isn't hyperbole.)

But my current situation on Wattpad illustrates something about discoverability: You can't force it.

Oh, you can try to. You might even succeed for a time. But any attempts to game the system won't necessarily work…

And any discoverability you do earn won't necessarily last.

Some authors' response to that is to constantly be in promo mode, in the mode of "They can't buy it if they don't know it exists" and the rule of seven (which are true, but constant marketing isn't necessarily the only or most effective method to do so with the time input).

Some don't fret over it at all and focus on just getting the next book out, in the mode of "If you build it, they will come" (which isn't exactly true, but if you build your covers and blurbs and categories and keywords properly, search engines—vendors' and online—should enable your book to be found, though word of mouth will probably take time to build).

Personally, I dabble with some promo things—technically, the Wattpad thing is one—but I don't fret over it. And I recently had a short story in the KDP Select program for a 3-month stint, the success of which was debatable. (And the continuing influence of which seems to be non-existent, though I do have three reviews on that story…two by folks who obviously don't read the genre, so I have revamping the cover on my eventual to-do list.)

You could argue that I therefore have a foot in both worlds and am therefore shooting myself in both feet—not spending enough time on promo, not spending enough time on writing.

Well, I'm primarily a freelancer, so that's where the majority of my time goes: Taking care of clients. What I do after that depends on what mode I'm left in after taking care of them.

There is a reason I tend to play with cover design in batches. I find it something to do that provides some stimulation without requiring too much concentration. I find it, like sudoku, a pleasant way to unwind and get out of critical-editor mode when I'm having trouble pulling out of it. (Yes, I'm one of those people.)

Actually, I tend to do everything in batches. Read a novel—I'll read two or three in a day, or one every night for a few days, then none for a few. Experiment in the kitchen—I'll test three different recipes, make plans to improve them, then not get around to trying again for a few weeks. Write a story—I might write 3k words on a short story in my spare time on a day, then forget* about it for months. (*Okay, so I've not forgotten about that one yet, but considering it's a Wool fanfic and I need to read the rest of the series to finalize it, I probably will by the time I get to doing that.)

That's actually one reason I started the "First Draft Fridays" thing over on Wattpad. It forces me to actually work on a particular story until it's done—something I have far too little practice doing, because I was completely undisciplined for the first years I spent writing, starting maybe twenty stories for every one I finished. I'm still fighting the aftereffects of that bad habit.

But another reason I run those First Draft Fridays is discoverability. It gives me an update schedule for putting consistent content up there, in a form that encourages reader input. It's effectively a method of promotion that suits both Wattpad and me, intended to take advantage of the visibility boost I gained from being featured by the staff over there.

And, judging from my recent uptick in traffic on that site, it seems to be working—for Wattpad.

Will it last? Maybe, maybe not.

Will it lead to discoverability on other sites? Maybe, maybe not.

Even when time reveals the answer for my own work, that'll still be too small a sample size to judge if my experiences are consistent with or contrary to the norm—and the Internet changes so fast anyway that any adequate data compilation and analysis would probably be out of date about as soon as it was published, anyway.

Ergo, why I don't fret over it. (It helps to be Christian who believes God's the one who causes things to fall into place or not. Things always end up so much better when I'm relying on Him rather than on myself.)

Speaking of Christian fantasy writers, did you know Robin McKinley converted to Christianity? I just poked in her blog this week and found out because the post I read mentioned her recent conversion, which led me to track down the post wherein she actually talks about it.

What do you think of discoverability and its Catch-22? Do you think active marketing a necessity for the average person to be discovered?

—Misti

On Writing Techniques, Motivation, and Context

Dialogue, setting, action, POV internals (motivations, thoughts, feelings, internal reactions, etc.), and character externals (body language, tone of voice, scent, external reactions, etc.)—all provide context to the reader. That context and how you use it will affect the resulting story.

Now, it's possible to skew a story in one direction or another. It's possible to write an all-dialogue story, for example, or all-setting and action, no internalization. But any such story will be missing part of the context, so it'll rely on the reader to supply the missing context.

For the readers who follow what the author intends, such an intentionally incomplete story can be powerful. But… specific actions don't necessarily indicate particular emotions. Particular situations also don't necessarily result in particular emotive responses.

Different people react differently in the same situation, or have different expressions of the same emotions. When I'm confused, my tone automatically gets sharp (unintentionally so). Someone else, for example, might get quiet and puzzle over it or might talk loudly over anyone who tries to explain.

So when authors omit some aspect of the context, they do so at the expense of the readers who either lack that context or who apply a different context.

Case in point: Book #2 in the Kate Daniels series (Magic Burns) has a particular scene from the first person narrator's perspective that they redid as a side release from the MMC's perspective, which gave another view. Turns out that the way the narrator acts when frustrated and about to cry is how I act when annoyed and holding back my temper, so I completely misread the mood of that scene when I read the novel (which made things a bit confusing)—and that was book 2 in the series, so I already had some pre-existing knowledge of the character. That knowledge was just insufficient to suffice as emotional telepathy to catch the character's emotions.

Now, every style will lose readers.

So the author needs to focus on "What fits my story?" and to go from there. Some readers accept everything that works for them. Some insist that some particular balance (or lack thereof) is the definition of "good writing"—and then the definition of "What is balance?" can depend on the reader.

But… there are limitations in that.

You can't just have all the characters say their motives outright, for example. First, more than half of communication is non-verbal. (Some estimates say it's 80%.)

Second, characters will have intentions, motivations, speech, and actions, which might not all line up. ("Oh, I shouldn't eat that cake" [speech], as your hand reaches for it [action], though you don't intend to [intention] and you're trying to lose weight [motivation].) Characters will have thoughts and reactions, internal and external, to what's around them and what they're thinking.

Third, some characters will lie, in speech or body language, and different characters will have different reactions to the same emotions, actions, situations, etc.

Fourth, narrators have five senses plus preconceptions, through which they perceive the world, which influences how things are conveyed. What actually happens does not necessarily equal what the narrator interprets, and if the author phrases such events properly, the reader will be able to pick up on such disconnects, if they're so inclined.

Example: If you've read A Fistful of Fire (AFoF) and A Fistful of Earth (AFoE)—both of which can be found on Wattpad—you know that Lallie as seen by Evonalé isn't the same as Lallie as seen by herself. If you read AFoF after having read AFoE, you might notice some things in Lallie's behavior that Evonalé doesn't understand the significance of. (For example, Lallie's major life-changing event, from which she's still suffering in AFoE, happened shortly before one scene in AFoF, which shows in how Lallie acts in that scene and in following ones.)

Those things can all be used to great effect without a drop of dialogue. But skewing something too much in any one direction—too much dialogue, too much internal thought, too much description, too much scent—will weaken your writing, unless that skewing particularly fits a particular situation/character/narrator/story.

For example, a musician narrator might pay more attention to sound than a seamstress narrator, who might pay attention to clothing—cuts, fabrics, colors, fit, etc. Ernest Hemingway is known for dialogue-heavy stories, which his fans love and find incredibly powerful, but others find confusing.

The key is to keep your goals in mind, as well as the limitations of what you're doing. The POV, tone, style, and intended audience will all affect the resultant proportion of dialogue to internalization, of setting to action. (Note that most conventional POVs in modern writing require the reader to be able to follow the narrator's thought processes—you can actually get away with a narrator who does the stupidest or cruellest things, as long as you can get the reader to understand the character's perspective, even if they disagree with it.)

If you write good dialogue, you can sometimes omit speech tags because the reader will be able to recognize who's speaking and will know the character well enough to know their mood. But even in that case, the dialogue and setting aren't what set the emotion—the reader's prior understanding of the character(s) is. I found Franny Billingsley's Chime a fantastic example of that, though the novel is probably best appreciated by fans of Robin McKinley.

But if you attempt some of those techniques like an all-dialogue story, and a beta reader comments, "Um, I have no clue in which tone of voice this was said," that is true for the reader. You might not see how it could be said in any way other than the one you intend—but, obviously, it can, so your options are to adjust it to make the mood clear, or to check with another reader to see if that the commenter was just outside your intended readership.

Anything can be said in any tone of voice or intention. Even something like "That dress does make you look fat" could be said cruelly, thoughtfully, absentmindedly, helpfully, etc.

Action and dialogue tags are tools, just as dialogue and setting are themselves tools. Each tool performs its own tasks, and each tool can be used, overused, or misused/abused. You can sometimes get by using one tool to substitute for another—but again, it's not the same.

To demonstrate, here's an all-dialogue situation:

"I said, I'm hungry."

"Just a minute."

"Not a minute. Now."

"I need to finish this e-mail in the next ten minutes. After that, I'll—"

"Now!"

