Please Don't Ask Me to Read Your Book

I'm an editor for indie authors. As such, I recognize how difficult it is for some of them to get book reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, so I'm careful to always leave a review when I read a book. If it's great, of course I want others to enjoy it, and if it's terrible, I want to warn people to save their money and time.

Most of my reviews tend to be favorable because I have a general idea of what I'm picking up before I start, either from friends' recommendations or my own pre-purchase research. Even if a book is cheapie-cheap, I'll still read the negative reviews to see if they mention anything that's important to me. I don't usually bother reading very many positive reviews, partly because so many reviewers include spoilers without realizing it, and partly because I expect a book to be good. If someone thinks it's not good, I want to know why.

People on Goodreads ask for reviewers all the time. This is a dubious practice, and "officially" there is to be no review swapping (because those boil down to give-me-five-stars-and-I'll-give-you-five-stars) but still . . . authors are constantly pimping a free e-copy if someone—anyone!—will pleasepleasepleaseprettyplease review their book. (Author Gisela Hausmann has a great post, "What Authors Can Learn from Car Salesmen," that gives some great tips on how to not beg/sound desperate.)

So when people ask for reviews on GR . . . if I haven't offered (and I'm obviously very active there) then I am not interested. Why am I not interested? After all, I do love reading and I always review what I read.

Well, in a few words, here's why. By asking me to review your book, you are putting me in the position of either looking like a jerk by saying no because I:

1. don't have time 
2. saw the reviews and know I won't enjoy it 
3. know from experience that most who ask on random forums have books with numerous issues, and I will be put into the uncomfortable position of saying it out loud

Or I say yes to be polite and then am forced—because I won't say yes and then not do it—to read and pay attention to details I might otherwise not. It's weird . . . I naturally remember details of books I've chosen to read, but have to concentrate on books not of my own choosing. Perhaps it comes from the occasional assigned reading at my day job, where we are expected to discuss what we've read. If I have to read a book someone's asked me to read, I read it as an editor, and can't shut that off. This is an odd curse, but that's what I deal with.

Dear stranger, basically you are asking me to work for you without being paid for it, and I have wasted a lot of time and energy doing things like this that I later regret. As a freelancer, I do a fair number of free evaluations for writers, and if they hire me, that's great, but if they don't, it's hours put in that don't pay off. It happens, and it's part of the free eval package.

Those ones I don't mind nearly as much, except for these stats—the ones who don't hire me are typically broken down into these portions: 10% are people who simply choose someone else—a better fit, for example, of a British editor for a UK writer, or those who are truly shopping around and looking for the best price, fit, and timing on the calendar—and the other 90% are people whose manuscripts are nowhere near ready for editing, much less publishing.

Those 90% still get the same thorough editing eval as anyone else, because I believe in being fair, and I want to be as thorough in my explanation as possible when I'm telling someone their book is not ready for editing. Perhaps I could be mean about it and simply tell them it's not ready, but if they don't know why, then it may never be ready. Or they'll find an unscrupulous editor who will take their money, fix misspellings and typos, and never tell them how bad the overall writing actually is.

Unfortunately, in my experience, many of the "read my book for review" people are still in the second-draft phase and don't know it because they've already gone and published. So yes, I'm being asked do work for them for free, even if they're not aware of it. I even added a (hopefully polite) "please don't ask me to read your book" portion to my Goodreads profile, because I get a slow-but-steady flow of requests that wax and wane around the timing of my posted reviews, and I always feel so uncomfortable when answering. I hate to be rude, but on the other hand, they're not exactly being polite by asking a stranger to do them a favor when there's been no previous relationship.

What are your thoughts on the "please read my book" crowd? I'm not looking for everyone to necessarily agree with me, but would genuinely enjoy your input on this one.

*****

If you like what you're reading, I invite you to fill out the "Follow by Email" widget in the column on the right. You'll get my amazing insights right in your inbox! How thrilling is that? Or you can follow me on Instagram (as easyreaderediting) for completely different content—check out all that stuff on the upper right of my page where the Instagram feed is scrolling merrily along. I also have an Easy Reader Editing Facebook page I'd love for you to like and follow. I'm on Google+ as myself (Lynda Dietz) and my "follow" badge is . . . you guessed it, right there in the right-hand column for you to click. I try to share different things in each place so  life doesn't get predictable and boring, and you never know what you'll find—or whether I'll be sharing YOUR posts, too.

M = Make the Most of Free Advice on Writers' Forums

If you ask for advice, and someone offers it to you, take it. Take it, write it down, and follow it, especially if more than one person is giving you the same advice. 

Don’t ask for advice and then ignore it. 

Don’t ask for advice and then give a list of reasons why you can’t/won’t/don’t need to follow it. 

Don’t ask for advice and tell the more experienced person he’s wrong.

I feel like Forrest Gump now, because that’s all I have to say about that.

Angry and Ranting

What is it that makes someone think he can put out a product for consumers to purchase, and not a single person in the entire world is permitted to dislike it? 

Does everyone buy Coke instead of Pepsi? Does everyone have to love polo shirts? Heaven forbid we were all required to love Fifty Shades of Grey or else be subject to a sharp rebuke. People feel free to express their love or hate for Tolkien, Hemingway, or Poe, perhaps because they’re already dead. Last time I checked, Laura Ingalls Wilder didn't pop out of the grave to haunt someone because a reader didn't find the Little House books captivating. Nor would I expect that she sat in her home, writing nasty letters to those who weren't her fans while she was alive.

I'm so angry I could just spit. It's one of those rare times when I'm furious about something that's not my business and not in my control—when I'm indignant on the behalf of people I don't know, whose lives will not change in any way, regardless of my anger.

