Writing Priorities

It's actually pretty easy to be a writer - you just write. To be an author, to have your books published, whether by yourself or a third party publisher, that takes a lot more, and it can be hard to figure out how to use your limited time wisely. The classic advice is that you should write every day. Write what you know and keep writing, that's what makes you a better writer. It's true, and writing is the most important thing in becoming an author, but you have to fit a lot of other things in there as well.

First, you have to edit. Some people count that as writing, but it's really different. It's fun to create something new, to turn a blank page into a story and to watch the magic that happens, never quite knowing where your characters will lead you, even if you are a planner. But if you want to improve you need to go back and fix all the mistakes that you made the first time through. You need to re-examine your grammar, your story structure, your pacing, your choice of voice and setting, your side stories, your conclusion, everything.

Once you've made a story the best you can, you then get feedback, take a little time off, and come up with ways to make it even better. A lot of this work should also benefit you when you start the next shiny new project, making your first drafts better and your final drafts better still. It takes a lot of time to edit, even more to edit and improve, but that's what's necessary to become an author - you need to make the writing the best it can be.

But your manuscript is only one part of publishing these days. If you want a big publishing contract (or even a smallish one), you'll need an agent. That takes time: researching agents, researching agencies, following agents on twitter, studying the market, writing a query, revising the query, entering pitch contests, submitting queries, waiting for replies, doing revisions and resubmitting. All these things take time and effort, but aren't nearly as fun or freeing as writing.

These days you also need to build a platform. Okay, maybe you don't have to. You can still get an agent and get published without a website or social media campaign, but it seems like it's getting harder. Agents and publishers definitely check out your presence before making offers. And if your goal is to sell books, at some point you're going to need that platform. That means either time or money - probably both. Building a website, interacting on Twitter/Facebook/Instagram, writing a blog or a Tumblr, reviewing books on Goodreads (which brings up another time-suck: you have to be reading voraciously to know your market and observe the trends).

So what's most important? Where do you spend your time? Writing, editing, reading, marketing, researching, or even just building up life experiences to draw from? I've been struggling with this lately as I've been very busy with a full time job, a new house, a new marriage, a plan for the future, and trying to be a good friend and enjoy my life a little bit. Writing comes first for me, but I always have new ideas that are waiting to be written. I have to discipline myself to follow a project through to completion.

For me, editing takes longer than the first draft. I budget more time for it than anything else, and I think it's where my writing improves the most, not only for the current project but for all future ones. I'm in this for the long haul so the future is where I aim my efforts. I do blog, but not as much as I once did. I blog when I have something to say and it helps me get words out and focus my mind on my actions (like this post is doing right now). I take the agenting process slowly. While I'd love to find an agent, I don't have the time to devote myself to it and it feels like an amorphous goal so I do it piecemeal and trust that over time it will work out.

I've cut back on the social side of platform building, but I haven't abandoned it. I keep my toes wet, keep my website live and stop in to twitter or some forums on occasion. I'd like to spend more time and I know it could pay off, but it can also eat up all your social time. I like to save a big chunk of that for real life people, for doing things in the physical world. I know I need that to be healthy and happy, and that's as important to me as becoming a successful author.

I don't write everyday, but most days I do some work towards my goal. What that is depends on where I am in a project, so I let my time and intensity vary with the other demands of life. The more my time is crunched, the more I try to keep editing, since it's the most valuable to me, and the less I spend on social media and agent hunting. When I feel overwhelmed or unmotivated, that's when I turn back to writing something new, even if it's just a flash story, to inspire me.

I will never stop writing, and I do put in a lot of time towards the publishing goal in addition to the fun tasks. But I am more than a writer and I always want to be so. Maybe my lack of single-minded determination, my unwillingness to make myself miserable and sacrifice the other aspects of my life will slow down (or stop) my goal of being an author. But I'm making that choice deliberately and I'm happy with it. I'm still a writer and always will be.

Getting Paid

There's been a recent kerfuffle over the question of when and how a writer should get paid. Some people even bring up the question of whether a writer deserves to get paid, and if our current system of publication (and all it's options) is beneficial or harmful to writers. I don't have all the answers, but I feel it's important to point out some truths.