The complaining party could be whining or threatening. The other party could be annoyed or scared. Speech doesn't tell you. Setting wouldn't, either. Action might help, but people act differently in the same situations, so it wouldn't be certain. An author could use those tools to convey emotion, but then the writing would only make sense to people who react the selfsame way in those moods. You'd lose readers who respond differently.

See, when you don't give the motivations (or other details), the reader makes assumptions, when they can. (Sometimes, they're just bewildered.) But a reader who makes assumptions is fine with your story only if those assumptions fit. If those reader-assigned motivations/emotions/etc. end up not fitting as the story continues, you'll lose many of those readers, because your characters are seeming inconsistent, even though they may actually only be misinterpreted.

Now, let's add a bit of action (which puts us into Sylvia's POV):

He tapped her on the shoulder. "I said, I'm hungry."

She pursed her lips and kept typing. "Just a minute."

His scowl reflected in her too-old monitor. "Not a minute. Now."

She frowned. "I need to finish this e-mail in the next ten minutes. After that, I'll—"

He yanked the arm of her rolling office chair. "Now!"

That gives a little more of the situation—he's probably angry; she's probably annoyed or at least isn't acting as if she feels threatened.

Now, let's try again, defining the characters a bit more—and adding some motivations.

Her eight-year-old son tapped her on the shoulder. "I said, I'm hungry."

The doctor'd told Mick to stop going on tiptoe, if he ever wanted his toes to stop breaking—though the boy would break them against the tub, when he wanted sympathy. Sylvia pursed her lips and kept typing. "Just a minute."

Mick's scowl reflected in her too-old monitor. "Not a minute. Now."

She frowned, managing not to shiver, not to let him know he was getting to her. "I need to finish this e-mail in the next ten minutes. After that, I'll—"

He yanked the arm of her rolling office chair. "Now!"

Or how about this?

Joe tapped her on the shoulder. "I said, I'm hungry."

Cy pursed her lips and kept typing, wishing her boyfriend could make his own lunch, for once. "Just a minute."

Joe's scowl reflected in her too-old monitor. "Not a minute. Now."

She frowned, tired of his attitude. He was one tantrum from being kicked to the curb, and she wasn't about to warn him. "I need to finish this e-mail in the next ten minutes. After that, I'll—"

He yanked the arm of her rolling office chair. "Now!"

The dialogue and action are completely the same, but for who the characters are to each other. The major difference? The motivation.

As a line editor, I sometimes have clients who attempt to rely entirely on dialogue and setting and therefore are entirely unclear about emotions, motivations, intentions, etc. that the POV would know and the reader should therefore understand.

Now, I am female. I've noticed, as an editor, that while both male and female authors can have trouble getting motivation on the page, females are more likely to equate thoughts or emotions with motivation, and males are more likely to equate action or setting with motivation. That internal/external distinction actually fits some psychology delineations.

As an author, I tend to write very "close" first person, which has interesting effects with narrators like the aforementioned Evonalé and Lallie. Both of them could be in the selfsame situation and pull completely different details and tones out of it. (Someday, I may write an Aleyi short story with multiple narrators that shows an event from different points of view.)

I mention that to point out that there's an extent to which all techniques are ambiguous. Some are just more so than others—and the extent to which each one is ambiguous depends on what you're going for.

Generally speaking, authors of genre novels want a balance among the different features of a scene, to provide sufficent context to be comprehended by as wide an audience as possible. That balance may look different between two different authors, and it may even look different between two different stories by the same author.

That's fine.

But the various ways to balance motivation and the other things = techniques, not definitions of "good writing". If you're going to skew that balance one way or another, at least be aware of the context you're sacrificing to do so.

What are your thoughts on motivation and the (in)ability of dialogue and action to convey it?

—Misti

How the Wattpad Thing's Going

In case you don't know, Wattpad is a site for people to blog their stories…sort of. You can use it like that, or you can post things all at once for free samples and all.

Now, there are some downsides. You can't monetize or advertise your stories on Wattpad, though you can theoretically get permission to do so. They seem pretty reasonable about that kind of thing—for example, self-publishers post links to where you can find the story for sale, if you want it, as a matter of course, and they (as of this writing) don't mind.

How do I know they don't mind? A Fistful of Fire has been featured there since 5/30 (as I mentioned in my June news post). I don't know how Wattpad determines what to feature (other than I went to them with a complete work and blurb and asked "Hey, are you interested in featuring this?"). You can recommend titles to be featured.

Hmm… *wanders off to recommend a title…*

This is the weird thing about Wattpad: I can't find the blog post wherein I first heard about the possibility of getting featured. I also can't find the e-mails I received from Wattpad staff about it. (I've lost them before, and I remember being puzzled about why they didn't show up when I searched. This time around, I've searched [again] through my e-mail. No dice.) ((Watch them be right in front of my face, once I do find them again, eh?))

I know it was a mention on David Gaughran's blog post that brought it to my attention. This couldn't have been it, though, because I made my initial contact a few months before that. Judging from the dates, it could have been this post.

Which would explain the "It is?" responses I get when I say it's possible to recommend your own titles to be featured on Wattpad. Because nobody's posted a walkthrough, that I can find.

But in any event, A Fistful of Fire got featured there at the end of last month. I sought featuring with the goal of reaching readers, and that's working. I might hit 21k reads by the time I hit "Publish" on this post. (Admittedly, each "chapter" counts as a separate read, but there are only 10 sections on that title there. So once I account for those who stop partway through or who come back to re-read something, I've probably gotten over 2k reads in the past month.

Wattpad seems to reconsider their "featured" list every two weeks or so, at which point they might leave you there or bump you down or off. I actually moved up on the list. (Per one of my friends who's been watching the featured listing longer than I have, Amanda Hocking has been on there for months.)

I'm also using the site to host my "First Draft Fridays", wherein I post at least a scene in a specific WiP every Friday until the first draft is completed. That's succeeding, too.

So Wattpad's working great for me.

That said, I can't unequivically recommend it, because there are reasons to not blog your novel. It can also be difficult to build traction on the site, unless you can get featured or have a fan base elsewhere.

But as for me, I'm pleased with how things are going over there.

What do you think of Wattpad? Do you have a method you prefer for your own writing to reach readers, or for you (as a reader) to reach writers? Do you have any opinions to share on the way I'm using Wattpad?

—Misti

Sexism and Stereotyping in Entertainment

Sexism exists.

It's understandable, really. People in general tend to stereotype groups we don't understand, and our culture's common segregation of ages and genders ("Go play with the children of your same gender!"), many people have no opportunity to come to understand the other gender.

That's assuming they even want to. Some people don't care to understand others' perspectives. (Personally, I think that's a side effect of our culture's worship of self—"All that matters is what I want"—but that's a rabbit trail I don't need to go down today.)

In that sense, sexism is a side effect of stereotyping. I once had a (male) employer give me a hard time because I don't multitask well, and women are supposed to be better at that than men.

I am a young(-looking) childless female. At one point or another, I have been belittled or treated dismissively for each of those things.

Now, I don't think that everyone who's dismissive of someone else is conscious of that stereotyping. My own father was genuinely bewildered when others pointed out that he has a hard time taking women seriously. He's working on it.

(Of course, in the meantime, my brother has learned that attitude. He's not intentionally malicious about it, but I'm praying it doesn't take poisoning me with something I am allergic to for him to realize I'm not a hypochondriac. My experience has been that once someone thinks you a hypochondriac, they have to learn otherwise the hard way. Which is far more unpleasant for me than it is for them.)

I've had clients assume that, when I questioned something in their text, it was because I was too young to get the reference, when in actuality I understood the reference but was indicating a missing transition or relevance to connect it to the surrounding text. Or that my comments on how children speak and behave are dismissed because I have none of my own, though I know (and regularly converse with) many. (Children are far, far smarter than they're usually given credit for, and most love when you give them credit for brains.)

You may have heard about Chuck Wendig's post, the recent SFWA brouhaha, the less-recent incident wherein an author grabbed a woman's breast during an awards ceremony and the audience laughed…

Yes, that's terrible. No, that shouldn't happen. But there's both misogyny and misandry in the entertainment world.

Consider the general objectification of people by stereotype. Women are often described by how attractive they are, and they're often specified by gender. Even Hollywood "plain" is pretty, more so for women than men. Father figures are usually soft, bumbling, and unobservant, while the mothers wear the pants and keep the family running. If the movie features children and parents, the parents will be idiots whom the children have to deal with, but if the movie features younger adults and older ones, whichever one who isn't the movie's intended audience will be an idiot. In romantic novels, the men are usually obscenely handsome and not infrequently are deemed "loving" when they cater to everything the woman wants.