Yes, I'm talking about life on the Internet.

A few days ago, I witnessed two author meltdowns on Goodreads. As is always the case, they started off with being on the receiving end of a one-star review for each of their books. Follows basic procedure, right? Read. Like or don't. Review. The end.

Wrong, wrong, and wronger.

Not the end. An end would be merciful.

The final step these days has moved right along from "review" to "defend your review/rating and then have your name smeared across every social media available."

I want to call out the first author in question, but I don't even want to give her any recognition by typing her name out here. A review was posted, and she jumped right in and attacked the reviewer. Friends on both sides joined in.

The reviewer had posted portions of the book so all could see why she rated it so low. It appeared to me that the author had somehow ingested a thesaurus and vomited all the words four syllables and higher into a manuscript. Truthfully (and I'm a big fan of the thesaurus, myself), I was glad the original reviewer explained some of the passages featured, because I would never have gotten what was being said.

The author removed all her own comments from Goodreads, but moved over to Facebook. There she began to spew some horrid stuff: shouting out names of people she deemed trolls, posting links to their Amazon profiles, and encouraging others to harass this reviewer and anyone who showed support of this review. She stooped as low as to call one of the reviewers "The Creature from the Black Baboon."

The part that made me the most angry—and believe me, it was tough to choose just one—was when one of the author's friends commented on one of the Facebook posts, saying, "[Author name], you really should take a step back and get some control. You're doing a lot of damage here, and may be alienating your readers with this type of stuff," and the author replied (and I am NOT kidding you here), "Don't worry. I know what I'm doing. My sales are going through the roof since this started."

What?!? She was creating a horrible situation on purpose? And reveling in it?

Apparently she was, because she began repeating the mantra, "Even 'snublicity' is good publicity!" and thanking her "trolls" for all the free promo. She accused them of creating Amazon accounts simply to trash her book, ignoring that they all had established accounts with multiple reviews of other books and products. Facts were not needed or welcome.

As I was in the middle of writing this post, a second author started another attack on a reader who dared to mark his book as a "don't want to read" based on her reading of the sample of his book.

Mr. Author attacked the reviewer on her own blog, calling her names in the comment section of a recent post. She responded with facts and restraint. He went back to the original review and began a long list of insults against her on Goodreads. Her only response at first was to copy his posts for the record, since we all know the pattern by now: hurl insults today, remove all your posts tomorrow. His posts (mostly unanswered) continued to come, sounding more and more unhinged with each moment.

I finally got to the point where I just couldn't take it anymore, and decided to stand up for the reviewer. I need to make it clear here that I do not engage in Internet arguments as a general rule. People are not going to have opinions/life beliefs changed when shouted at by a stranger online, and that's all there is to it. But I can't sit idly by while someone attacks an innocent party, and I feel it's important to show support in those situations.

I was embarrassed for the attacking author, because he was making a colossal fool of himself by acting worse than a child. There was no reason, other than immaturity and a bruised ego on the part of the book's author, for any type of response. If she had rated it four stars with no explanation, I don't think he would have attacked her, shouting, "Why?"

The man was not rational. He kept going whether anyone was responding or not. He even went to another thread to complain, thus ensuring that more people moved over to "his" page and were witnesses to his ranting. I should probably mention that his author profile had been deleted after a tantrum two weeks prior, where he’d gotten a GR member banned for bullying that didn’t actually occur, so he had created a new profile as a non-author and was using that for his attacks.

It’s a shame, really, that there are selfish authors like these two who are unable to accept the fact that not everyone out there will be their fans.

Most self-published authors have more class than that, and are concerned with next year’s sales in addition to today’s. They’re insulted that the actions of a few are tainting the reputation of the many, because they have to work twice as hard to get people to even look at their books, much less review them.

I will never forget the names of those tantrum-throwing authors and will be quick to discourage others from supporting their work. I won’t paint the others with the same brush, but there are many who will, and who have already dismissed SPAs as too much bother and high drama. What a shame for all those who work hard to put out a high-quality product, only to have a few bad apples spoil the reputation of all.

Coffee Chat 4.0 with Author S.K. Anthony: Taming the Social Media Monster

Hello, I'm the Social Media Monster! I've come to adjust your clocks. I'll cause a warp in the space-time continuum so your "only five more minutes" of reading email turns into "an hour has passed already?"

Does this scenario sound familiar to you? Today, S.K. Anthony and I will be performing the not-ironic-at-all task of using social media (a.k.a. my blog) to discuss how misuse of social media can suck our lives away. 

Not this blog, of course. This blog will add years to your life, if only you visit it on a regular basis and tell all your friends to visit, too. Kind of like a bloggy sort of chain letter: "Tell ten friends to visit my blog and something wonderful will happen to you in the next thirty minutes. I can't tell you what it is, but you'll know it when it happens." I can only tell you that if you don't, nothing bad will happen, your dreams won't be crushed, and God will not be disappointed in you. I won't be upset with you, either, but you will definitely miss a good time. Speaking of a good time, here comes my coffee buddy.

ER: Hey, S.K.! Fancy seeing you here again over the top of my coffee cup. 

SKA: What's crackalackin', Lyn-Lyn?

ER: I'll bet our readers don't realize we have matching coffee cups. In fact, I'll bet our readers don't care that we have matching coffee cups. The picture above is mine, and it is not photoshopped. I repeat, NOT photoshopped. I didn't even use a green screen to capture that image. I figured people might think it's 'shopped because it looks so natural, but no. I just plunked my cup down in front of my coffeemaker and snapped. Snapped a picture, that is. I might have snapped for real, had the coffee not finished dripping right then. But luck was on my side and coffee was on my front. Thankfully, I had another shirt.

What was I saying?

