Do Your Research

Charles Dickens once wrote a character named Thomas Gradgrind in his tenth novel "Hard Times". He was a utilitarian, straightforward, pompous, unimaginative chap. His motto very well might have been Fact, Fact, Fact. Never fancy anything. Be absorbed with the facts.

This is an entirely improper mindset for a writer of any kind-- even a writer of nonfiction-- to be obsessed with. You must fancy everything. If you don't fancy anything, then you will never write anything of any interest to anyone.

But research is key. Whether you're writing a historical fiction or a memoir or studying who you should send your novel to, you need to research.

For one, if you're writing a story that takes place in the late 18th century England, as I am, you need to know that electricity wasn't used in common households at that time, not even in a rudimentary way. You need to know that aspen trees are found in the south and southwest of England and can be known as a 'quaking asp'. It would be useful to research the Treaty of Paris, signed in 1783, that concluded the war in the New World. You need to know that English sentiments towards the just-concluded American Revolutionary war was of shock and surprise. The commonwealth at the time had just as highly perched taxes and couldn't imagine why anyone would complain. They were also surprised that they had lost, and merchants were rather ruffled because this meant a loss in profits due to higher taxes on everything.

This research extends beyond the actual writing of the book. I've mentioned before in my post on Agents how important knowing exactly what an agent does and does not accept is. The same is true for publishers. If you are going for the big house straight off the bat, you'd better know what they are looking for. Don't send your adult murder mystery to a children's publisher. Yes. I've seen this happen.

Publishers are beginning to do their research too as new digital and media opportunities make that more accessible. Data is staring to pour out of the eaves as surveys and 'like' buttons on Facebook reveal what readers want and where they think they can get it. Publishers Weekly released an article on this topic last week, entitled "How Publishers Are Taking Advantage of New Opportunities." If publishers are taking advantage of new opportunities, it's up to writers to know what they are and how they will affect us.

It's all about Data.

"'Data' has been a buzzword in publishing for a while now, and industry experts delved into the opportunities that it can provide. Osprey Group’s CEO Rebecca Smart said that Osprey expanded beyond military history into science fiction because of data that indicated readers of military history and readers of science fiction overlapped. From there, Osprey acquired sci-fi imprint Angry Robot from HarperCollins in 2010, and has further expanded with a YA sci-fi imprint: Strange Chemistry."

What does this tell us? It tells us that the basic genres belonging to a certain publishing house are no longer cut and dry. A publisher that advertises itself solely as military history and nonfiction could now possibly be open to science fiction as well. And a science fiction publisher could expand into young adult. It's dangerous to presume, so be careful-- do your research. Look at the list of home-authors, look at the catalogue, research articles and commentary by the CEO of the publishing house, look at the advertising and website of the publishing house if they have it. Request physical copies of their catalogue if possible, and even read the books on that list. All of these things (and more) can really consume your time so that when you're ready, you can send to the most cohesive list of publishers possible.

Of course, what is the first problem that comes from what I just told you to do? Time. If you spend all of your time researching and none of it writing, your research will be in vain. Likewise, if you spend all of your time writing book after book after book with no thought to doing the work behind the publishing, you will have a pretty hefty hard drive and no real hopes of having it go anywhere. You have to balance your time as you would balance a budget.

Speaking of budgets, this new data also gives writers a new kind of hope and delight in the coming years for publishing.

"Panelists said data can help broader things like midlist titles; Random House’s Nina Von Moltke stated that because data is so much deeper now, it can tell publishers what works and what doesn’t, which allows budgets to be more effectively allocated."

Midlist titles are books that fill in the majority of a publishing house's catalogue but may not be best sellers or a celebrity writer. There is nothing wrong with being a midlister, though we all shoot for New York Times listing. And if there is more money for midlisters, that means more potential money for first time or minor writers. That means more money for more books as publishers narrow in on their strategy and make their budgeting smarter. More money where it needs to go.

In theory, anyway.

