Jim Duncan's Writing Blog

I've heard far too often how agents are the Evil Gatekeepers of Publishing, elitist literary snobs who wouldn't know a good book if it leapt up and bit them on the ass. Generally, this comes from frustrated writers who have had no luck in the process of finding an agent or from people who see stuff hitting the shelves they consider to be dreck. I can certainly understand the frustration. I've submitted to a lot of agents and received the rejection letters. My basic message to all of those folks is this: learn to deal with it.

Publishing is a business, which of course, everyone knows. Publishers are in it to make money, otherwise they couldn't exist. They also want to publish good books. Nobody gets into publishing without a serious love for great books. It's also a very subjective business. There's no set rules about what works. Readers are fickle. Wonderful books often don't sell. Books you can't believe anyone would read become bestsellers. There are no hard, fast rules about finding books that will sell. It's something of an art and a guessing game. Also, there are far more books submitted than could ever be placed on bookstore shelves. It goes without saying that many good books get passed over because the market just has no room for them.

How many writers have heard something to the effect, "This is wonderful, but I just don't believe I can sell it"? It's hard news to take as a writer, other than knowing someone out there likes your writing. Agents have to do this all of the time. Out of the great writing they find in their inbox, they have to figure out which of them is most suitable to the current market, i.e. what editors are acquiring and/or looking for. Most agents get dozens of queries a week, thousands a year, that they must cull through to find what not only what they would want to rep, but what publishers will be looking for. Obviously these two things don't always coincide. I hear far too often how agents and publishing in general are too afraid to take risks, to publish the good stuff people will not only want to read, but even need to read. They want to do this. It's one of the main reasons they have the jobs they do. It has to be tempered of course with the reality of paying the bills and giving people paychecks.

There's no question that the publishing industry is in a major state of flux right now, with the rise of digital publication. Self-publishing is flourishing like never before. Vanity/subsidy publishers are cropping up all over to take advantage of this state of change and the frustration of writers (this is a whole other post I have strong feelings about). Readers are buying fewer books. It's harder than ever to get noticed and break into publishing. To say however, that agents are basically ruining it for writers everywhere by being timid or too afraid to take on great books or just plain not knowing good writing is to ignore the truths about writing in today's market. They have to find great books that will sell, pure and simple. If they don't sell, they make no money. There are tons of great books out there which for many reasons, just won't sell. It's not fair perhaps, but it's the reality, and blaming agents for that accomplishes nothing. Not to mention that it's just flat out wrong.

As much as many writers believe some writing needs to be published regardless of its potential to find readership, for the sake of art or culture or whatever, publishers just can't afford to do it, though they do on a limited basis. Small risks are taken on books they love in the hopes it will catch on. Agents do this on occasion too. Sometimes a book is too good to ignore. It happens. When every agent is seeing 20k queries come across their desk every year however, you can see what your chances are.

Writers are free to turn to non-traditional methods. You can self-publish. You can make the mistake of dumping money on a vanity/subsidy publisher. You can get your book printed and sell a few copies, but the odds of finding any kind of success, i.e. readers, not so much millions of dollars, is about like winning the lottery. Your chances aren't much better. You're far better off continuing to hone your craft, write the best story you can, and get in line to speak with the gatekeeper. They're nice folk. Smart folk. They love books and want to love yours too. They also might not, which means you swallow your pride and write more and try again.

There has been a flood of commentary in recent months over digital books. They spell the doom of traditional publishing. They have annoying drm making them far too difficult to share with others. They aren't available across multiple devices. They're too expensive. Plenty of knowledgeable folk have weighed in both pro and con on the advantages, disadvantages, and worth of digital books. Honestly, I have little to add to most of that. I'm by no means an expert on digital publishing. I see the pros and the cons. It's beyond my means to afford so I haven't been tempted to delve into digital reading. I will say however, the public's (reader's) complaints about the relative worth of a digital book has me perplexed and a bit annoyed.

