Insights

,

Being Social

,

I have to be honest: I'm getting a little sick of social networking. I could handle Twitter and Facebook just fine (well, I mostly ignore Facebook), but now Google+? As I probably mentioned before, social networking can be a double-edged sword for writers. Sure, you can connect with other writers and readers, but it's a massive time-waste that could be better spent, well, writing. If you don't tweet or make a Facebook or Google+ update every day, do you cease to exist to the others wired into the social network? If you let a week pass with no updates, do people just assume you're dead and move on? Does anyone even care?

Personally, out of all the social networks out there now, I like Twitter the best. I don't have to worry about friend requests or event invites or people asking me to like their self-made fan page. I don't have to sift through an ever growing stream of so-and-so is friends with so many new people or so-and-so just scored so many points in such-and-such a game or so-and-so is now in a relationship or so-and-so is now out of a relationship. Because, quite honestly, I don't give a crap about any of that.

Twitter is so much easier. I can follow who I want to follow. I can update when I want to update. I don't have to worry about getting notifications when someone "likes" my tweet or comments (though, yes, I guess @mentions are comments, no?).

There are different ways to use Twitter and Facebook and other social media websites. A lot of writers use it to promote their work. I'd be lying if I said I didn't use Facebook and Twitter to promote my stuff, but I don't do it constantly. When there's news to report (a new story or novel published), I'll mention it once or twice and that's pretty much it. My novels? They continue to sell pretty well every day, and guess what -- I'm not mentioning them on Twitter constantly, just as I'm not posting about them on message boards. I don't really understand the rationalization of writers mentioning their books and stories again and again on Twitter and Facebook and Google+ if their friends or followers don't really increase by much. If your friends or followers aren't interested in buying or reading your stuff the first time, they probably won't be interested in buying or reading your stuff the second or third or fourth or fifth time. In fact, they'll probably just get annoyed and unfollow (or block or unfriend) you.

If that happens, does it mean they don't like you anymore? Who knows. I've unfollowed people in the past on Twitter, and it was never because I didn't like them. It was just because I found myself not really paying attention anymore to their tweets. Or they retweeted like a madperson. Or they didn't tweet at all.

In fact, a long time ago, I unfollowed someone because I found myself not really paying attention to this person's tweets. I didn't not like this person anymore, but the next day I woke up to find a new blog post from this person making a big deal because I stopped unfollowing them. I mean, I have to assume this person meant me, otherwise it would have been way too coincidental to be anyone else. But anyway, this writer took it extremely personal that I would unfollow them. In their mind, I no longer liked them or considered them a friend. As you can imagine, I was embarrassed -- not for myself, of course, but for this writer making a big deal out of nothing.

At least, in my mind it was nothing, while to this writer it was clearly something.

But is that what social interaction is? Do we become virtual friends with everyone we encounter?

I know some writers play the Follow Me Game. They follow you and expect you to follow them back, and if you don't within a day or two, they stop following you. Why? Because I guess they think the more followers they have, the more successful of a writer it makes them. (Also, there are apparently programs you can log into that will automatically follow people and unfollow them after a day or two if the person does not follow you back. And of course there are people who just follow everybody they can because they want to.) I mean, not too long ago I saw a writer bragging how he had over 10,000 followers on Twitter. And it was true: he did have over 10,000 followers on Twitter. Of course, he was following about the same number too, which, if you think about it, sort of minuses the other one out.

Success is not judged by the number of Twitter followers you have or the number of friends on Facebook (or "likes" to your self-made Facebook fan page). At least, I don't think success is judged like that, but to each his own.

But again, I do like Twitter. Am I using it right? Is there a proper way to use these social media platforms?

A few months back, I tweeted some news on the Hint Fiction Twitter account. Someone responding, saying something to the effect of there you are, haven't seen you much, and I responded with something like, well if people talked more about Hint Fiction, I would post more. I was just trying to be friendly, nothing more than that, I was just trying to be "social," but this innocuous tweet was taken way out of context as an invitation to get a lecture on how I was doing the Hint Fiction Twitter account all wrong. How I needed to follow more people, how I needed to become interactive, how I needed blah blah blah.

