Me and Cousin 'IT'

[HAParker321]

On the many subjects that tend to irk me to end is whenever some sprinkles just a little too much of ‘IT.’ I am not sure what is in ‘IT’ that makes people feel extremely special, but let me tell you something, I find ‘IT’ horribly annoying if I find this indefinite pronoun without knowing exactly what the author is referring to. In this post, I was trying to be somewhat humorous with the title, especially upon the reference to the hairy monster from the Adam’s Family a.k.a. cousin ‘IT.’

Yes, in some ways I think ‘IT’ is a cute creature, especially when it scurries around in the Adam’s family mansion squeaking here and there over certain things. I can tell you sometimes you are left wondering what exactly he is talking about. I can express the same feelings toward authors who pepper their manuscripts with the pronoun expecting everyone to understand what he or she talks about in the manuscript. For most cases, I rarely try to follow along with the book; instead, I take my black pen and circle the amount of times a person uses the phrase in a single page. The last novel I read, I remembered counting so many uses of the pronoun ‘IT’ that I lost count after the number fifty-five.

http://theresurrectionseries.wordpress.com/

[valeriec80]

Unfortunately, I think I have to disagree with you philosophically. Everything is subjective, but we've predicated human civilization on trying to create objective truths. One of those objective truths we've tried to create is about what makes a good story.

Being a person who enjoys living in my current culture, I tend to subscribe to most of its "objective" truths. But just because I believe them doesn't make them true. And, in fact, as soon as a majority of people stop believing them, they will become untrue.

[Terrence OBrien]

OK. That's how a free market works. Tastes and preferences express themselves by consumers choosing from available offerings. Participants are free to offer and free to choose. The aggregate of choices represents objective data. Just like with widgets.

[Terrence OBrien]

Thanks. I think I edited while you were answering. Ain't instant communications great?

[Terrence OBrien]

There is nothing wrong with being nice. That's simply a way to engage in social interaction without hurting anyone's feelings. Nice focuses on the person. Criticism focuses on the product, and when done well it confines itself to the product, not the author or the critic. Criticism does not enter the realm of being either nice or nasty.

I'm content with people marketing any way they choose. But I'd observe the market really doesn't care what they want. It includes criticism, people who are nice, and people who are not.

[Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson]

Henry, although I think I know where you're coming from, I think many of us "literary" minded folks may have to wake up to the fact that our culture is changing. Many of the standards that we were raised on is being obliterated right before our eyes. Art IS subjective. What many of your posts seem to suggest (and rightfully so) is that there is (was) a way of doing things before that is quickly shifting to more unstylized conventions. Things like spelling, grammar, and plain old standard English are conventions that aren't subjective. However, the kinds of stories and the way they are told now doesn't always adhere to the literary standards that you and I prefer.

Someone who enjoys watching movies like Gone with the Wind or The Shawshank Redemption may scoff at someone else who enjoys watching Godzilla movies (like I do). But by what standard do we judge a play like Othello to be superior to Death of A Salesman. My standards or yours? Does Roger Ebert get to define for me what a good movie is? Or should I choose the movies I want to watch based on my own criteria?

Despite the pulpish appeal of the stories I write, I come from the literary end of the writing world. I spend my days reading Sophocles, Homer, Dunsany, and Tolkien. That doesn't mean that I consider reading Brooks or Clancey a less worthwhile venture. I could care less about all those vampire/werewolf novels out there. But I don't get to tell other people what books they should read or why my literary pursuits are more substantive than theirs.

I'll defend the proper use of the English language to my dying breath. But the fact that some readers prefer more contemporary fare that dispenses with many of the established conventions I look for in the books I read, doesn't diminish the fact, that perhaps standards really are changing. Whether for the better or worse, only time will tell.

[Rex Jameson]

I would advise readers to look at the following thread to understand where HP Parker's comments are coming from. I'm afraid this is more dredging for hits on his blog.

http://www.kindleboards.com/index.php?topic=67659.0

Thanks everyone for visiting my blog! You all have given me 95 visits to this web page. I really love it.

And I'll bring up a few constructive criticisms about your book, HP, that I hope you will address this time to show that you are not sprinkling chocolate on top of your own banana peach icecream--even though I think the analogy is a poor one.

