Is Incompetence An Excuse?

This article from Vox has got to be the most curious take from a publisher that I've ever read.  Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster are two of the biggest remaining publishing houses.  Out of what was once dozens of publishing houses, only five big ones remain.  In fact, there used to be six until Penguin and Random House merged into Penguin Random House.  Now Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster are looking to merge, thus reducing the total "big" houses to four.  However, the Justice Department is seeking to prevent the merger, calling it anti-competitive and trending towards monopolistic practices.  The suit argues that, "Authors are the lifeblood of book publishing.  Penguin Random House’s proposed acquisition of Simon & Schuster would result in substantial harm to authors, particularly authors of anticipated top-selling books."

One of the strangest things in this case, though, is the argument put forth by Penguin Random House is that the industry is chaotic and that success is so random that no one company could possibly control enough market to control the chaos.  In essence, they're arguing that their business sense is too incompetent to make this an anti-competitive practice.

What bullshit.

By continuing to merge into larger and larger companies, the publishing houses have a stranglehold not just on the customer market, but on which authors get selected to publish.  Yes, indie books have made great strides over the last decade, but the vast majority of books are still published by one of the "Big 5" houses.  These houses are so large and control so much of the market that there is no realistic way for a new imprint to compete.  It's like Rumble trying to make a play for YouTube - great in theory, but since YouTube has such a large market share, Rumble isn't really a competitor(most people haven't even heard of Rumble, let alone used it).  This consolidation gives virtual control over what succeeds and what doesn't.  While I agree that success is never guaranteed, and I've argued repeatedly that a novel must actually be good to succeed, it's almost impossible to break in without massive resources currently controlled by the Big 5.  And further consolidation gives them a vice grip on who can and can't get in, meaning that the publisher, rather than the market, gets to decide.

To me, this sounds less like going for efficiency and more like trying to enact dictatorial control over the industry.  Is that good for customers...or authors?  I think it will eventually harm what is out there, because why would a publisher look to be more competitive when there's no competition?

Audience Patience

How much leeway does the audience give an author in terms of bringing out the next story?  Most of the writers I enjoy tend to have about a year between books, but that's not always the case.  George RR Martin, for example, has seen over 11 years elapse since his last novel in the Song of Fire and Ice saga, although he says that Winds of Winter will supposedly be out this winter.  Has the saga grown stale, or has the audience moved on, especially since the HBO series went out with such a whimper?

I ask this because the novel I've been working on for more than two years is still a long way from coming out.  I'd like to say it's because I'm caught in the throes of some huge plot point dilemma, but, truthfully, life has been bisy and I've bene lazy in my off-work time.  Several people have read the first few chapters and been interested in continuing, but I haven't done anything much with the book in the last year except maybe belt out one or two more chapters.

I suppose I should be grateful that not many people know about it, so it's not like I'm disappointing throngs, but even with that caveat, I haven't published anything since the Spring of 2020.  I don't have vast hordes swarming me for my newest novel, but one or two have asked where my latest is, and what its status is.  Do I risk losing the few fans I've got by being so unproductive?  Or can I appear fresh to an entirely new audience by waiting?  This next novel is my largest project to date, and it will involve the most complex cover(I think), but postponing it so much leaves the audience...wanting.  Wanting is okay if there's a payoff, but the longer the payoff the better it needs to be.  I guess we'll find out if/when I ever get back around to it.

Courting Controversy

How much should a writer court controversy to get noticed?  I don't mean in what we write in specific novels; you'll either have a gripping story, or you won't.  Maybe you want to be controversial, but controversy sometimes comes with stories whether you want them to or not.

What I'm talking about is doing things outside of your writing to generate buzz and controversy.  Many authors are content to just write a good story and stay out of modern bullshit because they don't want to piss off half the audience.  Others, however, look to create controversy as a way to get more eyeballs.  They're catering to a certain ideological or intellectual demographic, so the more people talk about them, good or bad, the better.

