Where Did Things Go So Wrong?!?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I'm looking for promotional and marketing advice here, not editorial advice, thanks. As to Onuissance, I considered a few different spelling before I went with this one. I happen to like it the way it is, and as it's only a free series of 8 short stories, I confess that changing the name and cover of this one will be a bit low on my list of things to do.

The title of a book is part of its marketing and promotion. The more so when it's one of your free offerings. It's for this reason I mentioned my dislike of the title.

I think you should consider changing the books that you offer for free. I think you should offer what you consider to be your best book for free. Your free offering is likely to be the first bit of your work that potential customers read. You should make sure that it gives them as good an experience as possible.

[Marseille]

If I didn't read authors with political views I find offensive, I wouldn't have anything to read. Including the backs of cereal boxes. On the contrary, so long as the writing is good and the story is engaging, I'd just as soon read fiction by someone whose view on the world is very different from my own.

For me to consciously avoid an author based on their politics, they'd have to be like a card-carrying fascist. And I mean a real fascist, not a straw man fascist.

[sourcejedi]

Anecdata -

Looking at the unpersonalized SF&F landing page on Amazon, there are two items that appeal. The Discworld series (traditionally published), and the 99c Ian Hocking, not because it's dirt cheap (there are two other items with practically the same price), but because I knows it's recommended by another author, who I know through traditionally published books, and it's DRM-free.

There's another genre website that sells easy-reading at about double your price - but with the minimum quality guarantee that comes from also publishing in print. You can find a range of authors on the same site (including generous samples). And on sites that debate the state of ebooks, they're mentioned relatively frequently (as example for others to follow). You know who they are; can an independent website compete?

Smashwords is impressive, but it's not paying any salary yet. (On ~30K self-published books, taking 10% of retail).

It's said that the way to make the most money on Amazon, is to raise your price when you reach a high ranking, then lower it again before you slip too far down. But it raises the question: how do you get there in the first place. It looks like there's some sort of special treatment for the top 100... there are >2000 SF&F books on Smashwords; so you need to beat odds on the order of 1 in 10?

(Btw, there's something screwy about the "£5 and under" feature on amazon.co.uk; it only shows 67 results for SF&F, and none of them are Steven's).

... ok, sorry. I tried not to make this a rant, but the facebook stuff below is getting long. <rant warning over, proceed at own risk>

I'm not scared by pro-biometric-DRM or anti-piracy missives, but I am kinda put off by a certain blog post. If Amazon or Kobo want to analyze reading habits, they can do it now (I was under the impression that Kobo _does_). News about the adoption of IPV6 has no bearing on it either way. It came over as junk writing -- I guess I'm not the target audience, but it seems odd for someone selling techno-thrillers and science fiction.

Maybe this is unfair or meaningless, but I'm not sure you've got the killer instinct. If you ignore morale, was the temporary shutdown a good idea? There's a popular site (GOG) that did that as some sort of publicity stunt, but if you didn't think you had nearly enough loyal customers in the first place... The domain change seems odd as well; you lose the benefit of older links (browser bookmarks, search engine ranking, etc)... I'd have ranked that as more important than boosting a new project with other authors, at the point where you're 'still in talks'. People can see RightBrane=StevenJordan; you're not really building a brand name when there's nothing else there yet.

The last time I posted, I suggested creating a page on Facebook. I confessed my ignorance, but suggested the benefit that people who use Facebook, and who subscribed to that page, would help spread the word. Because when a Facebook user does something like that, it'll often be seen by the people listed as their 'friend' on Facebook.

I should also have said -- I don't remember if I did -- that it would be a good place to post news about new books (or at that time, perhaps let people know when you'd re-released the books -- although being careful not to flood it with too frequent messages). If I was writing now, I would point out now that this gives you an RSS feed, and if you make the page public (duh), that allows RSS users to subscribe e.g. with Google Reader, _even if they don't have a facebook account. Finally, if you get enough users on a Page, you get statistics about location, pageviews, and maybe some other stuff, which would at least be interesting to play with.

I did explicitly mention the 'like' button, which can be posted on websites effectively as a link to a facebook Page or Group, as opposed to a _user_. I thought that made the point -- maybe you just didn't think it's worth working out how to do -- but...

