If you read Joe Konrath (I still lurk there, even though I’m against his exclusive by-invitation-only policy for his book borrowing effort), or you’ve just experienced it en carne propia (Spanish for “in your own flesh,” meaning personally), you’ll have heard that Amazon’s bots search for links between reviewer and author and erase the review if they find them.  What?  Authors can’t be reviewers?  I read a lot, and I review a lot of books.  My reviews tend to be longer than most Amazon reviews—even on Amazon—but maybe Amazon only cares about those star assignments and is perfectly content with one- or two-liner reviews?  Are they just trying to stop review exchanges?  I don’t support those either, but how do they know?  At any rate, I won’t be posting reviews on Amazon anymore, except for Bookpleasures reviews I repost there because the author requests it (we do that, but I won’t do that anymore either if Amazon forces me to pare down the review to 500 words, something they often also do).

All that said, these are Amazon’s problems, not mine, so let me just say they need a new book review paradigm that makes book reviews something more than voting on American Idol.  But I think I can generalize that comment to book reviews in general.  A new paradigm is needed to add some seriousness into the reviewing process again.  Book reviews nowadays follow Sturgeon’s Law.  I realize that there are many authors, publicists, and publishers seeking reviews.  Publishers often pay for them, so indie writers and their publicists are also asked to pay (Kirkus is the most common pay-for-review source, but many online review sites also ask for payment).  Like gushing blurbs from famous authors (yesterday I reviewed an ebook praised by James Rollins, for example—the book didn’t satisfy, to say the least), paid reviews are useless to readers (probably the gushing blurbs are about all Big Five authors are willing to write—they’re usually not reviewers).

(more…)

Almost always it seems.  Part of the problem is that Hollywood destroys book plots when they attempt to transfer them to the silver screen.  I, Robot and the Bourne series of films are examples.  The first turned Asimov’s cerebral study of human-robot relations, carried to its pinnacle in Caves of Steel and The Naked Sun, into a futuristic action film and vehicle for Will Smith that had nothing to do with the original stories.  Same for the Bourne trilogy, where all the memory lapses were resolved in the first book, leaving the only thing common between movies 2-3 and books 2-3 the titles.  I could only enjoy the films by trying to dispel all memory of the books.

Want some non-sci-fi examples?  Consider all the Bond films.  The first films tried to follow the Ian Fleming originals; later ones, even in the Sean Connery era, not so much.  One film that seemed to follow the book well (I’d read the book ages ago and didn’t reread it before the film) was Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy; that was probably what killed it at the box office.  It’s not uncommon for a movie based on a book to do badly.

Reason 1: The visual and psychological.  The first is clear.  Movies are visual media, books are written.  You might finish a book and say, “That would make a good X movie,” where X doesn’t stand for X-rating but sci-fi, thriller, romance, mystery, adventure, etc, but if the book doesn’t translate word experience to visual experience well, it can be disastrous.  The psychological aspect is more subtle.  While a great actor like Patrick Stewart or Jack Nicholson can express thoughts and emotions with tone of voice, facial expressions, and other mannerisms, and a great score can add to that, it’s hard to get into the head of a movie character and easy to do in a book.

Reason 2: Action.  Nowadays this has become something where movies excel and books not so much.  Even if you’re a minimalist author like I am, describing characters and what they do in action scenes just enough so the reader can participate in the creative process by filling in details in his mind (many writers don’t realize how powerful this is—the imaginative power of the human mind is virtually infinite), you won’t grab many people’s attention nowadays because action movies, video games, and TV shows have made many people passive.  Some people only react to the visual.  Some people never learn to read creatively.  But turning that around, the action on the written page, especially for minimalist writing, becomes so distorted and amplified in the movie version that all fidelity to the book is lost.  Ludlum never had a scene with Bourne jumping to cover a gap between two buildings.  In fact, Ludlum’s Bourne was more the cerebral spy than action hero.

(more…)

I don’t know about you, but my love for animals, tame or wild, stops with worms in my apple.  Hence the title; it describes two cases where the tech giant Apple was stopped cold.  Both these are wins for indie artists and negative publicity for this monster of the corporate world.