My response was a simple thanks, but really the account is for updating any and all news about Hint Fiction, and left it at that.

Every person is different. Every person uses Twitter and Facebook and Google+ differently. Some of it can be too much. Some of it can be too little. Can any of it ever be just the right amount of socialness?

Touring Truths

Yesterday GalleyCat posted this video from author ReShonda Tate Billingsley about the "Not-So Glamorous Life of a Touring Author" and it got me thinking about the mini Hint Fiction tour back in November. How I think from the outside book tours seem like the coolest things in the world, but in reality they're a big pain the ass. At least for the majority of writers. The minority of writers are lucky enough to get huge support from their publisher who will fly them all over the country and put them up in hotels and pay for their meals. That is, of course, the book tour dream. But the reality is much different. For the anthology, I wanted to do a mini book tour because, quite honestly, I didn't know if I would ever get an opportunity like this again. And the publisher was happy to set up readings for me, but they weren't going to pay for anything. Not one cent. And in reality that's understandable, as they didn't pay much for the anthology in the first place -- not compared to other books they've no doubt bought -- and so they didn't have to put as much back into their investment. Like, if a publisher pays six figures for a book, you better believe they're sending an author on some kind of tour, even if it's just five or six cities. They want to get that author out there to meet the readers and booksellers so they can earn back on their investment.

But for the majority of writers, it's sort of like throwing ten darts at once at a dartboard and hoping one gets close to the bulls eye. The publisher puts little money in hoping for that at least one of them strikes it big and earns back the money they lost on the other projects.

The bulk of the promotion, ultimately, falls on the writer's shoulders.

This is why I eventually decided to start self-publishing some of my older novels; I had finally made it to the inside and saw the cold reality and knew that, in the long run, doing it myself was the smarter move.

For the Hint Fiction tour, I probably spent a couple thousand dollars of my own money after everything was said and done. For the reading in Los Angeles, Gay Degani was kind enough to let me stay at her place, so that helped save on hotel. But airfare came out of my own pocket. In fact, getting rides to and from the airport is another hassle altogether. To originally fly out to LA, my friend Noah Stoner drove me down to Philly; after I'd arrived in LA, Ben Loory picked me up and drove me to Gay's house; to then fly out of LA, Gay drove me to the airport; after I'd arrived in Philly, my mom picked me up at the airport and drove me home because my wife had to work very early the next morning.

So in that instance, not only was I spending a lot of money, I was putting others out. Of course, they're all family and friends, so it wasn't like they minded, but still.

For the reading in New York City, my wife and I stayed at a hotel for a few nights, and while the hotel wasn't the nicest -- but clearly not the crappiest -- it was still pretty expensive. As was parking and our meals and everything else.

Look, it's not like I'm complaining -- it had been my choice to put those readings together in the first place -- but just explaining the, well, not-so glamorous life of a touring author. And quite honestly, I wasn't even really touring that much.

Then, in December, I was scheduled to speak at the Morgantown Poets meeting in Morgantown, Virginia, which was a several hours drive. Not that I don't mind driving, but this was in December, and of course that day it decided to really snow, and as it turned out the snow got worse and worse the farther west we got, and so by the time my wife and I made it to Morgantown basically nobody had shown up for the meeting. And then, of course, hotel and meals came out of my pocket.

Again, not complaining but just giving another example.

Just like, this past Sunday, I went down to Philadelphia for the Chestnut Hill Book Festival. It was a nice little town with tables and booths set up along the sidewalk for a block or two. The Hint Fiction reading was on the second floor of a restaurant. Contributors Bruce Harris and Minter Krotzer were in attendance with about maybe a dozen other people (Patricia Anderson, whose story was one I picked for SmokeLong's 30-word contest, had also stopped by since she was visiting family, and I asked her to read her story, so that was nice). I had brought maybe twenty books to sell; the majority of those in attendance already had books, so you know how many I sold? One.

