About the author...

MWhere I’ll be:M

----------

3rd Annual NW Book Festival

Saturday, July 28, 2012
10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Pioneer Courthouse Square, Portland, OR
(corner of SW Morrison and SW Sixth Avenue)

----------

The 2012 Northwest Author Fair

Saturday, August 25, 2012
11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
In the plaza next to Bob’s Beach Books
1747 NW Hwy 101, Lincoln City, OR

----------

...

Ebook Formatting at Appealize.com

I’ve been saying for some time that a whole new breed of publishers is coming.

A breed of business based on a whole new model, which is actually an old business model, in which the writer (or perhaps a rich patron) purchases various publishing services from the publishers. You know, like the old days, when you took your manuscript down the street to the guy who did the weekly paper, and had this printing press sitting idle for six days. You said “Yo, Bob! How much to print this thing a zillion times?” “I say there, good Robert, prithee inform me, in what amount would you expect to be compensated for the goodly toil of printing this fine manuscript some number of times, say perchance one zillion thereof?” (Ye olde times, and all that, right?) That, of course, was before the “real” publishers said “No, no, no! We’re gatekeepers, not businesses. We don’t exist to do things for writers, they exist to do things for us. We are consumers of manuscripts and manufacturers of stories, which we then sell to readers. Things you can’t be expected to understand. Simply continue to provide us with the raw material, since we all know you can’t create the actual product.” Before the old model got relabeled as “vanity publishing.” Before some guy named Yog got a silly rule named after him.

Well, we’re not there yet, but there’s a log across the river, and we’re in the middle of it. We will reach that promised land soon. In the meantime, there are a number of businesses popping up to handle some of the interim steps needed to take advantage of the ebook/POD revolution. Formatting and posting ebooks, or preparing PDF/x-compliant files for POD, is not rocket science, and I believe that any writer who can write a good book can learn these new skills, but then, there are those who believe that if I can write a good book, then I can market it, and that is patently untrue (I maintain that marketing is a form of magic to which you must be born, much like writing, and that you can’t really be taught the inner workings of its arcane systems, but I digress). When these new businesses will do that for us, then we can step off the log on the far side.

Here, though, is one of the new startups specializing in formatting your ebooks for you.

I received an email a few days ago from Michel Semienchuk, telling me of his new business. I responded with a few questions, and he was kind enough to answer them promptly. Here, then, is an interview with the founder of Appealize.com:

MS: My name is Michel.  I’m a self-published writer, and I’ve recently launched a small start-up to turn books into ebook apps.  The concept is simple: people send me their books in word format, and I do the conversion for them.  In the end they get an app file, which they can submit to an app store.  The great thing about it is that there aren’t any monthly fees or profit sharing, so my customers truly own their app and any and all profits that come from it.

LM: Tell me about cost. If there is a flat fee, what is it, and if there is not, then what is the fee structure?

MS: There’s a flat fee of $95.95.

LM: What is the typical turnaround time expected to be?

MS: 5 business days.

LM: Since turnaround time is directly related to "programming bandwidth," so to speak, how many people do you have doing this work?

MS: 3 people.

LM: If it turns out that you do not have enough people on tap to handle unexpected surges in demand, will you A) put more people to work, in order to meet the demand, or B) turn work away, in order to remain small and responsive?

MS: We have a base of freelancers who can help us when we’re very busy.

LM: What do you expect from the author? Suppose an author has a "sloppy" manuscript, where tabs and/or spaces have been used to indent paragraphs, or local styling has been used instead of paragraph styling to set the typeface, etc. Who does the needed clean-up work?

MS: Clean-up work is normally done by the author, although we can do it for a charge.

LM: What about books that would have extensive formatting requirements, such as figures, charts, diagrams, etc?

MS: Typically our service is used for books which are more text based.

And there you have it.

Just in passing, I’d like to note a few more things.