I'm not talking about the folks like Stephen King or JK Rowling.  Stephen King often weighs in on touchy subjects in modern culture and can afford to do so since he's set.  No one is taking away King's market, so he's free to say whatever he wants.  JK Rowling recently entered the fray of controversy, and while many folks get mad at her, she's a billionaire who wrote probably the most beloved children's series of all time, so it's not like she'll be off shelves anytime soon(and even if she were, a billion dollars has a way of comforting the mind).

What I'm talking about are folks like Larry Correia and David Brin.  Both authors are very talented, very well sold, and very controversial in what/how they choose to engage on.  They are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, and neither is shy about giving their thoughts.  Neither is hurting for sales at this point, but they're not household names, either.  Their critics despise them based solely on their engagement of views many dislike.  However, while it has alienated some potential readers, it has also expanded their bases to new folks who may not have otherwise noticed them.  Good or bad?

Talking politics or religion isn't the only way to generate controversy.  These days, merely weighing in on a topic is enough to create rage.  Talking about a subject one side or the other has deemed evil is enough to get you branded, regardless of if you agree with the position.  So is it worth it?  I ask because there's a topic I've been wanting to talk about, even though it is a little out of date.  Still, feelings run hot on this one, so is it a risk that can boost my career, or will even engaging tank it?

I think I'm going to bring it up for my next blog post since I can't "tank" much further.  After all, can a person with no skin really feel the fire?

Still Missing Dates

In the mix of work and writing, writing often gets the short shrift.  I wish it didn't, but life intrudes.  And it's self-serving, as well as unrealistic, to say that I can do more if you'd buy more books...but it takes more engagement to reach more people so they'll buy more books.  Kinda like trying to be a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

Gotta Get Thick

If you put something out in the public sphere, you will get criticized.  It's part of the game.  No, those writing poor reviews don't know the hours of your time you've poured into telling a story, or how personal a bit of dialogue is to you.  They know what they like, and they get to say if your work is good, in their eyes, or not.

I say this because a writer friend of mine ranted to me for 20 minutes about wanting to respond to critical comments.  I told him that was a bad idea.  It starts flame wars that make you look petty.  Not everyone will like or "get" your stuff.  That's okay.  Take the criticism in stride and see if they have a point.  If you think they don't, then maybe that wasn't your audience.  Taste is particular.

If you can't handle people telling you your work stinks, you're in the wrong business.  Grow a thicker skin or find a new occupation.  Anything else is a waste of time.

Unneeded Sequels

When an audience enjoys something, whether a movie, play, or novel, they want more.  Always.  The feeling of being inside a familiar world they once enjoyed gives the perception that they'll love anything that comes out of that world.  The problem is that expectations don't always match with reality.

As writers, we should be very wary about doing a sequel just because the audience demands it.  Sometimes we write a book with a sequel in mind.  I have a couple of books where I've left open the possibility of follow-on stories, but I also have at least one that doesn't.  Schism, my best seller, is not set up for a sequel.  There is nowhere for the story to go, or at least not a way that I am capable of writing or which would maintain the same audience.  So I need to leave it alone.

For those wondering why an author would limit himself so, it's a matter of keeping a reputation and giving the audience books and stories that they'll care about.  For the same reason there are books I've written but not released, some stories don't need new stuff - they'd be bad, and the audience would tire at that.  It would also eventually hurt future stories because now the audience would look at what comes out with a jaundiced eye.

There are lots of areas where this conclusion holds.  Think about wrestling, for example.  The local wrestling show brings out the midgets and big-boobed women, and they sell out the arena.  So the company brings them out again.  And again. And again.  The crowd grows bored as the novelty wears off, and soon the entire company is playing to empty arenas.  In another, I love the Calvin & Hobbes cartoons by Bill Watterson.  I get lost in these comics.  Reading Watterson once, he mentioned he leaves a lot of material from ever seeing the light of day, and I initially felt cheated.  However, would I hold the same wonder if he kept pumping out stories, only for them to be sub-par?