First, your cover looks more like a biology textbook than a fictional story about resurrecting disciples in modern times. Additionally, your reviewers have noted that your disciples have no individual personality and are treated as a group, which alienates the reader from their emotions and experience. Even your main character Clark is described as lacking in character development.

These are important, fundamental aspects that should be fixed before claiming expertise. Your cover should be changed to be more religious or maybe even philosophy than a biology textbook because according to your reviewers, there is no sci-fi to your book anyway. Nothing in the book really makes this seem in any way plausible, you just seem to revive disciples and wave your hands and say "biomedical scientist". So, even if you think you're attracting sci-fi readers, they're likely to be disappointed. Consequently, I would try to hook a different audience with your book--preferably the one you are really marketing to. You did have a target audience in mind right?

And then there's your blurb:

Nothing stops Bancroft Enterprises from developing the best in scientific technology, despite the harsh competition (Competition encourages a corporation to develop the best in science. You're linking these thoughts together poorly. Perhaps you mean something like "Despite tough competition, Bancroft Enterprises continues to dominate the field by developing the best in biomedical technology"). At the height of its (pronoun disagreement with either the last nouns--harsh competition or scientific technology-- or the next ones in this sentence) power, biomedical technician Clark Ravensdale performs the nearly-impossible: raising six New Testament figures.

Though criticisms from the religious and scientific communities persist, both groups use this project as an opportunity to advance their agendas. In midst of division, Clark shies away from discussion (extremely clunky), hoping that the fierceness resides (fierceness resides? really?) and won't deter his workaholic life (the fierceness won't deter his workaholic life?). However, those mixed feelings change (What mixed feelings have even been presented here? Are you hoping that the blurb reader will connect the two groups bickering to advance their agendas with instantaneous change? This is vague and useless to a blurb reader. It's not specific enough to draw emotion, and it's just as disjointed as everything else in this paragraph.).

While some (Groups? People? Scientists? Dogs? Cats?) have characterized the disciples as primitive, others like Clark ( People? Scientists?) notice the abnormal behaviors and uncanny intellect (Make them seem more real! This is TELLING in your freaking blurb. This does not bode well for everything else in your book.). As more time is spent (by Clark? Maybe "As Clark spends more time living with the disciples, his misconceptions regarding the New Testament change and...") living with the disciples, a realization comes to mind: perhaps there is more truth to the New Testament than some thought.(At the end of the blurb, you really want people to be excited about your premise. Instead, it's unlikely they even got this far. The middle paragraph has to change or you've lost readers. This last paragraph is also in dire need of some attention.)

Now, you threatened to review my book last time according to your review criteria, and I will once again roll my eyes if you try to do so. Because here we have a different thread with the same condescension and apparent lack of understanding of writing and marketing skills trying to convince the rest of us that your way is the only valid way to do anything. This type of position doesn't work. It may get you another 100 hits on your blog because we writers are gluttons for punishment, but I hope not. One of these days, I'm hoping you rewrite your book, release it in both eBook and POD and SHOW rather than TELL us how much you know about writing and the industry in general.

[BrianKittrell]

I'll defend the proper use of the English language to my dying breath. But the fact that some readers prefer more contemporary fare that dispenses with many of the established conventions I look for in the books I read, doesn't diminish the fact, that perhaps standards really are changing. Whether for the better or worse, only time will tell.

I always wait for a statement like this to come along because it sums up the whole argument. Sometimes I feel like I'm wasting my breath, but I'll comment briefly.

Objectivity gives us good grammar, good sentence structure, proper word usage, and an interesting read. The fact that some old grammar rules are being blasted away does not indicate that they all have. Grammar is a consensual thing amongst a group of people (usually, a very large group, i.e. America), but there are a number of basic rules and rather permanent rules which should not be ignored. We have been given brains capable of translating even the poorest of writing, but that's no excuse not to do the best you can and learn/apply the rules to your writing (and keep growing and improving as you go along). Like a computer system, the language and syntax should be as clear as possible for the potential readers.

And, to make a very necessary correction, truth does depend solely upon people and their perceptions. It is fact which does not depend upon people.

Truth: I saw a man fitting the defendant's description climbing the ladder, and I found Mrs. Murphy stabbed moments later in her apartment.
Fact: Mrs. Murphy was stabbed to death in her apartment.