Okay, I get that a good amount of fiction is wish fulfillment, but some of the critiques I've seen of Twilight call Edward abusive because he had actual desires of his own that Bella had to accept in order to have a relationship with him. So Bella should've had everything she wanted, while Edward should've had nothing he wanted. Am I the only one who finds that creepy?

Consider the movie Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I enjoyed that movie, but it featured the over-the-top and not-that-smart guy (who kept screwing everything up), the precise and intelligent girl (who was way better than the guy at…everything). And as far as I remember, all the guys and girls were similarly delineated. All of them. Which was what bothered me. Why can't a story feature guys and girls who are equally competent, even if they go about it in different ways?

In the workforce, it's well documented that women tend to earn less for the same jobs. While some of that is likely from some men who refuse to accept women as competent—which I've seen and experienced—I suspect some of that's because we're less likely to ask for raises. Also, I've observed that we're more likely to have someone try to play our empathy, to get us to put up with things a guy would be more likely to ditch.

Note that I do say "more likely". Anybody can be maniplated. But women in general are more prone to getting caught up in emotions.

Interestingly, from my experience as an editor, women in general also tend to have a different writing style than men. Women are more likely to need the editorial pen cut redundant emotions and add the completion of actions. Men are more likely to need help making sure sufficient character emotions are on the page to supplement character motivation.

Of course, there are exceptions. But the answer to a man's action-heavy or a woman's emotion-heavy narrative isn't to make them sound like the other gender or even to make them sound genderless. It's to ensure that the reader can understand what's going on and why. Beyond that, there are different levels of detail about character intention, motivation, action, and speech. Different authors and different stories will focus on different things. That's part of what gives writers their styles.

What does this have to do with sexism and stereotyping in entertainment?

Writers need to write about a variety of people, at least some of whom should differ from the author. It's far easier to write to a stereotype than to try to comprehend someone who's completely different than you. But a person's comprehension of others is limited by their own experience, practice, and interest in dowing so. When writers try to avoid stereotypes but they think the other gender might as well be aliens to them, their characters all tend to sound like…the author's own gender.

Is there something wrong with having a empathic male or action-oriented female? Not at all. The problem comes when all your characters act one way or another.

I believe my own casts tend to be heavy on the females. That's not intentional, but it's a side effect of my own gender and my narrators being female, in situations wherein they'll probably associate most with their own gender. I do my best, though, to display a spread of characters, with their own strengths and weaknesses and competence. Evonalé is not Lallie. Aidan is not Aldrik or Liathen.

I like to think I did okay with conveying realistic characters, but that's readers' call. All I can do is stop and consider my writing, every so often, to make sure that I'm not reverting to stereotypes. That's all any writer can do. We're only human.

What do you think of sexism and stereotyping in entertainment? Do you have any examples to share or discuss?

—Misti

Is "Hackwork" Necessarily "Hack Writing"?

Lately, I've been seeing another round of the "Don't just write what sells—it'll show!" vs. "If I write what sells, I can then have an income while I write my ideal genres…" Folks against it insist it'll show in the quality, that it'll necessarily be hack writing—an assumption that folks for it tend to be puzzled by.

But before we can get into that, we have to address…

What is "hack writing"?

Writers (and some readers) tend to have strong opinions on this question. Those who write from the heart are deemed artists, while those who write for the money are called hacks…. If you intentionally focus on a specific market or series that's selling, you're called a hack. If you publish more quickly than somebody arbitrarily thinks realistic, you're called a hack. If you write certain genres, you're called a hack…

So pretty much, when you write something that isn't appreciated by the "intellectual" crowd, you get called a hack.

*Note: If I may point out… How well does the genre targeted at intellectuals sell, again? Last I checked, literary fiction was renowned for very low sales.

Let's go back and define our terms, here (using the Merriam-Webster Unabridged dictionary):

hackwork (n)

: literary, artistic, or other professional work done on order or according to formula or conformity with commercial standards of quality; especially : work done by a hack writer

hack (adj)

1. working for hire
2. performed by, suited to, or characteristic of a hack : mediocre, uninspired
3. hackneyed, trite

So looking at those definitions, there are two types of hackwork: work done to formula, and work done to be commercially viable. And a "hack writer" could be mediocre, trite…or just working for hire.

But whenever people use these terms, it seems as if they conflate meanings, insisting that writing to sell = writing to formula = work that's trite = work that's mediocre…

I call bull.

First off, there are plenty of writers-for-hire who do fantastic work.

Second, intentionally writing something that's commercial or to formula does not make something mediocre or trite. I've found that to be true even in my own writing, and I suppose I should walk through how it's possible to develop (commercial) hackwork without hack writing.

I developed Thrice Uncharmed by starting with a plot premise I knew the publisher would like. I then asked what genres they were wanting, and I molded the idea until it slipped into something approximating the genre, tone, etc. that I intended. That doesn't mean I despise the characters or world or any such thing—it just means that I used the publisher's preferences and content guidelines as foundational, outline-level pieces. The rest is all me.

It's not yet released, but so far, reader response has been positive—even among those who don't usually read sci-fi.

Now, A Fistful of Water (a novel I'm working on right now, #3 in a series)? I dislike the narrator. A lot. I feel sorry for her, but I find her unpleasant company. (Might be why I'm pulling teeth to get a scene up on Wattpad every Friday.)

But—and I'd appreciate it if someone who's read one of the stories I'm mentioning would chime in here—I had a hard time with the others in the series (A Fistful of Fire and A Fistful of Earth), too, for different reasons. And despite the difficulty I had writing those stories, it really doesn't show in the final product.

Just like the ease I had writing Thrice Uncharmed doesn't reduce its quality.

Now, I understand where the "Hack!" accusations come from. They don't fit a particular writer or reader's preconceptions about how writing works, but everyone is different.

Case in point: Dean Wesley Smith (an award-winning author with over a hundred novels under his belt) says that he never outlines, that once he knows the end, he's bored. Whereas I find it useful to figure out where I'm headed, before I'm too far into a story; it gives me a goal to reach.

I've tried his "Write and see where it goes" approach. Doesn't work well for me, at this point, though I could see myself doing better with it after I get more experience under my belt. We've, ah, conversed enough online for me to know that my method includes something he advises people to never do. I've tried writing both with an in-progress beta and writing something without one. If I remember correctly, he calls the former option "stupid", but I've found it helps me rather than hinders.

Everyone's different. A method not working for you or your favorite authors does not make that method unusable by anyone.

And hackwork (writing designed for commercial viability) isn't necessarily hack (trite, mediocre) writing. Nor is writing quickly or certain genres necessarily hack writing.

Can it be? Yes.

Is it necessarily? No.

What are your thoughts on hackwork vs. hack writing? Have any examples you'd like to share?

—Misti

The Many Faces of POV

Still sick and currently coughing quite a bit, so I'm building on one of my recent attempts at comments on another blog that got eaten somewhere and didn't post. (Which happens fairly often.) And this issue is something I see often as an editor, too.

Mike Duran's blog is kind of like mine—or, more accurately, mine's kinda like his, because his predates mine. Three or so times a week, he posts about everything from random thoughts about writing, news about his publications, and thoughts on theology. He's a Christian speculative fiction author, on the horror end of things.

Now that I've introduced him, he just wrote a post mentioning shallow vs. deep POV. Evidently, he'd been taught that deep POV (a.k.a. close narrative distance) was the right way, and he'd just now learned that shallow POV (a.k.a. far narrative distance) was okay, too.

He's terming it having to "unlearn" what he learned early on as a writer.

But in doing so, he's missing the point of why he was taught to write in "deep" POV to begin with:

Deep POV is the easiest to get right.

It's common for new writers to struggle with POV. Shallow POV, much like omniscient POV, is easy to screw up, and if I had a dollar for every writer I've encountered who was convinced that they were writing proper POV when they weren't… Well. I think you get my gist. ^_^

Fact is, shallow and deep POV are both tools, like showing vs. telling. Some situations and stories need more of one or the other. For example, "deep" POV still needs enough "shallow" observations of the world outside the narrator for it to make sense (although a person doesn't necessarily have those transitions when they look at reality), and "shallow" POV needs enough "deep" character motivation and thought in there for the reader to make sense (although the POV theoretically just skims the surface of the POV's perceptions).

But it can take a strong familiarity with words and how they work to identify the differences between shallow third person, omniscient POV, and head-hopping. New writers usually lack that. So they get told to write the "right" way (because it's right for them until they comprehend what they're doing)…which is where the misconception that other ways are wrong comes in. Because some folks forget to put those qualifiers on there, and then writers get to thinking that other POVs and styles are actually wrong.

No, not wrong. Just a lot more difficult to pull off than they look.