What we need to remember, in the end, is that

"When it comes to marketing, it’s easy to get caught up in shiny new technological opportunities, but panelists throughout the day at DBW emphasized that content is, and always will be, king."

Whether in terms of your book, your publishing, your research-- content is king. Do it right and do it well. Write your book with all of your heart, and do the analytical study that comes with. You could have the longest book or the most well-researched pile of potentials, but if you don't concentrate on the content of the whole package, the publishers who are concentrating will send you a nice, uninteresting form letter.

Bookstores and Libraries

Good evening all! Everyone surviving the rain in the Atlanta area? There are rumors of snow on the horizon. All I can think is, why oh why aren't I in bed with a fuzzy blanket and a cup of tea, nestled with my delightful book and nothing to do? Possibly with a yummy snack and the crackle of a fireplace, the lights bright enough to read by but dim enough to give a woozy, comfy feeling.

Yeah. Like that.

So here's a cool website I just stumbled upon: Publishers Weekly, news about the publishing industry and all that revolves around that miniature planet, all in one place. Until recently I've been using my own experiences, ideas, thoughts, conversations, research, subjects sent to me by readers, and the Discover button on my Twitter account to acquire inspiration for the posts I write here, but now I have another resource to add to my list.

And, lo-and-behold, I came across an article of interest. Fancy that.

Gabe Habash featured a study made recently on the Influence of Bookstores and Libraries and how that influence for children seems to be wearing away. Apparently,

"there has been a marked decline in bookstore and library influence as a source of recommendation and acquisition, and that many purchases are instead migrating online to vendors like Amazon."

Well, frankly, that's not all that surprising. Amazon.com has become an incredible platform for booklovers to acquire their next novel. You can get books new, used at cheaper prices, you can preorder releases that haven't come out yet, and you can make a wishlist of things you want for other people (parents, grandparents, friends, family) to look at and get ideas on what you may actually want for Christmas this year. I love Amazon, myself, and I rarely buy a book elsewhere. If there's a used bookstore nearby, then I'll go and have some fun browsing and purchasing, if the money is to spare. I'll only buy a new book from a bookstore if I have a time crunch in terms of hours. Other than that, it's strict Amazon, for me, and the studies show that I'm not the only one.

Of course, the study does not seem to have a bad ending-- family and friends have become the top source of knowhow about where to get a book or why a book should be read. Word of mouth and ear to ear is now more influential than wandering the bookstore or library alone. I can't really see how that's bad, and the book homes are clearly not suffering. In fact, the study also reported that

"On the topic of digital, a surprising shift back to print was seen since spring 2012."

Ahah. This is exactly what I thought. Personally, anyone who is a huge book lover is going to always have paper copies of books.  Kristen McLean, CEO of Bookigee,  delivered the results of the same report at the Children's Publishing Goes Digital conference on the 15th of this month, stating that the levelling off of eBooks could be attributed to

"the “shininess” wearing off new devices and, as people become accustomed to what digital can offer, they are making more nuanced decisions regarding reading habits."

Book buyers may also have a Kindle or some such platform to read eBooks with, but they will never stop buying physical books. For one, not every physical book has an 'e' equivalent. And secondly, there is truly no replacement for smelling a book, for feeling the pages, and for putting your own personal mark on a well-read novel, whether you crease the spine or imprint the pages with your fingers or write your name inside the front cover.

Once Upon a Time

Here's something a little different for you-- a review about a television show.

Now wait. This blog is about books. This blog is about publishing. How does TV work into all this?

Well, it's a television show...about a book. Hah, got you there. But in all seriousness, this is something different. And in the realm of fairytales and stories, that's something to pay attention to.

Once Upon a Time is a new television show about a 'fairyland' where every fairytale character in any story exists, all in one world. Snow White, Prince Charming, Rumplestiltskin, The Evil Queen, Maleficent, Hansel and Gretel, Pinnochio, The Blue Fairy, Red Riding Hood, all of them are here in one land. And when the Evil Queen desires her final revenge on Snow White, she send everyone to the modern, human world, in a town called Storybrooke, where there is no magic, and they have no memories of anything or anyone they ever loved; except for the evil queen, who 'rules' triumphant. Time is stopped, nothing ever changes, and no one ever leaves.