Many clamor for another Harry Potter book, or something new from Max Brooks in the World War Z realm, but these are not set up for new work.  Max Brooks finished the Zombie War saga, so where does he go next?  Harry Potter was about Harry Potter at Hogwarts, so books about his kids lack the main character, and any story beyond Voldemort lacks the gravitas of the originals.

Enjoy the work, but stop producing sequels that don't work.  Your overall portfolio will suffer, and the audience will grow to hate you.  Leave them wanting just a bit more, and they'll almost always come back.

Be Cool

People are people.  Some have greater station in life, but that doesn’t make them people any less.  I bring this up because I’ve seen many of my peers swoon over meeting their favorite writers(I’ve seen similar in other areas regarding folks and film celebrities).  Not only does this response make you seem needy, but it also tends to weird out the person being so fawned upon…unless they’re a complete narcissist, in which case maybe they’re not the kind of person you should be hanging out with anyway(and yes, lots of celebrities are narcissists).

 

I’m not going to claim I’ve always been so blasé about this.  I’ve met a few famous folks(my first being when I was eight and got to meet my favorite soccer player), and I still slip, but I’ve tried remembering that they are no more or less than I.  This helps open up doors and keep me grounded.  I can have a no-shit conversation and not look like a total stalker(hopefully).

 

That doesn’t always dampen the awe, but it should keep it under control.  And as familiarity increases, the glow of fame and status should continue to fade in favor of mutual admiration and discussion.  They are people just like you – they’ve just managed to have more people know who they are.  Perhaps they’ve sold better or written something culture-shattering, and maybe their experience has given them greater current ability, but don’t let that frighten you.  Talk to them like they’re human.  If they demand genuflection, they aren’t worth knowing anyway.

Two To One

Okay, let’s settle an old dispute – two spaces or one after each sentence?  I grew up with two spaces.  Granted, as part fossil, I grew up using a typewriter(at least it was electric), so two spaces was the norm.  However, with these new-fangled computers nowadays, I keep seeing that only one space is supposed to happen after a sentence or a colon.

 

To be honest, it doesn’t necessarily affect me – this came about because my wife is going back to school, and there are formatting parameters for her work.  However, it got me thinking about formatting use for books.  Is it noticeable and awkward to now use two spaces instead of one?  It’s a habit now and will require significant effort to undo my tendency, so is it worth the effort?  Is it even a real thing?

Remembrance

 As writers, we get to create whole worlds.  Believe me, what you read in a book is only as small sliver of the world we’ve envisioned.

 

Of course, readers are interested in the story,  not the entire world.  Maybe there’s another story within that world that would interest the reader, and maybe there’s not, but readers want to be entertained with as great story.  The extraneous parts of the world you created mean little to them.

 

So why am I talking about those extraneous parts?  Because those worlds contain characters, and those characters wander in and out of our stories, much like people in the world wander in and out of our lives.  However, sometimes those characters wander away and don’t return, and audiences wonder where they went.

 

It’s a tricky thing writing characters into our stories.  How important are those characters?  Although a character’s importance may wane, rendering them less likely to appear in the story, that doesn’t mean that audiences don’t notice.  Sometimes they’ve come to care for these characters, and those characters mean more to the reader than we as authors intended(or noticed).  My own character Gary, from Salvation Day, comes to mind.

 

This is where care and mapping come in, along with multiple edits.  Removal of extraneous characters from the beginning is required, but what if the character plays an important role down the line, even if only for a page or two?  Maybe we need to go back in and give them a beefed up role once we notice their outsized impact.  It’s one thing to kill off characters to advance the plot, but forgetting them?  It leaves some without closure.

Oops

Sorry about no blog late last night(or last week).  Trying to get back into blogging, but likely to be spotty for a bit.  I'm not as up to date as I once was.

Crap On A Cracker!

Ok, so I looked up today and remembered I hadn't done a single blog post for the month of August.  I like to do most of the month in advance, but here it was, the end of July, and I hadn't started a single one.  Then I looked at my subject sheet and realized I barely had four topics to discuss.  Not very productive, especially when trying to get back in the saddle.

I'll do better.  I promise.  We'll soon see if I get a full month for August, or if life intercedes again.