SKA:  To answer your question, I think you were saying hi to me. I'm not sure anymore. I got confused and defensive and proud all in one paragraph.

Let's start with: Why wouldn't they care? Of course they care! We have the same coffee mugs—how else would this be a real and official "Coffee Chat"? And I'm so very proud of you for managing to take a picture that not only looks real, but IS real.

Oh, and for all those cynics out there, here I am with MY non-photoshopped coffee cup. By the way, the sunglasses are because Mildred Loudermilk doesn't want to be recognized in public. Not because I'd just woken up or anything . . .

[SKA disappears for a short while. ER drinks coffee to kill time. 'Cause drinking coffee is what we do here when we're not talking over each other.]

SKA: Sorry, sorry for me abandoning our chat for a minute; I had to go tweet something. In five minutes, I have to go do some "shares" on Google+. Ten minutes after that, I have to go like some posts on Facebook, and then I'll spend a couple hours commenting on my friends' blogs. After that I have to figure out my own blog posts, and think about canceling Instagram and creating a LinkedIn account. So excuse me while I disappear from our chats here and there. 

What are you up to?

ER: Uh . . . not much, compared to your busy schedule. I'm just kind of sitting here, waiting for you to come back. I don't even have an Instagram account. And I'm afraid to be LinkedIn with someone I don't like. Can I unlink them if we're not compatible? And how do you find the time to visit all these places?

SKA: LIKE! . . . err . . . sorry, I think this was the wrong place.

Umm, LinkedIn . . . I haven't opened the account yet, so I don't know. I'm not even sure I want to link up with people I like, so your guess is as good as mine. If someone out there knows, they should tell us. How do I find time? I—

[Disappears again, this time long enough for ER to root around the kitchen, looking for something that goes well with coffee. What's left in those Christmas stockings, anyway?]

SKA: —Okay, I'm back. I had to log in my workout on MyFitnessPal and cheer on some friends. Right . . . so I decide in the morning what kind of day it will be. Tweeting, Facebooking, etc., etc. And blogging/commenting I deal with twice a week for sure; otherwise, I will have no time for our chats.  The rest of the SM channels are lucky I remember they exist when I don't have a ton of emails to answer. 

Which are your favorite social media channels? And which do you think are more beneficial to authors?

ER: Huh? Did you say something? I was on SparkPeople, logging in the mini Twix bars I found in the toe of my stocking. My Christmas stocking. I don't usually store candy in the toe of my regular socks. I don't want to say "never," but it's not typical behavior, anyway.

Beneficial to authors . . . oh, that reminds me, I haven't checked the Goodreads forums today. There have been some pretty interesting threads there lately! 

brb . . . that means "be right back" to those of us who are online-savvy. Or just too lazy to type all those extra letters.

[This time it's ER's turn to run off, back to SparkPeople this time, just in case more candy turns up in anyone else's stockings. Not that she would ever look in anyone else's Christmas stockings. And why are they still hanging on January 9?]

All right, now. I think I'm back for good this time (translate: all out of candy and social media sites). 

I won't deny it. I do have a handful of social media sites I check with regularity. Facebook and Goodreads are probably my top two. My blogs, Twitter, other people's blogs come next. I'm finally getting back on track with SparkPeople. I may sign up with reddit, although my kids say I don't need it. I have a Pinterest account, but much like shopping, I need to know exactly what I'm looking for, or I'll waste all kinds of time and find nothing useful. Actually, I find that I'm capable of wasting time on any one of those above-mentioned things, even when they're helpful to me.

Let's face it: social media is time-consuming. There's no way around it. The real question is whether you control it or it controls you. 

SKA: SparkPeople! I have an account there as well. I had to give it up after I found MyFitnessPal. I like the blue background; my favorite color is blue. Now that I think about it, that might be exactly what attracts me to my "top" sites: Facebook, Twitter, my blog. I'm very scientific when I choose, apparently.

ER: I like the sites that make things easy for me to find. And I absolutely hate when I go to someone's website or blog and can't move around it without the pop-ups getting in the way, saying "SUBSCRIBE!" I won't go to those ones more than that first time. It's so irritating to have to keep clicking things closed just to read an article. If I want to subscribe or follow, I'll do it on my own. If you push, you can guarantee I won't follow you. I only have so much time to waste . . . I mean, spend . . . and I can't use ten more seconds of it trying to avoid pop-ups.

So what are your biggest online time-wasters? Other than chatting with me on Facebook, which can probably be considered official working time, if you stop to think about it.

SKA: Hmm . . . time wasters? I'm not sure. Twitter can be, I guess, but I don't go on too often. I retweet my friends and share a quote here and there. The rest of my tweets that I need readers to pay attention to, I use hashtags. Thank goodness for them.

ER: Twitter, for me, is almost a waste of time, because I get the feeling it's a bunch of people shouting on street corners, but not really listening to the other people who are also shouting. I use it, but I don't expect any big returns from it. 

SKA: As you said, they disappear so quickly and who knows who's reading them? I use the hashtags that anyone who might be interested in my particular subject can find. If not, no harm done. I'm never on for too long there. 

ER: Pinterest, as I said before, is a black hole. A black hole of fun garden ideas, make-your-own laundry soap, and fancy cupcakes; I can't allow myself to go there more than once a month. I have posted my blog links there, but I don't know that anyone goes to Pinterest to look for blog posts.

SKA: My time is limited with the twins and writing so I really don't do much internet time-wasting. Our chats are—obviously—work, so that is clarified. I guess if I must choose one, I would go with Pinterest as well. I don't go on too often . . . maybe once a month? But when I do, I stay there for quite some time. The good thing is, even if I get nothing done, I sign out feeling like I'm the biggest DIY-er out there. The plans in my head are endless . . . I still have yet to do one project I thought of or try one recipe I liked from there. 