I'm not logged into facebook. I've just followed the facebook link on your website. I can see you -- and a link back to your website. But it's a facebook user, not a facebook page or group. I can't see any news items at all. Maybe there's some on your Wall, but I can't see that, because I'm not your 'friend'. If I did send you a friend request, I'd have to wait for you to approve it first. I'd also have to consider whether _I_ wanted to grant _you_ whatever privileges becoming a facebook friend entails. (And whether I was being unduly familiar and looking for something that wasn't there, with the Wall being reserved for communication with real friends and family). And if you _did_ approve the request, and my facebook friends looked at this delayed piece of news, they'd see a new 'friend' -- it wouldn't be as obvious that I was subscribing to a commercial project, which sells books they might be interested in.

</rant> Not saying that that (or any other) one odd decision was a mistake that doomed you to permanent obscurity. It just suggests you might be continuing to miss some good opportunities. If you're trying to break into publishing success, I'd maintain that it's never going to be easy, and you need to look at every advantage you can get.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

It's said that the way to make the most money on Amazon, is to raise your price when you reach a high ranking, then lower it again before you slip too far down. But it raises the question: how do you get there in the first place. It looks like there's some sort of special treatment for the top 100... there are >2000 SF&F books on Smashwords; so you need to beat odds on the order of 1 in 10?

I've seen it said that downloads of the free samples contribute to one's Amazon rankings, so you don't even need to get sales to push a book up on the charts. Can't get to the top without sales--but might be able to get a book tagged as a "fast mover" by increasing its rankings by getting a lot of people to look at it.

Consistent advice from ebook bestselling self-pubbed authors is:
1) Write good books. Potentially, fork out real money for an editor. (That's not an option at the moment, but might be possible in the future.)

2) Get a stunning cover, that looks good from postage-stamp to quarter-screen size.

3) Make the title memorable and interesting. I like the title "Onuissance Cells," but I can never remember how to spell it--when I wanted to find it again, I wound up coming back to the MR Wiki because I knew the bookstore was listed there. (Potentially, it could remain as a subtitle, and the main title could be something easier to Google.)

4) Make sure the description is intriguing. Make them *want* to download the sample. Make sure it's proofread to strict standards, and if you can't afford an editor for whole books, consider hiring one just for the blurbs. Or get free opinions about them (no shortage of free opinions on the web), but be selective, and be willing to take criticism. The blurb is a ~100-word advertisement that should scream "YOU WANT TO BUY THIS BOOK." Even if it's free.

Maybe especially if it's free. Free books are already competing with the notion that if it was good, you'd be charging for it. So the blurb has to make it clear that this is free because it's so wonderful it's going to convince you to buy the other books by the same author--"I'm giving you a sample of the good stuff, so you can realize you want to support me."

(Consistent pro advice also includes a bunch of things Steven's already doing: no DRM, decent prices, free samples, etc.)

Writing for yourself, you can call it anything you like, describe it to your friends however you like, decorate it any way you like. If you want to sell it, the packaging--which includes the title--has to appeal to as many potential buyers as possible.

[Prestidigitweeze]

It's interesting to hear about people's reluctance to read a writer they perceive to be fascistic. I personally love reading Ezra Pound's poetry and criticism despite his having made broadcasts in the middle of WWII praising Mussolini and Hitler and suggesting that someone create "a pogrom higher up." I also like T.S. Eliot despite the fact he was supposed to have been a rabid anti-Semite apart from his friendships with Groucho Marx and others. Wyndham Lewis, too, makes a favorable and energetic impression despite the fact he was insane and wrote a laudatory biography of Hitler (Kenneth Rexroth called him "the last uncivilized man since Wotan"). I enjoy music by Richard Strauss as well, despite his stint as Hitler's pet composer.

And the list goes on, even though I lost several maternal relatives in "the" Holocaust. (There have of course been holocausts inflicted on many different races and religious practitioners.)

§§§§§§§§§§§

I had a look at Steven's page on biometrics. It struck me as unpleasant for entirely different reasons than the author's political outlook. For one thing, the prominent author's photo was too belly-intimate; the inexplicable photo of the fence and the whole graphic placement of the page seemed awkward and eager. It made me want to run for it the way a chops-licking shopkeeper does when he tells you to take your time, but you hear in his tone his barely contained hunger, and realize that the longer you stay, the more likely he is to pounce.

I would argue that desperation in a salesperson automatically makes customers stop buying. There is even a saleperson's term for this false step: "putting a must-sell" on an item. The person who bids too eagerly does something similar: s/he "puts a must-have" on the item for which, s/he has revealed, s/he is willing to pay too much.

