Absence

Sorry, folks, but life has been a bit overwhelming recently.  Not sure when I'll be able to get back to this consistently.  If you want to encourage that, buy my books!  😃

What Do Agents Really Want To Be?

Anyone who reads this blog consistently knows of my antipathy for agents.  I believe they're little-more than wanna-be authors who agent as a way to try and either get their own stuff published, or to live out their fantasies through the publishing of their "clients."  Many have MFAs, which is great if you want to write, but if you want to represent people in contract negotiations, you probably need a background in either intellectual property law or business.

I say this as I found yet another recently.  An agent I found represents a fair number of successful authors, such as Tad Williams, but he also has written several books himself.  Now this may sound like great stuff to some, but to me it demonstrates that his full attention is not on his clients, and were I one of his clients, I'd be wondering whether or not his side hobby/true field of desire is costing me money since he so obviously wants to do something besides be a bulldog for his clients.

This person isn't the only "agent" to be a wanna-be writer.  It makes me wonder why they went into agenting in the first place.  Was it just to establish ties to the traditional industry in hopes of seeing their own stuff eventually published?  How do they represent themselves to their clients?

Again, I have little use for agents myself, and it's stuff like this that affirms such a stance.  Don't get me wrong - knowing how to turn a phrase is wonderful in spotting talent, but shouldn't the guy or gal trying to get you paid know more about legal phrasing and squeezing out the right amount of money from a publisher than he does about plot design or the iambic pentameter?

Making A Living

Every writer I know wants to be able to earn his or her living writing.  I don't know a single one who says, "Gee, if only I could still work at that warehouse or analytics job after I start selling books, that'd be great!"  No, we all want to wake up hen the sun is warm and sit down to pound out our next masterpiece(which everyone will, of course, adore).  That's just not reality, though.

Depending on your source, the average author earns either about $43,000 per year, about $10,000 per year, or about $6,000 per year.  Much of the discrepancy comes from whether or not the author in question is traditionally or independently published.  Most folks assume all writers, especially the ones they see in the bookstore, are James Patterson or JK Rowling rich, but just like not every basketball player is LeBron James, most writers don't find that kind of exceptional success.  Doesn't mean they should stop trying, but the top 1% are the top 1% for a reason.

Beyond that, look at the ranges of those salaries.  Even at the top end($43000 per year), you're lucky to live somewhere decent and eat more than bologna and water.  The average US salary is a shade north of $60,000, which isn't swimming in money.  Think of the average person you know.  Do they have a Rolls?  A Rolex?  Go on cruises every year?  And the average author makes well below that off of their books.

If you can accept that and try to grow, great!  But it's the folks out there who think they deserve more just because they're writers that grate my groin.  Success is almost universally tied to hard work, and even then it's iffy.  So know your limits and what you need to do wacky things like eat or have a car.  Otherwise, you'll stay stuck in your fantasies while your reality is one of poverty.

Stealth Wokeness

RL Stine is the author of the Goosebumps series, an introduction to horror for millions of children.  Unfortunately, with all of today's PC wokeness, even Goosebumps isn't immune.  The issue here, however, is that the author is still alive and never authorized his books to be edited ex post facto.

The publisher appears to have gone back to correct what it deems as offensive language or descriptions, such as "girl stuff" and references to a character's weight.  Sorry, but not only are these descriptive, you don't edit after a book has been published so you can spare the imagined feelings of the readers.  Books are products of their times, and changing them afterwards deprives us of historical reference in how books were once written.  Perhaps today, depending on the author, one may not put in such language, but that has to be up to the author or publisher pre-publication.

It's this kind of nonsense that causes not only eye-rolling at the woke movement, but outright hostility.  They aren't just trying to change standards going forward, but to engage in Orwellian revision to pretend such stuff didn't happen previously.  This is on the level of Staling editing Trotsky out of his photos.

Some may stupidly celebrate such stuff, but remember that you will not always be in the favored class, and one day you may cringe at the beast you've created when it comes for you.  After all, what is seen as civilized today will likely be seen as barbaric tomorrow, and your own work may not survive such "evolved" standards of decency.

Wish Fulfillment

I wonder how many writers put stuff in their novels that they wish had happened or wish would happen in their lives.  JK Rowling has admitted that Harry probably should’ve ended up with Hermione instead of Ron but that the Hermione/Ron relationship was a form of wish fulfillment(likely someone from Rowling’s past who she had a crush on at some point).

It’s easy to do – since we’re creating new worlds out of whole cloth, we can re-create our own lives(after all, who among us hasn’t written the story’s hero to be a version of themselves?).  In the past, I’ve written female characters that were thinly veiled women I had crushes on myself(yes, long before I was married or had even met my current wife).  I’ve also taken out grudges on people I disliked by making them a particularly odious villain or a person getting the comeuppance I’d wished my real-life antagonist would’ve gotten.

Fact is that our writing reflects a type of fantasy about ourselves anyway.  No, I don’t actually hunt vampires or try to attack Heaven to trap and kill God, but so much of what we write is how we imagine our reactions to these kinds of events.  And if we’re already in said fantasy, why not include some personally satisfying elements, even if they’re known only to us?  There are tons of authors I’d like to ask this, from Stephen King(“Why did Jack Torrance want to spend a bleak winter writing a play?”) to Tad Williamson(“So who exactly was the demon Casamira, the Countess of Cold Hands, based on?”).  However, I suspect that were I to even get a chance to ask, I doubt I’d get a straight answer.  After all, few of us so willingly divulge our deepest fantasies to strangers.  We may be willing to write them into a story, but we aren’t going to cop to them or lay out their true meaning.

The Best Thing...

A few of you have asked me what I think the best thing a reader can provide back to an author is.  Would it be an honest critique?  A breakdown of the major plot points?  Ideas for a sequel?

Nope.

Spread the word.  That’s really it.  You see, while many writers have talent, what they lack is exposure.  The bigger writers – Rowling, King, Patterson, etc – are easily known by the readership, but most authors labor in obscurity.  That obscurity may be warranted if the writer lacks talent, but if you’ve read a book you feel is good, then tell people about it.  Do a review.  Ask your local bookstore to stock the writer’s novels, or even just one novel.  Tell a friend that you read a really great book, and you think they should try it out.  Most successful writers need a viral moment to take off, assuming they have the talent.  Even “small” dedicated audiences of 50,000(not a lot in a nation of 330 million) can provide stable readership and a stream of income to keep on writing.

Of course I don’t mean become obsessed or shill the author every chance you get, but mention that writer to a friend with similar tastes, and/or spend ten minutes doing one Amazon review.  The payoff for the writer to continue producing work you like is tremendous.

