The Ark Discussion Board (SPOILERS ALLOWED)

[boydm]

Hi All,

This is the place where you can have free range to talk or ask about anything in The Ark. Spoilers are ALLOWED, so if you haven't finished The Ark and don't want anything given away, read no further.



Please feel free to discuss whatever you want. If you have any questions for me about how I wrote the story, the real and ficitional technology in the book, or specifics about plot points, this is the best place to ask them.

Cheers,
Boyd

[EllenR]

Hi Boyd,

I enjoyed The Ark very much. In fact, I just finished it as I was unable to stop at 12 chapters.  One question kept coming to my mind, do you live in the Seattle area or have you traveled here often? I loved having part of the story in my own backyard.

Did you do research on the premise of the Ark for the story? That was an interesting take on the biblical aspect. I liked that I could see it being true, being one who does not believe that the Bible is literal or infallible.

Thanks,

EllenR

[chynared21]

I'm always interested in hearing how an author goes through the process of researching their topic. It seems like there is a massive amount of work that has to go into it before writing even starts for it to be believeable to readers, whether or not the facts are embellished for our reading pleasure.

[boydm]

Hi EllenR and ChynaRed,

I do live in the Seattle area. I rode the monorail and went to the Space Needle to research the chase scene in those locations, and I've been to Orcas Island (although the compound there is completely fictional).

As an aside, if you or anyone else in the Seattle area likes stage comedy, I'll be appearing in Leading Ladies at Driftwood Players starting June 12. I'll be playing one of the title leading ladies. It's a farce in the tradition of Some Like It Hot and Bosom Buddies. If you aren't amused by seeing a 6'2" guy in 3-inch heels and a dress, do not come.

The idea for The Ark came when I was watching a show about the search for Noah's Ark. I didn't see how a wooden ship could still exist after 6000 years, but then I wondered if there might be another explanation that would account for the Ark legend. I did a lot of research into the Noah's Ark story, including the various alternative theories posited by archaeologists, and decided to come up with something even more radical, something which I'd never seen before. As an engineer, I wanted a theory that was at least scientifically plausible and did not rely on a supernatural explanation (although I leave that to interpretation as well, as debated by Locke and Dilara at the end). I read and re-read the biblical story, both in the King James and the Douay-Rheims versions, and given how the language between the two versions is different, it seemed a possibility that perhaps we've just been mistranslating the ancient Hebrew for all these years. And when I saw the word "vessel", the alternative definition popped into my head. Maybe vessel means "container" instead of "ship", and what better container in the ancient world than a cave? It also left open the possibility that the biblical story was true as described; it was we fallible humans who misinterpreted it.

[chynared21]

Man, I wished that I lived in the Seattle area  You will have to post a picture :-)

Thanks for the background on how The Ark came about. The story was truly fascinating once it was determined that they weren't looking for the "ark" itself. It gave the story a whole new dimension that made for a great and exciting read.

[boydm]

And the title has a double meaning, of course. The Ark refers both to Noah's Ark and to the Oasis Ark that Garrett has built. The original title was The Noah Covenant, but my agent and I decided to go with something simpler and more iconic.

[EllenR]

Boyd, I have to admit that I like the published title better although Noah's Convenant makes perfect sense.

I'm intrigued that you are an engineer. That was one of the things that I really loved about the book, that engineers played such a huge part in the plot and that they were not written to type either. My dh and most of his family are engineers. I expect one or more of my kids will be as well. Needless to say, engineers are near and dear to my heart.

I loved the sequence on the monorail. We have ridden it a few times ourselves when relatives come to town. I thought you did a very good job of bringing the local flavor into the story with Seattle. That is why I figured you must live in the area rather than having just visited. Your descriptions were quite characteristic of the area, particularly the cloud cover on Orcas Island. LOL

We will have to look into the play. My daughter has her dance recital around that time but it does sound quite amusing! I can only imagine what you would look like in heels...

I haven't started on your other books, though they are on my Kindle. Do you feature engineers often in your writing since that is what you know?

How did you write so clearly about the area where the discovery of the Ark takes place? Did you just do a lot of research or did you actually travel there?

I also wanted to mention that DH and I have had many discussions about the fallible nature of the human interpretation of God's word in the Bible and the changes that took place in translation between languages. We have a few different versions in our home, and it's actually a fascinating topic to me. I really liked how you integrated it into the storyline to explain the location and nature of the Ark itself. The literal versus figurative interpretation debate has always been interesting to me.

EllenR

[boydm]

Boyd, I have to admit that I like the published title better although Noah's Convenant makes perfect sense.

Great! Then we made the right decision.

I haven't started on your other books, though they are on my Kindle. Do you feature engineers often in your writing since that is what you know?

I wrote a blog post about why I wanted to feature an engineer in The Ark, but the genesis of featuring a heroic engineer came from a conversation I had with Douglas Preston and James Rollins at the first Thrillerfest conference. I was working on the idea for The Ark and mentioned that I had an engineering background (I have a PhD, so I suppose that also makes me a scientist). We noted that Doug's The Ice Limit featured an engineer, and Jim's Sigma Force books feature killer scientists, but we had never really seen a novel featuring a swashbuckling action hero who was an engineer. So I set about to correct that omission.

My other two books feature scientists as heroes. In The Adamas Blueprint, it's a chemist, and in The Palmyra Impact, it's a geophysicist. In each case, their profession is critical to the plot of the story. Unfortunately, these ideas didn't sell in the publishing biz, so the thriller I'm working on now has no scientists or engineers.