First, I have never understood the sentiment that somehow artists are supposed to be above money. That we create because we're inspired by our art and that getting paid diminishes it. True artists would continue their craft regardless of pay; they do art because they must, not because it's a job. Sorry - I just don't feel that artists are a special class of people, better than everyone else out there who needs to work for a living.

Don't get me wrong, I think writers (and all artists) are wonderful people who do something truly special and contribute to society in a very necessary way. The ability to create a story out of the depths of your imagination, to take a blank page and bring it to life with characters we care about - that's amazing.

But to be able to take some grain, water, and a little yeast and turn it into a warm and filling bread that provides sustenance to the world - that's amazing. To be able to impart wisdom to the youth, to inspire children to learn, grow, develop, and become contributing members of society - that's amazing. To be able to forecast derivative prices by understanding the complex intertwinings of financial markets - well, I guess that's probably amazing too.

Lots of people do special things. Lots of people love their work and have a passion for it. The idea that those people shouldn't get paid while the people who do something they don't really like but need to pay their rent and provide for their family should get paid - how does that make sense? People deserve to get paid if what they do has value to society. If you think art has any value, that in some way it makes our world better and is worthwhile to have around, then artists deserve to get paid.

How much, how often, when in the process - those are all questions for the market to figure out. If people are willing to pay an author ahead of time for their work (like an advance, or crowdfunding) then that's fine. Lots of other people get paid up front. If you personally don't want to buy something until you can have it in your hands (maybe metaphorically) and look it over, then that's fine too. Each consumer has the option of how to spend their money and shouldn't begrudge someone else their choice.

Should writers get paid enough to make a living from their art? Again, the marketplace will decide. Right now there is a lot of growth in self-publishing and support from writers for the Amazon model of direct to consumer efficiency and egalitarianism. But it's important to note that if the half million self-publishers out there equally split up the publishing pie, everyone's going to be hungry. Except Amazon. Amazon is taking their cut from the whole pie, so they don't really care how the rest of it gets divided up. I do believe they want to keep growing the pie, which is good, but as fast as that pie grows I feel the number of people lining up with forks will grow faster. So who wins in this game?

It's a very important question to consider who ends up being able to write for a living. If writing doesn't make enough money to provide for a basic life, then lots of folks are going to have to do something else. The people who can afford to write will be those who already have money, those who can live off their inheritance or a wealthy spouse, those who can afford to pay for their own marketing up front in order to enhance their piece of the pie on the back end. Those who are generally white and privileged.

I see that as bad for the art. I think art thrives when it receives contributions from many viewpoints, from those who don't live in a world that consists of nothing but art. Great art doesn't come from it's own struggle to exist, but from its creator's struggles with life. Some of the best stories come from those who live the hardest lives, but to expect those books will rise above the fray on the strength of their words alone denies the realities of the marketplace (and our world). In publishing, like so many aspects of life, money screams louder than beauty. I want great art to be rewarded well enough to allow the artist to create more. An artist should be willing to suffer for their art - but perpetual suffering shouldn't be a requisite for it.

I believe that writers deserve to get paid for their work, and I hope the system continues to find a way to pay them enough to be able to write for a living. That's my goal. I don't need millions. I don't care about fame or celebrity. I don't even care if anyone knows my name. But I love to write and I want to put the many stories that fill my head down on paper. I want to be able to take the time to develop them, to improve my prose and hone my craft. I want to create beautiful things that other people will enjoy. But my first priority is to put bread on my table and create a good environment to raise a child. If I have to choose between the two, many of my stories will go untold. That may or may not be a loss to the world, but it will be a big loss to me.

Why I Don't Review Books

As an aspiring author, I try to do all the right things. The main thing is to write, and to improve my writing. That always comes first. But you're also expected to build a platform. You're supposed to make yourself into a brand and interact with the wide world out there. Build a website (check), start a blog (check - you're reading it right now!), go on Twitter (check) and Facebook (check), review books on Goodreads (UNCHECK). Reviewing books is something I've had problems with.

It's not that I don't read - I definitely do. It's not that I don't have opinions about books - I have opinions about everything. But I find myself conflicted over the real purpose and values of reviews, and how authors reviewing authors fits into that world.