My mother is a cake decorator. I've dabbled just enough to know I don't enjoy it, myself, but I understand how it works. Rolled fondant makes cakes look so smooth and simple, and gum paste flowers are the cleanest, with the best lines. But you can't use fondant without first knowing how to use frosting, and it's best to know how to work with fondant before you start playing with gum paste.

I can look at a cake photo and guess how it was done, how difficult it was, etc. Some of the simplest-looking cakes are the most time-consuming and tedious, if not downright difficult. And some of the most difficult-looking cakes are the easiest. (And it's kinda sad when I can look at a professional bakery's cake photo and can immediately say what they did wrong. Granted, my mother does sometimes show me a pic and ask "What do you see?", so she has trained me to notice…)

But to continue the cake analogy, beginner (frosting) —> intermediate (fondant) —> advanced —> (gum paste, airbrushing, etc.).

POV is the same way. Beginner ("deep" POV) —> intermediate ("shallow" POV) —> advanced (omniscient).

Might someone jump around on the steps? Sure. But most newer writers find themselves failing miserably when they try…and some readers are trained just enough at writing to crow "Head-hopping! She doesn't know how to write!" And when folks think that, they tend to crow loudly.

It's completely possible to mix POV distance in a book—even in a scene. It's also possible (and I'd say likely) for the author to do that by "feel" or by "ear" rather than intentionally setting out to make a particular line or paragraph or scene a particular distance.

"Head-hopping" is when you mess up POV.

Unfortunately, as with the other rules of thumb that are taught to new writers as "rules" without the qualifier, any change in POV can be mistakenly seen as a head-hop, just as some people think every "to be" verb (is, are, was, were, etc.) indicates passive voice*.

*Hint: It doesn't. There are two sentence styles and a few verb tenses that require "to be" verbs, in English, and only one of those styles is passive voice. For example, the "is" in the previous sentence? Not passive voice. It's a linking verb.

The key is to understand how different POV and narrative distance affect a story. That understanding will likely be subconscious long before a writer is aware of it consciously, and I personally believe that it works better when a writer lets it flow naturally, by "ear".

Example: A Fistful of Fire is fairly distant, because the narrator is emotionally distant. But I first wrote it before I even knew what narrative distance was.

Outside of narrative distance and narrator omniscience or lack thereof, POV can be third person, first person, second person—any of it. (Though second person admittedly isn't very popular in English, except for directions and recipes. I have a second person short story in my "PRIMpriety" bundle, though.)

The person used affects the way a story comes across. The verb tense used affects the way the story comes across. And the narrative distance affects the way the story comes across.

As an experiment, I've dabbled at converting A Fistful of Fire to third person, past tense. It's fascinating to see how just the change in person and tense can completely change the tone.

Some people—readers, writers—refuse to believe that POV choices affect how a story comes across. That's one reason I suspect I'll someday convert the entire Chronicles of Marsdenfel to third person, past tense, so I can be a case in point. Because I'm stubborn like that.

POV has many faces, many forms, and not one of them is necessarily wrong. They can just be used wrongly or badly.

And that distinction is where some writers and writing instructors get confused.

Do you have any thoughts to share on POV, narrative distance, verb tense, or preferences in or implications of any of the bove?

—Misti

Why the Myth of Common Sense Persists

Common sense is a myth, but it's so pervasive that it has to come from somewhere—and it has to have some aspect of truth to it, for it to persist.

To see why, we first must consider where the "common sense" myth stems from. This involves an assumption. Well, a few assumptions.

• Everyone knows the same things.
• Everyone has the same concerns and goals.
• An event has the selfsame significance to everyone who experiences it.
• Everyone interprets events' significance the selfsame way.
• Everyone's best response to an event is the selfsame reaction.
• In short: Everyone is the same.

To illustrate, I have a lot of allergies. Let's say someone offers me something that I'm allergic to, wherein I'll be sick for days if I eat it. "Common sense" would be to refuse, right?.

• What if I'm about to pass out from lack of food?
• What if the person offering it isn't someone I have the authority to refuse?
• What if I have reason to want to be sick?
• What if it's Communion?

Suddenly, the "common sense" of not eating foods you're allergic to isn't so common.

But the average person doesn't know the contributing factors, so all they see is me eating that rice-full Communion bread in the morning, taking the red wine (and then wearing sunglasses indoors until the threat of migraine passes), then missing evening service due to illness.

That Communion example is reality, by the way. Technically, I could bring my own bread or cracker—and I did, last time—though I'm a bit uncomfortable doing that. I could also take one of the grape juice mini cups instead of the wine, but Communion is supposed to be wine*.

*I'm speaking of my own convictions, here, the result of my own study. I'm aware of the wine vs. grape juice debate, and that's not my point, today. My point is that my principles mean I do something that's commonly considered stupid or foolish and definitely not common sense.

In order for common sense to exist, everyone would have to be the same—know the same things, want the same things, come from the same starting point, have the same goals, etc.

But everyone's different.

So a universal, objective common sense—a sense that everyone holds in common—is a myth*.

*Okay, so you could argue that natural revelation is a common sense, but that's not strictly true, because the Christian vs. non-Christian knows it differently.

That myth means, when someone's doing something you find weird and irrational, getting snippity and calling the correct action "common sense" is foolish, because there is no universally applicable common sense. Something might be common sense to you, but that does not make it some objective "common sense".

And vice versa, of course. Others' "common sense" is likewise limited and flawed.

Does that make "common sense" useless? No. It just makes it limited.

Knowing where apostrophies go is common sense to me. It's common sense to any text editor worth their salt. It's common sense to many a writer.

Or perhaps we should say that the placement of apostrophes is a sense that is common to me, editors, and writers.

That's something to bear in mind in life and in writing or reading. If the actions of a person or a character make no sense to you, you're probably disconnecting on a "common sense" level.

If you're aware of that, then you might just be able to figure out what differs. (Or take advantage of those differences in producing character conflict when writing.)

Do you have any stories to share about common sense or the myth of it?

—Misti

On Writing Fast: Or, Why I'm Doing Camp NaNoWriMo

You might know about NaNoWriMo, "National Novel Writing Month" (November), wherein a bunch of writers of all sorts band together to write 50k words on some project. It gets called all sorts of things, mainly practice or a rough draft.

I've participated a handful of times. Won a few times, lost a few times, and the losses were due to things like illness or an unexpected loss of computer access in the last few days when I had 2k words left to write.

Well, now the NaNoWriMo organization is running Camp NaNoWriMo, on months other than November. April will be one such month, this year. I'll be working on A Fistful of Water. Technically, you aren't supposed to work on anything that you've already written in, but I won't be counting the first 10k words of that project, because they're already written—and I'm the type of writer who writes a bit, then starts figuring out where I'm headed.

I'm working to reach the point where I produce 50k words a month regularly—and actually, those First Draft Fridays seem to be helping on that front. I finished the first draft of "Thrice Uncharmed" Monday, and I've already been cleaning up my version. Some things like typos and details that don't quite match up might be assumed to be the fault of drafting it fairly quickly, but…those things happen when you write slowly, too.

See, I've noticed that when I write quickly, my overarching plots tend to be more solid, leaving detail issues to be cleaned up.

Well, I'm a details person. Writing quickly therefore plays to my strengths.

To be blunt: Quality vs. quantity is a false dichotomy.

Just think about it. You have to write in order to get better at writing. (Pesky thing, practice.)

So the more you write…

the better you'll get.

That means quantity leads to quality.

Are there limits and qualifiers on what, exactly, is meant by "quantity" and "quality"? Yes. That's why the version of "Thrice Uncharmed" over on Wattpad is clearly marked with the warning "THIS IS A FIRST DRAFT." I've already found typos and name changes and detail gaps.

But the danger in detail-oriented writers is we can get so caught up in getting everything out perfectly that we lose sight of the big-picture story that we're trying to tell. As a detail-oriented person, I can't function as a writer if I try just getting things out and not fretting over spelling and the like. (Scrivener's handy annotation function really helps, because I can select something I screwed up on and hit the annotate keyboard command to effectively delete it, or hit the highlight keyboard command to flag it for later.)

Every writer has their foibles. The trick is, learning to work in ways that help you rather than hinder you. Maybe that's making yourself write more quickly than you naturally would. Maybe that's making yourself write more slowly than you naturally would. (I've encountered both types.)

In my case, writing "fast" helps me, so… I'm doing Camp NaNoWriMo, this coming month.

There's also the detail that I kinda-sorta want to finish the Chronicles of Marsdenfel so I can move on to something else. I'm not tired of the world or the characters. I've started Conláed and Manal's story, and I've ideas about what Lallie's up to another century or two down the road.

I just really, really want to have some series or story arc that's done.