The little company that started in the garage was never one of my favorites.  In the beginning, Apple computers were just toys.  We taught high school teachers from the Colombian provinces about computing using early Apples with mixed results (the course was based on our book, La Revolucion Informatica en la Educacion—not available in the U.S.)—they learned, though, in spite of the machines’ limitations.  If you wanted to do any real computing work back then, you used a DEC, Cray, or CDC machine.  Even the early MS DOS PCs were more powerful.

The old toasters, still toys, had some success because Apple “borrowed” a GUI from Xerox; the little boxes practically created point-and-click and user friendly, albeit limited, computing experience compared to the command line-based interfaces of the other computers I mentioned.  One paid dearly for that ease of use, though, and not until Apple put that GUI on top of UNIX did you get anything close to a powerful computer (the success of the various versions of LINUX with their own GUIs might have had something to do with that change).

(more…)

I read more than I write.  Maybe some authors don’t do that.  There’s some justification.  They want to ensure they develop their own voice, for example.  They don’t want to be confused with other writers.  They want to avoid the critique that they write like so-and-so.  There can be many reasons, some good, some bad, and some a wee bit silly.  But I read a lot and have always noted that some writers become predictable.  I’ve noticed that so much that I’m constantly questioning whether I’m committing the same sin.

Let’s take an example from my early youth.  Anyone remember the Hardy Boys series?  They were to boys what Nancy Drew was to girls.  By the time I was ten, I stopped reading that series.  Even at that age, I’d discovered predictability.  Maybe that was a good thing.  I started reading sci-fi, first from my brother’s collection and then from the public library, which was probably a good thing, because I later had a steady day-job as a scientist, knowing that writing probably wouldn’t put bread on the table, unless I was lucky enough to be a smashing success.  Back to the point: Joe and Frank were nice guys, old friends by the time I’d read a few books, but their adventures became too predictable.

(more…)

I’ve been trying to schedule some book reviews for More than Human: The Mensa Contagion, getting a head start before the book is released (real soon now).  As usual, I first scan reviews of similar books, try to find some reviewers on that famous Amazon top reviewers list, and peruse Simon Royale’s list on The Indie View.  Here are some comments about what is going on right now in the reviewing world.

Item. What do I look for in a book review?  First, I really don’t look at book reviews when I buy ebooks for my casual reading.  A large percentage have no content other than a thumbs up or down, and they shouldn’t even be figured into that Amazon star-average (see the rant against Amazon below).  Many are just lies, so I don’t believe them.  They’re often from friends or family too—nothing wrong with that per se except that I know there’s an automatic bias involved.  These sets of reviewers aren’t mutually exclusive either—one reviewer can belong to all three classifications.

No, my question refers more to what I’d like to see in a review of my own ebooks.  Please note that a recent MFA, creative writing, or journalism grad isn’t a requirement for writing a decent review.  You might have hated reviewing books in school and don’t want to get into those writing details.  You don’t need to—at least not for me.

All I’d like is a simple list of things you liked or disliked about the book and why, maybe a comparison with some other books you’ve read, and comments about peripheral things like cover art, whether you like Irish whiskey too, etc—if you’re so inclined.  That sort of thing helps me write better books and helps my very efficient publishing team too—the book review becomes a learning experience and shows other readers why they might be interested in the book (hopefully not just for the sexy cover or the Irish whiskey mentioned in my bio).

(more…)

Part of being nice (Rule #1 from my article “Rogue Waves in Calm Seas”) is being ethical about how you treat readers and other writers.  One of my interests is scientific ethics, but this is a little more general and more complex.  Let’s say you receive a bad review from person X.  Is attacking that person online ethical?  If X is a writer, is it ethical to write a bad review of X’s book in revenge?  I hope you agree with me that it isn’t.

I’ve been on both ends of this little debate.  I received a questionable review and made the mistake of saying something like “I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy Y, but I can offer you a free copy of Z.”  (I won’t go into details here because I have so few reviews you might be able to figure out who it is.)  On the other hand, one person called me to task for a review I wrote, saying that I hadn’t even read the book (exactly what the first person did—he admitted it).  Again, I apologized (I’m human and read a lot, so there’s a small probability I mixed the book with another—that’s about as likely as winning the lottery, though).  But I also stuck by my guns (that’s Rule #2), and added the experience to my list of reasons to stop reviewing on Amazon and return to my mini-reviews for booksI casually read.  (BTW, if I review a book, I’ve read it.  For casual reading, I often only read it once.  For my Bookpleasures reviews, I usually read the book twice, once as a casual reader and again with a critic’s eagle eye.)