Until main character, heroine Emma Swan arrives, brought by her biological son Henry who knows about the curse and the truth and is trying desperately to convince Emma that she is the savior who can rescue the people and break the curse.

You have Rumplestiltskin, who you witness as a real man and as magical entitity, and you see his degeneration into the darker magics reflected in his appearance as he becomes less  man and more monster. Also, his giggle gets a bit more unhinged with every passing spell.

Why is he insane? Partly the magic...partly because he can. Don't be fooled, he can go from cackling to serious without blinking.

 Contrast with Mr. Gold, Rumplestiltskin in the real world-- sort of the village maffia in one. He runs the financial aspects of the town, is generally feared or mistrusted because he never breaks a deal...or lets one run late. He's also the only other person in Storybrooke who has any idea -- and every idea -- what is going on.

Snow White and Prince Charming? They're a school teacher and a coma patient in the modern world, respectively, and they have no idea who the other is, but their past, cursed memories struggle in ways they can't understand to bring them together.

Every single fairy tale links in with the other. I'd tell more, but I don't want to spoil anything for those who haven't seen it. There are some more melodramatic areas, of course; no show is perfect. And I rather find the modern character of the Evil Queen to be shallow and one-trick. She spends almost every line being degrading or threatening someone (usually Emma about staying away from Henry) and that gets old fairly quickly, but what can you say. Someone has to be the foil of the trite, amusing, creepy, powerful Rumplestiltskin. The Evil Queen is indeed powerful, but she's not as tricky as the gold-weaver. And he knows it, at least.

I love retold fairy tales, and I love when they're told in a new way that brings them together. I spent nearly two days straight watching the episodes of this show, and I couldn't stop. There may be some scripting errors that I could see changed, but there is no flaw in the storyline. I would want this story written into a book, to visit this world where every fairy tale exists in one place. All the big players are here, and some not so big characters that you'll be surprised to notice. Beauty and the Beast, magic beans, Cinderella, the Mad Hatter, Peter and the Wolf, and each one somehow spliced with another, so that however you turn the tale, stand it on its head or turn it inside out, the original story still exists, but a whole new meaning comes from the other end.

Enjoy your stay in Storybrooke.

Sassenach

Happy New Year everyone!

I hope you all enjoyed your holidays-- I did. Did you miss me during the hiatus? Don't answer that question, it's rhetorical.

I thought I'd start the new year off with a bang, and no, I'm not talking about the heavy mortars that the men in my family launched off rather close to the ground. They were big, they were colorful, they were loud. I was blinking the sparks out of my eyes for at least a minute. I'm pretty sure there were people on the hillside nearby clapping. We took a proud bow.

The "Outlander" series has been around for a while, actually, but it's only  just now come up on my radar as something I should read. I've had countless people tell me about it, and finally, at the urging of my Mema, my cousin, and my aunt, I started making an actual effort at keeping my eyes open. I now have my hands on the first book, thanks to my Mema again, and have read nearly 500 pages in three and a half days. I'll let that speak for itself for a moment.

I'm told that this is only the first out of 7 books-- currently waiting on an eighth-- so you have to go into this understanding you're in for the long haul, as the first book itself is roughly 800 pages. That's a whopper for the beginning of a series, in any genre. However, if the first book is anything to go by, as soon as I get my hands on the other novels, these books will fly. 500 pages-- three days. I don't think this novel will even last me the trip to London that I'm taking in a couple days.

"Outlander" is a historical fiction about a woman from post-WWII England who finds herself somehow thrust back into 18th century Scotland along with all of the Scottish/English strife, time-period struggles, and other delights (both literally and sardonically) that go with. Take this as a clear sign as to the merit of these books: I hate historical fiction. It usually reads to me, as a genre, as if someone were trying to work too hard to make their time period and setting ring with veracity, which just makes everything feel like a text book gone horribly, horribly wrong. The attempt to make an historical fiction sound both historical and fictional just fails with me, on both counts.