I've constantly heard the proclamation that because ebooks don't have the same costs as a paper book, they should not be priced the same. Somehow, folks are missing the fact that printing costs are actually a pretty small part of the equation. It doesn't equate to much of a discount. Besides, folks are getting the big convenience factor of storage and immediacy for their books. In my mind these more than offset one another. Beyond this is public perception. Folks expect like objects available through the internet to be cheaper than the real thing. This is/has/will be the biggest issue to overcome in my mind for publishing. As an author, this is a no-brainer for me. The story maintains its value regardless of format. I'd challenge anyone to logically explain that a book's content is inherently less valuable in the digital format. This brings me to my point of this post. The value of the story.

Regardless of the story's cover, be it paper or plastic, it is the same. Author's make what living they do off the sale of this content. Readers can decry the pricing all they want, but in the end, if they say digital content should be less money, they are in turn claiming the author doesn't deserve as much compensation for their work. Publishing works on close margins. They don't make a lot of money per book, and authors get a set percentage of the sale. Sell it for less and the author gets less. Do readers really want to say that authors deserve less than they already get? Again, public perception plays into this. Far too many in the public sphere believe selling a book equates to great money. Authors know of course that only the few achieve any genuine success with publication. Publishers need to work to change public perception. The story is valuable regardless of the format. Period.

There are almost as many ways to plot as there are writers. It's a fairly personal process. Generally, I think it comes down to whatever works for you. So, what I detail here isn't meant to give writers an effective method for plotting. It's not efficient. It's not quick. Over the years however, it's what I've found to work the best for me.

Years ago, I had the notion of writing screenplays. Mostly this was from the mistaken notion that I could make money off of selling treatments. There are writers who make good careeers out of writing movies that never make it to the screen. There's a lot of money in Hollywood. Screenwriters are, unlike novelists, unionized. They negotiate their rates with the movie makers, and the pay scale is good. Sadly, this doesn't work for novel writing. There just isn't the cash around in publishing to operate like Hollywood does. Through my exploration of screenplay writing however, I discovered something that appealed to my sense of organization. Unlike most other aspects of my life, I want/need my writing to be very organized in order for my writing to be effective. Screenplays are very structured. I read Syd Field's Screenplay and had a very "aha!" moment. The organizational methods were directly applicable to novels.

Movies (generalizing here) have very distinct beginnings, middles, and endings. They have middles between the beginnings and middle and the middle and end known as turning points. This gives one a very simple, five-point backbone to the story: beginning-turning point-middle-turning point-ending. While more complex stories with multiple plotlines going on might have various other turning points within the story, this five-point setup is what drives the main action of the story. Whether the action if physical or character driven, this format will work. I think of it as building a puzzle, and these points make up the border, giving you the framework within which the story will come together.

When I begin a story, I have a general notion, a main thread idea. Usually it falls as either the beginning or ending of a story. I'll play around with this idea until I figure out what the other end of the thread is. Once I have the limits established, I'll ponder, jot notes, and play around with ideas until I come up with what will be the main driving force to turn the story from point A to point B. This is the midpoint. Once this has been satisfactorily figured out, I take each half and figure the midpoint for those. I write these down as a list. I now have the basis for my story and what the focus of five of the chapters will be. This process generally isn't hugely time consuming, perhaps a week or two of playing around with things.

The rest of the story is where the title for this post comes from. I stew over the rest. I have the edges of this puzzle I'm intrigued to figure out, and now it's up to my generally disorganized brain to play around with the jumble of remaining puzzle pieces and figure out how they will all go together to make a coherent and interesting picture. This process takes me a few weeks, four to six I'm guessing before most of the pieces come together. This is a lot of note taking, pondering during those free moments like driving to work or picking up the kids or taking a shower. I ask a lot of questions. How are characters going to develop? What will generate the most conflict. How will the smaller plot elements, minor characters, and so on fit together in a way that makes sense? A lot of it is also just, "what should happen next?" Much of what I do is playing out various little snippets of scenes in my head, rewinding and playing them again, making sense of what would logically follow or if what has gone before plays into it well. There is no logical order. It's for the most part, a confusing mash of information that I pull and pluck at and gradually shape into what I want it to be. I stew over my plot for a long time before any words go onto the page.