I would also argue that one wants a certain level of mystery in an author. No matter how open the books of their souls might seem, most novelists keep their most indecorous struggles to themselves unless the appeal is lurid (William Burroughs) or sympathetic (Joyce). They understand that people grow uncomfortable with a certain physical/intellectual proximity. They do not wish to be hugged too tightly.

It is always a mistake to react too strongly, too quickly and too negatively to criticism or indifference. Let others do that for you or leave it undone. Whatever you do, don't humiliate yourself by defending your own perceived honor.

Long ago, I was upset with a famous science fiction writer who attacked me in a fanzine; I wanted to strike back. William Gibson, who makes it a point never to get into skirmishes with anyone or say anything bad about others in interviews, told me this by way of a mutual friend: "In the cold gray Trailways bus depot of life, [insert name] doesn't matter. Just keep writing."

§§§§§§§§§§§§

I myself write books occasionally and do enjoy interacting with an audience, but I'm also aware that the vocation of writing has died as a widespread thing. Those who manage it are extremely lucky as well as talented and productive.

I write books because I love the act of writing, not because I hope to make my living from it. Think of Whitman and Dickenson; think of all the academics like Arnold and Pater, whose books were perceived as class materials before they became known as classics.

It's the joy of writing and the rhythm of style that interest me personally. Certain of my favorite novelists claimed to write for money and I might have believed them if the writing itself didn't reveal them as the compulsives and linguistic fetishists they actually were. No accident that so many writers are alcoholics: Writing, too, is an addiction.

I would rather be Flaubert and be remembered for four perfect works of fiction, or Proust for one, than have made a living cranking out ninety forgettable pulp novels. (Philip K. Dick is the exception that proves this.) Besides which, we are no longer in the age of pulp. The window closed long ago and E.C. Tubb was there in your place.

My advice to you is this: Stop trying to make a living. Go into your mental attic and dredge out the things which have the greatest emotional power: things which wound you or enrage you, leaving you helplessly sad or elated. Those are the things that readers can feel: the things in your mind that make you come and cry. Those things alone are enough for them to connect with, even though you might never tell them the actual source.

The problem with telling people you wish to lock down the internet is that they know it isn't the real subject. The truer subject is your desire to make them listen.

Let that anxiety fuel the novel itself, not the campaign that surrounds it. Every bit of rage and paranoia and resentment at neglect should go into setting up situations in your stories -- scenarios that are so upsetting that the reader needs to follow you to the end. Your anxiety should not be expressed *around* the book. It needs to electrify your book from the inside like a galvanizing current.

[Anke Wehner]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

It's interesting to hear about people's reluctance to read a writer they perceive to be fascistic. I personally love reading Ezra Pound's poetry and criticism despite his having made broadcasts in the middle of WWII praising Mussolini and Hitler and suggesting that someone create "a pogrom higher up." I also like T.S. Eliot despite the fact he was supposed to have been a rabid anti-Semite apart from his friendships with Groucho Marx and others. Wyndham Lewis, too, makes a favorable and energetic impression despite the fact he was insane and wrote a laudatory biography of Hitler (Kenneth Rexroth called him "the last uncivilized man since Wotan"). I enjoy music by Richard Strauss as well, despite his stint as Hitler's pet composer.

Well, those are all dead now, so the "I don't want my money in that creator's pocket" line of thinking doesn't work.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Anke Wehner

Well, those are all dead now, so the "I don't want my money in that creator's pocket" line of thinking doesn't work.

But it does work if the premise is that fascism = unendurable writing -- that the writing itself is compromised by the writer's inhumane worldview.

My mother hated Wagner for that reason. I disagreed with her.

[ficbot]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

I would argue that desperation in a salesperson automatically makes customers stop buying. There is even a saleperson's term for this false step: "putting a must-sell" on an item. The person who bids too eagerly does something similar: s/he "puts a must-have" on the item for which, s/he has revealed, s/he is willing to pay too much

I'd say this is very good advice, and maybe articulates a little more succinctly why some of Steven's posts were such a turn-off to me.

[jhempel24]

So, I stepped into here, on accident really because there was a similar topic on the Nook.

I usually don't go here because I'm not a writer, but this was an interesting topic.

The first thing I see when I go to your webpage is the covers...they say you can't judge a book by it's cover, but most people do really.

And what I see is pretty poor. From photography to type-set to your name leaving the sidebar and entering the photo (which I do like the sidebar concept).

But a sharp looking cover to me says you are interested in ALL aspects of your work, not just the inside.