How did you write so clearly about the area where the discovery of the Ark takes place? Did you just do a lot of research or did you actually travel there?

I have done a lot of traveling in my life, but Turkey and Armenia are two places I've never had the pleasure to visit. Unfortunately, my writing budget doesn't cover research travel yet, so I relied on the Internet and travel guides for my info. I'm glad it translated to a believable sense of place.

[crebel]

I had every intent of actually reading along each week with the Klub.  Ha!  The end of Chapter 11 was NOT a place I was able to quit reading!  So I kept reading until I finished.  Good book!  I will still keep up with the weekly discussions to see what others think and offer my thoughts as we go along.  Boyd, how did you come up with the name Hydronastic?  I presumed it was hydro-nastic (as opposed to hydron-astic) with the reference being to water; but, I don't think I found a reference to why Garrett chose that name.  I've done some looking for a breakdown of the word and keep coming up with Jack LaLane wearing "hydronastic" gloves for a swim to Alcatraz!

[boydm]

I had every intent of actually reading along each week with the Klub.  Ha!  The end of Chapter 11 was NOT a place I was able to quit reading!  So I kept reading until I finished.  Good book!  I will still keep up with the weekly discussions to see what others think and offer my thoughts as we go along.  Boyd, how did you come up with the name Hydronastic?  I presumed it was hydro-nastic (as opposed to hydron-astic) with the reference being to water; but, I don't think I found a reference to why Garrett chose that name.  I've done some looking for a breakdown of the word and keep coming up with Jack LaLane wearing "hydronastic" gloves for a swim to Alcatraz!

Thanks, crebel! The end of chapter 11 does have a big cliffhanger, but then I do try to build in some reason to keep reading at the end of each chapter.

Yes, Garrett chose the name "Hydronastic" because of his obsession with Noah's Ark and the Flood. He felt that water was a cleanser of the world's ills, so he wanted to incorporate "Hydro" into the name of his church (really a cult). Nastic movements are non-directional responses to stimuli like light, heat, and humidity. So Garrett came up with "Hydronastic" to represent a response to cleansing water, but it's also his in-joke about how his cult members respond to the artificial stimuli they get during their leveling sessions.

[chynared21]

I've done some looking for a breakdown of the word and keep coming up with Jack LaLane wearing "hydronastic" gloves for a swim to Alcatraz!

LOL, now that is funny! Considering how good he looks for his age, I should look those up...if I knew how to swim 

My apologies for hijacking this post 

[VondaZ]

Yesterday, I finished reading the Ark! I was very impressed!

This novel was far better than the other "obscure?" works I have tried out on my Kindle. This book had a great plot, a terrific action packed narrative, and characters that were solid and engaging.

I give the novel 3 stars based on the following system:
1 star – very little to recommend;
2 stars – doesn’t quite measure up to the genre standard – has some good parts, but also has serious flaws;
3 stars – a solid work of genre fiction that will appeal to most fans of the genre;
4 stars – a superlative work of genre fiction;
5 stars – the work transcends the genre, usually aspiring to become a classic.

For me, the fifth star is really reserved for literature or works aspiring to become literature, which does not apply. The difference between 3 or 4 stars usually comes down to characters in my opinion – do the characters stay with me after I have put the book down? Do I become emotionally attached to them? Do I love to hate the villain? Are the characters well-rounded and balanced or are they too good or too bad to be true?

I found the book to be a fun ride. The book’s strength is in its plot, action, and narrative. The book kept moving along at a fast pace, with a nice pause after the incident at the space needle where we got to see a little into Locke’s past and more personal side. There also was a brief moment after the incident at Oasis where we got to learn a little bit about the General and his relationship with his son that was just perfect. While I wouldn’t want the book dominated by such pauses, I think we could have used a few more small unobtrusive moments like these that would really make these characters unique in human ways rather than just as superhuman action heroes.

My favorite part of the book was the last quarter, which began the actual quest for the Ark and finally brought us back to the murder of Dilana’s father. This appeals to me more than strategic military planning and high-tech gadgetry.

The story could have been made even better if the character of Dilara were fleshed out a little more - I wanted to know who she was before the events in this story and I would like to see how these events change her. I did like that she chose to change her name back to Arvadi at the end – this was a nice personal touch - her Turkish heritage makes her unique as a heroine - it was nice to see her embrace this a little more.

One issue with Dilara is that she becomes carry-on baggage in the middle of the story. She has her role in kicking off the story, then Locke takes over and Dilara seems to be dragged along for a while. It isn’t until the Genesis Dawn that Dilara regains a place of her own.

In addition to Dilara, I also would have enjoyed learning a little more about what makes Garrett tick. We get narrative from his viewpoint, so it would certainly have been possible to delve deeper into his motivations. Here you have a rich, powerful, evil genius, plotting to destroy mankind in order to start what he believes will be a new, improved civilization. How awesome is that? But - What happened to HIM to bring him to that point? I know what has happened in the world to make him feel this way, but I want a more intimate connection. There is great potential for a story to evolve here. Garrett came off as just the bad guy – but he could have easily evolved into the villain I love to hate. Along the same lines, I would have liked to understand his followers better as well. We do get a back story on one, but although it provided an explanation, I did not really feel it on an emotional level. As a result, I wasn't too concerned about the 300 followers holed up on Oasis.