ER: I'm right with you on that one. I've made one cool project and have made laundry soap. Loved them both but now I'm burnt out. 

So what social media sites do you think are most valuable to your goals, personally and professionally?

SKA: I think Goodreads for sure, though I haven't been too active in the forums and such. Facebook and blogging suck most of my online time, but I think they're both also beneficial to my goals. I don't know, I like them, so I'm sticking to them for now.

ER: What do you think about people who are really disciplined about their social media time? Are they doing well, or are they missing out on things that may be time-sensitive? I think it would take twice as long to go through Facebook posts, tweets, or any online threads, if I only logged in once or twice per week. I mean, I know the world would keep spinning even if I didn't check in on Goodreads each day, but sometimes there is so much activity on the threads that it would be impossible to catch up if I missed more than one day.

SKA: I think I'm exhausted for them.

ER: Clearly, these people are abnormal and overly disciplined, don't you think?

SKA: Absolutely.

ER: It pretty much all boils down to using the sites you need, visiting the sites that are beneficial to you, and minimizing the use of those which yield no fruit. Last words on how to tame that monster?

SKA: Social media is a beast, but once you tame it you ARE the beast!

ER: Genius. Sheer genius. [Wipes away a tear.]

Next time, we'll be focusing on blogs. Our blogs, your blogs, everyone's blogs: what makes us visit them, and what makes us keep coming back. Well . . . I guess you'll have to come back to find out.

As always:

You can find S.K. Anthony in a number of places. She's on Twitter @SKathAnthony, her website is www.skanthony.com, her Facebook page is S Katherine Anthony, and on occasional occasions, she'll be right here with me, drinking coffee and laughing it up over our latest plans and schemes. And possibly even talking about books and writing. 

You can find me here. I'm always here.

Editor's Notes #3: Don't Take It Personally

I read a book because I hope to enjoy it. I usually don't know the author personally, even if he is a familiar name. The author doesn't know me, either. 

When I leave a 4- or 5-star review, does he send me flowers? No. Chocolate? No. A colorful handmade card? No.

Why? Because he doesn't know me. My review is simply one more affirmation that a book has been written well, with good editing and an interesting story. It tells others that, in my opinion, they might also enjoy that same book.

But what if I leave a 1-star review? Does the author send me a condolence card? No. Does he or she promise to do better next time? No. And no, still no chocolates.

Why no chocolates? Why no wooing with wine or aged Scotch?

I'll tell you why: because the author doesn't know me. 

Let's recap for a moment. 

• I don't know the author, so I don't assume a decently written book was penned with me, specifically, in mind. 
• I don't know the author, so I don't take offense if a book is written poorly, because I don't think it was written that way to spite me.
• The author doesn't know me, so she doesn't assume I've given a good review because she's pretty, or because we support the same charity, or because I am flattering her into watching my chickens for me while I take a weekend trip.
• The author doesn't know me, so he doesn't take offense if I give his book a bad review because—

Oh, wait. The author did take offense. 

Good review = my book is spectacular.

Bad review = the reviewer is an idiot.

This is a disturbing trend. Without doing a lick of in-depth research, I will hazard a guess that most, if not all, writers who bash reviewers are newer authors. Certainly they're emotionally immature, but I'll assume they are immature writers, a.k.a. new to the business of publishing. Perhaps no one has told them their behavior is likely to cost them the very people they're trying to attract.

A long-ago Goodreads thread addressed this very topic. The group was talking about feeling guilty for a DNF (Did Not Finish), and whether to leave a review or not, depending on whether the DNF status was due to personal taste or a badly written book. This brought on several differences in opinion—and along with it, a perfect example for my post.

Author "A": as a writer, she prefers an honest review; as a reader, she hesitates to leave an unfavorable review because someone may retaliate and slam her work.

Author "B": says a review isn't even needed in all cases; stating a strong opinion on one of the boards was enough to get his own books slammed with one-star ratings by people who had never read them.

B's comment prompted author "C" to tell about a recent book review in which she gave a two-star rating and was verbally attacked by the book's author ("X") on Goodreads and other places across the internet.  

[I don't know any of these authors personally, so my post is based on reading the original review and author's reply, with no previous bias.]

In C's opinion, the book deserved a one-star rating, but she tried to be diplomatic since it was obvious to her that a lot of work had been put into the book. However, it had a lot of problems, and C outlined those problems in her review, apologizing more than once as she clarified exactly what was wrong. Author X replied with a tantrum worthy of any three-year-old. Her post was toxic, vicious and personal.

She started off saying that C’s review should not have been "allowed," because C did not finish the book. X felt that C could not possibly have understood the book after reading "only a quarter of it"—a confusing statement because C's review mentioned quitting at the 60% mark. X then went on at length about her book, her ideas, characters, personal beliefs, and life as we know it in her universe. Her response was so "out there" and rambling that it made her look and sound like a crazed child—the whole thing reeked of, "I know you are, but what am I?" and "You're stupid," "No, you're stupid," "Your face is stupid." Picture that . . . one-sided only.

Author X may never learn that not everyone who disagrees with her is evil, or even wrong. There are guaranteed to be many who don’t like her book, as with any author and any book—but not every person is a moron who "doesn't get it."

I sent the link to the whole tantrum to an author friend so she could read it for herself. She made an astute observation about X's 1075-word essay reply:

If she had written the book properly to begin with, she wouldn't have had to explain so much in her rebuttal to the other person's review.