The subjective bits are story, likeability of characters, liking the plot, and so on. The objective bits would be something to the effect of an author using different names for the same people (consistency), changing the plot mid-book accidentally (We're going to Mordor to destroy the ring of power...500 pages...We've come here to Mordor to negotiate a peace treaty), and other mistakes, accidents, or, in some cases, careless smatterings.

[Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson]

I always wait for a statement like this to come along because it sums up the whole argument. Sometimes I feel like I'm wasting my breath, but I'll comment briefly.

Objectivity gives us good grammar, good sentence structure, proper word usage, and an interesting read. The fact that some old grammar rules are being blasted away does not indicate that they all have. Grammar is a consensual thing amongst a group of people (usually, a very large group, i.e. America), but there are a number of basic rules and rather permanent rules which should not be ignored. We have been given brains capable of translating even the poorest of writing, but that's no excuse not to do the best you can and learn/apply the rules to your writing (and keep growing and improving as you go along). Like a computer system, the language and syntax should be as clear as possible for the potential readers.

And, to make a very necessary correction, truth does depend solely upon people and their perceptions. It is fact which does not depend upon people.

Truth: I saw a man fitting the defendant's description climbing the ladder, and I found Mrs. Murphy stabbed moments later in her apartment.
Fact: Mrs. Murphy was stabbed to death in her apartment.

The subjective bits are story, likeability of characters, liking the plot, and so on. The objective bits would be something to the effect of an author using different names for the same people (consistency), changing the plot mid-book accidentally (We're going to Mordor to destroy the ring of power...500 pages...We've come here to Mordor to negotiate a peace treaty), and other mistakes, accidents, or, in some cases, careless smatterings.

Henry has made it a campaign to defend what he feels is good writing vs. bad writing and I do understand where some of his grief comes from. But language, as with other parts of human culture, is always evolving and we have to adapt to what you refer to as 'consensual' use of that language. To me gay will always mean happy, gray is spelled grey, and epic fail is an oxymoron.

I am not a proponent of nihilistic concepts. And I do think that, as Shakespeare wrote "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". But truth is, standards, like fashions, DO change and no one gets to have the final say on what's good or bad. It's my right to believe that a movie like Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen is the worst film of all time and has absolutely no redeeming value. But the fact that it's what I believe doesn't necessarily make me right.

[Christopher Bunn]

And, to make a very necessary correction, truth does depend solely upon people and their perceptions. It is fact which does not depend upon people.

Hang on. Isn't Fact simply a subset of Truth?

[BrianKittrell]

Hang on. Isn't Fact simply a subset of Truth?

Not exactly. I'd venture to put truth as a subset of fact or perhaps a distant cousin, but fact isn't the same as truth, and it most certainly isn't based upon truth. Barring the want or need to get into a debate over the difference, I will simply say that facts are things which exist regardless of whether or not people believe them. For instance:

Fact: I sold X copies of books today. <- A numerical fact backed by physical proof which cannot be refuted by any measure of testimony or other evidence to the contrary.
Truth: I sold X copies of books today, and the result is a large royalty check. <- A perception of reality based upon a numerical fact. It can be refuted with other opinions, testimony, facts, or evidence to the contrary. Telling of the truth can be subjective, while facts are incontrovertible.

Such is why we have courts and a legal system -- to debate truth against fact and find what fits the best, then let 12 people decide if it makes sense. Since truth is based upon people's subjective opinion and individual perception of the real, it will not be the same across different people, even those who experience the exact same event or incident and later tell of it.

[BrianKittrell]

Henry has made it a campaign to defend what he feels is good writing vs. bad writing and I do understand where some of his grief comes from. But language, as with other parts of human culture, is always evolving and we have to adapt to what you refer to as 'consensual' use of that language. To me gay will always mean happy, gray is spelled grey, and epic fail is an oxymoron.

I am not a proponent of nihilistic concepts. And I do think that, as Shakespeare wrote "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". But truth is, standards, like fashions, DO change and no one gets to have the final say on what's good or bad.

I couldn't agree more. This same argument crops up on an almost daily basis, and it most often (if not always) results in an argument where no party is left feeling satisfied about anything.

[Italiahaircolor]

I'll answer this as a reader...

Those things matter.  Grammar, spelling, punctuation, formatting, cover art -- each has a unique power to make a world of difference when you're being told a story.  Recently I tried a sample of a self published book and the formatting was a disaster from page one, I didn't buy the book because of it.  I don't want to have to read through what you're trying to say to get to the point, I'm not editing your book and I shouldn't be expected to pay for the privilege of overlooking mistakes. 