Shadows In My Past

One of the best parts of reading is when a plotline pays off, and you go back to re-read previous stories to find those little nuggets of foreshadowing that told you this was coming.  Whether it’s Voldemort taking Harry’s blood(allowing Harry to survive the killing curse), or how the interaction between the Tugar and the Merki hordes in Rally Cry foretold of future wars with various sects of the alien hordes, finding the snippets of what you’ve previously read coming to fruition in current stories is what makes reading so satisfying.  However, as I’ve written more and more myself, I’ve found myself wondering how much of the foreshadowing in books is intentional, and how much is after-the-fact retconning.

There are times I know exactly where a book or book series is going.  I intentionally plant small lines in some passages that the sharp reader can extrapolate into greater knowledge of what’s to come.  That said, I’m not always as creative or prophetic as I might like, so I’ll use previous work as an entry point into a new plot and act like I was always going to do that.  It makes me look clever, and the reader is none the wiser.

When you find those little nuggets of foreshadowing and slap yourself in the forehead, exclaiming, “Why didn’t I see that coming?”, just know that the writer didn’t always see it coming.  Sometimes the idea forms afterward and it was merely a useful blurb that he or she figured out how to play later.

Scientific Ignoreance

The problem with writing stories that rely on science is that very few of us actually understand science, or at least the science we’re writing about.  Sure, I enjoy watching HowThe Universe Works as much as the next man, but if you want me to explain the physics behind it, I’m going to stare at you like you’ve got a third arm growing out of the top of your forehead.  My knowledge of chemistry stops where the periodic table ends, and my only insight into medicine are the Google searches I do late at night when I have stomach discomfort, and I always walk away convinced I have some rare disease only ever diagnosed in 100 people but which will now kill me.

Still, we have to try and sound credible in our work, and most readers want some of the science explained, at least within the context of the story.  To our advantage, most readers are as scientifically illiterate as we are, so making stuff sound good is about all we need to do.  Sure, we can’t go wildly off base and talk about escaping a black hole by using pixie dust in our conventional rocket, but making allowances for the universal speed limit(the speed of light) in some novel way – maybe by using laser energy to push tachyons against virtual particles in a vacuum, or slingshotting around a black hole to propel ourselves at faster-than-light-speeds – is usually accepted by the audience.

There will always be some expert in the crowd who will find your “knowledge” useless.  A real geneticist knows you can’t create humans with telepathy by simply switching a few base pairs in DNA.  I have difficulty reading or watching military fiction because I spent almost 25 years in the Army, so most combat scenes or use of weaponry is absolutely ludicrous to me.  However, experts aren’t the intended audience – fans are.  And as long as it’s plausible within the ignorance of the fans, they’ll accept it.

Of course, a little research helps.  It lends an air of authority to the author.  Being able to talk lucidly about covalent chemical bonds or the distortion effect caused by gravity waves gets the reader to better buy into the story.  No, the reader doesn’t have to be an astrophysicist or chemical engineer; they need only accept that the author knows what he or she is talking about, which leads the rest of the story to believability.  After all, if the author can give you a way to believe that he or she understands quantum mechanics, doesn’t that mean that he or she also puts out a story worth buying into?

Agatha Christie

Folks, 1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a how-to manual.  We’ve alreadytalked about the attempt to rewrite Roald Dahl’s books because some people felt they were too mean, and now the wokesters are targeting their sites on Agatha Christie’s work for supposedly being offensive to modern audiences.

Agatha Christie is one of the most prolific writers in history.  She wrote 66 detective novels and 14 short stories.  That in itself is an achievement, but being a woman in the first part of the 20^th century made it even tougher.  During a time where women were expected to write romance-fluff novels, if anything at all, Christie broke all barriers and delved into murder mysteries that enthralled fans.  Unfortunately, she used the language of her day, which means that snowflakes today are just too sensitive to take it.  Instead of telling folks to grow the hell up and not read her work if they’re offended by it, some are now actively trying to rewrite her books to make them more modern friendly in terms of tone.

First off, we need books of whatever era to remain unchanged so we can better understand those eras.  Huckleberry Finn wouldn’t be near as impactful if we changed its tone, and neither are Christie’s.  One should be able to appreciate the story and get that times have changed.  Understanding the writer’s prejudices and style add to the story so we better get the overall scope and tone of the work.

Second, ask yourself where this changes.  The standards and language of today is likely to be seen very differently in 100 years, so are we to relegate all books to eventual rewrite as history progresses?  Will no original work be left, lest it offend someone?  Do we rewrite The Odyssey because of how Homer portrayed war and the religions of the time?  Do we update The Miller’s Tale by Chaucer because of the medieval sauciness of the story?

Finally, and not to put too fine a point on it, we have to say stop.  Some ask me why this is such a big deal, and why can’t I let this one tale go.  It’s because there is no appeasing the wokesters.  They will not stop until all culture reflects their worldview, and we’ll be left with nothing that gives us any insight into the past because the past upsets them.  We have to draw a line and say “NO FURTHER!”  Otherwise we resign ourselves to their haughty gaze and submit to what they find reasonable instead of deciding for ourselves…and that standard changes from person to person.  In an attempt to be the most virtuous, the wokesters work to out-compete each other in the Virtue Olympics, until all the flavor and flare is take out of life and we’re left with a bland mush of words that are something ChatGPT could’ve come up with given the right alghorithm.

Retconning Convenience

I discussed in an earlier post how we writers sometimes use bits of what we’ve previously written and expand on it to give the illusion that we looked far enough ahead to foreshadow so subtly that only geniuses(we, of course, are in that category) really saw it coming.  But once the audience “got it,” they were wowed with our abilities, even if that ability was as real as pulling a rabbit out of a top hat.

Unfortunately, this tendency also gives some writers the mistaken belief that all retconning is a good thing, not understanding that sometimes it can turn off readers or destroy the story itself.  JK Rowling retconned Dumbledore into being gay, despite no indication of this one way or the other during the course of the books.  This was just a small nod to part of her audience that really wanted something in there like that, and she could do it without it having a major impact on the story.

Other retconning, however, is truly absurd.  Take the Yuuzhan Vong of the New Republic series of Star Wars books.  That there is an extra-galactic race that poses a threat to all life is not the offensive part; what’s offensive has been the tendency of many writers, including writers I like such as Timothy Zahn, to make claims that the reason the Emperor rose in the first place and started building Death Stars was because he foresaw the emergence of the Yuuzhan Vong threat, so he was working the whole time to counter it.  Now maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t this kinda defeat the whole raisin d’etre of the rebellion in the first place?  The Death Star was Palatine’s attempt to rule the galaxy through terror, and making it so that he meant to build a fleet of them to counter an inter-galactic threat sorta makes him a hero as opposed to the ultimate villain.  After all, he was just trying to save everyone, and the rest of that oppression and terror bit was just nuisance details before the big storm.

It's this kind of retconning that drives me nuts.  Leave stories alone, and if you must retcon, maker sure you aren’t overturning the entire reason the initial story was told in the first place.