Once it all comes together, I have, more or less, a page long outline, chapter by chapter or even scene by scene of what transpires in the book. This makes my brain very happy. Unlike many writers, who dislike outlining because they feel the story is done if they do, I need this kind of organization. It gets me excited to write. I've figured out what all of the puzzle pieces are and now I can go about the fun part of putting it all together into one completed, and hopefully worthwhile story the reader will enjoy. It won't likely work for most, but it's the method that works best for me.

Learned yesterday that my book contract finally had all of the little details ironed out. I hope to have signed papers soonish, and then...ooo, maybe get revisions from editor and get this ball rolling *rubs hands together with relish*. Also can't wait to get advance money so I can get the new author blog/site up and running.

My fabulous agent is running another fun contest. Check it out at: nathanbransford.blogspot.com for all the contestual enjoyment.

Before you get all excited, thinking I'll be chatting about Space 1999, the only relatable word in that title is "Alpha," as in alpha-male. I'll be the first to admit, I'm not an alpha guy (unless my wife beats me to it). There isn't an ounce of bravado or macho in my blood. I haven't been in any sort of tussle with someone since the fourth grade. I haven't chased or pursued any women (unless the first grade playground counts for anything). I'm a quiet, unassuming, geeky guy who avoids conflict like the plague. On the far end of the field, high-fiving it in the other endzone is the alpha guy. The fans cheer his awesomeness. The women drool at his swagger, and guys on my side of the field scratch our heads and wonder, "Who is that asshole?" Ok, there's a little envy there, can't be helped.

But what's the appeal (pardon the upcoming generalizations)? I've read plenty of stories with alphas. The romance genre tends to focus on them as heroes. Women love alphas or at least the idea of them. In my opinion it comes down to one thing, self confidence. There is fairly universal appeal for the guy who knows who he is, what he wants, and isn't about to let anyone stand in his way or give a crap about anyone takes issue with him. Often, stories will revolve around making this alpha guy give a crap, because somewhere inside there's a part of him that does care, and it's the heroine's job to bring that little blob of emotion to the forefront. Because really, he's not the asshat that's initially presented.

My novel, which is still a good year or so away from publication has a romantic element in it. I wanted a hero that was alpha in some ways, but didn't bring any of the asshattery I find so annoying with typical alpha men. I realize part of this is me, as a guy, who wants a character I can find likeable. Part of it is the nerdy guy in me who points at these alpha guys and says, "Why the hell do you like this guy? He's a complete dick!" Yes, I know, I've heard the many reasons why, but still. It befuddles me. So, I set out to write a hero that hopefully falls somewhere in the gray inbetween of this mess. Both my hero and heroine are damaged people attempting to repair themselves and find a satisfying place in the world. I have the good fortune of this being the start of a series so I have plenty of room to work through all of these trials and tribulations. The trick for me, and perhaps other male writers have this issue too, is to write a character that appeals to the romantic interests of women readers. Yes, I know that these aren't the only kinds of guys women like to read about. Readers have broad interests and I'm only speaking to a fairly specific subset here.

How to blend these elements together to make an appealing hero? How to blend that ever-appealing self-confidence in with character weaknesses and still have readers rooting for and loving the character? It's a hard balance I believe as a writer to achieve this. Exploring the differences between male/female writers regarding the presentation of alpha men would probably be a very interesting discussion. Perhaps I'll address this in a future post.

I'm pondering the development of a new blog. This will in part be for my novel when it gets published. So, on the one hand, it will be something of an author blog with all of the usual author things. However, I want to do something more with this, something that will draw in readers and writer types for reasons beyond my written words. Because my novel deals with paranormal elements (it has ghosts and vampires in it) I'm thinking of making a blog that is also dedicated to the exploration, celebration, and general awesomeness of all things we love about the paranormal in books. So, what to do with this? What kinds of things will bring a more general reading public in beyond simple interest in my book? That is the question, and something I would like some feedback on. Thoughts?

I am so stoked. A few days ago, I had the fantastic agent, Nathan Bransford offer to represent me! Amazing? Yes! Mind-blowing? You bet. Hard to believe that after a year and a half of dealing with my ms that it is finally going to find a home. So, so excited, and I am incredibly fortunate to have such a smart, savvy agent on my side. Plus, he's just a cool guy in general. Anyway, enough blathering on. More good news to follow in the near future!