As an "author" (I use the word loosely, because I'm not yet published)...it's frustrating, but it's the way things are done.  Do I cherish the thought of having to spend copious sums on editing?  No, not really.  Would I love to throw my book out to the masses today?  Sure.  But it's not ready.  As an independent author, you can bend some of the rules--but, at the end of the day, you're accountable to your audience, you're writing for them, so what you put out there should be the best of the best...anything less is how "Indie Authors" got the reputation that currently have.  Rather than justify it, we should be working to change it. 

[Terrence OBrien]

"Rather than justify it, we should be working to change it."

I suspect the market will take care of it. We may not like what it decides, but it has figured it out with thousands of other products.

[Rex Jameson]

I used the picture because it deals with one major issue in the book and that's cloning. Hence the science fiction tinge to it. But from a professional perspective, does the book look amateurish. I commented about Kevis's book cover, dubbing her as the 'Starburst Girl'. Nevertheless, I still said he had an impressive book cover.
True, and I plan to develop them later in the series (this is only the first book).
Although I agree wholeheartedly for the reasons you cite, including that it lacks entire a complete sci-fi aspect (because it's not truly sci-fi), I would argue that it contains sci-fi elements in there because of the method I used to bring them back. Besides, the book raises additional questions that are science-related including: cloning, evolution, and psychology. These are particular topics I do cover in various ways which make the book more sci-fi than what you anticipate. I would recommend you buy a copy and read the book.
 
I would and to be honest with you, I don't think it's such a bad book.
 
This isn't just me that's saying that; there are dozens of others who would say likewise. I am just among the many.

Parker

Alright, HP. I've started reading the posts in your blog since the lasts ones I saw, and I'm going to start with a fresh slate with you and forget about everything else that happened in previous threads. I think you are genuinely reforming your image, from what I've read so far, and I can definitely appreciate that. Best of luck to you.

[BrianKittrell]

True, and I plan to develop them later in the series (this is only the first book).

I was talking with my editor about something similar to this, and this can be seen as a cop out to a point. Every effort should be made in the first book in which a character appears to flesh them out, make them feel real, and give them character. The only time this doesn't apply is when the character isn't to be used in a later book or is a rarely occurring person. Now, I haven't read the book to make any judgement one way or another, but it's something to consider for any future works.

The question shouldn't be, "In which book will I flesh out this character?". It should be, "How can I flesh this character out and make them real in this book?" Development can occur later (and it should), but a major character in the current book should be developed as best as possible before moving forward.

[Rex Jameson]

I was talking with my editor about something similar to this, and this can be seen as a cop out to a point. Every effort should be made in the first book in which a character appears to flesh them out, make them feel real, and give them character. The only time this doesn't apply is when the character isn't to be used in a later book or is a rarely occurring person. Now, I haven't read the book to make any judgement one way or another, but it's something to consider for any future works.

The question shouldn't be, "In which book will I flesh out this character?". It should be, "How can I flesh this character out and make them real in this book?" Development can occur later (and it should), but a major character in the current book should be developed as best as possible before moving forward.

Agreed. The series starter, if that's what this book was, has to hook people in. If readers who received a free review copy are telling you that they're disappointed in character development, imagine how a paying customer will feel. If the reader feels burned on the first book, they are highly unlikely to pick up the second book. The only book I've picked up the 2nd one on, despite not particularly liking the first one, was Harry Potter. Yes, I was one of those that did not like the Sorcerer's Stone. It was just too young for me. I could never get into it. After that though, I was able to appreciate the characters and what Rowling was doing (and this was way before I started writing for myself and being even more picky).

If you have frequent enough five stars on later books, people might give the series another chance, but that's a big risk, imo. Just my two cents.

@Parker: As for subscribing, I rarely do that. I just check in on recent posts from time-to-time. I'll try to do that with yours.

[L.A. Tripp]

I was talking with my editor about something similar to this, and this can be seen as a cop out to a point. Every effort should be made in the first book in which a character appears to flesh them out, make them feel real, and give them character. The only time this doesn't apply is when the character isn't to be used in a later book or is a rarely occurring person. Now, I haven't read the book to make any judgement one way or another, but it's something to consider for any future works.