This book is the first exception to the rule. Every historical detail is woven seamlessly through the story, almost as if subconsciously, so that in the reading you are never distracted from the story even as you are being loaded with historical, societal, and cultural threads. Because of course, the main character is learning all about the time and the society and the culture, and yet there are no 'lecture' paragraphs where one learns that -insert historical fact here-. I have not skipped over a single paragraph in this book, in all of the 500 pages I have read so far, and I don't think I shall do so.

Of course, I must also put out there that this is a romance novel. I was not quite aware of that at the time I began the book (I don't have anything against romances, just so you know, but if there's a picture of a shirtless man on the front with a half-bared woman in his arms, I tend to pass on by), and while I have not come across anything that I would deem...I suppose ridiculous is the word I would use, or perhaps tacky or in extremely poor taste...hmmm...not your penny-romance-novel, I guess is what I mean...anyway, nothing like that has come across my reading, but this is a book I would rate Mature. Ahem. So choose to read it or not with that in mind.

Well, whether or not that is adequately explained, I can't put this book down, and I really can't wait to see what happens. This is one of those books that I read, wishing I could read faster to find out what happens, and yet wishing it wouldn't stop. I do, however, have six other books awaiting my perusal once I am done and have some means of acquiring them. I certainly can't complain.

What Do We Do With This...?

I really am unsure what to say about this movie review that I was introduced to via that ever valiant source of information-- Facebook. I read it and was in mental and physical pain. Go ahead-- take a browse below.

In short, all I can ask is...what in the world is happening to our readers? I assume levels of ignorance such as this have existed throughout the years, but it seems to me that the ability to flaunt it has only increased with time. Aging, I suppose, like the stinkiest of fancy cheeses that connoisseurs think everyone should like, but really, everyone just wonders why it is they keep eating cheese that smells like feet...

So, we have this stinky cheese here. You'd think whoever wrote this would do some research before opening up his mouth (or rather typing away). You see some similarities between a book you read and a movie you saw? Hmmm, well, wouldn't it be interesting for you to go to google and type in the author's name, and see who it is who actually came first.

The archetypes and similarities between Harry Potter, for instance, and Lord of the Rings, could be listed with interest. Every book has something in common with something else-- it's the way stories go. For example, in "The Two Towers", Faramir calls Sauron "he who we do not name". Sound familiar to Harry Potter's "he who must not be named"? Some people could call this ripping off, but wait until you find out if J.K. Rowling even read Tolkien's works before she wrote Harry Potter. If she did, well, she was influenced. Perhaps she made a tangible choice to use something along those lines. Authors do it-- and don't tell me, if you're a writer, that you haven't read something or seen something or heard something and thought, oooh, I have to use something like that! Then usually you promptly forget and it shows up in your work anyway by subconscious decision and you think you came up with it all on your own until you see the original later and think dang.

Of course, there is always the possibility, also, that Rowling never did read Tolkien (which would be a great shame) and the similarities are merely coincidences or based on the cultural and psychological building block of fantasy that has been growing and evolving in this country since fantasy and fairy tales were created, both here in their own ways and abroad in their origins. They're nothing new-- go back to the ancient myths and legends and you'll find they have nothing to do with Disney princesses. You'll find fierce and beautiful Tuatha de Dannan from Ireland and decide you probably don't want to run away with a cute little fairy who is possibly going to eat you in the next second. You'll find Djinn from India and Kaonashi from Japan. Changelings and dangerous parallel worlds galore.

If Rowling never did read Tolkien, it's entirely possible that she made all these links and connections with his work completely oblivious. I've done this myself-- I thought I made up a name, or altered a known name into a different one, only to find years later that it was the exact name of a character in an Anne Rice book. I'd never read that book before, so I was making the connection backwards. I had not been influenced by Anne Rice, and I certainly did not rip her off. But the same name was used.