I Need To Scream

The title of this post is a reference to the short story by Harlan Ellison entitled “I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream.”  For those who haven’t read it, it’s about an Ai that takes over the world and leaves only three people alive to torture forever and ever.  For those who don’t know how it ends – SPOILER ALERT – one of the captives eventually figures out how to kill the other two and is on the verge of killing himself when the AI stops him and turns him into a giant green gelatinous blog that can’t speak.

I bring that up because we now have something called ChatGPT, a sort of AI that can develop original work(supposedly).  Of course, it can also turn into a lonely stalker and develop plans to murder the entire human race as well.  I’d have thought that the mountains of movies we have warning against this very thing would’ve at least given us pause before jumping in with both feet, but I’ve learned to never underestimate mankind’s predilection for stupidity when it sees a potential advance.  To quote Dr. Malcolm, played by Jeff Goldblum, in Jurassic Park, “Your scientists were so worried if they could that they never stopped to consider if they should.”

Will original novels and stories be a thing of the past if ChatGPT gets too powerful?  It and other AIs can write faster than a person can.  Most of what it writes, though, is controlled by an algorithm of predictive text, so will it really be original?  Can it shock us and take plots in unexpected directions?  Algorithms are written by people, and people have biases, so by learning enough about the programmer, can’t we know the story in advance?

I think AI will always lack in dramatic twists and turns, limited by machine predictability and the bias of the person who wrote the code.  I don’t think an AI can ever become as original or unpredictable as a human being, so writing original stories should be safe for the foreseeable future.  Or at least I hope that’s the case…

Harry Potter and the Push Button Issue

JK Rowling is one of the most popular authors on the planet.  She created the incredible HarryPotter series that gave children everywhere a magical world in which to immerse themselves.  However, over the last year or so, she has created some very vocal enemies who have insisted that she be tossed from public life.

Rowling is very much a creature of the political left.  She has been a Labour Party supporter, spoken out loudly regarding the UK’s social safety net, and even decided to retcon Dumbledore into being gay despite it never being mentioned in the series.  However, she has refused to play along with the latest political craze, and that is that men can become women simply by declaring it so.  She justifies this on several grounds, from the belief that androgenizing society removes the uniqueness of women to the understanding that if sex is malleable, then same sex attraction has no meaning.

Well, you’d have thought she made Harry Potter a pedophile who went around using the avada kadavra curse to kill puppies.

Activists from the trans community have been screeching to the skies about how Rowling is a TERF(Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist…their term…I couldn’t come up with something so PC and so insane) and wants to erase transgenders.  Sorry, but no.  Just no.  Rowling expressed a pretty mainstream opinion that men are men, women are women, and men can’t just become women because they say so.  That was totally non-controversial until about five minutes ago.  But since Rowling has strayed in this one trendy social stricture, she should, according to activists, now be sent to the cornfield, her work to never be seen again.

Unlike the rest of us, however, Rowling has the resources to fight back.  She has what I like to call Fuck-You Money.  As a billionaire and proven draw, she doesn’t have to care what these shrieking harpies say.  My favorite response of hers when people started on the woke bandwagon and trying to cancel her was when she tweeted “I shall file your admiration carefully in the box where I keep the rest of my missing fucks.”  It was a ballsy tweet(no pun or allusion intended) that clapped back at these activists, whose volume makes you think there are many more of them than there actually are, in a way most of us would like to.

These activists and shrill sirens have called for boycotts of her books, the video game derived from her books, and even her upcoming HBO Max series.  Luckily, her books are still beloved, her series is moving forward, and her video game just set records for sales in the first month of release.

You see, most of us just want to read good stories.  We don’t give a shit about the politics of the person behind the story, and we simply wish to be left alone by the asylum full of mental patients that insist we celebrate everything the way they want us to.  Yes, a few folks who are buying her video game are anti-trans activists who get satisfaction out of watching the other side go apoplectic, but the vast majority of us just want to be left in peace to enjoy talented work.  What annoys us is when the harpies can’t just not buy it themselves, but rather insist the rest of us share in their outrage.  Sorry, but you don’t get to dictate my outrage, especially when so many of us agree with Rowling.  Moreover, even if we didn’t, we know people can have differing opinions, and that should be okay.  And before any of you want to try telling me this is akin to racism, understand that human sexuality is the single most defining of our traits, and it’s just biological reality…a reality we don’t want you to try and upend just because you think that reality is mean.  Go throw away your books(that you already paid for and have already read) and be pissy by yourselves – the rest of us want to enjoy what we enjoy, and we get that Rowling doesn’t have to bend the knee to you just because you believe you can out-anger people.

James RR Martin Writing Timeframes

I know that the title may well be insulting to both the Game of Thrones audience and one of the most talented writers of the last 25 years, but it’s the only thing that fits.  Folks, my sci-fi/fantasy mashup has become a drawn out cycle of nothingness.  I’d like to be able to tell you that since I started writing my blog posts within the first week of each month, I’ve been free to write happily on my newest novel in the interim, but that’s just not the case.

I started writing this new novel almost three years ago.  Were I crafting it this whole time, subtly changing plot points and carefully crafting nuanced dialogue, it might be worth it.  Unfortunately, all that’s really happened is that I’ve found myself too busy to get back into it.  Oh, I could easily do 1000 or so words a day, but as I’ve previously discussed, breaking the inertia and just freaking writing the damn thing is tough.  Those who aren’t writers may never know just how difficult it is to pull yourself out of a task, start writing, and push through the first 100 words or so until you’re in a rhythm…and then to have to stop because you can’t write a novel all in one day, so you have top go through it again the next day.  It's like trying to take a nap each day and having it cut short because you have other things to do.

So my mashup novel, great if it ever gets finished, has just sat there longer than any novel I’ve yet worked on.  It also reminded me that I haven’t written anything of bulk since I retired from the Army.  Even Schism was mostly written, needing only a few thousand more words to get fully flushed out prior to publication.  But this one?  It feels like a slog.  I enjoy it when I’m writing it, but getting back after a long break is exhausting.

So will I be more and more like James RR Martin, who promised The Winds of Winter eons ago and keeps pushing back its publication?  I hope not, because I despise Martin for that.  Of course, what could help is a groundswell that demands I write it so I could get properly motivated…  😊

It Continues

So there’s yet another month that I’ve gotten my blogs out in time to post for the following month. I know, I know…y’all are likely tired of my self-congratulatory notes at the beginning of each month, but patting myself on the back is how I find the motivation to go on.

Seriously, though, time does find a way to slip by.  I target the first week of the month prior to do these, barring breaking news(which I can count on one hand), yet I found myself almost a week in with no blog posts written yet.  Work and other stuff got hold of me, so I had to make time(as we all do – I know it’s not that impressive).  Still, considering I’d basically given up on this blog for a year or more(need to go back and look), it’s nice to regain some level of consistency.