Again, I don't want to make it sound like I'm complaining. This is just how it is. I could have easily decided not to go to any of these events (I should also mention AWP, which is quite expensive and ultimately, I don't think, worth the cost), but I don't mind driving a few hours and talking about Hint Fiction. Actually, the main reason I'd originally agreed to speak at the Chestnut Hill Book Festival was because it wasn't that far away, not like many of the other locations. Not so long ago, I had pretty much come to the decision that I'm not going to drive more than an hour or two for something like this again unless I'm being compensated. That's just the simple reality of it; I don't have the extra money, and my time can be better spent on writing.

Which then, of course, makes me come back to the picture I posted the other day. Yes, The Serial Killer's Wife will soon be available as a trade paperback. I hope to make The Dishonored Dead and The Calling available as paperbacks soon, too. Not that I expect to sell that many, but it's nice for readers to have the option between electronic and paper. In fact, when I had initially been sent the proof for TSKW (that's what I'm holding in the picture), I thought that it was nice to hold the book, sure, but if it wasn't for e-books, I wouldn't even have considered self-publishing. Because I remembered the reason that self-publishing never made any sense before: the lack of distribution. Sure, TSKW will be available via Amazon and other online retailers, but it's not like you'll be able to find it in any bookstores. In the past, bookstores were where the readers were. Now e-readers are making it possible for readers to find books practically anywhere.

This past Sunday, I saw a writer standing behind a table set up on the sidewalk. On the table were several print-on-demand books. You could tell by the cover art that they were self-published (and if they weren't self-published, then that publisher should have spent the extra couple of dollars on quality art). And I remember thinking, Thank God for technology, because if it wasn't for e-books, that could be me standing behind the table, smiling at those who walk past avoiding me.

Except, again, I would never have even considered self-publishing if it wasn't for e-books.

Why?

Because this past Sunday at the book fair, I sold one physical copy of the anthology after having driven a couple of hours and speaking for an hour. That same day I sold between 30 and 40 e-books without lifting a finger.

Welcome to the future.

Saying Goodbye Is Never Easy

Back in early 2000 I wrote a short story that I knew would be big. It was, I liked to think, my New Yorker story. It was called "New Avalon" and was basically about how Princess Diana faked her own death and was living secretly with Dodi Fayed in a small town in northern Pennsylvania. The reason for her faking her death was because she had cancer and didn't want the world to watch her die a slow and painful death. The story would be narrated by a young man who had abandoned his old life to become Diana's personally bodyguard and driver. In fact, the story itself wasn't so much about Diana as a plot device to focus on this other character and everything he had to give up. The story was originally written in first person, but there was something off about the narrator I couldn't put my finger on. Then I had the idea to try it in the second person -- you know how I love a good second person narration -- and bingo, it worked perfectly.

But there was still something missing. The story read okay, but it still felt incomplete.

By that time I had signed with my first agent and, after trying to sell a thriller, I told him I had a literary novel. I'd expanded the short story into a 50,000-word novel. The novel was broken up into twelve parts; each section took place during a month of the year, starting with January and ending with December. The story would be set ten years after Diana's "death" and how the cancer that had regressed was starting to come back and the narrator begins to live life again. It was, in many ways, a love story and dealt with the idea of destiny and free will.

My agent loved it and we went out with it, knowing it was going to be a tough sell because of the second person (though I had flashbacks between each section in the third person which, in retrospect, slowed the novel's pace and could have done without). As usual, there were a few nibbles from some major publishers, but no bites. And so, like usual, the novel was set aside to "maybe come back to someday."

Stewart O'Nan -- who's excellent novel A Prayer for the Dying is written in the second person and was really an inspiration for my own novel -- had read an early draft of New Avalon and encouraged me to keep at it. The thing was, at the time, there really was no need to keep at it. I could revise, but so what? My agent had submitted it to publishers. You only get one shot. So then set aside it went.