I've been working on these Chronicles of Marsdenfel for nearly a decade. I'm ready to play with another story arc. Maybe that old NaNoWriMo that I'm pretty sure is the outline for a trilogy masquerading as a novel rough draft—and even then, the ending scene looks like a good kickoff for another book or three. Or maybe I could rewrite that old novella for which "Thrice Uncharmed" has ended up being a centuries-earlier prequel.

As I mentioned, the posting "Thrice Uncharmed" did very well for me, as a kick in the pants. I even posted the last bit yesterday.

Why'd I do that early, you ask?

*twiddles thumbs* Oh, because I've decided the already-written 10k words of A Fistful of Water will be going up on Friday.

…

Yes, A Fistful of Water will be my new First Draft Fridays project. If Camp NaNoWriMo goes well, that could be a good 10k words or more posted every week.

And I think it should go well. I just discovered that my vitamin D is nearly the lowest my doctor has ever seen. I seriously have a prescription for vitamin D. The dosage is so high that I would be terrified of taking it if I didn't trust the doctor who handed it to me.

We'll see what happens.

What do you think about writing quantity being needed to develop quality? Are you participating in Camp NaNoWriMo? (If so, what's your username? I'm Carradee.) What do you think of my selection of A Fistful of Water as my next First Draft Friday project?

—Misti

Story vs. Mechanics—What Trumps: Story or Grammar?

Should a writer focus more on telling a story or on the mechanics of writing? Which will do them the most good as a writer? If you can only afford to focus on one, not the other, which should you worry about?

My answer is going to sound a little strange, as an editor.

Story trumps mechanics…

…but you still need mechanics…

…usually.

Before you go cheer about the unnecessariness of editors or seek to lynch me as a heretic, wait.

Here's why I say story trumps mechanics:

Some readers can appreciate a story despite the mechanics.

No readers will appreciate mechanics without a story.

This is actually one of the factors in me deciding to run my "First Draft Fridays". The types of readers who are interested in reading first drafts can check it out; the types of readers who are only interested in reading final product can avoid it. Easily.

As a side effect of that above "Some"/"No" premise, publishing a mechanics-lacking story can still gain you readers (though you won't have nearly as many readers as you could have had, if you at least had the basic mechanics in place, because of how different readers process text). I've seen it work. (I'm not naming examples; I'm sure you already know some.)

But a grammatically "flawless" text with a story that's…lacking? I'm not talking about matters of taste, here, cases wherein one reader might find a story flawed and another won't. (And something's in the water this morning, because that's Kris Rusch's post, today.) I'm talking objective everyone-will-agree-this-story-is-lacking level.

*shakes head* The movie world calls these kinds of things "eye candy". While a printed page can look pretty, that's not really its purpose.

And the purpose of mechanics is to ensure that you get your intended meaning across.

You can technically hire an editor to fix a heck of a lot, if you really want to, but you'd be best served by learning what mechanics you can.

Why?

Editors aren't omniscient.

That means, if you hand an editor a morass of story, the editor will have to do a lot of work, charge you extra, and probably make you say things you didn't intend, because the editor isn't telepathic and had to make reasonable guesses about what you meant to say.

I've had cases where clients who knew grammar said "Um, shouldn't this have been left two words? Because Y."

And they were right, because I'd read and edited their line as if it were X, not Y, but the writer had to know some mechanics, herself, else she wouldn't have been able to recognize the difference.

Even writers with fantastic senses of mechanics will accidentally say things they didn't intend.

A few months back, I accidentally commented on a blog to the effect that one publisher I work with removed all –wards and –ward forms of words like towards/toward. I'd meant to say all –wards forms were changed to –ward. But I'd phrased it a few different ways, when drafting the comment, and by the time I published it, I hadn't realized that I'd combined a few of them into a line that said something very different from what I intended.

It happens to all of us. But if you know enough of your mechanics to be generally clear, the editor will be able to more accurately guess what you meant to say.

So if you can only focus on one, focus on the story…

…but for the sake of your editor, your wallet, and those readers who need or want proper mechanics to be able to appreciate a story, don't neglect mechanics.

Please.

What do you think of story vs. mechanics? Which do you think you're stronger at? Which do you see first as a reader?

—Misti

Should I Blog Free Fiction?

I've been considering blogged stories, lately. As you might know, I serialized A Fistful of Fire on purpose. I read Stormy's geeky (but adult!) urban fantasy series, Mirrorfall, over on Require: Cookie. I've kept an eye on case examples of serialization, through the years. I've watched the rise and fall of a few different serialization sites. I keep an eye on the stories posted on Camille LaGuire's blog and on Kristine Kathryn Rusch's.

Overall, as a reader, I tend to prefer complete works, these days. I've been burned by a lot of incompletes that…languish (including my own WiPs). Serialization could be a way for me to kick myself in the pants to actually get words out on the story I need to get done, rather than on anything and everything else.

It might also overwhelm me to the point of wanting to cry (due to a lovely genetic disorder, my hormones are annoyingly willing to put me in that state of mind)—in which case, it would be self-sabotaging to serialize.

And I would like to submit to places like magazines and small publishers, so I have to be careful about which stories I post publicly.

But I very much like the "Free Fiction Mondays" over on Kris Rusch's blog. She posts a single short story every Monday, taking down the one from the week before (leaving blurb and links to buy that old story). I'd like to do something similar, but I'm not (yet?) at the point of writing a short story or four per week or month.

However, I also know myself well enough to realize that, without any reason to write regularly, I won't. I'll want to, but I'll get distracted by everything else that needs to get done, get overwhelmed, take too long doing the minimum that must get done… It's a nasty cycle, annoying when I'm lucid enough to see it, but I'm not sick enough for conventional medicine to really, well, help. Taking iodine helps a lot, when I remember, and I'm currently having some other things checked. Lord willing, that'll help me stay on the "Oh, goodie! Let's get stuff done!" swing of things.

Now, if I could just remember that increased activity means I need to eat an extra meal per day… ^_–

But I work well with having betas on WiPs (which, from what I've observed in general, is actually unusual), and I know that A Fistful of Fire would likely still be its original mess if not for my putting it on FictionPress years ago and getting feedback.

So bearing all the pros and cons in mind, I suspect serializing would be good for me—only left temporarily or behind a password wall—but what to post? An in-progress story or a short fiction piece each time? What genre should I post? You readers here know me as a fantasy writer, but I cut my writing teeth on soft sci-fi, space opera–type stuff. And I'm seeing more authors come out with story ideas comparable to ones I've had on the back burner for years, so I'd like to have something out in that field so I don't come across as an imitator.

Sure, I have a blog story I want to write at some point (same world as "PRIMpriety", though Lyn won't be a main character), but that… Will take prep. Lots of prep, like suitable blogging software for the specific things I need to do with it (anybody know something where you can schedule blog comments?) and custom blog themes and a start date in September or October. (I could possibly get away with November, but that would be pushing it.)

Yes. That particular idea would be insanely complicated to implement. But it would be pretty freaking cool. (Picture a blog, run by one character, with the webmaster being another character, and the two argue in realtime…and can interact with readers in the comments, with others from that world sometimes popping in and responding.)

So… That's not an option to start serializing, right now. Though if I get in the habit of blogging now, maybe I could be in a position to start it later this year. Hmm… ^_^

One thought I've had is serializing the rough draft for a novella or three that I've been trying to finish for months.

Or I could serialize an all-new project that bit me this past week and is pretty much pitching a hissy fit, insisting I write it now. Starting premise:

Time travel's possible.

It's possible to travel to different universes, too.

Sometimes, folks escape to another universe and live there.

Now, picture how that could get if two different versions of one young woman reached the same universe, they met, and they decided to rent a place together to save on rent, with a third person who doesn't know they're versions of the same person…and there's a third version of herself who works for the pertinent stay-in-your-own-universe authorities.

Confusing, right? But it'll be fun. I think. I mean…

[rough draft snippet]

When Raleigh entered the apartment she shared with Janni and Kitten, the latter sat at the dining room table, staring at a tower made of wooden rectangular prisms that Raleigh’s recognition software told her was Jenga—a game that Raleigh couldn’t ever remember seeing in this universe. She opted not to ask. It was best to leave Kitten be about things like that. At least Janni would tell you if she couldn’t answer a question. Kitten…

The auburn-haired girl—who was the youngest of the three of them, and her too-big secondhand sweater made her look younger than she already was—turned her ice blue stare on Raleigh.

[/rough draft snippet]

^_^ "Kitten" is sorta River Tam (Firefly/Serenity) meets Sicarius (The Emperor's Edge by Lindsay Buroker), but unlike them, she isn't unique, as far as others from her universe are concerned. (She also isn't telepathic. Well, two versions of her aren't. "Cop"-one is, but her range is too large, so she has to keep it blocked unless she wants a migraine, because she hears too many freaking people. The other two versions of her were supposed to be telepathic, but the mod didn't take, which is part of why their native universes deemed them cripples. Or so's the current setup; it might change.)