For me, the validity of a review for anything comes from the fact that the reviewer doesn't have any material interest in the product. I need to believe that they have no reason to be partial, one way or the other. Otherwise, how can I trust what they say?

All authors have an inherent interest in other authors. There is a certain truth to the fact that books are competition for each other. I wouldn't expect Pepsi to give me an unbiased opinion of a new Coke product. But lots of folks in the writing game take a different view - that we are all coworkers, that authors have a tough go of it and we all need to support each other. That's how I feel. But once again, that leads to bias. I don't look to a Google Maps engineer to give me the real lowdown on a new Google Phone product.

And beyond just authors, anyone involved in the publishing industry may have ulterior motives for what they say about a book. Agents supporting their agency's clients, editors talking up a friend's project, publisher knocking a self-published novel. I've seen all of that happen and don't know if it's true opinion or otherwise motivated. There's the appearance of possible impropriety, even if there isn't any actual wrong-doing. They may be completely honest and totally fair. But if I don't know them, I don't know if that's the case. And if I were to put my own opinions out there, I would just be adding to the confusion.

Besides, if I were to review books in general I would have to give negative reviews. I enjoy most of the books I read but I also find things that bother me in almost all of them. It's part of the writer's critical eye. If I censored that out (because I don't want to be critical of my fellow writers) it would undermine everything positive I said.

So I stay out of the review game except for a few exceptions. If a book is wildly successful I feel free to criticize it knowing I can't do any damage. If it's a book I love and I feel there are useful things to learn and discuss from a book, then I might bring it up here. But I'm not comfortable with reviewing in general.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I'm really not sure I'm right about it. I've heard some good arguments from others who choose to review. They feel it helps their readers get to know more about them, that as authors they have good insight into what makes a book good or what is lacking. Valid points. And their reviews don't bother me in the least (reviews should never bother anyone - we're all free to ignore those we don't want to give credence to for whatever reason). Everyone gets to make their own choices here.

And I do like the anonymous nature of statistics when looking at the overall ratings of a book. That gives me the opinion of the masses - an opinion I rarely agree with on anything, books included. But I'm also quite likely to read a book that gets rave reviews just to find out why other people like it so much, even if I know I won't. So review sites can be quite useful in that way, at least for me.

When choosing what books I read for enjoyment - that I only trust myself. I know what type of books I like. I'm good at picking out from reviews the information I want to get. I'm good at deciphering back-cover copy and reading a quick excerpt to judge the style of a book (from the middle - never trust the beginning of a book). I also have a few people out there whose opinions I have come to trust, so I'll listen to what they say a little more closely. But in the end, I try to let the book stand on it's own, and make my own choices for what lands on my bookshelf. I urge others to do the same.

Diversity as a Buzzword

There's been a lot of talk lately in the writing world about diversity. This is a good thing. I wholeheartedly approve of the WeNeedDiverseBooks campaign and I think discussions of difficult or controversial topics are necessary for progress. But I've seen a trend in the marketing of books that has turned diversity into a buzzword, and I'm not as happy about that.

For me, it's all about story. Story is what makes a book good. Story should be what sells a book. Stories can include diversity, and I think that more stories with diversity as a part of them are a good thing for everyone. But sometimes it feels like diversity is seen as a replacement for story. Maybe not in the work itself, but often in the selling of it. It comes from authors trying to 'sell' their book to an agent. It comes from agents trying to sell books to publishers, from publishers trying to sell books to readers, and readers trying to sell books to themselves.

During some recent twitter pitch sessions - where aspiring authors try to attract an agent by describing their book in twenty words - I've seen good and bad examples of including diversity.

A good pitch should sell the story. It generally involves the main character, the main conflict, and the stakes. It takes a framework, like: thief needs to steal diamond to pay off mob; and turns it into something more specific and compelling:

Bisexual jewel thief must pull off the heist of his lifetime to save his estranged girlfriend from a psychotic mafia boss ex-lover.

But I saw a few pitches that went something like this: LGBT thief must steal diamond to save lover from mafia. Diverse cast.

Now, to be fair, the story might be the same in both examples. It could be a great story that represents many diverse characters in a realistic way that adds to the complexity and believability of the storyline. But there's a difference in saying that my story is worthwhile and includes diversity, and saying my story is worthwhile because it includes diversity.