  • I would argue that a small core team, with free-lancers standing by, would be the best way to stay fast and agile and responsive, while not having to turn away work because of a sudden surge in demand.
  • Those writers who are creating “sloppy” manuscripts should have to do their own clean-up work. Maybe they’ll learn the lesson. I don’t think there’s any reason for modern writers to continue to write as if we are constrained by the capabilities of a typewriter.
  • If you have a book with a lot of charts, diagrams, etc, an extensive index, or other formatting issues, I don’t think you can expect it to be formatted for a flat fee at all, and certainly not for one as low as this.




Purchase Light Always Changes at Amazon.com!

Purchase Light Always Changes at Amazon.com!

Share

Some Excellent Points About the “Stigma” of Self-Publishing…

…but I didn’t make them.

These are from a blog post called “My Lousy Stigma” by Pete Morin. Go there and read the whole thing.

A few more examples are warranted.

There is a stigma surrounding the game of golf, you know. So many players can’t break 100 and swing like broken windmills. Ruin it for the rest of us, so I don’t play golf any more.

Big stigma surrounding indie rock music. So many crappy bands out there. So I don’t listen to rock music anymore unless it’s put out on a major record label.

I don’t eat steak any more either, because the quality of hamburger at McDonald’s is so inferior.

And don’t talk to me about those Japanese cars! I drove a Civic once and had a sore neck for a week.

And finally, how about this one:

I’ve been told that as soon as my short stories appeared on Amazon, they went from excellent to lousy, just by being so close to all that dreck. Like catching a cold in kindergarten. You just can’t avoid it!

You see the absurdity of it?

(emphasis added)

On a not-unrelated note:

One of my sons is writing a novel. No big deal, you say – we all did that at nineteen. Yes, we did. I’d started a dozen novels by then, but here’s the difference: The unanimous assumption of both my son and his peers is that if and when he finishes it to his satisfaction, he will publish it. Not “submit for publication,” not “seek publication,” not “grovel on hands and knees for a scrap of attention from the gods of gatekeeping.”

If and when he finishes it to his satisfaction, he will publish it.

How can that option possibly not be a good thing?

Stigma? What stigma?


Here, have an ad for a wonderful, stigma-free book:

JG cover 004

JG-animated-001

Share

Correction vs Incorrection

Trust your instinct as least as much as you trust your editor.

I’m not going to link to the blog post where I found this, because it’s not my goal here to embarrass or shame anyone, or to set myself up as a better source than another blog. I only want to point out that a lot of the so-called “corrections” you will get for the so-called “errors” you make are nothing more than stylistic choices, where either option you pick will have its supporters and detractors. I trust that those who search hard enough to actually find the source of today’s frustration will recognize this.

A blog that I read every time it is updated had a guest post today from someone has decided she is a “hack” writer, based on the edited manuscript she got back from her editor. Many of the changes were in the form of disagreements over open or closed compounds. There was no discussion in the guest post of whether or not the editor had noted that these are often matters of choice, based on personal preference, house style, etc, although I suspect from the implied tone of mortification that there was no such notation.

“Street light” was corrected to “streetlight,” apparently throughout and apparently without comment. While Google’s Ngram Viewer does show that “streetlight” is more common, “street light” is used roughly half as often, indicating that the matter is far from settled.

image

“Red brick” suffered a similar fate, with far less support. In fact, “red brick” seems to be about four times as common.

image

Similar results exist for “rib cage,” which was changed to “ribcage.”

image

“Gill net” became “gillnet,” although the former seems to be more common. Living in the heart of gill net/gillnet land, I have to say that “gill net” looks wrong to me, too, but that’s not the point. The point is that whatever I (or you, or an editor) might think is neither right nor wrong in this case. It’s just a choice. Pick one and live with it.

image

Here, though, is the best of the bunch – “Leftovers” was changed to “left overs.” And here’s the picture of how the compound actually exists in the wild:

image

Not even close.