I want to blog something. I haven't decided yet if I'd post it here, or on a separate WordPress thing, or maybe even on DeviantArt. (I'm leaning towards maybe Wattpad or FictionPress, though. Their current ToS look good, at first glance.)

I'll be asking some of the small presses I want to work with what their opinions are on stories that have had blogged first drafts. Their answers will affect what I post—so far, I have one story confirmed that I can post—but more than that…

Your input will affect what I post and where I post it.

So what do you think of free fiction, reader? Would you rather see…

• (complete) short stories?
• WiPs related to specific already-released stories? (If so, which stories do you want to see related stories for?)
• WiPs in unrelated worlds?

And do you have a preferred site you prefer using for reading online fiction?

—Misti

P.S. I couldn't help it. I've been playing with cover ideas, so here's a concept cover for a current sci-fi story ideas:

Cooperation, Not Capitulation

I've recently been seeing some…interesting blog posts about the editor-writer relationship—and even Kris Rush is talking about it, this morning.

Kris's post is a fantastic breakdown of the types of editor and what they do.

As anybody in the industry should know—and as many folks who chat with me end up learning—"editor" is a vague term. There are so many different types—that actually do disparate jobs—and for some of them, the job description actually depends on whom you ask.

I've seen more than one argument be caused by two folks using "editor" in different ways, or assuming the job description for "X editor" is always the same, everywhere, as it is in their experience…

But for more on the different types of editor and what they actually do, check out Kris's post.

As for me, I've seen some…troubling blog comments, forum comments, and even client comments. Troubling because the authors involved sound as if they think that an editor has the final say. (Or, at least, they think I want to hear them talk that way.)

Note: If you're my client and you did this, you weren't alone, and I'm not picking on you. These things seem to run in packs, from multiple sources.

Publishers have content requirements. An author with a publishing contract might discover that the publisher, for example, doesn't allow trademarks. In that case, the author has to change the trademarks if they want to be published with that company. An editor might go ahead and change the trademark to a generic. The author might prefer to remove the reference altogether.

The author should feel free to use their preferred method to repair a problem.

Or let's say a character says something that that doesn't make sense, in context. An editor might go ahead and delete it. The author might prefer to put in transitions so the line fits.

Cooperation, see? Fixing the problem…

But not necessarily capitulating to everything the editor says.

Maybe the editor's missing your point. That happens, and it isn't always your fault. If an editor flags something as, "Hey, when did he enter the room?", maybe she forgot and just needs the author to point out the line ten paragraphs up. In that case, nothing's actually wrong. But when the person entered the room ten pages up and just popped up again… That's a problem.

Maybe you're missing the editor's point. Maybe you're using "bemused" as "amused" because that's its common usage, though it actually means "confused" or "befuddled". Even if you're aware of that but prefer the common usage, an editor might be concerned about how your use of it would give vague, confusing, contradictory images to the reader.

We're all human. We're all imperfect.

Now, let's go back to the trademark example. Maybe your story really, really, really needs Kleenix in it. Removing the Kleenix or replacing it with "facial tissue" would completely ruin what you were going for in a scene.

The answer isn't for the publisher to capitulate to your demands. They have a content policy. If you want to be published through them, you'll have to abide by it.

If your contract includes an out, you'll want to take it.

If it doesn't have an out, you'll have to figure out what to do without the Kleenix.

Let's go back to the "bemused" example. Maybe your editor really, really, really doesn't want you to use that word. Let's assume it isn't against the publisher's content policy, and the editor can't strong-arm you into it. Maybe the editor nags, begs, and recruits help.

If you just want to convey something, why not change the word to something that won't stress out the editor?

If you very much want the word, why not see if you can add something to specify what you meant by it?

Now, if you're cutting the editor's paycheck—say, you're self-publishing and you hire an author—you're in authority over the editor. While the editor should know what they're doing, and an author should respect their expertise—at the end of the day, you're the one responsible, in that situation. If you want to give a guy more than one wife—something that's really easy to do, just by removing a few commas—then you're the one responsible for that, as long as the editor did her part and tried to put them in.

Assuming that the editor knew it was an error. Editors aren't telepathic (in my experience), and when things are done consistently, the editor won't always know that what's on the page isn't what the author meant to say.

Some editors are unreasonable, sure. So are some authors. But I can't control that; you can't control that. All we can do is seek cooperation, as best we can, and know our boundaries for where we'll put our foot down.

What are your thoughts on cooperation vs. capitulation? Do you think me overreacting to a tongue-in-cheek word choice?

—Misti

Note that this post is not talking about ghostwriting or work-for-hire.

Those two are an entirely different matter.

Nothing New Under the Sun

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9, KJV

I'm of the opinion that, while there's such thing as a story or book that's unique to the reader, there is no genuinely unique story or book. What makes a story "unique" is the writing style and handling that the author does with it, and even then… If you look hard and long enough, you'll eventually find comparable authors.

Frankly, I've been thinking it would be fun to put together an a challenge wherein the participants would all start with the same premise or tagline or some such thing, as a case in point, because I'm ornery like that. But then I consider the details of how to set up the contracts and payments (and of finding folks who'd want to join in under such an arrangement) and decide the idea can wait.

But "There is nothing new under the sun." Take Lisa Shearin's upcoming SPI Files, which she describes as Stephanie Plum working for the Men in Black. I've not read the Stephanie Plum series, but from what I've heard of it, that basic description sounds like it'll be comparable to my unreleased "Buzz and Bunnies" short story and the series I eventually plan to write from that.

I admit, I'm a little down that she's going to get there before me, but I'm sure other comparable series are already out there. It's too fun a premise to be left unexplored.

Even her Raine Benares series could be compared to my own Chronicles of Marsdenfel in style—though I admit it isn't obvious unless you filter your consideration to world type, tone, and POV—although her books are kinda focused on epic battles and steamy love triangles. (I do enjoy them, but sometimes I feel like it enters TMI on the romance. Note that I am what some would consider a prude.)

But my point isn't that Lisa Shearin and I could be compared, if you squint. My point is that there is no objectively "unique" story.

Readers—and especially writers—usually don't like to think that. Readers can get tired of the same old, same old, and get annoyed when they think one author is ripping off another. (Which isn't necessarily the case… I've had a teacher tell me of students who complained about how the Lord of the Rings ripped off of Harry Potter.)

Writers… Well, we can get defensive when someone tells us our Preciouses pet stories aren't unique. Or we might be reluctant to write because we feel that we have nothing unique to bring to the table of everything that's published.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9, KJV

Sure, there's no objective uniqueness, but that's okay.

It's okay.

Because there is subjective uniqueness—unique to the writer, unique to the reader—and that's what writing is all about. The bigger the pool of what's available, the more folks can find what they want to write and read.

And I do believe that's a good thing.

What are your opinions on objectivity and its subjective or objective reality? You have any fun story comparisons to share?

—Misti

Should a Blogger Be Discreet or Discrete?

Stretching only a little with the literal definitions of the two homophones involved, bloggers can be discreet about their controversial opinions—keeping quiet about them—or bloggers can be discrete about their controversial opinions—using those opinions to separate them from other bloggers.

And I say that as someone who adheres to some mighty controversial opinions.

Most of them, I'm discreet about. You can identify at least some of them if you find me on some specific sites online, but I don't use my blog as a pedestal and proclaim to the world that I'm a six-day creationist. (Er, oops.)

Okay, so I don't use my blog to proclaim or explain why I'm a six-day creationist.

But some opinions, like my thoughts on how to price your writing and my belief that there are no bad words—those opinions, I announce, proclaim, and explain.

Why am I obvious about those, but not about others?

Any time a blogger gives an opinion, they're giving some readers an excuse to stop reading.

And any time an author gives an opinion, they're giving some readers an excuse to avoid their writing, be it fiction or non-fiction.

This blog is entitled "Another Author's 2 Pence", making obvious from the get-go that it's an author's blog. I therefore have no qualms about admitting writing-related opinions, because authors write. That's what we do. So duh, we'll have opinions on it.

(Frankly, when an author has a blog and never so much as mentions writing, it bewilders me. Even the so-hilarious-her-books-are-on-my-to-buy-list-and-I've-not-yet-read-one Twitter feed by Kiersten White sometimes mentions writing. Often facetiously, because it's mostly intended for her YA-reading fans. Lindsay Buroker's often-O.O-worthy Twitter feed is more chatty, but it still mentions writing at times.)

Authors/writers write.