A bit more character-driven decision making would also have helped to flesh out the characters without detracting from the action. It seemed the characters always react in a logical manner. Sometimes it is more interesting when their personal baggage influences the decisions they make. We get just a glimpse of this kind of decision making with Locke regarding his father, but I would like to see character play a more pivotal role in the direction of the story.

None of these critiques detract from the book - they are just things that in my view would have made it even better. I am surprised this book was not picked up by a publisher, because this is clearly superior to some stuff I have read that has been published and I really enjoyed the story.

Vonda

BTW – I had a hard time disassociating the name Locke with the very different character of John Locke on Lost. Normally, such connections don’t bother me, but the connection between the name Locke and the Lost character was just too strong for me to get past. Not sure if that is just me or if it bothered anyone else.

[boydm]

I give the novel 3 stars based on the following system:
1 star – very little to recommend;
2 stars – doesn’t quite measure up to the genre standard – has some good parts, but also has serious flaws;
3 stars – a solid work of genre fiction that will appeal to most fans of the genre;
4 stars – a superlative work of genre fiction;
5 stars – the work transcends the genre, usually aspiring to become a classic.

Hi Vonda,

Thanks for reading The Ark and for your extensive and insightful remarks! I'm glad you enjoyed it. That's an interesting rating system. I've never seen it before. It seems like your three-star review would translate to a typical four-star review on Amazon. I'm generally wary of books on Amazon that have an average rating below four stars. But your system certainly makes sense.

The story could have been made even better if the character of Dilara were fleshed out a little more - I wanted to know who she was before the events in this story and I would like to see how these events change her. I did like that she chose to change her name back to Arvadi at the end – this was a nice personal touch - her Turkish heritage makes her unique as a heroine - it was nice to see her embrace this a little more.

Character development is my biggest weakness as a writer, and I'm well-aware of that. My books tend to be plot driven, and sometimes I forget that my readers don't know as much about the characters as I do. Also, when weighing pace vs. description (character, setting, or otherwise), I usually err on the side of pace if I feel that I can't integrate more description in without having the story bog down.

One issue with Dilara is that she becomes carry-on baggage in the middle of the story. She has her role in kicking off the story, then Locke takes over and Dilara seems to be dragged along for a while. It isn’t until the Genesis Dawn that Dilara regains a place of her own.

Yes, the middle section definitely is more focused on Locke. He's driving the story at that point, which made sense to me. But as you noticed, Dilara is no shrinking violet. She gets into the action and saves Locke's bacon several times, even in the middle (like on the monorail).

In addition to Dilara, I also would have enjoyed learning a little more about what makes Garrett tick. We get narrative from his viewpoint, so it would certainly have been possible to delve deeper into his motivations. Here you have a rich, powerful, evil genius, plotting to destroy mankind in order to start what he believes will be a new, improved civilization. How awesome is that? But - What happened to HIM to bring him to that point? I know what has happened in the world to make him feel this way, but I want a more intimate connection. There is great potential for a story to evolve here. Garrett came off as just the bad guy – but he could have easily evolved into the villain I love to hate. Along the same lines, I would have liked to understand his followers better as well. We do get a back story on one, but although it provided an explanation, I did not really feel it on an emotional level. As a result, I wasn't too concerned about the 300 followers holed up on Oasis.

That's a good point. You never really find out why Garrett is so obsessed with saving the world in his own twisted way. I'm of two minds about revealing the villain's backstory. On the one hand, it can make him more credible and understandable. On the other hand, he's mysterious, and sometimes people are just crazy. It's the old nature vs. nurture argument. Was there some family history that can explain his behavior, or is he simply insane? For example, in Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal Lecter's background was never really touched upon, yet he is one of the greatest villains of all time. Now, I'm in no way saying my book is anywhere as good as Thomas Harris', but it's interesting that he could create such an enduring villain without that information. In fact, when he tried to explain the roots of Hannibal's evil in subsequent novels, the rationale for his behavior was both prosaic (his parents were killed by Nazis) and puzzling (his sister was cannibalized, so he also became a cannibal?). In my mind, the explanation demystified him and made him somewhat pathetic. Still scary, though.

A bit more character-driven decision making would also have helped to flesh out the characters without detracting from the action. It seemed the characters always react in a logical manner. Sometimes it is more interesting when their personal baggage influences the decisions they make. We get just a glimpse of this kind of decision making with Locke regarding his father, but I would like to see character play a more pivotal role in the direction of the story.

As I said before, character is something I'm trying to improve on as I go, but it's not my strength. My agent has helped me a lot with this, and I feel I'm making progress.

None of these critiques detract from the book - they are just things that in my view would have made it even better. I am surprised this book was not picked up by a publisher, because this is clearly superior to some stuff I have read that has been published and I really enjoyed the story.

I'm sure some of the things you've discussed could have dissuaded publishers, but then again, I would think a good editor could help me strengthen my work.

BTW – I had a hard time disassociating the name Locke with the very different character of John Locke on Lost. Normally, such connections don’t bother me, but the connection between the name Locke and the Lost character was just too strong for me to get past. Not sure if that is just me or if it bothered anyone else.