I've been reading a lot lately about the protests at meetings where congressional leaders speak and discuss the current issues around health care reform, sometimes to the point that the discussion can't continue because people are 'protetsting' so loudly nobody can hear anything. A lot of this seems to be coming from conservatives decrying healthcare reform as heading toward socialism. The protests seem to be an effort to shut down discussion, period. It also doesn't help that you get media idiots like Fox News not even finishing coverage because people weren't protesting enough at an event. Who knows how their coverage helped stir up the protesting in the first place (yes, I'm biased against Fox News; sensationalist broadcasting for the sake of viewership, not news). Anyway, drowning out public discussion of health care reform by exercising your freedom of speech is about the worst possible use of the freedom. We need debate on this issue. We need public discussion. People need to tone it down and try listening. This debate needs to happen. It's an issue that needs to be figured out and dealt with.

I'll be the first to admit I don't know the numbers. I don't know how much money is being poured into health care. I don't know how much profit is being made off of it either. I do know the numbers are enormous. People are afraid the health care will get socialized. While I've never experienced socialized healthcare, I've read that it's not as bad as people think it is. I get the strong sense of conservative, knee-jerk reaction to the mere word 'socialized.' Whether socialization is the answer, I don't know. I might be. I happen to believe however, that health care can be run effectively without socialization. I'd bet that if the numbers were looked at, we'd find that there is enough money within the system as it stands to bring affordable healthcare to every American citizen. I believe we have a right to health care which is low cost, if not free. The well-being of this country's citizens should not be predicated on how much money you make.

The fundamental problem as I see it is that health care has become a capitalist enterprise. A lot of it is built around making money. Not just the provide jobs and income for people sort of money but profit to line pockets and pad back accounts sort of money. Health care is not, nor should it be an industry to make people wealthy. There is something inherently wrong with that mindset, bordering on unethical. Drug makers, insurance companies, are not in this industry for the well-being of all American citizens. They don't do it out of moral obligation to help people live better lives. They invest millions to make millions. Anything wrong with that per se? No. Nothing wrong with making big money. It is a problem when you do it at the expense of the population you are trying to serve. There's enough money made in health care among all those concerned to provide affordable health care for all. It comes down to one simple tenet: social responsibility.

Those in the health care industry don't have much of it. They can say "look at all the money we invest in helping people." That's fine. It's appreciated, but you know what? It's not enough. Each part of the system seems to be built around getting the most money from every other part of the system. The money circulates but the public is the one to lose out. Millions of people can't afford health care. Honestly, it shouldn't be the government's job to pick up this slack because everyone else wants to maximize profits. That's an embarrassing lack of social repsonsibility. The healthcare industry is not in the business (or shouldn't be) of maximizing shareholder profits. It's in the business of healthcare, the well-being of every American citizen.

If conservative folk want to decry the coming of socialism with the government takeover of healthcare, that's fine. Ewww! Socialism bad! Everyone has the right to speak out. But you can't say that healthcare is working fine and dandy as is. It's not. In my opinion, the protesting should be directed at those in the industry who are raking in profits at everyone else's expense. They're the ones causing the problem due to a lack of genuine concern for the public's welfare. People should be drowning out drug company board meetings with protests demanding change. People should be picketing insurance companies to change. People should be demanding equipment and supply companies charge responsible fees. The government is going to end up stepping in and forcing changes many won't like not because of some liberal, social agenda. It's because the people making money off our well-being don't want to give it up for the sake of a better world.

Started myself a novel blog with the new wip. I'm going to use scribd for reading purposes, as I think it's a far easier reading format than scrolling down through a blog. We'll see how it goes. The addy is:

www.thebaredirty.wordpress.com

Hope to see your comments there!

Ah, nevermind...