Again, my goal isn’t to demonize anyone. Not this time around. Claim that it is wrong, wrong, wrong! of me to boldly split infinitives, and I will demonize you. Tell me “The passive voice should never be used,” and I’ll point out that you just did. Tell me never to use adverbs, I’ll point out that “never” is an adverb. And if you say that I can’t start a sentence with a preposition, I will flounce the zombiehood of that non-rule in your face. In your face!

But whether to open or close a compound is largely a matter of choice, and the propensity of writers to choose one or the other in any given case can easily be checked.

Google Ngram Viewer – your new BFF


Now go and enter my giveaway for J. E. Seanachai’s latest novel, Nonessential: The Expansion Paradox.

Share

Nonessential: The Expansion Paradox – a review and a giveaway

Nonessential: The Expansion Paradox
J. E. Seanachai 
Published in 2011
ISBN 978-1463623180

Nonessential--The Expansion Paradox at Amazon.com

Part of me wants to say that this is a book that critics will look to for decades to come, when they need to define or describe the author’s work.

It is, in many ways, a book that is, itself, beyond description. It is a novel, it is social commentary, it is a game, it is a puzzle.

Another part of me wants to point out, though, that Jill Seanachai, in spite of what you might think based solely on her skills and talents, is still a young author, still with most of her career in front of her. It will hardly be fair, twenty or thirty or forty years from now, to point to her third book and say “There, that book right there, that was the book that defined her.”J. E. Seanachai

Her first novel, Dead Bird in the Weeds, was a very good book. It was a first novel, with everything that means. There were some awkward turns of phrase, there was some unpolished writing, there were some editing issues. And yet it was a good book. It was also a first self-publishing venture, with everything that means. There were some design and formatting issues, especially in the first edition. Publishing is a completely different creature than writing, with its own steep learning curve, and she had not mastered it.

And yet, in spite of all this, Dead Bird in the Weeds is a very good book.

Nonessential proves that Jill has climbed those curves.

This is not your grandmother’s self-published book. This isn’t even a project most self-publishers would have approached without trembling. On the other hand, I don’t think this is a book that could have been produced in any other way, at least not by an author without the clout of years and years of bestsellers. Not in the world where you submit your manuscript in 12-point Times New Roman or it’s an automatic rejection. Not in the world where you don’t even submit to the publisher, but to an agent who sees the agent’s second job as cutting ten percent from each manuscript that makes it through the gauntlet of irrelevance of the submit/conform/resubmit gruel mill (emphasis on submit – as in “submissive”). The first job of an agent, of course, is rejecting manuscripts, as witness their gleeful tweets and blog posts about how “easy it makes the job” when authors use the wrong typeface, or the wrong form of salutation, or don’t get the butt-kissing part just exactly right in their queries (too much, apparently, is as fatal as too little). It will be left as an exercise for the reader to determine what, exactly, is “made easy” by these sins, since they are completely irrelevant to the task of finding good manuscripts. Silly me, I would have thought that was the job.

Nonessential is an exercise in book design, a manifesto of authorial control over the whole work of art that is a book.

This is not a book that was created by a publisher that has lost sight of its true business (providing publishing services to storytellers) and gotten lost in the hopeless fantasy that it exists to sell stories to readers. Storytellers have sold audiences on their stories without a publisher’s help since the very first fireside, and only the sudden increase in the cost of doing so (brought about by the increased size of the audience and the increased machinery of book production) ever gave publishers the idea that they were supposed to be gatekeepers in the first place. Why this hundred-year-old history gets to be called the “traditional model” is beyond me, but now that digital technology has reconnected storytellers to their audiences, we no longer need the machinery. We can tell our stories by ourselves, thank you very much.

And believe me, Nonessential: The Expansion Paradox stands ready to tell you a story.

Seven of them, to be more accurate.

  • Adam Hunter’s wife is gone, leaving him alone with their young daughter, and all he wants in all the world is to have her back. Or is that not true at all?

  • Dr David Goddard, philosopher, lecturer, educator, is changing the world with his lecture series and his three little words.