Author C's review was not personal. Had she given a four- or five-star review, I doubt that X would have attacked her for showing favoritism. Would she have scuffed her shoe on the ground and said, "Aw, shucks, I know you're only saying that because we both love garden gnomes"? Not a chance. She would have assumed she earned the stars because her book was good. So why is it that a bad review gets blamed on the reader/reviewer rather than the writer?

I once read a blog post with an open letter to indie authors. The link no longer exists, but there was one section that specifically dealt with bad reviews and how to deal with them, and I’ve never forgotten the title (paraphrased): "Not everyone will like your book. Down a shot. Accept it. Move on."

This same advice applies when working with an editor. An editor doesn't have to "like" your book to edit it. It helps, because it makes the work more enjoyable. But each time the red pen comes out and I say, "This could be changed up a bit," I'm not secretly thinking, "You're so stupid. I hate you. I hate every word you've written."

It's my job to note when something needs strengthened, removed, or spelled correctly. It's not an emotionally charged moment for me to use the Red Pen of Doom. It's just the tool I use for my job. If I hire someone to clean my house, I'm not going to accuse her of calling me a slob because she mopped. I hired that person. She did her job. My floor was in need of a good mopping. What does that mean? Um . . . it means my floor had dirt on it. It doesn't mean I'm evil. It doesn't mean she thinks I'm evil.

Similarly, if an editor is hired, it's that person's job to know more about editing than a writer may know. If a cover artist is hired, it's his job to know more about drawing and colors than a writer knows. If a live band is hired, they should play better music than Uncle Fritz, who's had six months of tuba lessons. It's nothing personal.

Putting your work out there (whether pre-publication or as a finished work) invites praise or criticism, sometimes both. If you're prepared to accept praise, you should be equally prepared to accept criticism. Unless the review clearly states, "I would have given five stars, except my daughter wrote this, and she never cleaned her room when I told her to, so I'm withholding my love," then you should assume the reviewer has something valid to say.

I occasionally turn to my own editing guru—my personal Obi-Wan—for advice when I'm stuck. The door to her email inbox is always open if I need the answer to a tough or obscure question, and I've sent her passages of my work to critique, knowing she'll never give me a trophy just for working hard. Her evaluation has nothing to do with Lynda, the person, or even Lynda, the editor. It only deals with the WORK of Lynda, the editor.

Writers, it's no different for you when a reviewer points out errors or inconsistencies. It's your WORK, not your SELF. Read the review, grit your teeth, swear under your breath, draw a stick figure of the reviewer and scribble a mustache on it. Whatever it takes to get the knee-jerk reaction out of your system. Then walk away from it, give it some time, and come back to it later to see if it has any value. More often than not, it will.

Whatever you do, don't take it personally. It's not about you. Really.

Editor's Notes #2: The Reader Doesn't Care

I've been stalking the Goodreads forums lately, and having a wonderful time of it. Granted, I'm sure there are other great writers' sites out there, but I've found the discussions on GR to be stimulating, sometimes very uncomfortable, and always informative.

One of my favorite threads lately has been going 'round and 'round about self-published authors (SPAs), their problems, and how to get readers to buy their books. I could write a year's worth of blog posts based on any one of those threads, but the SPA thread has me captivated.

This week's topic deals with the not-ready-for-prime-time books out there that are damaging the reputation of those SPAs whose work is as good as—or better than, in some cases—that published by the Big Five. Specifically, we'll talk about excuses given for poor work.

The writers I like to call "premature publishers" (because "author" doesn't really fit their abilities) are the ones who are typically in a rush to get their books published because they want the world to see the results of their hard work. There's no time to wait. That book has to get out there because the world needs them!

The problem lies in the fact that the reader expects a published book to be finished. Completed. Done. As close to "perfect" as possible.

"Finished" to the premature publishers means "I'm done writing." Period.

Having an idea and getting it written on paper (real or virtual) is a wonderful start, but it is exactly that: a start. As S.K. Anthony stated in our second Coffee Chat, after the first draft is written, that's when the real work begins. Revisions, tweaks, overhauls—whatever name you call them, it boils down to the same thing: making your work the best it can be.

One of the things I find frustrating is when an author becomes defensive after receiving a bad review. If someone gives a one-star review based on something dumb, like "I've always hated that color of yellow on a book cover," or "I can't believe someone kicked a kitten in this book!" then yes, the author has every right to be indignant about that review. However, many new authors seem unable to deal with bad reviews that mention editing, immature writing habits or style, plot holes, or pretty much anything that doesn't include the words "OMG I loved it!"

Some of the authors I've conversed with on GR are quick to tell others they learned a lot more from the negative reviews than the positive ones, though they would always prefer good reviews over bad. But it seems those who learn from criticism (even when it's not constructively phrased) are in the minority. Many premature publishers are full of excuses—overflowing with them, really—as to why their book has uncorrected issues.

Guess what? The reader doesn't care what kind of problems you had. Whether your book was offered as a freebie or purchased for whatever amount, the reader has every right to expect it to be complete and polished. Someone (known only as Tura) on the SPA thread on Goodreads put it perfectly:

I think a good thing to remember is the reader does not care. Yes, just writing a book is an achievement, but it doesn't mean everyone has to praise you. So forget the excuses people use when they complain reviews are harsh:

*"It's my first attempt." The reader does not care.

*"I had a really hard time while writing, for one reason or another." The reader does not care.

*"I wrote from my own experience." Well, so did many others. The reader does not care.

*"My family and friends all loved it." The reader . . . And so on. 

The unknown reader has a million books to choose from, and will go to whatever pleases her/him. You can't really argue anyone into liking your book; you can only show it to them. 

I don't expect every book I pick up to be an instant classic. Nor do I expect every book to have the same level of writing skill. What I do expect is readability and cohesiveness, not excuses.