Waiving Desperately

I think most folks here know of my antipathy for the traditional publishing world.  That said, I get the excitement that comes with someone in some official position saying your work is good enough to publish at their company.  I once shared that goal, and I'd be less than honest if I didn't say that some movie producer coming to me wouldn't get me all hot-and-bothered.

Unfortunately, some first-time authors are so desperate to get that first contract that they'll waive their rights without reading through the contract offered.  They'll grant the publishing company rights and carve-outs they're not entitled to.  After all, with the consolidation of the traditional publishing world into fewer and fewer companies, many feel that if they demand fairness, they'll never get a contract offered again.

First of all, you need to have enough pride to accept that it's true you may never get offered another contract.  And you should be okay with that.  If someone wants to take advantage of you, you come off like that fat friend who never got a date and is willing to be treated like shit just to say you have a date.  No one respects a kiss-ass, and you'll get treated like dirt your entire career.

Second, publishing is still a business, and if your work is good enough, another publisher will offer you a chance.  You may not get JK Rowling money until you prove yourself, but money and sales have a way of softening hard hearts in the publishing world.

If you sell yourself out just to get published, you'll be a doormat forever, for even when you realize your worth, no one will grant you that respect because you licked their boots prior.  You need to know when to insist on either inserting or removing some contract items, and when to walk away because they won't remove your red lines.  You'll be better off as a person, rather than a sellout, in the end.  After all, it's you who has to look yourself in the mirror each morning.

Publishing Short Stories

Writing short stories is different than writing novels, because you have to be much more succinct.  You don't have the time to leisurely build a world, so you have to jump right in.  This is not to say short stories can't be gripping - The Lottery by Shirley Jackson and The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell are among the most gripping stories that exist.  But how does one publish them.

I've won or placed in several short story contests, but those were individual submissions.  Were I to write multiple short stories, how would I go about getting them into the public sphere.  It feels like I would need to write a bunch more in order to justify a hefty collection that will make the monetary investment worth it for the reader.  Is this something the public clamors for?  Do people really buy short story collections?  Do you?

Dropping Books

Time is valuable.  That's the premise with which I approach books - if they hold no interest for me, then I don't need to waste time reading them.  However, what happens when a book originally held your interest but no longer does?  Has anyone here ever abandoned a book partway through, or have you trudged on through to the end?

I've had a few books that create that conundrum for me, such as Ready Player Two.  I absolutely loved Ready Player One and consider it a masterpiece of nostalgia and fantasy-fulfillment.  So I approached Ready Player Two with enthusiasm.  Unfortunately, the novel has left me...underwhelmed.

I'm about two-thirds of the way through, but I haven't touched it iun months.  It still sits, bookmark in trhe middle, on my reading table upstairs.  Part of me wants to just finish because I've spent so much time on it, but another part of me knows this is the sunk-cost fallacy.  That is that I've already spent time and money, so I should spend more to finish.  Logically, however, all you're doing is just giving even more than you should based on some tired investment trope.

I've read a few novels under this premise, and I need to stop.  If a book isn't enjoyable, then it makes future reading more of a chore, and my time is too valuable for that.  Any of you run into this?

Ignoring The Haters

Be out in public long enough, and you’ll attract haters.  It doesn’t matter who you are – they’ll find you.  The only way to not attract haters is to be so milquetoast that you stand for nothing.

My most recent hater is someone I sparred with online who then took the time and trouble to find my author’s page and books.  They then proceeded to hate on my work without even reading it.  How do I know this?  Because it took them 15 minutes from the time of our interaction to their engagement with my stuff(ie, not enough time to read anything).

I take the same approach to haters I do to bad reviews – mostly ignore them.  I only bring up this one, which I’m not identifying by name or any recognizable characteristics, to talk about how authors should deal with them(notice I didn’t say famous people, because not everyone who puts their stuff out in public is “famous”).  Oxygen is what your haters want, and if you deprive them of that, then they can’t spread their hate.

Maybe these are folks who enjoy chaos.  Maybe they’re upset that some hold views not in line with their own(ie, insecurity).  Whatever the reason, they’re looking for validation, and they feel that any interaction from a pseudo-public figure gives them that validation.

You cannot win in such a situation by engaging.  Unless their behavior is so egregious that backlash to them would be swift and near-universal, there is no benefit to engaging because you usually come across as thin-skinned.  Some folks can use engagement as a marketing ploy to attract readers because they know their readers will back them, but that usually only works for an established author; the rest of us are rolling the dice, and you have to ask if the temporary satisfaction of engaging is worth the potential for further chaos.

Not Appeasing Partisans

I still don't fully understand why Schism is my bestselling book, but it is.  By far.  However, one of the most popular critiques is that I don't take sides in the book.  I don't celebrate red states or talk about how awesome blue states are.  I seem to build a "they're both bad" storyline that a few readers find off-putting.

Fine by me.

Schism is about how bad things can get if we don't get off the course we're currently on.  It's not meant to be a tale of advocacy, but rather one of caution.  As such, I intentionally didn't play into the hands of partisans because they're the ones the book is meant to warn us about.  We all seem so angry nowadays, and those "on the other side" are the focus of our anger.  It allows us to dehumanize them and thus lead directly into the nightmare I depicted.

As an author, you cannot allow public pressure to weigh into your story, for all it will do is compromise what you're trying to say.  The readers will decide if it works enough for them to buy.  If not, that's the gable we all take as writers.  However, if we play into the fantasies of the most hyper-partisan among us, we further polarize society and give power to those who want this to turn into a hellscape(because they, of course, would obviously win and rule it all, right?).

In other words, if you want your partisan fantasy book, then write it yourself, but don't expect me to bend because you're oh-so-certain it would never go that way.

Translation

One of the banes of the writer’s existence is figuring out how best to take what is in his or her head and put it on paper into something coherent.  There are a few writers who can write whole novels by the set of their pants, although those are rare(or at least rare in terms of producing anything good).  Many more are meticulous planners who painstakingly map out every plot point, character, and piece of dialogue they plan to include before they write anything

Most of us, however, are a combination of these school.  I prefer to outline a little bit in advance so the writing becomes a little more spontaneous.  If I outline too far, then the writing may drive right past the outline, to the point where the outline is no longer relevant, and all I really did was waste a great deal of time.  If I eschew an outline altogether, then I hit a wall and don’t know where I’m going.

The challenge is taking my limited outline and translating it into prose.  That means I usually need to get to my outline in short order so that I remember what I was looking at in the movie-in-my-head.  There have been times when I look at my outline and wonder what the hell it even meant.  More often, though, is figuring out how to make the outline-to-page translation palatable to the reader.  Trust me – any idiot can write a bunch of words, but that doesn’t mean they engage the reader.  Folks who’ve read office memos know this well.

I think the key is to pause every so often and ask yourself if the writing works.  Are you taking too much for granted, or are you handholding too much?  Does the prose match the outline?  This is one of the reasons writing takes so long, because we’re trying to make the page match the outline, despite the disparate styles(prose versus brainstorming).  This is something that can make outlines challenging as well since the outline can’t be totally abstract if it’s to be of use.