This person seen up above...I can't really quite comprehend. Not only does the writer not know that Tolkien wrote the Hobbit first (something the writer criticizes Tolkien for not doing) before continuing on to Lord of the Rings, and in good, long time before Rowling even conceived of Harry Potter, but he clearly doesn't know that Tolkien has been dead for 40 years. Hm. That will sort of put a damper on him making an appearance on the DVD.

Besides, many authors write prequels after their main series. What is so wrong with that?

But truly, I'm mostly constraining myself around the line "Tolkien, that unoriginal, stupid idiot"...

Deep breaths...

In a world where information is merely a click away (I remember having to do everything via encyclopedia, guys) how could you not cross check your information before doing a fail-rant against one of the most beloved storytellers and world-weavers of this century? Twenty years went into the writings of Lord of the Rings, and it's endurance and life in this new century attests to its power.

I rather think the words 'stupid idiot' could be reassigned, here...

Who Says Hard Rock Isn't Art?

All you rock stars out there and all you fans of rock stars, now you can point to this and prove that you're more literary than people may think you to be!

So classic/hard rock and all who run around with it are nothing more than pot heads and boozers, right? Wrong, actually. Though this stereotype does come from some fact in the extremes (extremes always shout loudest, people, on both sides) there's this really wide swath of rockers who actually have some brains and literary savvy to them. Quite a lot of them, actually.

John Williams wrote an article addressing this topic, Book Titles With That Indie-Rocker Feel that points out quite a few of these inspirations, both forward and backwards and across the table.

Apparently The Cure inspired two novels by Andrew Porter and Allie Larkin, reflected in the book titles, and The Cure themselves were inspired by a children's book called "Charlotte Sometimes" by Penelope Farmer. R.E.M and the Smiths are also cited as having literary influences in the title-naming-world. These are, of course, just a few. Rush was inspired by Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" in many areas, and their lyrics reflect that. You can bet that a number of hard core Rush fans have read the novel.

Of course, some authors get it right when they title their books after a song, and the innards of the novel reflect that. Other's don't. I admit to being in the 'not listening so closely' camp in regards to R.E.M's song "Losing My Religion", which has inspired several religious books. I'm not a fan of the song only because the idea of losing one's religion is so sad to me. And yet that's not the goal at all (and hence those who have written solely religious novels off of the title have not been paying attention). Apparently

"singer Michael Stipe has explained the phrase as a southern idiom that means running out of patience."
 

Huh. Well, I think I owe that song another listen.

But really, who hasn't been inspired by one of their favorite songs, including rock and roll? I got this close  to writing a story inspired by The Cure's "Burn". It's still on my list to-write. The idea includes the old Celtic mythology about crows being the escorts of the dead between worlds, and how they fall in love with a living woman and steal her away. Her husband doesn't quite approve of this, and from there the story builds. In my mind, the lyrics of "Burn" are the malignant voices of the crows speaking to the husband.

Besides, though there be some mindless lyrics out there in the rock world, if you listen to 85% of songs, you'll see the literary aspects and poetry behind them. Blue Oyster Cult, Styx, Rush, Journey, Queen-- all incredibly poetic and literary bands. Even Black Sabbath has some beautiful and/or intriguing lines, as 'hard rock' as they are. Music is integrally linked to the written word, and I very rarely write creatively without something playing in my ear. Because what are lyrics and songs for? To tell some form or story, whether it be real, fiction, personal, impersonal, statement-based, or merely culture-based. Some will be better than others, of course, and some will resonate more with certain people than others.

But isn't it the same with books, themselves?

The Mayans Were Right...but wrong...but Right...Again!

Well, maybe the end of the world isn't happening at the end of 2012...but then again, Twinkies were threatened, and that's (I hear) enough of a shock to make it seem worth the proclamations of doom. They're not my favorite snack, by far...in fact I find that delightful, over-dyed, greasy cake filled with questionable, poofy, marshmallow cream to be a bit of a turn off.