I've heard many writers talk about the expenses of publishing. Writing costs nothing as long as you have a pencil and paper. Publishing has its costs, though. Content editing. Cover design. Proofreading. Printing. This is all part of the package from the moment the first word hits the page. 

Think of it in terms of purchasing a home. You have the money to buy a house. Do you have the money to live in it? You'll need basic tools, money for utilities, furniture, and groceries. You may need a lawnmower. You need money for taxes. You need more than just the price of a building.

To simplify further, let's say you have the money for the down payment, but no way of paying closing costs. What do you do? You continue to save, cutting expenses for months or even years in order to set the money aside. You don't tell the Realtor he should still give you the house because you've always wanted one, or because you're having another child and need the extra room, or because you've been saving and saving and you just can't wait any longer. 

The Realtor doesn't care about any of those things. If you can't pay, he will find another buyer.

The reader can be thought of in the same way. If you can't produce an adequate product, he'll find another author. I've heard writers talk about eating Ramen noodles, red beans & rice, and peanut butter sandwiches for months so they could save, dollar by dollar, for editing and a decent-quality cover. If you're self-publishing, there's no rush to get your book out there other than your own urgency to get people to read it. You're following no deadline but your own. 

Count the cost. The full cost, from soup to nuts. Save for it and pay for it before hitting that "publish" button. The reader doesn't care what you couldn't do. He only cares about what you did. Why give something other than your best?

Editor's Notes #1: WHY, Writers, WHY?

I need to rant a little. Or perhaps a lot. This may sound harsh, but this is what's going through my brain right now.

Not for the first time, I found myself reading a book description that was so poorly written, I wanted to grab the author, shake her, and scream, "THIS is where you're supposed to sell me on the idea that your book is worth reading, and you can't even write a description of it without errors?"

One hundred fifty words. That's all you need for a book description. One. Hundred. Fifty. Words.

If a writer is incapable of writing less than two hundred words in a readable manner, then there is nothing—NOTHING—that will convince me to read 70,000 more words penned by that same writer. In the case of this particular book description, only 20,000 more, but even ten more words would have put me over the edge.

Okay . . . perhaps my overwhelming sense of curiosity would convince me. For research purposes, you see. After all, what if the author didn't have time to write the (all-important) book description and asked her sibling/cousin/neighbor/babysitter to do it? Maybe someone on Fiverr did it for $5.00 to help pay the rent. I don't know.

Flash forward in time . . .

I have now downloaded the book, free of charge. I have read all of four pages of it and have decided that I can't go on. To clarify: I can go on living; I just can't go on reading. Honestly, two pages were enough, but I wanted to give it a fair shot by reading at least ten percent of the book. I couldn't make it that far, and didn't see any reason why I should force myself to do so.

[Note: I had to pause here for chocolate. That book bothered me in a big way.]

As I lurk and often participate on various Goodreads threads, I'm pleasantly encouraged by the number of authors who actively seek out advice from others (and follow it!) so they can improve their writing. Whether it's a work in progress or a book that's getting not-so-great ratings for whatever reason, they genuinely want to know how to make it better . . . and how to keep the same thing from happening next time.

Conversely, I'm astounded at the number of people who are on Goodreads who have access to these same threads but who don't take advantage of them. If I were an author and I saw a thread titled, "Why don't more people read self-published authors?" or "What's the best way for self-pub authors to get more readers?" my first thought would be to go to those threads and see what kind of advice I could glean, free of charge. There are discussions about editors, book covers, marketing plans, where to self-publish, dos and don'ts . . . you name it, these people have covered it thoroughly. A tremendous AND FREE resource is right there, available with one click.

A writer can put his or her heart and soul into a story—and it can be a wonderful, clever story—but if a reader can't get past the errors that are easily fixable, the story will never be discovered. 

Coffee Chat with Author S.K. Anthony

ER: Today's interview is with author S.K. Anthony, whose debut novel, Kinetic (The Luminaries) hit the shelves a few months ago. Our mutual love of coffee drew us together, and my life hasn't been the same since our first online chat.

I have many burning questions for her, so this particular interview may end up being a series of events. We'll have to see how much she can handle before she changes her email address, adopts a fake name, and unfriends me on Facebook.

SKA: As long as you keep the coffee coming, I'll keep showing up. Otherwise, prepare to be ignored.

ER: While I'm on the topic of fake names, let's talk about yours. I understand you write under a pseudonym, but don't you think using the name "Stephen King" will be confusing to readers? Some might see it as a shameless way to get instant book sales.

SKA: Congratulations. You are the first clever person to realize my scheme. Luckily, I had an answer prepared in case anyone questioned my motives: I'm doing it for Stephen King's fans. You see, Stephen and I are pretty much the same—but just the opposite—so if they wanted to read more of his work . . . in a much different light . . . they can buy my book.

Speaking of my book, Kinetic is now available on Amazon! Look it up: Stephen King Anthony . . . S.K. Anthony for short.

ER: S.K. Anthony sure beats when you were considering using the name Mildred Loudermilk. I'm glad someone talked you down from that ledge. Not that there's anything wrong with the Mildred Loudermilks of this world . . .

SKA: Well, this is awkward . . . I only considered using Mildred Loudermilk because it's one of my real names. I do suppose it's a good thing I didn't go for it; now I can keep my anonymity intact. I will say, though, that I stand by it. I think it's a very strong name that demands attention, and I might consider using it for my future band. How does The Loudermilks sound?

ER: What inspired the first stirrings of ideas for Kinetic? And did I really give you all your best ideas, or did you come up with any on your own?

SKA: The first stirrings of Kinetic? Probably a coffee stirrer. On coffee, anyone can save the world . . . and by "anyone," I mean Annie Fox. Also, of course you gave me the best ideas, but I was smart about it. I wanted to make sure you didn't sue me for copyrights and such, so I wrote it directly from your mind before we met. Whatcha think about the Mildred Loudermilks of the world now, huh? We kan be zmarts!