I'm also a huge Lost fan, and this was something I struggled with (although Lost's John Locke was not a phenomenon when I first wrote The Ark, he is now and you're not the first to mention this issue). For my main characters, I prefer names that are short, meaningful, and have some oomph. I once read that Gene Roddenberry chose names with hard K sounds because they are impactful (think of Kirk--two K's!--Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Chekov, Picard, Riker, Sisko, Kathryn Janeway). I thought he was onto something, so I also try to work the K in. Of course, I also wanted to imply Tyler Locke's engineering prowess, so Tyler comes from "tile maker"--a craftsman--and Locke was the best representation of his mechanical side that I could find. I chose to refer to him as Locke instead of Tyler just because I liked the sound of it better. I will say it's hard to come up with names that are unique but don't sound ridiculous. In fact, John Locke is the name of a 17th-century English philosopher, and I don't think of Tom Sawyer when people on the show call Josh Holloway's character Sawyer. Of course, the Lost writers chose most of the names on the show because of their literary or historical references, not in spite of them.

If I write another Tyler Locke book, perhaps I'll call him Tyler instead of Locke. Any votes on that?

[boydm]

Since I hope eventually to become a published novelist, your feedback is very important to helping me get there. So I'd like to give you a list of actual reasons that publishers rejected The Ark, and feel free to agree or disagree with their rationales.

1. Nothing really sets it apart from other novels in this genre.
2. Not enough dazzling scientific and technical details.
3. Too derivative and predictable.
4. Protagonist not sympathetic enough.
5. Not fresh enough.
6. Too much action.
7. Villain's motive too unbelievable.

What do you think? Are they onto something? If you agree with one of the reasons, why? And would it be enough to keep you from purchasing the book, recommending it to someone else, or buying the next in the series? Would your feelings change if you had purchased the book at regular hardback or paperback prices?

[Ann in Arlington]

Boyd, I finished it. . . .it was a very good read.  I'd rate it 4 star on amazon's system.  Maybe even 4+.

As to Locke. . .I never watched Lost so that didn't connect.  I never thought of John Locke the philosopher either.  The guy was just Tyler Locke. . . .totally not an issue in my mind.  It's not like Locke is an uncommon name.  Now if you'd named him Sherlock, then I might have said, "what the. . .".  Mind you, his close friends should refer to him as Tyler or Ty rather than Locke when talking about or addressing him.  A disconnect is that Dilara is always referred to as Dilara and Locke as Locke.  I get that it's a gender thing. . .and I don't know if it matters.  It didn't affect the story and I really only just thought of it and mention it because you were asking about what to call the guy. 

Throughout the book, I was feeling a very Cussler-ish vibe, which is not a bad thing, in my mind, but maybe that's what they're getting at by 'derivative'.  I thought it was a very original story and frankly, people looking for an escapist adventure want just what your book is.  I didn't find it particularly predictable. . .a little, yeah, but a reader likes to have a feeling like they know what's coming to some extent.  Not completely, but somewhat.  The great thing is to think you know and then find out you're only partly right. . . like I was totally surprised that Locke hadn't really thrown the right amber marble into the cave, though I knew they were going to use that old dynamite somehow.  On the other hand I totally thought Garrett's plan was to hijack the ship and live on it with his minions for however long it took for his bug to kill everyone on land.  So, no, not too predictable. 

A lot of the publisher comments are very subjective.  I thought the amount of action was just right. . .any less and the plot would not have moved forward well enough.  And it seemed like there were a fair amount of 'dazzling' details. 

The thing about the protagonist is that you have to build up to it.  If you write more books featuring him, more details about his past can come out it small chunks.  Still, I think I got a feel for him, definitely knew he was a good guy. . .I don't really feel the need for there to be a lot angst -- the tortured hero, always questioning himself, is not my favorite guy.  But here's a guy who is getting past his past so that's strength to me.  Not forgetting it, but using it to improve his future.  The bad guy. . .well, I pretty much just figured he was a whack job from the get go.  I don't think he needs to be anything else.  One of the attractions of these sorts of books is "oh, wow, there are some real nut-jobs in the world; sure is a good thing we have folks who can deal with their craziness."  I don't need any explanation for WHY he's a nut-job.

Here's the thing.  I did buy it because it was a good price.  I probably would have picked it up as well from a bargain book table or if I was browsing the paperbacks.  I don't think I would have plunked down hardback money for it but there are not a lot of authors I'd do that for anyway.  I did also buy the other two you have published and am looking forward to reading them.  In short, it was exactly what it was billed to be and perhaps better than I expected.  I mean, there have been a lot of indie Kindle books offered here at bargain prices.  I've picked up a bunch of them and have read, or tried to read, about a half dozen so far -- a couple I couldn't even finish.  Yours was definitely one of the best.  I found it to be very well written with no annoying repetition, or product placement, or cutesy techniques. . . just good clear English telling a good story.  I personally appreciate that!  It was also well formatted for the Kindle.  I would certainly recommend it (even in paper) to anyone I know who enjoys this sort of book.

[law girl]

Hi Boyd,

I just finished the Ark a few days ago.  Quite frankly I am amazed and strongly disagree about the publisher's comments below.  I would say they don't know readers very well, as I found none of the things listed to be true.  I am quite an avid reader and for years (before becoming an attorney at age 40+) I would only read the bestselling fiction paperbacks, and would avoid anything coming close to science fiction or fantasy, etc.  You are just as good as the others.  And Yes, I bought your book here because of the cheap price BUT --

The plot was fine, and characters very believable.  Everything flowed!  Teh only thing I noticed was that it felt like you tended to sometimes repeat parts of the story.  I don't know if I can give you a clear example but later in the book I encountered a section or two that "reviewed" events taking place earlier in detail.  Not necessary in my opinion.  Maybe only if you want to connect one book to the next book as part of a series, but not in the same book.  Does that make sense?  I can find an example if needed.