The other thing, in your descriptions you say things like:

"It's pretty much the same as Burn Notice, just a different settings." Okay, that tells me it's not really original.

"This book was written on the fly" - I understand what you are trying to do, but was it only written for MR readers?

You also mention MobileRead alot, while not a BAD thing I would suggest that you remove it because the average Joe may feel like unless they are apart of the community, they are missing something.

Not knowing anything about the inner workings of the books, this is what I see with the outer workings.

I'm sure there is much more that people have and already added, but from a perspective of someone that is outside the writing business, those are the reasons I wouldn't buy or look at the books.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I'm looking for promotional and marketing advice here, not editorial advice, thanks. As to Onuissance, I considered a few different spelling before I went with this one. I happen to like it the way it is, and as it's only a free series of 8 short stories, I confess that changing the name and cover of this one will be a bit low on my list of things to do.

You're asking for advice, many people are giving you the same advice regarding the Onuissance title (I admit that I just read the pronunciation and I've forgotten how to pronounce it already...), and yet you're choosing to reject that advice because it's "only a free series". This rather clearly demonstrates how you view your writing. If you don't take it seriously, how can you expect anyone else to? It's never "only" anything. A free series is your gateway to readers and should not be taken so lightly. If I can't easily search for the title or pronounce it (how can I tell my friends about it if I can't speak the name?), then word-of-mouth marketing doesn't stand a chance.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

For the record, I don't consider being directly or indirectly called "inhuman" and "fascist" constructive criticism, and it isn't exactly making me want to visit this thread, nor to heed anyone's advice when I already feel so on the defensive. "Not serious about my work" may be one interpretation; standing up for my creations may be another.

I guess this was just a bad idea gone worse. We might as well let this thread fade to black, as I think it's already done its job of offering me a few suggestions, and simultaneously making me less inclined to want to try them.

Feel free to discuss among yourselves; be seeing you.

[altworld]

Shh... Self-destruction in progress... Please remain calm and seated in the blue chair.

Arigato,
Nick Davis

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

See, I was right-- you just described the exact future that I wish to live in-- as if it were a bad thing. My black is your white, my white is your black. "The end of need, want, commerce, value, finance, etc" is a good thing!

For a writer, it is.

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. -- Leo Tolstoy.

In our real lives, we don't want to have to struggle for everything; those of us who have done so want it even less. Not needing everything makes for much less stress. But it makes for lousy books. It's like the old saw about newspapers not printing "Mr. Smith had a nice day." How many times have you gone to the faucet, turned the faucet handle, and water came out? You've probably done it at least once today. There's no story there. But if you turned on the water and got nothing (or worse yet, got something that has no right to be in a pipe), that might be the start of a story.

Sure, I'd like to live in a post-scarcity world. I'd like to live in a world where I didn't have to worry about being hungry, or wanting clothes, or needing medicine. I'd like to live in a world where I could do just the things I wanted to, relax when I wanted to, create art, and so on. But I wouldn't want to read stories about it, because they'd all be the "Mr. Smith had a nice day" kind, and that's no fun at all.

I agree that a lot of Steve's ideas for the future (his police-state Internet, for instance) are not just undesirable but in some cases even destructive. But I think we have to distinguish between the future he wants to see (that police state, for instance) and the future he wants to write about (one that contains struggle and conflict).

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I guess this was just a bad idea gone worse. We might as well let this thread fade to black, as I think it's already done its job of offering me a few suggestions, and simultaneously making me less inclined to want to try them.

Feel free to discuss among yourselves; be seeing you.

So are you going to give up writing or not?

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

But if you turned on the water and got nothing (or worse yet, got something that has no right to be in a pipe), that might be the start of a story.

Like, say, A MOVING FINGER!

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I agree that a lot of Steve's ideas for the future (his police-state Internet, for instance) are not just undesirable but in some cases even destructive. But I think we have to distinguish between the future he wants to see (that police state, for instance) and the future he wants to write about (one that contains struggle and conflict).

I think it's about learning that, "Wow, this future would be terrible, I'm going to do everything I can to prevent it!" I didn't read 1984 and think it was an awesome idea for the future. I read it and was horrified. But I was also enthralled and found it to be a good read. Books like that can make for compelling reading and also be a lesson about how to change our ways to avoid such a future.

The movie Gattaca comes to mind as a work that warns us on the potential problems of genetic engineering. It's also a made-up word in the title that is pronounceable and spellable