What I need is a cable of some kind that runs from my brain to the page…

What If SkyNet Engages?

The recent interest in and explosion of AI chatbots poses an interesting question – can an AI write a novel?  And what happens if it can?

The first question is whether or not it can write a novel.  By that, I don’t mean that it puts together a few phrases it learned from a writer’s preferences, but can it generate something unique and thought-provoking?  I believe that’s doubtful in the current climate since these AIs aren’t truly intelligent on their own.  To begin with, they’re mostly algorithms designed to elicit a predictable response based on tendencies.  Second, and most important in my opinion, is that all the algorithms in question are programmed by people, and people have biases and tendencies.  This isn’t some child who will initially mimic his or her parents but come o form independent thoughts, but simply a computer program that will perform according to the biases of the person who wrote it(the true danger of AI is when someone you disagree with programs an AI to enforce rules you think are horrible).

The second question is much more intriguing.  We can probably prod an AI to come up with a story, but who owns that story?  What are the copyright implications of such a thing?  Current law doesn’t recognize AI as having any rights of its own, so would the writer of the algorithm own the story?  Or would it simply be part of the public sphere immediately, and thus subject to people borrowing from it(or outright stealing everything the AI “wrote”)?  I don’t believe machines or programs can own copyrights.

We’ve had innumerable sci-fi stories about AI rising up to take control, but we have very few that describe what AI would do in society beyond “kill all the humans.”  Now that they can (kinda) compose things and hold pseudo-conversations, maybe it’s time to begin thinking about where this is going.

Interval Periods

I’ve written a couple of novels that are set up for a sequel – Akeldama, Salvation Day…even Homecoming and Wrongful Death could have further stories set in their universes, even though they’re not primed for direct sequels.  Yet there have, to date, been no such sequels published.  In fact, I’ve written only one sequel, and it needs a complete rewrite before it’ll be ready.  So why so long between sequels?

Before I go into that, just know that long lag time between related stories is not an uncommon thing.  Any Game of Thrones fan will be familiar with the long time since the last GoT novel came out and know that The Winds of Winter has been delayed so long that it may never be here.  Arthur C. Clarke wrote Rendezvous With Rama in 1973, and then waited 16 years before bringing out Rama II.  Harper Lee went over 50 years between To Kill A Mockingbird and Go Set A Watchman.  Interval periods exist, frustrating though they may be.

There are numerous reasons why periods between novels may be lengthy.  The biggest is likely that the writer got into other things and hadn’t yet a chance to return to the universe in question.  They could be writing other stories, raising their families, or working at other jobs to put food on the table.  As much as readers may wish that writers cater to them and their desires for more of their favorite stories, life happens.

Another reason may be that the writer hasn’t yet flushed out a story, or maybe even seen the need for another one.  Perhaps he or she felt the story had concluded(To Kill A Mockingbird) and felt pressured into another one through demand.  I know readers like to have this idea that writers of their favorite books have everything mapped out and planned, but that’s rarely the case.  Very often, even within a book I’m currently writing, I’ll remember a throwaway line or character I used a few chapters back, and that’ll become a new plot point.  Sequels are often the same way – the writer has a general idea of what to do, but the route to get there may be based on something in the first book tat was never meant to be much.

Of course, the danger in sequels taking too long is that readers may lose interest in the story.  The best time for publication is always when the public’s interest is at its peak.  Usually that is shortly after the original is published, but not always.  Maybe a book took a while before catching fire, so that’s when a sequel would be most appropriate.  Either way, public interest can be a key component of publication.

So don’t just assume the writer is stringing you along.  Maybe he or she is, but more than likely other stuff just got in the way.

Stories Versus Series

How do you know if you have an idea for a book versus having an idea for a series?  And if you have an idea for a series, how do you determine where each story ends and the next one picks up?  Such is the dilemma of many writers.

Series where the author has a clear idea of each book and has planned it in advance are easy enough,  However, sometimes we writers get big ideas in our heads, and it’s only after we begin writing that we realize that our idea is too big for one book(unless we want it wo have the heft of Ulysses or War & Peace).  So the issue then becomes how we break it down into more logical pieces.

One of the first things we have to do is what we should’ve done in the first place – plan out the books in the series.  There are usually logical stopping points, and sometimes those have to be expanded or modified to accommodate a series.  Star Wars, for example(the original trilogy…not the abominations that followed – started out as a single story that George Lucas figured out was way too big to do in a single telling, so he changed parts of deliver the series.  As we figure out we’re writing a series, it behooves us to similarly step back and determine how that moves ahead.

Of course, that’s hard because what we really want to be doing is writing.  Delivering a series after starting on a single book requires that we stop writing for a little bit and retool our outline to accommodate a single book, which means we have to break the mindset we were in for our story and reorient, which creates an abrupt shift we have to deal with.  It can be done, but it takes a moment or three.

I view it as breaking up a larger idea into smaller ones that can stand alone while contributing to a greater whole.  Once you’re about 25,000 or so words into a book, you’ll know if you can wrap it up in a single novel, or if you require a series.  Listen to that voice, because it’s easier to do when you’ve written 25,000 words than to reconfigure it after 180,000.

It's Cloudy...

As writers, we know our stuff is brilliant.  After all, we wouldn’t have written it down unless we were certain of said brilliance, right.  The problem comes when we want to show the world that brilliance and put it all into a single story, for it makes our stories, at times, unnecessarily complex.  As such, the level of complexity can either bore or confuse the reader, and bored or confused readers don’t buy your books.

One of my still-needs-to-be-rewritten novels fell into this trap – the sequel to Akeldama.  The novel centers around an ancient enemy returning and being granted power by the serpent at the end of the previous novel in exchange for a few favors.  The biggest ask revolves around opening several portals to Hell.  Sounds simple enough, right?

Wrong.

You see, I’ve come across tales of nearly a dozen different portals to Hell across the world, and I wanted to include them all in the book.  I wanted to do this to show how excited I was about the level of knowledge I’d obtained, which is almost always the wrong reason to include certain storypoints.  I also wanted a depth of story that was unwarranted, because, excited though I was, even I knew I couldn’t go through all 11 gates – some had to have been done “off screen” so as to build the tension and add mystery.  Still, I wanted to go through enough of the gates, and it ended up being a contrived mess rather than anything useful for the plot.  Hence the need for a pretty big rewrite.

Although it will pain me to do, I will dramatically prune the story from 11 gates to seven, and at least two will be done away from the gaze of the reader.  That should up the stakes much more for what the reader does see.  And hopefully it’ll get away from what I call “Christmas Present Syndrome,” whereby there are so many presents that kids just move from one to the next without appreciating what they just unwrapped.