I wish I was an organic writer. I've tried before and failed. My last novel, I plotted out the entire thing before I started writing it. I had a chapter by chapter summary, often just a sentence or two, but the whole big picture was laid out before me before word one was put to the page. So, I like structure. I like knowing where I'm going. Not being one to give up on anything I'd like to be able to do, I decided to attempt a half and half approach on my current novel. I had a beginning, middle, and end, and I plotted out about the first third to half of the book. The second half remained fairly nebulous. Wouldn't you know it, I approached the end of what I'd plotted out, cruising along quite happily, putting into words the story I'd developed to that point, and then that nebulous half of the story washed over me. My motivation for the story dispersed along with it. Damn it all. I had hoped, figured that getting over a hundred pages into the story would be enough to cement that drive to plow on chapter by chapter, letting things unfold as they came. Nope. Not happening. No unfolding to be found. I have realized, no amount of combination will allow me to write organically. I bow to the rigid guidelines my brain is wanting to impose. I will now figure out and plot the rest of the book before I continue. Even thinking about doing that is getting the motivational, creative juices flowing again. I accept my weirdness and continue on.

I've come across several comments and articles/posts lately that indicate that editors at various publishing houses big and small are editing less and less (if at all) and becoming focused almost exclusively on acquistions. Editors want manuscripts that are as close to publication ready as possible. So, what does this do to the process? It has the effect of backing things up, putting more of the editing pressures on agents and writers.

Many agents come from the ranks of editors. Many enjoy the editing process and are fairly hands-on when it comes to handling a writer's content. Many however, are not. Most don't have the time to be doing any kind of heavy editing for their clients. I've heard many stories in the past of agents taking on clients where they love the story but know it will take some decent editing to get it into shape to send on to editors. With the deluge of writers querying agents this year, this kind of scenario is less and less likely to occur. Agents are just as affected by this downturn as everyone else in the industry. They're feeling the pinch of shrinking advances, especially if the bulk of their clients are mid-listers. They are going to be considering different ways to maintain a stable income, and one of these places might be in editing. If a writer has a worthy project that needs some editing, well, writers might start to see some negotiating by agents to incorporate this. Would a writer be willing to fork up more than the 15% for editing? Given how difficult it is to land an agent, I'd say yes. Time of course is the big factor. Editing is time intensive. If an agent takes on more editing responsibilities it likely means taking on fewer clients. Many agents will likely turn away from this, but I'm just saying...it's a possibility.

For writers, editing is a necessity. I suspect more and more freelance editors will be looking to tap into this need as it grows. For any writers who don't know, this stuff is expensive. Decent editors aren't cheap. If one is looking at getting an entire ms professionally edited, you're looking hundreds up to a couple thousand dollars. Lots of chances to get scammed or to just get poor service from editors who just aren't the right fit for your ms. Finding a good editor can be as hard as finding a good agent. It's a relationship like any other, and beyond the purview of this post. My suggestion to writers: learn how to be a good editor yourself. Find good critiquers (again this can be difficult) but invaluable. You can learn editing skills however. It just takes work and dedication. The way the market is now and the way it's changing, you can't afford not too. An ms in need of any kind of significant editing is a major strike against you in seeking publication. Don't set yourself up for failure before you even get going in this difficult business.

A recent debate has spawned over the inadequacies of the Romance Writers of America in regard to their stance on e-publishing. It can be found at various blogs and a few articles around the web now (not going to link all, but I'm sure Google will help you out here). This debate is not new. It has been brought to the attention of RWA's leadership more than once in the past, and inevitably, the message is the same. Unless publishers offer a minimum advance of $1000 dollars, they are not considered legitimate in the eyes of RWA. Legitmacy has its perks, not a requirement obviously, but recognition by the largest group of romance writers in the country doesn't hurt either.

At its core, RWA's belief is pretty basic. Writers deserve to be paid for their work upon signing that contract. If the publisher is not willing to put up financial risk when acquiring an author's work, then they don't deserve recognition. There is some merit to the argument. Writers do like and desire to get paid upfront for their work. It's seen as an investment by the publisher. If a publisher isn't willing to invest, what's the motivation to worry about things like adequate distribution, marketing, publicity? It's not too difficult to earn back on a small print run, and if the book doesn't take off, oh well, no loss to us. RWA goes beyond this however. Their stance is, both explicitly and implicity implied that digital publishing is not a worthwhile avenue to pursue a writing career. I've heard numerous stories from epubbed authors where their work is not only considered less legitimate as a book, but inferior in quality. Odd I think, coming from a group whose foundation is supporting its member's pursuit of a writing career.