And we have therefore opinions on the process.

Other things, like my my allergies, my hobbies—I really need to finish knitting that garment, because if it works, it'll save me a good $250—my faith, my beliefs about the world… Those color my writing, so there's a sense in which they're pertinent.

I mean, Zoe Winters is a Buddist. Her paranormal romance world features reincarnation. Those two things are kinda related.

Zoe Winters even comes from a Christian background—possibly Southern Baptist if not fundamentalist, from what she's mentioned on her blog—so when she explains a point of view on her blog, the line of reasoning she sets out makes sense to me. I won't exactly agree, but I can at least follow what she's thinking.

Her novels and blog aren't preachy. Her beliefs are…there, and she doesn't hide them, but she doesn't prosthelytize, either.

Some folks believe that such presentation of personal beliefs is unprofessional.

By that argument, the only "professional" way to write is as an effectual agnostic.

That type of writing has its place. (Example: Press releases.) But agnostics generally believe people are basically good. That produces an entirely different way of looking at the world from someone who believes people are basically bad—a perspective that colors opinions, story worlds, character development…

See the problem?

Your beliefs affect what you write, be it a story or a college essay.

So let's step back and bring up the detail I mentioned about being a six-day creationist. That's actually very pertinent to my writing.

Say what?

Standard evolutionary thought is that mankind is getting smarter through the generations, better, as mutations improve the human race with each generation. I doubt that's news to any of my readers.

Due to how mutations have only been demonstrated to delete or rearrange already-existing information (never creating information), six-day creationists believe mankind is actually losing ability and intelligence with each generation.

That's a fundamental detail that influences the development my characters and story worlds.

For example, due to the belief that genetics are getting progressively worse, my Darkworld stories feature a world wherein originally, everyone could do multiple types of magic, like Destiny Walker of Destiny's Kiss. But by the twenty-first century, she's a freak rather than the norm. Most folks can't do magic. (And that world's scientific community attributes that change to bottleneck effect.)

I'm sure some of you readers are intrigued by that detail—you might not agree with me, but you might like the peek into how another person views the world.

And I'm every bit as sure that some of you readers will now refuse to read anything more that I write.

Will the number of readers who like my forthrightness outnumber the readers who dislike it?

I don't know.

I can't know.

And therein lay the danger of being discrete as a blogger.

Being discreet offends no one, while being forthright about opinions will offend someone.

There's a marketer whose e-mail list I stay on for the sole reason that he's unapologetically Christian. I get a kick out of analyzing his writing, which combines intentionally low-brow grammar and unabashed declarations that "Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life"…

So unprofessional, if you ask most experts.

But he gets attention. (Mine, anyway. ^_^)

Discretion is one tactic; forthrightness is another.

I think every blogger should evaluate the potential gains and losses before picking which to be.

And I think it's rude of folks to pitch fits when others don't adhere to some ideal view of "professionalism". Everyone's opinions and worldviews are different.

What's rude to one person is polite for another. And vice versa.

Unfortunately, a lot of folks are stuck on one definition for "polite" and get indignant over others' presumed idiocy when they demonstrate other perspectives.

Do you prefer when a blogger is discreet about their opinions or when they let their opinions make them discrete from other bloggers?

—Misti

---

I hope you're getting value out of these blog posts. Each one generally takes me an hour or two to write. That's an hour or two that could be spent doing paid work. Blogging doesn't pay any bills.

So if you've found the post valuable, please consider leaving a sign of your appreciation in the tip jar. Thanks!

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

There Are No Bad Words

Whether you think salty language should be avoided or if it should be used for realism, you likely have an opinion on its propriety. (Warning: The below post contains some salty language by dictionary definition.)

Leave that opinion by the door, please. You're welcome to your preference. If you want to avoid it, want to use it, only want to use it when it fits the character and story—whatever your preference, that's fine.

I honestly don't care about that. Sometimes I don't want to read salty language, myself. Sometimes I don't care and have friends give me odd looks after they check out a recommendation.

However, by "salty" language I mean things like vulgarities. I don't write blasphemy (that's using any of God's names as an expletive), and I don't like reading or hearing it. I find it far more offensive than salty language.

I'm Christian. Even if "keep His name holy" weren't one of the Ten Commandments, why would I be glib about my own deity? Folks don't casually insult other religions' gods, not without backlash. But for some reason, to insult the Christian God (capped because it's a name) doesn't even give pause to most otherwise politically correct folks.

Not that I'm usually a fan of political correctness, but some things are just polite. If you're going to belittle my god (not a name here), at least be an equal opportunity offender.

But notice that my complaint here isn't about the use of things like "God" and "Jesus" themselves, as words. My complaint regards how they're used.

And that's even true of "salty" language: The usage is what's "bad", not the word itself.

Take damn. Meaning: Condemn to hell, a place of eternal torment. So to damn a person is to wish that the person would suffer from eternal torment.

That's not nice, so it's understandable why some people complain about (or want to avoid) uses of damn in reference to people.

But many folks go reactionary against all uses of the word, even cases where it's used in reference to its actual meaning.

However, to call the word itself bad is to say the problem is with the word, not the attitude behind its use.

How can a word be innately bad? (For the Christians among my readers, the question becomes: "How can a word cause someone to sin?")

Calling the word itself innately inappropriate, bad, or sinful is like calling a corset innately inappropriate, bad, or sinful.

Some corsets are underwear, which limits the situations wherein they're appropriate, and they're not useful for everyone. Some are outer wear—for medical or aesthetic purposes—and different styles and shapes suit different people.

But neither type of corset is suitable for, say, swimming. Or other situations wherein the wearer needs to breathe deeply. ^_^

Again, it's up to you if you want to avoid a specific type of word (or corset!). I put content advisories on my own stories for that purpose.

But gracious, at least acknowledge that the problem is the way the word is used, not the word in itself. The latter attitude misses problem entirely.

What are your thought on "bad" words?

—Misti

The $0.99 Price Point

From John Locke using it, to Dean Wesley Smith calling it ill-advised, a lot gets discussed about self-publishers pricing their work at $0.99. I admit, I've even picked up a few $0.99 novels—when they're promos, or when I'm feeling grateful to a writer and want to say "Thank you," so I pick up something they have for sale.

(In other words, this post is geared for fellow writers who might be interested in selling their work, but for any readers trying to figure out where those $2.99 short stories are coming from, feel free to stick around.)

And let me say up front: I am neither for nor against $0.99 as a price point.

Each price point targets a different type of reader.

Each price point has its pros and cons.

And each price point has people who get indignant about naysayers.

I'm not one of the naysayers—but I'm also not a yaysayer. I'm a "consider your options and how they connect to your goals before you commit to a route" sayer.

For example, if you want oodles of readers and don't give a care about money, go serialize your book on Wattpad and make it available on different e-book vendors for free or $0.99. John Locke did famously well at that $0.99 price point, though I think his marketing background (and skill in marketing) helped him find attract a lot more readers than most would be able to, in his position. (Also, serializing on a blog can actually be a good marketing strategy, but I digress.)

Readers who impulse buy, picking things up for free or cheap tend to read fast, read a lot, and be willing to overlook some technicalities if the story's good. (Say what you like about poor Amanda Hocking's poor fortune with editors as she worked on My Blood Approves—she wrote a good story and got it to her intended readership. Kudos, Amanda.)

Well, that's one type of "impulse buy" reader. Some are "download everything free and cheap that looks even remotely interesting at a glance"—and because there isn't enough incentive for them to sample and make sure it matches their tastes, they trash it when they don't like it. W00t.

(Hey, I'm critical, but that just means I don't buy much of anything and I don't get past the first few pages of most of the freebies I download—unless, say, that title's immensely popular or I know the author. And when I'm reading a popular title that I dislike, I make myself look for what they're doing right—because they obviously are doing something right, else they wouldn't be popular.)

Then there are the budget shoppers—but I don't think those play as much in the $0.99 reading pool as many self-publishing authors seem to think.

See, I'm a budget shopper. (Did you know some herbs in your cabinet can be potent painkillers and antibiotics? I've saved so much money on doctor copays this past year, since I learned that! Each lung infection used to cost me at least $50, since it took 2+ rounds of antibiotics to get rid of them. Now, it's…maybe $1 in ingredients to cure each infection.) (Speaking of which, I'm drinking some of that tea now.)

But even as a budget shopper, I, uh, honestly can't think of any authors I got into because they were inexpensive or free, though I could name a few whose price points helped me collect more of their titles more quickly once I was interested. (Lindasy Buroker, looking at you. You're one of the few authors I collect so thoroughly, but it's not because of your prices.)