But did you know that if you deep fry it, it actually tastes...good? I promise...it was a bet. That got lost.

Now, however, there is something else that makes the oncoming year 2013 seem ominous. Apparently copyright law has a change that is 35 years in the making and is about to collect.

In an article by Jeff John Roberts, the concerns and possibilities of the new Copyright Act will allow authors to reclaim their work after 35 years. All those backlisted novels by authors famous by today's standards (Roberts listed a few including Stephen King, Judy Blume, and John LeCarre...definitely some names who could cash in now what they may not have been able to back then) could prove quite an unforseen monetary hazard for publishers already struggling. Here's how the law works:

"The law in question is Section 203 of the 1978 Copyright Act which allows authors to cut away any contract after 35 years. Congress put it in place to protect young artists who signed away future best sellers for a pittance . . . The 1978 law also means a threat to the back list of titles that are a cash cow for many publishers. The threat is amplified as a result of new digital distribution options for authors that were never conceived when the law was passed — these new options mean authors have more leverage to walk away from their publishers altogether."

Ahh here we are...the threat of eBooks and ePublishing yet again. As you can see, the friendly balance between the two has not yet arrived. Maybe it never will. They are, after all, in direct competition with each other, and until all the major publishing houses own all the major ePublishing houses (or vice versa) there will not be peace between the Montagues and the Capulets.

You can see how this might be a problem. If a present-day author who is stable both financially and in terms of popularity, they will have great leverage over their publisher should they want to take their old books elsewhere. Which means either the publishing houses will have to pay up, literally, or risk losing their money makers. Having Stephen King on your list is no joke, folks. So all the publishers are in a quiet tizzy, trying not to bring attention to this change approaching in the new year and hoping that it all goes over quietly.

Then again, there may be nothing to really worry about. It seems that most agents and authors don't really know about the law, and even if they do, their chance to do something about it is not very wide. Roberts goes on to say that

"authors have a five-year window to exercise the right but must also provide advance notice at least two years but no more than 10 years beforehand. For 1978 authors — who are eligible to reclaim in 2013 — the window is already closing."

They'll only have three years to make this work, and believe me, that's a short time even as it is simultaneously a long time in the publishing world. All the gears have to get going at the same time and in the same way before much can get done. So if the authors are going to do this, they need to go ahead and be prepared to do it when the first of the year hits us. And if none of them really know about it, how are they to do that?

Of course, at the same time, it may not be worth the legal trouble. Court cases are incredibly expensive, should the publishers take it that far, and some producers have already done so in the case of music copyright reclamation. Roberts discusses that further in his article, but I will refrain from getting into that here.

In my opinion, contrary to all concerns, this could prove to be a windfall in the publishers' benefit.

This could be the big chance to renew these old titles. Who among us wouldn't eat up anything by our favorite author? And if some of their first novels became 'rereleased' from the printing block? We'd eat it alive. Buy everything, buy anything! I do this already with J.R.R. Tolkien. I see a book by him that I've never read before (rare at this point, but it does happen to my great delight) or at least an edition that I've never seen before, and snatch. Mine. I just recently got my hands on an original 1960s edition of The Tolkien Reader that I'd never seen before. Immediately became part of my collection without question.

And the swarm of, for example already mentioned, Stephen King fans-- I'm sure they already have his backlisted books, even if they are out of print (there are ways, my friends) but who wouldn't want a brand spanking new crisp and beautiful edition to put next to their old one? I do this...I'm still looking for the 1960s Lord of the Rings, personally...I've mentioned this before, but if you're new to my blog, I love books printed in the 60s. They smell the best.

As usual, I take a more laid-back opinion on the whole matter. I don't think it's as much of a crisis as the publishers fear it could be, but then again, I could be wrong. I certainly hope I'm not! Any more turmoil in the industry and no new books will ever be published. Everyone will just throw up their hands in defeat. This is, of course, a hyperbolic statement. But I bet you knew that. You're a clever bunch.

Stay away from those Twinkies...