Getting published is ridiculously hard, even in the world of digital publishing. The percentage of writers out there who achieve publication that offers royalties for their sales, and doesn't require them to invest their own money in publication is low, like 1 in 100 low. RWA has about 10,000 members. While admittedly, a certain number of its members don't intend to ever attempt publication, most are there out of an interest in writing romance. If the odds are around 1%, this means that a lot of those people are paying dues, attending conferences, and working their butts off to achieve the dream of publishing, who will never make it. Along comes digital publishing, which has exploded over the past couple of years, and will continue to grow as technology advances to support it. It has opened up a new avenue for publishing for many writers, yet RWA is not currently pursuing an active role in incorporating this model into its publication worldview.

I will say, it's not entirely exclusive. Epubbed authors can receive some recognition if they have received over $1000 in royalties. Many though are relegated to a secondary status anyway because they have not been mass produced in print format as well. The current rules do not support legitmizing digitally published books. The organization favors traditional publication as the method for pursuing a writing career, at the expense of many of its members dreams of publishing. I find it a disservice, and a bit of a slap in the face to the membership (of which I am one), that the leadership has decided for me how to best pursue my writing career. If I desire to pursue digital publishing, I should be supported in this endeavor, since this is really the core mission of RWA. Their job is to educate me on the realities of publishing, help me to hone my craft, and support the pursuit of my goal to get published. Educate, support, and advise. Don't make decisions for me. This is however, what their policies have effectively done.

A lot of this has to do with not recognizing the validity of the digital publishing business model. Digital publishing does not have the capital to invest like traditional publishers. It's a simple fact that they cannot afford to offer advances. They aren't in business to bilk money from susceptible authors (though there are folks/business who have attempted this and still do in both digital and traditional models). They want to make money and see good books made available to the reader just like tradtional publishers. You don't get into this business without a tremendous love for the written word. It's not worth all of the effort otherwise. Rejecting this business model, not so subtley implies that they do not have the best interests of the writer at heart, and are thus not worth pursuing. RWA continues to harp on this business model as detrimental to writers, despite the fact than many make pretty decent money at it. In the end though, it is the writer's choice to make, not RWA's, and their policy effectively says, "your decision is bad, therefore we aren't going to support you." Again, RWA, wtf? Your role is not to limit my choices, but to support the ones I make, and encourage me to make smart ones. Digital publishing obviously works for a great many writers, and your members have a dream to publish.

Do you really want to squash member's dreams on the technicality of whether authors get paid on the front or tail end of things? Seriously? Changing policies to incorporate epubbing will take some work to make everything run smoothly. You have a responsiblity to do it however, in my opinion, to support the efforts of all your members. Because we want to get published, and I pay you money to support me, not limit.

It should be noted, that all ranting aside, RWA as a whole is a really great organization. The sense of community (for the most part) among writers is invaluable. The efforts it makes to educate writers, and make them better at their craft is about second to none compared to other similar organizations. In a lot of ways, my money is well spent, but this issue is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

My previous post and Lynn Viehl's comments about my experiment in formatting has me thinking today about whole 'split' as it were between reading in digital format compared to the printed book. There has been commentary ad nauseum over the merits and comparisons between the two. There are those who hold steadfastly to the touch, feel, and richness of the tangible book. I agree with these points. The ebook is all about portability and to some degree, instant gratification. You can peruse a catalog, read excerpts and then download a book to read anywhere and anytime. Again, I agree with these points. The point is they both have their advantages and disadvantages and depending on how, when, where, and why you read, you'll likely use one format far more than another. Personally, I fall on the tangible book side of things.

My main reason for this is, I do the vast majority of my reading at home, and I'm not fond of reading vast quantities of text on a computer screen. If I travelled a lot or was out around town for large chunks of time, I would likely want to take advantage of ebooks benefits. If one looks though at the simply, physical dynamics of how reading in these two venues plays out, it's rather obvious that the reading experience is different. Ereading tends to take place in small chunks and snippets of time; you get a chapter here and there on the bus/subway, sitting in the waiting room, or stopping at the coffee shop for a latte. It's a far different experience than curling up in your favorite chair or in bed to read for a solid hour or two. It's hard to weigh one against the other because you're comparing two different things.