Theresa ("lawgirl")

[Brenda M.]

I'm also a huge Lost fan, and this was something I struggled with (although Lost's John Locke was not a phenomenon when I first wrote The Ark, he is now and you're not the first to mention this issue). For my main characters, I prefer names that are short, meaningful, and have some oomph. I once read that Gene Roddenberry chose names with hard K sounds because they are impactful (think of Kirk--two K's!--Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Chekov, Picard, Riker, Sisko, Kathryn Janeway). I thought he was onto something, so I also try to work the K in. Of course, I also wanted to imply Tyler Locke's engineering prowess, so Tyler comes from "tile maker"--a craftsman--and Locke was the best representation of his mechanical side that I could find. I chose to refer to him as Locke instead of Tyler just because I liked the sound of it better. I will say it's hard to come up with names that are unique but don't sound ridiculous. In fact, John Locke is the name of a 17th-century English philosopher, and I don't think of Tom Sawyer when people on the show call Josh Holloway's character Sawyer. Of course, the Lost writers chose most of the names on the show because of their literary or historical references, not in spite of them.

If I write another Tyler Locke book, perhaps I'll call him Tyler instead of Locke. Any votes on that?

I have been so busy that I haven't had time to read thru these or comment, but I did read Ark and loved it. I wanted to touch on the above quote.

I, too, had a hard time with you calling Tyler "Locke" for two reasons. One, the character of John Locke on Lost as said and two, for some reason I tend to think of a character as "harder" when you refer to them by last name. I am sure this is because I am a female, but being a female, most of us don't call others by their last names, but many men do call other men by their last names.

Honestly, it drove me nuts that you called him Locke thru the whole book. I really wanted him to "just" be Tyler.

[Brenda M.]

Okay, one other comment since you are asking for honesty. When I first started reading Ark and got the jist of what it was about I kept trying to compare it with Dan Brown's The Davinci Code and Angels and Demons and I didn't want to compare it! So, I had to tell myself to just go along for the ride and quit thinking of the other books.

That said, I really did love the book and loved what the Ark really was in the end. If it matters at all, I am not religious at all and was never taught religion.

Sorry for such short replies there just doesn't seem to be enough hours in the day these days.

[boydm]

Honestly, it drove me nuts that you called him Locke thru the whole book. I really wanted him to "just" be Tyler.

Perhaps if there is ever a print version, I'll make that change. And I'll definitely keep it in mind if there is another Tyler Locke adventure. Did you find it distracting that Dan Brown refers to Robert Langdon as Langdon in his books?

No worries on the short comments!

I'm not sure if you thought comparing me to Dan Brown was a good thing or bad thing or just distracting. In any case, I certainly don't mind the comparison, although I think Tyler is more of an adventurer than Robert Langdon is. But if The Ark had 81 million readers like The Davinci Code did, I wouldn't mind that either! 

[EllenR]

Since I hope eventually to become a published novelist, your feedback is very important to helping me get there. So I'd like to give you a list of actual reasons that publishers rejected The Ark, and feel free to agree or disagree with their rationales.

1. Nothing really sets it apart from other novels in this genre.
2. Not enough dazzling scientific and technical details.
3. Too derivative and predictable.
4. Protagonist not sympathetic enough.
5. Not fresh enough.
6. Too much action.
7. Villain's motive too unbelievable.

What do you think? Are they onto something? If you agree with one of the reasons, why? And would it be enough to keep you from purchasing the book, recommending it to someone else, or buying the next in the series? Would your feelings change if you had purchased the book at regular hardback or paperback prices?

Quite frankly, I am amazed that the publisher did not think the book worthy of publishing. It was one of my favorite reads since, um, pretty much ever. I would have enjoyed it just as much had it been as pricey as any other book I've purchased. I think the publisher is an idiot. I read a lot of this type of genre and thoroughly enjoyed The Ark, as I've said before. It's far better than many books I've read that HAVE been traditionally published. If you ask me, you need to look at different publishers though I'm sure you shopped it around. I am being very honest here. I'm not trying to stroke your ego. I am truly shocked that they turned this book down. It was well written and completely enthralled me.

This just goes to show where the flaws are in businesses like publishing and music. All the wonderful talent that does not make it to us just because of a set idea of what will sell. ::sigh::

EllenR

[boydm]

Quite frankly, I am amazed that the publisher did not think the book worthy of publishing. It was one of my favorite reads since, um, pretty much ever. I would have enjoyed it just as much had it been as pricey as any other book I've purchased. I think the publisher is an idiot. I read a lot of this type of genre and thoroughly enjoyed The Ark, as I've said before. It's far better than many books I've read that HAVE been traditionally published. If you ask me, you need to look at different publishers though I'm sure you shopped it around. I am being very honest here. I'm not trying to stroke your ego. I am truly shocked that they turned this book down. It was well written and completely enthralled me.

This just goes to show where the flaws are in businesses like publishing and music. All the wonderful talent that does not make it to us just because of a set idea of what will sell. ::sigh::

EllenR

Thanks, EllenR. I'm happy you enjoyed it so much.