But even with Lindsay—whose steampunk other-world fantasy novel The Emperor's Edge is free, so if you don't have it yet, go!—I didn't start reading because it was free, or even because it was a genre I very much wanted to read. Most of the time, when I pick up a freebie (usually by searching for a genre and then sorting by price on my Nook), I'm waiting for a pot to boil or something. So I pick up a few freebies, glance at them, wince or enjoy them, then can't remember the author later.

But Lindsay Buroker, I "knew" because I'd met her online. I also had an inkling that she knew how to write, considering she'd spent years supporting herself online with blogs (something I know enough about to know it's not easy). So I picked up her freebie, intrigued and interested in possibly reading it…

And kept forgetting about it.

This forgetfulness has happened with several free or cheap books I picked up, from one of Kris Rusch's titles under the name Kristine Grayson to Soulless and some other books.

Eventually, I happen upon a reminder of "Oh, yeah! I wanted to read that!" and I go check it out. (And sometimes become a rabid fan… My friends know not to ask me what I've been reading lately unless they want to risk possibly entering a 20-minute discussion of what they like in books for me to try to find an angle that would intrigue them in a title of which I've recently become a fan. Though my careful consideration of what they like in books does mean that they take me seriously when I say "You will love this book!", because I don't say that unless I'm 100% certain they will.)

I admit, when I first started paying attention to e-books, I paid close attention to their prices, and though I still note them now, I've been burned enough times by cheap that I sample everything. (To be fair, I know of one released-by-a-publisher e-book that's horribly formatted, but that's due to the annotations in the book, which the publisher evidently wasn't sure how to handle for EPUB. I'm quite glad I only sampled that one and didn't drop $8 on it—though I also recently dropped $11 of birthday money on an e-novel I really wanted to read and knew I'd re-read. Neither one of those mentioned titles is available in mass market paperback, for the record.)

All that to jump into the first things to ask yourself when considering the $0.99 price point, either for a sale or for a long-term price:

• What kind of reader am I hoping to attract?
• Does that reader shop at the $0.99 price point?
• Am I willing to risk attracting the super-critical type of reader who will blame me when they don't bother making sure my writing is to their taste?

But, see, there's these little things called "money" and "bills" and "value of your time" that also are considerations for anybody who would like to be able to support themselves with their job. (And why shouldn't authors earn a living wage for what they do—assuming they can write good stories that appeal to the tastes of a large enough number of people?)

This "money" issue is why some authors are now charging $2.99 for a short story: That's the minimum an author can charge and still earn the maximum royalty percentage on their work with some of the major e-book vendors. One of the major guys to talk about it, Dean Wesley Smith, insists that the $0.99 price, even for a short story, is "discount publishing" (not an insult; it's 1 of the 3 types of publishers). He therefore advises pricing short stories at $2.99.

Note #1: Yes, some of DWS's titles are still at $0.99, right now. That's changing. He only changed his mind fairly recently about that price point, and he's been busy with life rolls.

Note #2: Dean Wesley Smith "short story" threshold for charging $2.99 is 7k words; he bundles stories together to get at least that minimum. SFWA definition of "short story" ends at 7.5k words. I'm not sure at what which word count he starts calling them "novelettes", but it doesn't matter—point is, he's not recommending that I, for example, take "Driven by the Deadline" and bundle it with "Butterfly Boots" and sell the ensuing 3k words for $2.99. Though I understand that erotica writers do fine with that—I don't read or write the genre.

Here's the crux of the issue: When a reader buys a $0.99 title, the author only gets $0.35.

Ooo, that's a whole quarter and a dime! I could take that down the street and buy, um… Two Now and Laters from the dime store? (Mmm, cherry. Not that the cherry Now and Laters actually taste like cherry, mind you. More like sour + red dye. Yes, I just publicly admitted to liking the taste of red dye. I also like kangaroo.)

An author has to sell 6 copies at $0.99 to earn what they make with one $2.99 copy. (Unless your buyer of your $2.99 title is in a country where the maximum royalty percentage doesn't apply. Then you only have to sell 3 to equal one sale at the other price.)

Now, let's step back a bit visit what pro– and anti– $0.99 price pointers are thinking. There are two basic ideas at work here:

1. What the author earns for the time worked (measured in word count as an indicator of time spent writing the work). Formula: (Cost_of_Title X Author_Royalty_Rate) / Title_Word_Count
2. How much enjoyment the reader gets from the end product (measured in word count as a measure of time spent reading the work). Formula: Cost_of_Title / Title_Word_Count

See how those two basic focuses come up with such wildly divergent pricing schemes?

(Note: Some writers also believe that they have to price low to "compete" with others, but that… Just kick that idea from your head, okay? If it were a competition, "big publisher" debut authors wouldn't ever get popular, because their book prices are too high.)

Let's think about some other types of entertainment that can be found at the $0.99 price point:

• A 1-day movie rental: 1–3 hours' entertainment within a 24–hour period
• A song: 2–10 minutes' entertainment

What about ±$4.99?

• A DVD movie: 1–3 hours' entertainment
• A discount music CD: about an hour's entertainment

What about ≥$9.99?

• A movie at the theater: 1–3 hours' entertainment (without reuse ability)
• A music CD: about an hour's entertainment

And most people take at least 4 hours to read even a 60k-word novel once. A 7k-word story? For many readers, that's about half an hour, and I suspect that's some of what DWS considered when he chose that word count for his price $2.99 threshold.

Personally, I'm a very fast reader, so that affects how I think about pricing. Also, compared to some writers, I also write short stories, as in ≤3.5k words. (Possibly due to several challenges I did on one website where I had to write short stories in that word count range. Maybe I got used to it.)

Might I someday change my mind about having short stories available for $0.99? Probably, even if it's only due to inflation. Is $2.99 an "unfair" price for a 7k-word story that would provide most readers with 30 minutes' entertainment even before the re-read value?

I don't think it is. It might only be 10 minutes' entertainment for me (if that), but I do not think the price "unfair". (Remember the $10 CD that's only about an hour's entertainment? For some artists, a CD's more like 30–40 minutes.)

And depending on a person, a story can have just as much re-read value as a music album.

So it's best to bear all those factors in mind when deciding how you're going to price something, but there's another little detail involved in the pricing mindsets here:

Even that $0.35 per sale is a heck of a lot better than what some authors earn. As in over 3 times better. (Hint: Major romance publisher you've surely heard of? Yep.)

Even a NYT bestselling traditionally published author might gross about $0.35 per sale. Granted, that's on discounted e-books, but…the best-case scenario royalty that author evidently gets per sale? $1.

So your favorite author might only be getting a whole dollar from that $7.99 you dropped on their latest e-book. (Technically, they were probably already paid that dollar already in their advance, but that's another issue.)

(That also means that you could assume that some publishers place over twice the value on the e-book's vendor as they do the author who wrote the book's content, based on what they pay each party.)

But anyway…

There's another important factor, here. For a moment, forget everything I said about how much is earned per sale, and let's consider Dean Wesley Smith's recent point that an author needs to consider how many sales it will take to repay the author their investment in a story—including time paid for hours invested.

So, let's roll with how little authors tend to value their per-hour time and assume they're paying themselves $10 per hour—which, after self-employment taxes in the US, is roughly equivalent to minimum wage.

Let's assume the following:

• Hourly wage: $10 per hr/minimum wage
• Cover = 2 hours
• Writing = 1 hour per 1k words
• Editing/Revising = 1 hour per 1k words
• Proofreading = 1 hour per 3k words
• Formatting = 1 hour

So, taking those numbers—which some of you writers will consider high, some of you low—let's have three stories:

1. 6k-word short story: 2 hrs (cover) + 6 hrs (writing) + 6 hrs (editing) + 2 hr (proofreading) + 1 hr (formatting) = 17 hrs = $170
2. 30k-word novelette: 2 hrs (cover) + 30 hrs (writing) + 30 hrs (editing) + 10 hr (proofreading) + 1 hr (formatting) = 73 hrs = $730
3. 90k-word novel: 2 hrs (cover) + 90 hrs (writing) + 90 hrs (editing) + 30 hr (proofreading) + 1 hr (formatting) = 213 hrs = $2130

Now, in how many sales will the author make their money back on each one?

1. Short story @ $0.99 = 490 sales
2. Novelette @ $2.99 = 348 sales
3. Novel @ $6.99 = 436 sales (@ $5.99 = 508 sales)

So the $0.99 short story will take a comparable number of sales to the novel, to earn back what's been invested in it. Granted, overall, short stories don't seem to sell as well as novels, so those equal numbers of sales might theoretically be harder to get with the short story as opposed to a novel.

But it's still something to think about.

What does it make you think, when you see a story available for $0.99? Does it make you more or less likely to buy it? Does the length of the story affect what you think about the price?

—Misti