If I sinned, it isn’t at the level I described in the first paragraph.  But we can go farther.  I once discussed a plot idea with an author who didn’t express any interest in the idea (I was thinking we might become the next Preston and Child).  Later I found he’d written a book using basically that plot idea.  Is that ethical?  Whatever your opinion, it taught me a lesson that I’d better not discuss my plot ideas with other authors.  I’ve worked hard over the years to accumulate what-ifs, story and character ideas, and possible venues for my novels.  I’ve learned now to keep them to myself.  (When you see an excerpt for the next ebook in a series at the end of the present one, be assured that novel’s done and in editing mode at least—it will be released before another writer can release her/his with the same plot idea.)

(more…)

That’s my rule #3 for writers (see last Thursday’s blog post “Rogue waves in calm seas…”), and a rule readers should hold writers to.  Because traditional publishing’s top authors rarely follow that rule, indie writers and midlist authors might think it’s beneath them.  At their peril!  The stereotypical  writing recluse like Jack Nicholson’s character in As Good as It Gets is who you do NOT want to be as a writer (actually his character had a few other undesirable traits as well—see the film).  The movie was a romantic comedy with serious themes (part of the comedy was that Nicholson portrayed a scurrilous writer of romance novels).  Molly’s becoming a writer of erotica in CBS’ Mike and Molly has similar comic overtones.  (McCarthy’s portrayal is funnier than Nicholson’s, but only because the movie didn’t focus on the vagaries of traditional publishing.)

So, how do you become accessible?  Here’s a few ideas that might work:

Answer emails; ignore tweets.  The difference is easy: tweets are often superficial (how deep can you go with 140 characters?) and your responses will be too (how deep can you go with 140 characters?).  You’re a writer, after all, and while a reader might not expect you to say something earthshakingly profound, s/he’ll expect you to show your writing ability a bit.  Always think about your answer, though.

Let’s suppose you have some hate email laced with profanity.  It happens.  People often have strong opinions, and they often think they can get away with crap on the internet because you’re not there to punch them in the face.  In real life, you should just say, “I’m sorry you feel that way” (unless you live in Florida, claim you felt threatened, and shoot the SOB—okay, the person could be a DOB, to make it unisex).  Your response to that odious email should amount to the same thing: “I’m sorry you feel that way.”

(more…)

For all the words spoken and written about changin’ times in the book industry, you’d think the seas a writer sails would be really rough.  I don’t see roiling waves at all.  I’m a bit frustrated I don’t have more readers, but what the hell—I’m having a lot of fun doing what I’m doing, what I’ve always wanted to do, as a matter of fact.  I’m a full-time writer, and I write at all levels, from op-ed blog posts that probably anger some people and amuse others, to short stories and novels, and to social media, where I mostly lurk but comment when I have something to say.

I see smooth sailing in calm seas.  Many writers want to make a rogue wave, that phenomenon that rises out of relative calm and makes its presence known in a big way.  I’m OK with putting my name on a few eddies and accompanying froth here and there.  My character Castilblanco has become a Zen Buddhist; I have a bit of that philosophy in me, an attitude expressed more succinctly in that Spanish song “Que será, será.”  (I read Alan Watts in college but gave up on Zen when I couldn’t get into the lotus position.)  Perhaps less mystical is the observation that applies to many artistic activities: not everyone can win the lottery, but you can’t win if you don’t play the game.  Given that experimental fact, I’d add some rules to live by if you’re a writer.  (Readers might want to avoid writers who don’t live by them, but remember: even a jerk can tell a good story, and the story’s the thing.)

Rule 1. Be nice.  I’ll have to admit that online you can get all types, from rascally reviewers to big, bad bigots.  I have an Irish temper, so my knee-jerk reaction sometimes is to mount a verbal attack (believe me, I can do it—I had a rep in my day job for not suffering fools gladly).  I’ve learned to bow out, though.  My German side is stubborn, but I’ve also learned to let the offender have the last word.  S/he’ll often put her/his foot in the mouth, and sometimes the most egregious offenders write something that becomes a learning experience for me as a writer.  At the very least, don’t go beyond, “We’ll have to agree to disagree,” because your goal’s not about winning an argument, it’s about sharing reading and writing experiences.  Above all, value your readers.  I love you all.  There are so many ebooks out there, I feel honored if you read one of mine.  Even more so if you give me a review.