So let me flip this around . . .

How did you come up with all your magnificent ideas for Kinetic? You know, before I stole them.

ER: I was toying with the idea of writing my autobiography, but I didn't think anyone would believe me—especially people who knew me personally. So I wrote out a rough outline and read it silently every night for weeks, hoping that someone, somewhere would "catch" my brain waves.

SKA: I had my wave net waiting . . .

ER: Exactly. And the first words you wrote were . . .?

SKA: "If I gave myself some time, I know I wouldn't have been able to control myself."

ER: Not so coincidentally, the very words I would have written.

I want to know how many rewrites you estimate you went through before you showed it to a critique partner.

SKA: Seven or eight, I think.

ER: Did he/she like it?

SKA: She said she liked it and gave me a bunch of notes. 

ER: Were you prepared to tell her she was full of it if she said anything negative?

SKA: I'd begged her to read it and break my heart. I told her I didn't want praises because that wouldn't help me fix issues; I gave her full permission to rip it apart.

ER: Did you feel broken enough by the time she was done, or did you still feel good, and therefore tell her she needed to re-read it?

SKA: Nah, funny enough, I never felt offended or that she was wrong. Even with the things she misunderstood, it clearly showed that I hadn't explained them enough. The things she did point out? If I agreed with it, I changed it; if I didn't agree, I made sure I fixed the details so they could showcase what I meant.

ER: In Kinetic, the characters have some pretty amazing powers. [Note: accurate to my biographical details so far . . .] Other than the superpower stuff, do your characters say or do things you'd never do in real life?

SKA: Yes, I'm a chicken. I wouldn't be running into the line of fire like they do.

ER: When you're writing controversial scenes, do you have a voice in the back of your mind that says, "Remember, your boss/neighbor/friend/pastor is going to see this and think you're a drug addict/pervert/big meanie"?

SKA: Yes! Kinetic was darker, actually. I deleted a lot of things, and in the end, I'm happy I did. Looking back now they were stupid. 

ER: How do you make that voice shut up?

SKA: I give it wine.

ER: Is it hard to get rid of things you've written? Put another way, have you ever had to sacrifice something cool for the sake of the story?

SKA: It's so odd . . . I find it difficult to sacrifice things I like but I have no problem hitting that "delete" button. I have a matter-of-fact way of looking at it: if it doesn't help or work, it has to go. I should say I copy/paste and hope I can use the ideas in the future, but I've also just deleted a lot. 

ER: Besides, it's not like I'm—I mean, you're—going to write only one book.

SKA: Exactly! I had already started Kevin's [book 2] last year, but I made changes to Kinetic that would come across here, so I had to delete stuff. Then I got close to 40k words and I got another idea—and out of that, I barely kept 7k. The rest is all new.

ER: Does it even resemble the original idea at all?

SKA: [laughs] Barely. I tell you, I like to delete. Ahem, YOU like to delete. By the way, take it easy on the deletions. My brain can hardly keep up with your changes, Lynda.

ER: You're so obedient to my brain wavy-ness. How about if I allow you to choose the title? After all, your name . . . one of your names . . . is going to be on the front.

SKA: Oh, can I? Can I?

ER: Unless you want me to call it Telepathic: Mildred Speaks. 

SKA: Hang on, I think I feel the brain waves doing something to me; it's almost electrifying and white-noise-ish. I am at a standstill . . . hold on . . .

I think: STATIC.

ER: That was my second choice, I swear!

SKA: I'll bet! So, dear Annie Fox . . . I mean, Lynda . . . does Static (The Luminaries #2) work for you?

ER: Yes, indeed, it does.

You can find S.K. Anthony in a number of places. She's on Twitter @SKathAnthony, her website is www.skanthony.com, her Facebook page is S Katherine Anthony, and on occasional occasions, she'll be right here with me, drinking coffee and laughing it up over our latest plans and schemes. And possibly even talking about books and writing. Her band, The Loudermilks, will be posting videos to YouTube at a future date.

Author Interview with Stephen Fender

Believe it or not, this is still my blog; I just happen to have a lot to say about Stephen Fender lately. Contrary to rumor, he has not instigated a hostile (or friendly) takeover. He has his own blog, and it's nicer than mine, so if anyone is going to seize anything, I'm going over there and taking his, as soon as I figure out how to change the photo of him to a photo of me. But that's not why I've brought you here today.

Today, I'm happy to tell you a little more about Stephen Fender. Stephen is the author of The Kestrel Saga, a space military science fiction series, and has published three books in the series so far: The Army of Light, Icarus, and now Second Earth, which was released on December 1st. All are available through Amazon, in print form as well as electronic.

ER: Give us a brief rundown of the series.
SF: To be brief, the series follows Shawn Kestrel as he searches for his former commanding officer, Admiral William Graves. Along for the ride is William's beautiful but enigmatic daughter, Melissa. In the process of finding the whereabouts of William, Shawn and Melissa stumble upon a well-guarded secret the government has been trying desperately to keep under wraps.

ER: Tell us a little bit about when you caught the writing bug.
SF: I think it started when I joined the journalism staff for my high school newspaper. When I was offered the opinion page, I don't think I ever looked back.

ER: As a child, did you have a favorite book or genre, and did that influence your writing today?
SF: I've been a big fan of science fiction since I was a small boy. Growing up with amazing shows like Star Trek, Doctor Who, and The Twilight Zone, I was always enamored with other worlds and alien points of view.