Beyond this, ebooks hold the power within them to take advantage of technology to make reading an experience beyond just the written word. The list is far to long to put in a single post, but a little thinking on your part should see what can be done. Authors can put in commentary on various aspects of their work. Speculative fiction authors can have maps, schematics, diagrams, and artwork to more richly display their worlds. Characters can be intereviewed. Histories can be further fleshed out. Alternate endings could be revealed. Commentary can be given on individual sections of a book, posted live on the net. The potential here is almost limitless. The notion of really building community around an author's work holds great possibilities. The tech may need a little catching up, but we are getting there at an ever-accelerating pace. Digital books are heading down the road of becoming something beyond the personal experience of reading the tangible book. However, let me be clear, that I am not attempting to play down the vitalness of the tangible book. No matter how far the tech goes, and I'm guessing it won't be long before we have readers the size of paperbacks, which open and close and read like one, nothing quite compares to the experience of the printed page.

Author Lynn Viehl speaks about the experiment in formatting I've been doing with my fantasy novel. Yay! Always fun to have other authors talk about you. I'm continuing to look at ways to make the ebook experience something different. I think the possibilities, especially in the spec fic market are extensive right now. This is somewhat limited by ereader technology right now, but things will be changing down the road as color technology gets fine-tuned and implemented. Google Wave is going to proove to be interesting as well with interactivity and books. Anyway, check out the link, check out the formatting, and feel free to comment and provide feedback.

http://pbackwriter.blogspot.com/2009/06/e-look.html

Had two Praxis tests to take today. For those who don't know, these are tests required by most states for teachers to pass in order to get certified. They're almost 100 bucks each to take. I totally missed my first one. Thought start time for second was first. Fail. Second test was difficult (as in not enought time to adequately answer all questions). Won't be surprised if I don't pass that one and have to take both in July. Blech.

On more positive writerly news, I reached page 100 on my current story. Yay, progress!

Intersting conversation amongst editor type folk on twitter tonight (until twitter crashed and ruined it) discussing the emergence of real-time reporting. Think it came about from a report on Apple buying Twitter which turned out to be utterly false.

So, is this change ruining journalism as we know it? Is the rush to report first going to shove factual news to the side? Meaning, here's the rumor, we'll fill the facts in later. Is the rise of the amatuer/citizen journalist killing off professional journalism?

I can see the problems here. Many websites are driven by traffic. The more hits they get, the more revenue generated. If you're the first to get info out on that big rumor, the notion is, people will flock there first, and then hopefully keep coming back. People's desire for instant information is going to power this form of hackneyed reporting. Is really more than just gossip if there's no verifiable backup to the claims? It's one thing to be first and be right, and of course, even the amatuers hope their scoop proves true, but psychology tells us, they don't have to be right all of the time to keep people coming back. Instant gratification is a powerful force. So is money.

The more I've considered this whole thing, the more I feel sorry for the professionals out there who want to provide the public with relevant, factual news. The face of journalism seems to be changing (in my uninformed opinion of course). At least in the traditional news world of print and television, credibility is a big issue. Screw up a story and it makes you look bad, and can ruin reputations. On the net, attention spans and memories are even shorter. There's more leeway for error. The hunger for instant information is more forgiving. Everyone wants to feel like they heard it first.

Even online though, you screw up enough and people will remember. Get your facts wrong too many times and people will direct their traffic somewhere else. It's going to be tough going for the pros I think. You can say, "Come to us for real, verifiable news." But you're going to have to come to terms with the 'we want it now' public, who isn't always so discerning about the facts. Not sure what you'd term this new ear of speed reporting. "High-risk journalism" maybe?

Reformatted and put up first 50 pages of Order of the Nine at Scribd to see if I get any feedback on it. I'm really thinking I'd like to edit this a bit and gear it toward the YA crowd. Anyway, have to see how that goes.

Poking around blogs today, and read one which chatted with a YA/MG agent books and what pubs were looking for these days, and fantasy was mentioned, as in too many LoTR wannabes. I've been querying here and there over the past two years with my epic fantasy, with two sub-20 main characters in it, and it never occurred to me to market it as YA. Yes, that was the sound of me bitch-slapping myself for being an idiot. Time to rebuild that query list.