Those are quotes from seven different publishers, and from other publishers I just received a generic "no thanks". But thankfully, new platforms like the Kindle are allowing writers like me to connect with readers like you. Perhaps some success on the Kindle will change their minds. If not, I have another book coming, and maybe that will be the one.

[EllenR]

Thanks, EllenR. I'm happy you enjoyed it so much.

Those are quotes from seven different publishers, and from other publishers I just received a generic "no thanks". But thankfully, new platforms like the Kindle are allowing writers like me to connect with readers like you. Perhaps some success on the Kindle will change their minds. If not, I have another book coming, and maybe that will be the one.

Boyd, perhaps you should send them here so they can see what the REAL purchasing public thinks of your work. I'm amazed at their lack of interest particularly given how many of us here at KB loved your books so far. Keep 'em coming!

EllenR

[VondaZ]

That's an interesting rating system. I've never seen it before. It seems like your three-star review would translate to a typical four-star review on Amazon. I'm generally wary of books on Amazon that have an average rating below four stars. But your system certainly makes sense.

Yes, think of a 3 star review as being 3 out of 4. Like Ebert's movie reviews. That is why I defined my system when I posted - otherwise, you might get the wrong idea. It is not perfect, but I use this system to account for differences between, say The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Both novels in my book are perfect as they are and neither should be changed in any way, but giving them both 5 stars somehow puts them on a level playing field. I wanted my ratings to recognize something that is elevated to a higher level (via social commentary, allegory, reflection on the human condition, etc) without punishing something for being simply an excellent representation of what it is. But I realize that my rating system doesn't jive with common use - so I don't review on Amazon which influences purchasing - just on my social reading sites for sharing with friends. I need definitions to be consistent and I don't need very many degrees of "bad" - if I don't like a book, it is either a 1 or a 2 and if it is a 1, I probably didn't finish it so I probably didn't review it!

That's a good point. You never really find out why Garrett is so obsessed with saving the world in his own twisted way. I'm of two minds about revealing the villain's backstory. On the one hand, it can make him more credible and understandable. On the other hand, he's mysterious, and sometimes people are just crazy. It's the old nature vs. nurture argument. Was there some family history that can explain his behavior, or is he simply insane? For example, in Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal Lecter's background was never really touched upon, yet he is one of the greatest villains of all time. Now, I'm in no way saying my book is anywhere as good as Thomas Harris', but it's interesting that he could create such an enduring villain without that information. In fact, when he tried to explain the roots of Hannibal's evil in subsequent novels, the rationale for his behavior was both prosaic (his parents were killed by Nazis) and puzzling (his sister was cannibalized, so he also became a cannibal?). In my mind, the explanation demystified him and made him somewhat pathetic. Still scary, though.

You are spot on in my opinion and I think it is good to be of two minds on this. One size never fits all. You can't create a character using a formula. Focus on what makes the character more interesting/engaging/fulfilling. That is all that matters.

Sometimes a character is just fascinating in the "now." Hannibal Lecter is this kind of character. The reader is drawn to his psyche, the ways he plays with his "victims" - whether it be physically or mentally, the ways he toys with the reader. His character is enhanced by the mystery of who he is now - what is he thinking, what does he want, what is he doing? I don't want Hannibal Lecter explained. The fact that I can't understand him, but he can understand me makes him an engaging character. The specific things the character does, how he chooses to do them, the things he says and how he phrases things make the character rounded. I want to understand him - I keep trying to figure him out. But if I actually could put a label on him, he becomes less dimensional, not more. He is reduced by his backstory and not enhanced by it.

On the other hand, there are times when a backstory enhances the character. Sometimes it uses mystery and suspense - we get clues throughout the story as to what has lead a character to this point and then there is some kind of revelation and hopefully everything clicks in a satisfying way. Other times backstory creates conflict in the story by influencing the decisions a character makes - possibly encouraging a character to take a more interesting path rather than the obvious or easy choice. Sometimes the backstory helps us to relate and feel something for a character as a human being rather than just a device to advance the plot.

The problem with Garret is that "What" he is doing is not original in this day of terrorism. He could benefit from something more than his crime to make him original. Whether this comes from his actions, behaviors, thoughts, and words or whether you do this by creating an intriguing history for the character is a creative decision - both methods would work if executed well. Currently, everything he does is logical and intelligent (given his agenda) - which works to make his actions believable and support the plot, but doesn't always work to make the character more satisfying. I only say this, because I think he could be a great original villain with a little more depth. If you could accomplish that - you would elevate the novel even beyond the plot and action. I frequently find that the villain is the best part of a good book - even more important than the hero. An interesting villain defines the book. An interesting hero clears the way for a sequel.

Of course, I am I haven't said anything you aren't already familiar with - it is one thing to say it. It is another thing to be able to do it. If I could do it, I would be writing my own books. I think character development is the hardest and trickiest thing to get right. I have noticed that with some of the characters I have really embraced, sometimes less is more. Sometimes I think the author has really given us a lot about a character, but when I go back, the author has only sown the seeds - they blossomed inside my imagination. How you do that is a mystery to me - but if you can master it, it is very effective.

[geoffthomas]

I just had a question that niggles at the back of my brain.

Was the cave "just the right size" or did someone with hammer and chisel carve it out?

Just wonderin.....

[geoffthomas]

Since I hope eventually to become a published novelist, your feedback is very important to helping me get there. So I'd like to give you a list of actual reasons that publishers rejected The Ark, and feel free to agree or disagree with their rationales.