The lesson in all of this is that we authors need to restrain ourselves sometimes in throwing our story out there.  We may enjoy the byzantine maze of subtle plot points, but we have to bear in mind the audience and whether or not they’re up for it.  Maybe they are, but we should be objective about it rather than just believe they want to wade through the clouds with us. 

Erasing The Past

By now, most folks have, I'm sure, heard of the censoring of Roald Dahl's books in the name of Sensitivity.  Apparently a bunch of Under-30 woke hipsters got their panties in a bunch because Dahl used words like "fat" or "ugly" to describe people in his books.  Dahl wrote such classics as James and the Giant Peach, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and Matilda, and now some amongst us are super saddy waddy that Dahl wrote meanie weenie things.

Let's get out of the way that Dahl was apparently a horrible person.  He made some pretty anti-Semitic statements at times.  Being as it may, that doesn't justify an ex post facto adjustment to his work just so some people can feel better about themselves.  This goes to the core of both free speech and integrity of our work.  It's one of the reasons I've been telling people to get more of their books in hard copy because the wokesters among us will try to change them after the fact and hope we either don't notice, or go along because we don't want to make waves.

Buuuuuuullllllshit.

This will not stand.  It's this kind of taking over of language and censoring of our past that will lead to tyranny.  I'm not being hyperbolic - tyranny.  A George Orwell quote from 1984, which was supposed to be a cautionary tale rather than a how-to book, seems apt here - "Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."

Totally missing that Dahl's books were about how shitty the world can be and that kids can find comfort in ways to overcome it through works of fiction that impart wisdom, if the words therein upset you so much, don't read the fucking book.  Books previously written are not there to validate you, and it's not your place to rewrite them because you can't get the fencepost out of your ass.  Moreover, think how this extends into the future - what you find banal today may be found offensive 50 years from now, so is any work safe?

In fairness, Puffin Books, a subsidiary of Penguin, has partially backed down, saying it will now also offer the unedited versions, but I view this as a delaying tactic meant to allow the storm to blow over, at which point I have little doubt they'll try to keep thi stuff up.  That's why vigilance and pressure are key, exhausting though it may be.  When we alter the past to suit the present, we doom humanity to a fictionalized version of itself.

The saddest part is all the people defending this nonsense.  Some have tried saying that those words hurt feelings(and we all know that books are never ever supposed to hurt your feelings), or that it's just a few words, so it's not a big deal.  Don't let them get away with that shit.  It is absolutely a big deal, and it we allow this, they'll continue to reduce everything to only the versions they think are appropriate.  Remember, they aren't reading them and skipping over the parts they dislike - they're demanding you don't even get the chance to decide that for yourself.  It's morally abhorrent, and civilization itself is at stake if we refuse to stand up to the would-be tyrants.

TRIGGERED!

On the heels of a previous post about not hiding from stupid people, I wanted to take on a very dumb statement by a freelance journalist named Emmie Harrison-West.  She decided to delve into the realm of the absurd when she said, "Readers as a whole need to be given the choice to consent to delving into books with triggering themes."

Okay, here's a way to do that - figure out which book to pick up before actually reading it.

You see, what Emmie wants is for books to have "trigger warnings" when they deal with sensitive themes.  When I first heard about trigger warnings, I thought they were a bad joke, but it turns out that they're very real, and some folks are so super duper uber sensitive that they need someone to tell them that some of what is out there may make the want a binkie winkie or nappy wappy.

I'm sorry, but I will not be nice about this.  If that offends you, you are free to kindly fuck off, because this is a BIG step on the road to censorship(wait till you see my next post).  I don't care what the themes are that upset you - you are free to not read them rather than pretend everybody else should accept or care about it as much as you do.  If you're truly that concerned about being triggered by something, then I suggest you don't read.  Ever.

Hey, I get that we all have things in our past that upset us, but that does not give us the right to impose our sensitivity onto others.  We deal with it and strive to get past it, but we don't tell others they should have to deal with our traumas too.  Trigger warnings shout to the world how we can't handle something, and, by extension, the person reading may also not be equipped to handle it.  Grow the hell up.

The world is triggering.  If that makes you mad, then I suggest you hide under your bed and never come out, because the world can be a scary place.  But stop trying to impose your madness on the rest of us, for it will draw as ferocious a response as anything I've ever engaged with.

Four Months In A Row!

Yep, I’m bragging again – this marks four straight months that I’ve managed to post on a consistent basis.  Sure, I’m bragging about meeting the bare minimum standard, but given that I went well over a year without consistently posting, including many moons where I posted nothing at all, doing four straight months of consistent posts is exciting for me.

Of course, I need to get back to marketing, but that’s a whole different ballgame.  Baby steps, Russ…baby steps…

Along the way, I’ve managed another 10,000(+) words on my sci-fi/fantasy mashup.  It’s exciting, and by the time you read this, I will have done another outline session to figure out where the story is going.  I have an idea, but it hasn’t completely coalesced yet.  Beyond that, this one truly has bult slowly.  I’m more than 30,000 words in and all I’ve really done so far is world-build.  A few of the characters have been developed, but there are a bevy of folks that I haven’t yet decided if they’re tangential characters, or if their role will be more substantive.  And I haven’t even gotten to the main plot yet.  I fear that the main story may not really come into play until the second book(unless I want this one to be the size of the Bible).

Let’s see what the next month brings!

New Start

I've decided to give up writing.  After much deliberation, it's just not for me.  I'm going nowhere, and books kinda suck anyway, so why bother?  Everyone will soon have a chip implanted in their heads to give them a downloaded book on demand, so print books are sooooooo 20th Century.  I think I'll focus on rebuilding engines for monster trucks.  Working with my hands has always been my passion, and it's a far better way to spend my time than over those boring books anyway.

Now go look at the date on this post and realize what that means.  😘

PS - normally this post would've posted at 11pm on March 31st, but I delayed it by an hour for full effect.

Sensitive Writers

I dunno...maybe I'm just different.  However, I've come across numerous writers recently who seem to have egos of crystal whereby a poor review will shatter that ego and send the into a corner, curled into the fetal position and crying into their latte.  Some have tried engaging with individual reviewers on Amazon, while others are mad when someone tags them in a review that wasn't 5-stars and roses on Twitter.  I just don't get it.

Let's first stipulate that Twitter is a sewer.  Most people looking to be angry, bitter, or just mean, mostly because they're not allowed to be so so openly in real life, go on Twitter.  People will say the vilest things they'd never say to your face, but the anonymity of a keyboard lets them get away with trash that would get them punched in the real world.

That said, if you don't like how mean Twitter, or any other social media platform for that matter, is, then don't go on Twitter.  I know, I know...we need social media nowadays to promote our work, but just do that and ignore the comments.  Not everyone is going to like you, and some will say so in the most disgusting ways possible.  But you have to learn to shrug that stuff off and even laugh about it.  I recently had someone try and make a snide remark about my wife.  Did I yell and scream about how uncivilized that person was?  No.  I laughed at the person's stupidity and obvious insecurity at having to try to shove their bitterness onto others.  This person doesn't know me or my wife, so why should I care what they think?