The question shouldn't be, "In which book will I flesh out this character?". It should be, "How can I flesh this character out and make them real in this book?" Development can occur later (and it should), but a major character in the current book should be developed as best as possible before moving forward.

Very well said! Characters must be developed from the start. I've seen writers jump right into back story at the beginning, and that bores me to tears, too. I want to see character development through their words and actions right now. Then, you can fill in what's missing with flashbacks and interactions with others as you go. The more actions and interactions the reader reads, the more that character is more fully developed. By the time I close that first book, I want to feel like I know that character, even that they were my best friend.

[L.A. Tripp]

From Parker's "Nothing Says It Like a Free E-Book"

I gotta admit, nothing says it like getting a free book from places like Smashwords or Kindle Boards. Almost every desperate self-published author uses this method as a means of offering a 'sampling' to the general public. If the public likes it, they'll want to see more as authors hope. While the gist of the idea sounds ever sincere and hopeful for the self-published or 'indie' authors as they like to call themselves, nothing screams louder than the words bad idea.

Although I understand the motives of promotion and wanting others to read the work, finding reasons why anyone would use this method to further promote a book  is stunning, not to mention that it's dumb (at least that's what most readers think, except for others like Henry Baum who thinks that everyone should make their book free).

To read more, go over here: http://theresurrectionseries.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/nothing-says-it-like-a-free-e-book/

Knock this all you want, and maybe it doesn't work for every author, but I HAVE seen authors this has worked VERY well for. Give away the first book in the series, and if the reader likes that book, they will start buying all of the series. And, the .99 price point just makes it that much easier for the reader to pick them all up at once.

[BrianKittrell]

Knock this all you want, and maybe it doesn't work for every author, but I HAVE seen authors this has worked VERY well for. Give away the first book in the series, and if the reader likes that book, they will start buying all of the series. And, the .99 price point just makes it that much easier for the reader to pick them all up at once.

Agreed. Ask a few authors around here what free books have done for them. David Dalglish and his several thousands of dollars a month comes to mind.

[Betsy the Quilter]

BTW, Rex. Would you like to subscribe to my blog?

Parker

Parker,

If you want to have a discussion here in the Writers' Cafe, that's cool.  However, if this thread is going to be a solicitation for your blog, I'll have to move it to the Book Bazaar, thanks!

Betsy
KB Moderator

[L.A. Tripp]

Parker . . . could you clarify?

Would that be effort in the writing, effort in the marketing, effort in the web presence, effort in giving away free copies . . . ?

[BrianKittrell]

I'm sorry if I come across as rude in any of this, but I must say that effort alone is not always enough to get yourself out there. Sometimes you have to alter your plans, and for some, they have no problem reducing prices. Some search high and low for reviewers and bloggers, some Spam people, and some have a friend with a popular blog where the friend promotes their work. Some reduce prices to entice readers more. Considering some of the options available, reducing the price seems to be better to me than spamming people.

As to effort, sure, put effort into your promotional efforts and do it tastefully; however, I would be apt to hear from people with greater experience in that area. And, by that, I mean (and, again, not trying to be rude) people who have books above the #600,000 rank in the Kindle store. Discounting everyone who prices low to compete is a bit irresponsible; I'd encourage you to spend some time with us here and see why people do the things they do before writing them off as needing to put more effort in.

[nomesque]

From Parker's "Nothing Says It Like a Free E-Book"

I gotta admit, nothing says it like getting a free book from places like Smashwords or Kindle Boards. Almost every desperate self-published author uses this method as a means of offering a 'sampling' to the general public. If the public likes it, they'll want to see more as authors hope. While the gist of the idea sounds ever sincere and hopeful for the self-published or 'indie' authors as they like to call themselves, nothing screams louder than the words bad idea.

Although I understand the motives of promotion and wanting others to read the work, finding reasons why anyone would use this method to further promote a book  is stunning, not to mention that it's dumb (at least that's what most readers think, except for others like Henry Baum who thinks that everyone should make their book free).

To read more, go over here: http://theresurrectionseries.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/nothing-says-it-like-a-free-e-book/

*blink* Your reasoning against offering freebies, according to your blog post, seems to be:

a) it's dumb ('most' readers think so?)
b) no-one will take your book seriously

That's it? That's your argument?

[BrianKittrell]

On the top left one, I'd probably click to read the blurb for no other reason than to figure out what is sexy about backgammon.