ER: What cemented your decision to publish? Was it a natural progression for you, a life-altering Big Deal, or did you flip a coin?
SF: Well, I think it was from the family and friends' reviews of my work. The old "Hey, you should put this out there. I think people will buy it."  I recall being nervous about putting it out there, but considering I'd already pseudo-published some fan fiction work a few years earlier, I was only a bit hesitant. I think once I started getting positive reviews, it cemented the fact that I would continue to publish this series.

ER: So, the pseudo-published fan fiction . . . have you ever entertained the idea of going back and rewriting that someday, or do you just consider it to have been good practice?
SF: As far as the fan fiction is concerned, I found myself going back to it a few weeks ago. It'd been over a year since I'd done anything with that, and it was fun to get back into it. It was a lot like re-watching your favorite TV show from when you were a child. It's still on my plate, as I had committed myself to writing a series of four novels. Book 3 is halfway done, so I may finish it at some point. As far as practice, I found that it was extremely helpful. I'd recommend it [fan fic] to anyone who wants to pursue writing as a career. It's a good way to break your personal ice, considering you probably know enough about the established story to create your own interpretation.

ER: What type of atmosphere do you prefer when writing? Do you need peace and quiet? An empty house?
SF: When it comes to atmosphere, I've found that I can write just about anywhere. The first three novels of The Kestrel Saga were written while I commuted on a ferry to and from work. It's much like trying to write a novel while riding a city bus. You get the screaming children, the people who talk entirely too loud on their cell phones, and the rowdy football fans heading to and from the stadium. If you can write in a place like that, I'd think you can write anywhere. Lately I've been looking for more solitude, but since it's fleeting, I shrug it off and write wherever I can find the time.

ER: Do you play the Star Trek theme song when you're writing battle scenes? And do you have a playlist (mental or physical) that helps to put you in the right frame of mind for writing?
SF: I don't have a playlist in my mind—a musical one, anyway. I tend to think of epic scenes from movies, like the battle scenes in The Last of the Mohicans.

[ER pauses for two hours to run off and watch The Last of the Mohicans before continuing to type.]

SF: If I need to draw inspiration in the form of banter, I tend to think of movies like Lethal Weapon. Basically, the concept of every scene in my book has been played out in a movie somewhere. I think it's that way for almost anyone who writes a book, whether they know it or not. I draw upon the creations of others, sort of like standing on the shoulders of giants, and inject my own story into memorable scenes from various motion pictures.

ER: Have you ever had a terrific scene in your head with no possible way to adequately describe it so others can "see" it as you do?
SF: I don't think I've ever not been able to describe a scene to my readers. Sometimes I can falter on specific details of my own imagination, however. Usually it's like, "I know what I want to describe, but it hasn't been invented yet. How do I cross that bridge? I'm not an engineer or a designer." That's usually when I turn to Internet research. Chances are, someone has gotten close to what I want in the form of artwork. I blend their image with my imagination, and the scene is born.

ER: Who is the first person to ever read your work? Were you nervous about having someone read it in case they hated it, or did you choose someone safe who would be supportive no matter what?
SF: My wife has always been my first reader. She's my sounding board. Since she knows me, then I trust that she knows where I'm coming from in relation to certain scenes or characters. Her honesty, while sometimes brutal, is gloriously helpful.

ER: Do you use beta readers, and if so, how did you find people whose opinion you'd trust?
SF: The only beta readers I've gotten so far are family and the very closest of friends. I trust their opinions implicitly. Having said that, now that more of my work is out there and I have a fan base, I may begin to pull from my own readers for upcoming titles . . . if they're interested.

ER: How many times would you estimate you end up reading through your manuscript before you decide it's as good as you're going to get it on your own?
SF: I give it at least two reads before I make my editor suffer through all my missed mistakes.

ER: When people find out you're an author, do they treat you differently? Ask what your "real" job is? Fawn over you and ask for free books? Try to sell you their "sure thing" idea for your next book?
SF: When I tell people I'm an author, they have always assumed it's my primary job. Their next question is, "What have you written?" which is followed by, "Can I get it on Amazon?"

ER: Has anyone you know ever seen themselves in one of your characters, and been flattered (or accused you of maligning their character)?
SF: I'm not sure if people can see parts of themselves. At least, they've never told me so. I would hope that they do, if even just a little. As far as my characters are concerned, I've already put people I know in my novels; they just don't know it.

ER: Has self-publishing been a big learning curve for you, or fairly simple?
SF: Self-publishing has definitely been a learning curve. I'm constantly learning something new about owning my own business. 

ER: Where do you see your writing headed? I know you have a few books in the works right now, so this would be the place to get us psyched about those.
SF: I have a new novel planned which falls outside of this series. It deals with an alternate version of history and the events leading up to World War II. I'm hoping to have it done by mid-2014, but we'll see. I've also got a few more novels planned for The Kestrel Saga, both in terms of continuing the story as well as a few prequel-types.

ER: Do you have plans for novels outside your favorite genre, or does it all keep coming back to science fiction for you? 
SF: I don't plan on going outside of science fiction at this point. It's what I love to write. 

ER: What's the one question you wish an interviewer would ask, but they never do?
SF: Most interviewers never ask about my hobbies outside of writing. I have a few, but I can't currently think of them without placing them in some sort of science fiction setting. 

ER: Do you ever wish your editor would go back to calling you Mr. Fender and finally give you the respect you deserve?
SF: I like my editor just the way she is, and I'm glad she's still calling me anything . . . just as long as she keeps calling. 

You can find Stephen Fender at his website: www.StephenFender.com
He's also on Twitter @StephenAFender
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stephen-Fender/144771018947485?ref=br_tf
Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/7122975.Stephen_A_Fender
Amazon author page: http://amzn.com/e/B00E9X1CNS