1. Nothing really sets it apart from other novels in this genre.
2. Not enough dazzling scientific and technical details.
3. Too derivative and predictable.
4. Protagonist not sympathetic enough.
5. Not fresh enough.
6. Too much action.
7. Villain's motive too unbelievable.

What do you think? Are they onto something? If you agree with one of the reasons, why? And would it be enough to keep you from purchasing the book, recommending it to someone else, or buying the next in the series? Would your feelings change if you had purchased the book at regular hardback or paperback prices?

Well if Noah's Ark being in a cave isn't unique, what is?
No tech details? What did they think the prions were? I liked that the details were either recognizable - the Tesla auto, or still real like the big truck.  Actually when a younger person I worked for a company called McDowell Wellman Engineering (major project management - the Oroville Dam project (at the time the world's largest earthfill dam)).  They had a job shop and in it they manufactured trucks used to build roads with.  The bumpers were actually structural I-beams.  And they built the world's smallest (ditch witch) and largest bucket wheel excavators.  Also made some of the big strip mining buckets.  The Wheel assemblies were 3 stories high and there were 4 of them.  They driver sat in a cab on one of the wheel assemblies (3 stories up) and the bucket and other parts were above him.  Gigantic.

So I just imagined that thing roaring down on the town.

I guess it is often a matter of how the editor feels on a given day.  I read somewhere that there are an extraordinary number of manuscripts submitted each day.

But we like this book.

[VondaZ]

1. Nothing really sets it apart from other novels in this genre.

I thought the story was original, interesting, and engaging. It was original to me. I will admit that I haven't read as much from the Thriller genre - particularly this type of thriller - to be definitive on this. Having said that, what usually makes a novel stand out for me is a set of unique and interesting characters - so perhaps this is where they are coming from? That said, I read tons of stuff with average characters and that never stopped them from being published.

2. Not enough dazzling scientific and technical details.

I disagree with this. Too much of that and I will tune out. Give me enough details to believe and leave anything more technical to my imagination.

3. Too derivative and predictable.

I would have to read more from the genre to determine if I thought it was derivative, but I didn't feel that way when I read it. As far as predictable, I couldn't predict where the journey was ultimately going to lead me and I thought the revelation of the Ark was an interesting interpretation. I did, however, always assume the heroes were going to win in the end, as they usually do in this type of story. I wonder if losing a good character along the way might have made it less predictable?

4. Protagonist not sympathetic enough.

This just comes down to character development. I think if you continue to work on character, this will eventually go away for you. Your plots are engaging, your characters are competent. Now they just need to reach out to the reader a little more on the emotional level.

5. Not fresh enough.

I disagree, but this is really just another way of saying #3 and #1.

6. Too much action.

Obviously, this publisher has never watched 24! Now there is a show that has so much action that I stop caring about the immediate crisis because I know as soon as it is resolved there will be another crisis that is even worse and that will keep happening until the season concludes. To tell the truth - I loved 24 for the first few seasons and still watch, but the fact that there is so much action has now taken away from the punch of the story. I don't think that is the case with the Ark. I really think this is just a disguised way of saying "give us a little more character."

7. Villain's motive too unbelievable.

I don't think the villain's motive was unbelievable. I do think that if the villain was fleshed out more, we would understand his motives better. But I certainly believe someone might feel the way he feels in the modern world.


After reading the list a second time, I really think everything (except #2, which I disagree with completely) could be fixed with just a little more investment in original characters. I agree that this is an area that could be improved, but I don't think the characters were so flawed to prevent publication. I have read some books with characters I just wanted to take out with a bazooka because they were so flat and uninspiring and they acted in ways that didn't make sense because that is what the plot dictated.

I think if in your next novel you take a pause to really think about what you love about your characters and what you hate about them, what matters to them and what makes them interesting and different, then try to let some of that slip out here or there amidst the action, that you will take care of all of these criticisms in one fell swoop.

Vonda

[marianner]

I just finished reading The Ark, and it was excellent.  I haven't been posting because I was reading ahead and wanted to finish before peeking in this thread   An easy 4 stars in my book.  You're not quite Michael Crichton yet, but definitely in the ballpark.

Just for something to talk about, I agree with the other posters that there could have been a bit more character development.  I did enjoy getting a bit of backstory about Locke and his dad, and I wish you had done the same with Dilara and her dad, and maybe the ex-husband, too.  I suspect that you find men easier to write about than women, and that's why you kind of ignored Dilara at times.

I also agree with something that I think I read on the other thread - Locke seems just a little too perfect of an action hero.  His only flaw seems to be his relationship with his dad, and that gets worked out.  I'd also add that the romance aspect seemed a little too easy, too.  I'd like to see a bit more resistance, on both sides.  I'm not sure if the men in your audience would feel the same way, though

Overall, though, it's a very good techno-thriller.  I loved that the main characters were engineers.  Partly because I am one , and I agree that it's a profession that is overdue on getting its sexy superheros.  I loved what you did with the story of Noah's Ark; you kept me guessing, but you had laid out the clues and it made sense in the context of the story.

[lynninva]

I used to watch Lost, but have not for the past two years.  I did not connect Tyler Locke's name to that show.

And maybe because I work with a lot of men, it did not seem at all odd to me for him to be referred to by his last name.  We frequently use last names only when speaking about some of the men (even with them present).  Most of the time, their first names are used when addressing them directly.  But it is rare to refer to a woman by last name only.