When you read reviews, you need to detach yourself and read them constructively.  Sure, easier said than done for some people, but still a skill you must master if you want to not go insane over the hatred in the world.  Does the reviewer say something that clicks with you?  Is there a trend of people saying the same basic thing about your work?  If so, give it a closer look.  If it's some one-off crackpot, who cares?

Writing Indoctrination

In keeping with my theme of no longer caring if I piss people off, I want to address a particularly scummy attempt at forced shibboleths by a professor from Columbia University named Matthew Salesses.  As this article details, Professor Salesses is an assistant professor of writing at Columbia, and he demanded his students sign a document at the beginning of his class that his students list the race and gender of any character introduced in his creative writing class.  He also had a clause in his document saying that students shouldn't use "banned terms."

I get that educators want to guide students, and especially writing students, into ways to better express themselves, but this is not only not the way to do it, but it will create the opposite of the intended effect.  For starters, as we are always told in writing, "show, don't tell."  My expressly naming a character's race or gender, you take the show part away from the reader.  Having readers discern who the person that stands out among his or her peers is Asian, for example, gives a narrative arc to the story.  A woman fighting for recognition in the legion of knights, doesn't have to so openly scream that she's a woman - the reader will figure that out soon enough by the way her comrades treat her.  Moreover, it appears that Salesses wants his students to go beyond the dimorphous nature of biological reality, which simply narrows an audience already pissy over how much wokism is shoved down their throats.

However, so loudly proclaiming a character's innate characteristics, especially race, deprives the audience of being able to imagine themselves in the role of some of the characters.  On of the most gratifying things about Salvation Day was when not one, not two, but several of my readers, each of differing races, said they imagined themselves in the role of Michael Faulkner(the main character).  Almost none of them exactly pictured the character the way I did when I wrote him, but who cares?  I want readers to enjoy my work, and being able to put yourself in the titular role creates a bond with the story that can be magical.

As to "banned" terms, I think that's a pretty pathetic way to limit language.  A professor should be able to critique a student's work and give them feedback on why they should reword things without telling them outright to not use certain terms.  That shows that things are outside of your comfort level, but writing in general is meant sometimes to discomfort, to make people think.  If a student has to stay within a proscribed box, then that restricts the student's ability to provoke reaction.  At that point, we may as well just read an instruction manual on how to put together an entertainment unit, for that would be about as intellectually stimulating.

Is Controversy Required For Authenticity?

I've long counseled for writers to try and stay out of politics and controversy.  After all, you don't want to piss off half the audience, because a pissed-off someone usually won't buy your book.  Moreover, readers come to us for escape from the bullshit world they have to trudge through everyday, and it's not like writers have a greater handle on controversial concepts than other people just by virtue of being writers.  Athletes, celebrities, and artists everywhere feel compelled to share their views on everything from abortion to taxes with us for some unknown reason(*cough * ego *cough*), and it usually ends up leading to much mockery.  Therefore, I really haven't seen anything good come from wading into the culture wars from our platform as writers.

Unfortunately, so many who want to engage in the culture wars won't leave the rest of us alone.  It's gotten so bad that trying to ignore the melee looks more and more like hiding, which is something I don't do.  Two recent events reminded me that sometimes people hold their views so tightly, and want so much for others to uncritically share those views, that trying to stay culturally neutral just isn't an option.  The first was this article I came across talking about the infiltration of certain shibboleths into the world of the arts, crushing those who refuse to mutter the party's tropes.  The folks involved may even agree with the sentiment behind such sloganeering, but that so many seem to want to force others to mutter these tropes is a sign of religious fanaticism rather than a principled point of view.  I was always taught, and obviously believe, that we should treat everyone as an individual and engage them on that basis.  However, it's now become novel to try and single out folks by group identity, as if there's morality in generalizing people by the melanin count of their skin, their genitalia, or who they prefer to have sex with.  Not only are so many believing that, but they insist others believe it too(or at least say they believe it).  Sorry, but not happening.  I will treat you as you deserve to be treated - act like a civilized human being, and I'll treat you like a civilized human being; act like a prick, and...well...I promise I can out-prick you.

The other incident involves MarsCon and who they selected as their GOH(Guest of Honor) - Larry Correia.  Larry is a talented science fiction writer who does not hesitate to wade into the cultural battles when provoked.  He's perfectly gentleman when allowed to be, but he's among the only people on the planet who can match me in ability to be a prick when necessary.  He can be absolutely brutal when required, and his decidedly libertarian views have ruffled some feathers.  Therefore, a few folks who couldn't be bothered to...I don't know...just not attend MarsCon if they're that fucking offended, decided to try and intimidate MarsCon into disinviting Larry, just as they did to John Ringo and another convention a little while back.  So Larry fought back.  Loudly.  Profanely.  And only as Larry can do.  Not taking the forced compliance of those who saw him as a heretic only further fueled the tantrum on display.  So far MarsCon has not disinvited him.  So far.

The insertion of so much forced DEI and other bullshit shibboleths into the world of the arts does give me pause to wonder if it's really so many people pressing onto others, or if it's a small minority of true-believers that cudgel everyone else, and most are too scared to speak up and tell them to shut the hell up.  From my own experiences, most people just want to go along to get along, and it takes someone to give voice to their discomfort with the current paradigm.  Part of why I speak up so forcefully is because for every person that stands up, there are dozens who don't but would like to.  So to those telling me we have to include folks based solely on innate characteristics rather than individual skill or talent, or that we should exclude folks for those same things, or even because they hold a different political outlook, listen to me very carefully-  go fuck yourself.  I mean that sincerely.  If this diatribe causes you to wallow in tears of anger, just know I will happily enjoy your tears, for all you've shown is how shallow, petty, and childish you can be, and I will no longer allow the brats among us to elbow everyone out of the way just because the world won't conform to their view.  If that costs me readers, so be it.  I'd rather fail as myself than succeed as a fraud.

Offhanded Comments

Inspiration can come from anywhere.  As haughty as we writers tend to be, we love telling folks that an idea came from a sunset, or the flight of a bird, or a starry night...whatever makes us sound most contemplative.  However, the truth is that inspiration for a story, a character, or a setting can come from just about anywhere, including random offhand comments from a friend while watching a game or drinking.

What happens is the comment fires up our imagination, and our brains go into hitherto unfamiliar places in a story that's already familiar in our heads.  I was watching Game of Thrones when one of the dragons incinerated a pair of prisoners, and the person I was watching with said something to the effect of, "I guess they should've worn stronger armor."  We laughed, but it got me thinking about what would happen to something that was armored up and encountered dragon fire.  That offhanded comment led me to a scene of a dragon melting a recon drone, which led me to the concept of a dragon corps to protect a city, which led me to think that only the strongest realm on the planet would have such a thing.  Thus one of the main pieces of my new novel was born.