Rule 2. Don’t waffle.  This seems contradictory to rule 1, but if I have reasoned opinions about something, I stick by them, resorting to that agree-to-disagree if discussions really get testy.  I try to accept that others’ opinions can be just as valuable as my own, and, if they’re strong opinions, I’m probably not going to change them, but I expect people to do the same for me.  Again, respect your readers.  Having just one reader makes your ebook a success.  More creates that eddy, and thousands create a rogue wave.  Note that I’m saying that my readers are creating those disturbances on the relatively calm seas.  They’re the action; I’ve only put my name on that eddy or wave.  Readers rule.

Rule 3. Be accessible.  This is part of being nice, of course.  I try to answer every email and comment to blog posts.  Once I’m involved in a discussion thread, I try to keep it going as long as there seems to be interest (or, until it completely runs off-track).  The recluse writer is a stereotype, but many stereotypes have some truth to them.  I try not to be a recluse, at least online.  Take Big Five writers, or any VIPs in any activity, for that matter.  In general, the more famous they are, the more they become inaccessible, unless they have staffs answering letters and emails for them.

(more…)

Will any amount of skill compensate for an author’s zero creativity?  Will readers read a creative and inspired story when the writer has no skill?  The answer to both questions is no.  Good storytelling needs both creative talent and good skill in spinning the yarn.  Although writing genre fiction might not be called an art form by some, it is, and it’s similar to other art forms.  Mozart was a creative genius, but he was also a skillful composer and pianist.  Most musicians aren’t in Mozart’s league.  Just look at the number of revisions Beethoven made to the end of the first movement of his Fifth Symphony.  But Beethoven was both creative and skillful too, of course.  Writing is like that—we all have our strengths and weaknesses.

Developing skills is the easy part.  In most cases, it just means practice, practice, practice, which in writing means sitting down and pounding the keys a bit every day.  That’s blood, sweat, and tears.  And then doing it all over again.  When you’re not doing that, you should be reading about what it takes to write genre fiction.  I’ve probably done my part in blog posts you will find in the category “Writing.”  Don’t look for these to tell you how to write the next NY Times bestseller, though—they won’t, because otherwise I’d make them Top Secret and use them myself!  No, they just tell you about things that I think are important in writing fiction—the skill term in the storytelling equation.  You can also read books like Stephen King’s On Writing (probably his best book, by the way!) and Orson Scott Card’s Characters and Viewpoint.  There are also many other writing blogs with advice pieces—mine tend to be unconventional, so caveat emptor (of course, my advice is the best kind—it’s free!).

(more…)

I have a confession: I write to entertain readers and because I love to write.  Otherwise, I’d never keep this up.  More than Human: The Mensa Contagion will be my twentieth ebook and seventeenth novel (I have three short story collections).  But the old saw that you write the next book with the royalties from the last has NEVER been true in my case.  Sales aren’t flat; they’re abysmal.  Today it’s hard to even give ebooks away.

Amazon is partly responsible for the plight of most indie authors.  Don’t get me wrong: I’m 100% indie (otherwise I’d still be looking to publish my first book within the traditional paradigm).  Indie publishing is the most efficient way for an old storyteller like me to keep spinning his yarns and hoping to entertain readers with them.  No, I’m just a wee bit against Amazon, though.  With KDP Select they initiated the free give-away for promo purposes, people became used to freebies and downloaded them like mad, and then lost interest.  Yet the expectation for free ebooks still exists.

I participated in Amazon’s give-away program, but I got into it late.  My numbers were in the hundreds at best, instead of thousands, and probably ate into the sale numbers I might have received.  The whole process made me swear off the concept of giving away my ebooks.  I don’t do it anymore.  I’ll give away a limited number of ebooks for review purposes—you can always receive a free ebook in exchange for an honest review.  And I do limited promos—the “Señoritas Peligrosas” offer, for example.

(more…)