I thought the plot was quite unique - it was a very creative way that the Biblical story could have been interpreted.  The book definitely kept my interest & I did not want to put it down.  I also appreciated that you did not use crude language in the telling of your story.

[frojazz]

Here are my several $0.02:

I like how Locke is referred to in the book by his last name.  It reminds me of high school when I was nicknamed a derivative of my last name.  It never occurred to me that he shared a name with the character from Lost, but I kinda lost track of that show after the second season.  Also, the in my mind Tyler doesn't look anything like the TV character!

I feel bad that I was requesting more character development of Dilara from the beginning (I didn't realize you have to work so hard at it, Boyd!), but I am impressed when an author has the ability to write strong characters of the opposite sex in a nonsterotypical, multidimentional way, so I guess it is something I look for in my readings.  I was more satisfied with Dilara's character as the story progressed, but I think more development earlier on would make her an even bigger presence in the story.

I really like how this story ends.  There doesn't appear to be any way that the bad guy would have survived this, although maybe a vengeful Oasis minion will come back to haunt Locke later in life, but the main characters are realistic in their plans for the future, yet there is potential for them to get together and kick some bad guy butt later.

The scene with the humungo tractor and the Tesla car still echos in my head.  What a great chase!  I like how Locke gets into trouble with no apparent way out and he is able to think through it (or gets helped out) logically without too much luck or serendipity.

I'll be sure to visit Amazon and post a review.  I've enjoyed the ride and can't wait to start the next one (although this time I'll be flying through it and not stopping because I'm doing the book klub!).  Thanks for all of your feedback, Boyd.  This was a really enjoyable experience.  I wish I could go talk some sense into some publisher for you.  Good luck!

[marianner]

It never occurred to me that he shared a name with the character from Lost, but I kinda lost track of that show after the second season.  Also, the in my mind Tyler doesn't look anything like the TV character!

Well, I'm a total Lost fanatic (Destiny found, baby!), and it didn't bother me, either.  It's a pretty common name, and I definitely agree that Tyler Locke didn't look a thing like Terry O'Quinn in my head!

[boydm]

Thanks to everyone for their great feedback! This Book Klub has been great fun, and I'd recommend it to other authors who want to start some discussion on their books.

It's also nice to get some honest feedback in a forum that let's us all have a respectful discussion, even when you may not like some of the aspects of the book. It helps to counter a few of the less-than-stellar reviews I've gotten on Amazon. The latest one-star review accuses me of spamming Amazon with reviews from friends, which is obviously untrue, since many of my good reviews have come from readers here on Kindleboards. It bothers me not only because it's a baseless accusation, but also because it dismisses out of hand the opinions of those who enjoyed the book. I don't mind if someone doesn't like The Ark--it's not for everyone--but that one was disturbing. I didn't respond to it on Amazon because starting a flame war never benefits the author, but I wanted to express my gratitude for the support I've received on Kindleboards.

[boydm]

Weird. Now that review has been removed. I'm glad, because it didn't add anything to the conversation about the merits or demerits of The Ark.

[frojazz]

Weird. Now that review has been removed. I'm glad, because it didn't add anything to the conversation about the merits or demerits of The Ark.

This is a good thing.  Is there a way to report reviews to Amazon to potentially pull?

[geoffthomas]

See Boyd,
There is some "justice" in the world.
That is great news that the slanderous review was removed.

Our rave reviews of your work are serious business, man.
We like the books.
And we have the right to say so without some clown claiming that the ballot box is being stuffed.

Humph.
(Indignation and all that kinda stuff).

Just sayin.....

[boydm]

Thanks, Frojazz and Geoff. There is a way to report reviews, but I didn't, even though I was indignant as well. I appreciate the rave reviews, and I don't want someone to suggest they're tainted in any way.

Cheers,
Boyd

[KimmyA]

I've finished the book and left a review on Amazon. I really enjoyed this book. I thought it was very well done. It was easy to get hooked and forget to go to bed at a decent hour.     I like how it got your attention right off on page 1 and was action packed throughout.

I wish there would have been a little more of Locke's history. It seems like he knew how to do everything. I realize his military training helped some, but there were a couple of moments I thought 'how would he know that'. I can't remember specifics. Maybe it's my own lack of understanding what exactly an engineer does. I still enjoyed the story very much.

I look forward to reading your other books.

[boydm]

I've finished the book and left a review on Amazon. I really enjoyed this book. I thought it was very well done. It was easy to get hooked and forget to go to bed at a decent hour.     I like how it got your attention right off on page 1 and was action packed throughout.

I wish there would have been a little more of Locke's history. It seems like he knew how to do everything. I realize his military training helped some, but there were a couple of moments I thought 'how would he know that'. I can't remember specifics. Maybe it's my own lack of understanding what exactly an engineer does. I still enjoyed the story very much.

I look forward to reading your other books.

Thanks for the review, Kimmy! I hope we get to learn more about Locke in future books. I see him as something of an engineering renaissance man. Because he's so smart and capable, he's the engineer I would aspire to be, but he's also very focused on his work, almost to a fault. And when he isn't working, he's doing something mechanical or speedy, like racing cars. He might know a lot about how to take apart an engine and put it back together, but if you asked him the latest about politics or entertainment, he'd just give you a blank stare. That kind of thing doesn't interest him. Now Grant, on the other hand, loves that stuff, and what little Locke knows about it, he learned through Grant.