Until many months ago when I saw an article somewhere online about a woman who had written a novel about Princess Diana faking her own death and living under an assumed identity in America.

And, as you can imagine, I immediately thought: WTF?

But at the time, I wasn't ready yet to start self-publishing. That came only a little later, but by then I was more concerned with getting The Calling and The Dishonored Dead out there. They were, after all, ready to go for the most part, just needed some tidying up. In the back of my mind, I knew that New Avalon would be a possibility but that I would have to give it a major revision. My goal was to get it out before the other book came out. I knew the plots were somewhat similar, so it was imperative that I got mine out first. Granted, the second person would scare a few readers off -- which is a shame really, because second person can be so great -- but I was fine with that.

Unfortunately, the other Diana book came out much quicker than I had anticipated. Obviously I hadn't done my research well enough, but I had assumed it would be later this year. In fact, my plan was to dive into the revision of New Avalon in the next week or so, try to have it ready by September if all went well.

But then this past Saturday I saw this.

And I immediately thought: Shit.

The review itself of Monica Ali's novel Untold Story (a pretty crappy title if you ask me) isn't very good. In fact, the review even says, "Unfortunately, the premise is the best part Untold Story."

Yes, the premise is pretty excellent, isn't it?

Oh well.

After sending a frustrated email to Stewart O'Nan to get his opinion on what he thought I should do -- would it still be worth trying to publish this thing now that the other book was out? -- I dug around and found the early draft of the novel I had sent O'Nan back years and years ago. He had marked it up with notes. I paged through the manuscript. And I thought, for a moment, it might be possible to do a quick cleaning up of the novel and just post it as is.

The thought was only there for a moment, and then gone.

Because I knew better.

Had I done that, the novel would be an okay novel, but not a great novel.

And a great novel is obviously what I'd want to publish.

Like I said before: just because you can, doesn't necessarily mean you should.

So New Avalon? I have no choice but to say goodbye. Which sucks, because a lot of work went into the novel, but that's okay because it was a learning experience. I am the writer I am now because I had once written it. And it's for the best too, really, at least from a marketing standpoint, as the readership I'm starting to build leans more toward thrillers, and throwing a literary novel into the mix this soon into my "career" could be jilting for some.

But don't worry -- I plan (hope) to publish a novel in the second person one of these days.

Until then, you can always enjoy an excerpt from New Avalon which I posted a few months back.

Another Big No-No

Remember awhile back that woman who had a mental breakdown in the comments section of a book review blog because the review in question didn't care for her book but she was convinced otherwise that her book was amazing, and then the whole thing went viral and the review got over one hundred comments and the book itself got dozens and dozens of one-star ratings, probably forcing the writer in question to maybe overdose? Yeah, well, that little hoopla was one of those "writerly lessons" on what a writer should never ever do. Because it is bad show for writers to respond to bad reviews. Sure, the reviewer may not always get what you meant, but that's beside the point. It's just a part of being a writer. It's just a little thing called professionalism.

But then you have writers who feel the need, time and again, to respond to reviews. There's even one author who probably Googles his name every half hour -- so if you're the writer in question, welcome to my blog! -- who constantly responds to one-star reviews of his novels on Amazon (he responds to other reviews, too, even five-star reviews, but those aren't as entertaining). And, I mean, come on -- they're Amazon reviews, for pete's sake! They're certainly not the end all be all. But whatever. I heard awhile ago that this writer constantly responded to one-star reviews, but I didn't believe it until I saw it for myself. Sometimes, when I'm bored, I go looking for more one-star reviews and the comments that follow just for a good chuckle.

Anyway, the writer's name is Noel Hynd and he writes a lot of "Christian fiction," which basically means that most of his books are published by a Christian publisher and so hence he is given that title. I'm not even going to show you the reviews in question, but the comments instead.