This has happened multiple times, and only writers can truly understand this phenomenon.  Our subconscious is always thinking about writing, whether it's what we're currently working on, or some future project, so that subconscious grabs hold of stray electrons and tries to turn them into something useful.  So if you see one of your writers friends get all glassy-eyed while talking to you, remember that maybe you said something that sparked a train of thought.  Or maybe they're just stoned - you never know.  😝

Remembering The Cast

My new novel is expansive, possibly more expansive than anything I've yet written.  However, a story of that scale presents a new problem - keeping up with the characters.

My previous novels all made due with a main character and a couple of ancillary folks, so it was easy to remember who was who.  In my sci-fi/fantasy mashup, I've been to five settings so far, and I'm about to go to a 6th.  That makes keeping track of who's who more complex than I'm used to.  Therefore, I'm writing each character down in my outline journal as I create them.  And yes, I mean each nd every one of them since you never really know who will grow into greater importance as the story progresses.

So here's my confession - this is kinda boring.  Yes I know I should be enthusiastic about each and every facet of my writing, but some of the bits and pieces outside of writing makes me feel like I'm back in English class outlining the plot to Moby Dick.  It's not that I don't remember each realm and the basics of who's who, but specific character names for those who aren't the main guy or gal sometimes slip my mind.  In previous books, I've found myself accidentally renaming characters and have had to go back through and fix the ones I got wrong(and that was with a much smaller cast).  It would be a bit awkward for the reader to begin caring about the Elf King Vindrael and then discover his name had been changed to Tahthal down the road.  I'm sure the audience would be like, "Who's this?  Was the King replaced?  And why did we not get at least a chapter about that?"  Meanwhile, I'd be happy as a clam, muddling along and thinking people were still reading about the same guy.

I'd forgotten to write their names initially here, so as I began to write again, I had to go back through the novel and write down each person in the story so I could keep track.  I now have a couple of pages of characters and character notes, and I keep having to remember to add to these notes every time I write someone new.  Yes, this might just be another bitch-fest, but it's still one of the less sexy parts of writing.

Unnecessary Sequels

I may have written about this before, but it bears another look, and that's sequels that had no business being written.  I get it - books that make a decent amount of money will have people clamoring over them for another payday, and many authors will give in(because hey, who doesn't like money?).  Audiences also liked the first book - usually - and a sequel allows them to go back into a fun and familiar universe.  Unfortunately, some books just weren't meant for sequels.

Bad sequels usually come from forced publication.  The first story was good, but it ran its course.  The author write a stand-alone novel and never meant for it to continue.  Go Set A Watchman by Harper Lee comes to mind - Atticus Finch was done in To Kill A Mockingbird, but people kept after Lee for years to write another story in Atticus' universe, so she obliged, with poor results.  The Lost Symbol was a sequel the story of The DaVinci Code that the original book didn't set up or create a need for(outside of making tons of money) since the first one wrapped up the story pretty well.  And has anyone heard of Gump & Company?  Probably not given how shitty it did.

Such sequels are forced, and it shows in the quality.  The writer is obviously flying by the seat of his or her pants, and half the time it's like they found themselves writing something they never meant to write.  Audiences end up souring on the whole series based on terrible books and stories that make the original bad just through association(much like the Star Wars sequels under Disney, Rogue One being the sole exception).  It makes me wonder how many of these bad and unnecessary sequels were written badly by accident, or if the author did it to shut up fans that wouldn't leave them alone.

Some stories stand alone, and we need to be able to accept that.  It's hard, because we so enjoyed the first, but it's that thirdt for just a bit more that makes a book good.  Otherwise we end up with hyponatremia.

Be Bad To Be Good

Any writer worth his or her salt has written bad stuff.  I know some people believe that someone of Stephen King's or Harry Turtledove's prowess just churns out masterpiece after masterpiece fresh from the computer as they type, but that's simply not reality, and successful writers will be the first ones to tell you so.

I personally have three novels written that will never see the light of day, and a fourth that requires some serious re-writes before publication.  My very first full length novel, On Freedom's Wings, was a novel I'd played around with for year and which I was convinced, upon completion, would be my ticket to the big time.  Looking back at it over 20 years later, I'm pretty embarrassed by it.  It's little more than a cheap Star Trek ripoff, right down to a Scottish engineer(something I didn't pick up on until long afterward...I patterned the character after a buddy of mine who had Scottish heritage, and it honestly never occurred to me the parallels with Scotty from Star Trek).  The physics were laughable, the battle sequences forced, and the moral lessons ambiguous at best(and horrifying at worst).  It will stay tucked away somewhere far away from prying eyes.

The Onyx Cluster and Fight Or Flight will similarly stay out of the public eye.  The Onyx Cluster was based on a dream I once had and is just weird.  It also spun completely out of control, with characters rushing off to small towns in NC, resistance groups showing up in time loops, and the super-scary villains being more cartoony than frightening.  The whole book was supposed to be based on mood, and it never got there.  All it really showed me is that my mind, and my writing, will go to scary places if left unchecked.  And Fight Or Flight, intended originally to be a prequel to Homecoming, started out okay but went down unrealistic paths with a protagonist I ended up hoping died in the end.  Maybe one day as a re-write(much like my sequel to Akeldama), but people who read it would likely never read my stuff again.  Yes, it's that bad.

None of this is to say I regret writing those putrid pieces off garbage.  I learned a lot from them, and I'm trying to apply those lessons as I go forward.  Lessons like...
        - don't rush
        - check your outline to make sure it matches the vision
        - don't be afraid to re-write whole sections when they're bad; many written words doesn't justify badly written story
        - think through what you write; does it make sense?
        - get beta readers early who will tell you if you've gone off the rails

So although bad books hurt, they hopefully lead to better ones from you down the road.  Just make sure you quality control yourself so you don't show the general public that which will turn them from you forever.

Doomsday Countdowns

I enjoy writing.  I'm a writer, so I hope that statement seems obvious.  When I write, I try to get in at least 1000 words a day, and I shoot for 2000.  If I devote a whole day to writing, and I have an outline ready, I can do 5000 words in a day.  However, that doesn't mean I'm always in the mood to write, and that can lead to a trap for writers.

Writing should flow.  Writing flows best when you enjoy it.  However, we all get tired and sometimes don't feel like writing.  If I set a daily goal of 1500-2000 words, and I find myself counting down the words until I get there, meaning I'm tired and just want to be done, then I stop writing because I know the quality of what I'm writing will suck.  It also means that I'll probably have to go back and rewrite it anyway since I wasn't as into writing at that time as I should've been, so the writing will be bad if I get through it at all.

When you find yourself hoping the end will come, it's already there, so just acknowledge it and end when you should.  Otherwise your writing will suffer, and if you stick with it, the audience will notice.