  • The Project Leader moves in and out of the story lines as though he is… well, as though he is in charge of something, possibly something even darker, even more sinister, than you imagine.

  • The Archivist, harried and overworked, struggles only to keep track of it all, under a set of arbitrary constraints that make no sense at all.

  • There is a chronological story that weaves all of these lives together, but it’s, um, not chronological.

  • There’s “Your story – start anywhere, go wherever.”

  • And, of course, there’s always the option to “read from cover to cover, as the author intended, ignoring all notations.”

Notations? Yes. Navigational notations. Per the “Instructions for reading,” page xiii. I told you, this is not your grandmother’s self-published book. The fact is that it stands ready to tell you these stories in a visual tour de force of design and formatting that adds to the book, rather than simply piggy-backing on it. Sidebars and navigational notations and line diagrams and dates transcend mere decoration or embellishment and become fundamental parts of the book. This is not a book you will close easily.

This is not your grandmother’s self-published book.

    My advice is as follows:
    1. Buy the book.
    2. Read it. Cover to cover. Like a book.
    3. Tell everybody you know to read it.
      1. That’s what I did.
         

        Follow J. E. Seanachai on Twitter

        Check out her other books:

        Dead Bird in the Weeds

        Haunted Voices From my Past


      And I have two signed copies to give away!

      First copy goes to the commenter who leaves me the best reason why you should get it. Bonus points for aliens, unicorns, zombies, or other signs of an unhealthy imagination. Comments close when I say they do, so hurry.

      Second copy… Um. Stay tuned!

      Share

      …and another bit of the same stuff.

      Still doing the “research”:

      This is from a blog post at Language Log, where Mark Liberman quotes the abstract for a course that his colleague, Geoff Pullum, was (in 2004, unfortunately) about to teach:

      Try to imagine biological education being in a state where students are taught that whales are fish because that is judged easier for them to grasp; where teachers disapprove of tomatoes and teach that they are poisonous (and evidence about their nutritional value is dismissed as irrelevant); where educated people accuse biologists of "lowering standards" if they don’t go along with popular beliefs. This is a rough analog of where English grammar finds itself today. The state of relations between the subject as taught by the public and the subject as understood by specialists is nothing short of disastrous. The fact is that almost everything most educated Americans believe about English grammar is wrong. In part this is because of misconceptions concerning the facts. In part it is because hopeless descriptive classifications and antiquated theoretical assumptions doom all discussion to failure. Amazingly, almost nothing has changed in over a hundred years. The 20th century came and went without affecting the presentation of grammar in popular books or the teaching (what little there is of it) that goes on in schools. Today’s grammar books differ in content only trivially from early 19th-century books. In this lecture I name and shame some of those on the long dishonor roll of myth-creators and fear-mongers (John Dryden, Henry Fowler, Ambrose Bierce, William Strunk, E. B. White, George Orwell, Louis Menand, Stanley Fish), and I sketch a view of what could and should be taught in a course on the grammar of Standard English in the 21st century.

      http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000750.html (emphasis added)

      (Note that both Professor Pullum and Professor Liberman would seem to be in position to know what they’re talking about, with regard to grammar and linguistics.)

      I suppose, given this sad state of affairs, that it should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone that so many writers and would-be writers continue to defend such zombie rules as “Never end a sentence with a preposition,” “Never begin a sentence with a conjunction,” and “Never split an infinitive verb.”

      I should be able to simply ignore the fact that these same people rail against the passive voice while not even being able to name it correctly, much less identify it. Here’s a hint: it has nothing to do with any putative “passive verbs.” Dr Pullum again: “Nor does ‘passive construction’ [make any sense as a term] if you define it, as Webster’s does, as a type of expression ‘containing a passive verb form’. That would be far too vague even if English had passive verb forms; but in fact it doesn’t have any such thing.” (emphasis added)

      I should be able to simply ignore their war on adverbs (be sure to read the comments – quite amusing).