For a review titled "An Embarassment to Everyone Who Writes and Reads English," this is the author's response:

So, uh, you're saying that you didn't care for it?

Someone else comments:

Thanks for saving me the effort of writing a review. I actually stuck it out till the bitter end and would like those hours of my life back.

And then the author again:

For an author, reviews like these and the comments above are among the most perplexing part of one's profession. What works for some readers, fails miserably with others. I realize that it's often a matter of taste, what sort of mood the reader was in, how much he/she spent...whatever. I seem to be very popular among the people who like me but the people who don't would like to see me killed with a sharp stick. In fact, they seem ready to provide the sharp stick. Go figure. Curiously, so far on this book here are 26 reviews. None are 3's. There are more 5's than anything else, and several of the 1's seem to be agenda driven. Fascinating. Despite the nasty vibes, thanks to BH and CS for taking the time to post. CS, sorry, but I can't return your time to you. Better luck with the next book you read. BH, I'm from New York too. Want to meet under the Williamsburgh Bridge some night on the Manhattan side and duke it out? ;-)

In another review titled "Don't Bother - Poorly Written and Not Tagged Correctly," (apparently readers are upset that the novel doesn't scream "Christian fiction" on the cover), the author responds with:

Completely untrue. I took no digs at anyone or anyone's beliefs. Certain characters did, certain passages are in the POV of certain characters. You frankly just didn't read very carefully. As for the history, it's necessary to the story. Are you an expert on Ukraine from the 1930's to 2010? Most people aren't, including myself. But it's impossible to understand the current story and current events w/o understanding what happened in the 1930's and what, for example, the 'Orange Revolution' was all about. Like many people here, you admit that you awarded one star without finishing the book and more as a rating of the publisher than the author. That's your privilege, just as it's my privilege to respond to your comments. Aside from that, I love you very much.

And then there is someone back and forth between the reader and the author.

Another one-star review titled "Absolute Dreck," the review is very short and sweet:

Filled to the brim with non-stop typos, grammatical errors, plot lines that go nowhere and overt christian prostelization. I can't beleive I paid for this!

And the author's response:

No profile, no other reviews by this 'reader', no examples given, and at odds with 45 other readers who gave this book 4 or 5 stars. One wonders.....

And then another one in which the review says:

I rarely give up on a book. I got to Chapter 49, still waiting to become interested in the book, and finally decided I was just too bored with the book to continue.

And the author says:

Tell you what, Gary. I'll come over to your place and read the back half to you. How's that?

You get the idea. It goes on and on. In fact, there's one definitely worth checking out (one of the author's earlier comments, I suppose), because he starts his rebuttal off with this:

I don't normally reply to comments on books I've written since everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

Uh-huh. That was back in April 2009. But wait! The author doesn't make snide remarks to everyone. He even says so here in here:

Just to even things out, I didn't finish reading your review......Actually, I was just about to click off and I saw you yelling at me, "UNPROFESSIONAL UNCALLED FOR AND OBNOXIOUS!" so that got my attention. I don't make a "snide" remark to everyone. I don't even make one to everyone who has made one to me. Reader reviews here are like reader mail. So I answer it. I used to be published by The Dial Press back when they published Robert Ludlum. I knew Mr. Ludlum fairly well. He always answered all reader mail as far as I know, good or bad, even the wacko stuff (and believe me, he got plenty) and advised other writers to do the same. So I do. If you prowl through all these notes, you'll see that I've put gracious notes of thanks on some pretty awful reviews. What can I say to someone who didn't one of my books? "Thanks, I hope you get hit by a truck." (That's a joke, Kim.) So I try to keep it amusing, at least. Reading is entertainment, so is this section of give and take. Most people take these reviews and responses with a grain of salt. I feel that anyone who has taken the time to post a review merits a response. You disagree?

Yes, in fact, I do disagree. A writer without readers is a very sad writer indeed. And a writer who constantly pulls these kind of shenanigans? That writer is just begging to lose more and more readers.