      Instead, I find myself amassing research to mount an assault in the form of a) the longest blog post you’ll ever teal deer, b) a series of blog posts, most of which will be read only by the choir, or c) my first-and-probably-last nonfiction book (although I’ve made a good start on a book on character voice, points of view, etc).

      Share

      Working on a long blog post…

      …although I may never post it.

      But here’s a seemly bit of stuff I found while researching it (and for “researching” read “blithely clicking links.” As Johnny 5 never said, “Links! Links! Megabytes and megabytes of links!”):

      Let me be clear — I’m not asking anybody to document that there is actually an overall "growing imprecision of [English] usage". That’s one of the assumptions of the genre of curmudgeonly rants. It’s surely false, if only because the genre appears to date all the way back to Sumerian times, so that if the hypothesis were true, human communication would by now have been reduced to occasional grunts and growls, soon to be grunts alone.

      –from Language Log, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000437.html, emphasis added

      Share

      Here’s a post that’s going to generate some spam…

      I have to move my website to a new host.

      And that’s a process I hate. Hate, I tell you. Hate with the burning passion of a thousand fiery suns.

      I know where I want to go with it, but unfortunately, I can’t afford the cost. My site is hosted now by Yahoo Small Business, and they seem to have no plans at all to update their servers to allow WordPress 3.2 to run. When this problem first started to loom on the horizon, I searched Yahoo’s web site, looking for an answer, but couldn’t find anything. I eventually emailed, and was told that they “have no plans at all” to update so their customers can use the current version of WordPress.

      Okay, whatever. But that leaves me looking for a new home, where the Health Check plugin doesn’t give me this:

      image




      Click to purchase Lightning of Her Own at Amazon!
      Can she become what she needs to be?
      Can she learn what she needs to know?
      Can she grow up in time, or will this alien dystopia kill her?

       

      Lightning of Her Own
      Book 1 of The Bugfall Trilogy

      $4.99

      Share

      But What If?

      From Joseph Robert Lewis’s blog post, “What if God isn’t a big fan of his creations?”

      And God says, “Now, which one was Earth? That wasn’t the all-marmalade one, was it? No, right, Earth was in the universe that had gravity, right. I really liked gravity, fun stuff. Funny story. Jeff in accounting bet me I couldn’t make anything sillier than a giraffe, so I made the platypus. Ha! He bought me lunch for a week. Good times. Jeff’s a great guy. We worked on a lot of universes together over the years. Our wives are good friends, too. About once a year we all take a vacation together in the all-steak universe.”

      As Lewis points out, I’m not saying it is so. (And I’ll go even further: I do not believe it is so.)

      But what if?


      lick here to purchase "A PLace to Die" on Amazon.com lick here to purchase "A PLace to Die" on Amazon.com

      Share

      New Book Release (and it’s not one of mine!)

      JE Seanachai has finally (FINALLY, I tell you!) released Nonessential: The Expansion Paradox

      This is from my good friend and cohort, the author of Dead Bird in the Weeds and Haunted Voices From My Past, both of which I also recommend.

      Nonessential: The Expansion Paradox is a huge, sprawling tale set in a maze of narratives and voices. I’ve read various portions of it as it was being written, and I will be posting a more complete review here as soon as I receive the copy I’m off to order right now!

      This is a physically big book, 8′” x 10” and 385 pages, and believe me, it had to be.

      Get it. Read it. You know you want to.

      Share

      One More Time Into the Breach

      I will never cease in the war on adverb hatred!

      One of the absolute finest writers of all time, Ursula K. Le Guin, in her latest post at the Book View Café (of which I believe she is a founder):

      “Without egg, Madame,” he said softly, almost unreproachfully, and went away to fetch my eggless breakfast, which he brought and set before me with silent, funereal dignity.

      “…he said softly, almost unreproachfully…” Go ahead, try to get rid of those adverbs without destroying the power and grace of the sentence. And they’re even in a dialog tag!

      I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, and I’ll say it until every person on Earth has heard me: To avoid a word simply because it is an adverb is no better than to use it simply because it is an adverb.

      Share