I recently saw an agent touting a successful query for a diverse book, and my honest thought was that the query was entirely generic and bland, with lots of 'save the world', 'must figure things out' catch phrases that mean nothing. But it stated that the MC was queer and that it involved a M/M relationship. I haven't read the book, but the reviews are very positive and digging deeper it sounds like a great story. I just don't like that fact that it's considered a good query because it says 'queer', whereas I'm confident it would be considered an average pitch without that word.

I'm fine with the fact that the gatekeepers in this industry need to be looking for diverse stories, and the only way that minority stories will get represented is if there's a conscious effort to find them and hold them up for attention. But I feel that there must be enough great stories out there with these elements that we don't need to start our bartering with simplistic phrases. I want agents (and everyone) to hold diversity to the same standard as the rest of the ideas that populate books. I'm confident that diversity can handle it, that writers of diversity exist with the same skills and qualities as any other writing group. Maybe the fact that it's buzzing is a step in the right direction. But buzzwords are always a shortcut, and I think we deserve better than that in the end.

Writing, a semi-creative endeavor

The professional world of writing is a world of paradoxes. You need to follow the rules but know how to break them. You need to write everyday but you need to build a platform. You can't chase the trends but those who buy your book do. You must engage with your fans but never your reviewers. It can be tricky for a writer to figure out what's the correct thing to do and which hat you need to where for what occasion. It's far more difficult than simply writing.

This is why I'm beginning to consider writing a semi-creative endeavor. Even the most creative aspect, actually writing a story, has limitations and constraints. And outside writing, it takes a lot of disciplined, plug-in-the-pieces hard work to be a successful writer. The key thing is to find the balance that allows your creativity to shine through, combined with the nuts and bolts that put you in the best position to succeed.

Creativity is about spontaneity. It's about doing what your heart tells you and what feels right. It's a mental state full of joy, anger, exhilaration, frustration, and passion. It's what draws most people to the page, the reason we want to be writers. The realization that it isn't enough can be a let down.

For me, the answer is to learn to love both sides of the equation. Sure, I appreciate a fine meal, a masterful creation of a great chef. The combination of tastes, colors, textures; a unique blend that instills a sense of wonder and delight when the first morsel hits your palate.

But I also love In-N-Out (or McDonalds for you non-Californians). The brutal efficiency of a system that churns out food that's the same every time, put together by high school kids working on an assembly line with little or no thought towards what they're making. It's so efficient and functional that it's beautiful.

The idea of making a master chef follow a recipe book is sacrilegious. The thought of what would come out of a kitchen filled with random kids given no instructions is downright terrifying. As a writer, you have to learn when to cook and when to put your head down and do the job.

I've been putting my head down a lot lately, and after a while your neck gets stiff and it's hard to look up. It's important to stay flexible, to come back to the well that feeds your creative side, and open your eyes to the big, bold world out there. To all you fellow writers struggling with real life, and to those lost in the dreamworld of your own creation, enjoy the ride and find the beauty everywhere.

Non-writer's Guide to Interacting with Writers

Most of my followers are writers, but this post is for those of you who are not writers but might come across that magnificent species as you go about your normal day. It's okay to approach them, but here are some tips to avoid spooking the sensitive creatures.

If you are a writer, maybe you’ll want to share this with friends and family, or even the world in general, so that they can understand us a little better. Writers are a diverse group, but I’ve found it’s very common for us to bond over the treatment we get from the people in our lives who don’t really understand what being a writer is all about. With that in mind, I thought I’d put out a few guidelines for those who don’t understand, because the more you know… well, the more the better, right?

Note: these suggestions don’t apply to people who do know what they’re talking about. If you are a writer, have a deep, intimate connection with a writer, work in the writing industry, or are just a super-smart, well-informed individual, then you’ll know how to treat a writer like a proper individual.

Don’t Patronize Us

The most common reaction when you tell someone you’re a writer is: that’s nice. Either the person thinks it’s a silly thing for a grown-up to be, akin to wanting to be an actor or cowboy, or they think that writing is something everyone can do, so it’s no big deal to say you’re a writer. Both are wrong. First off, writing a book is not easy, and just because everyone can put some words down on paper doesn’t mean everyone can do it. Being able to cut someone open with a knife doesn’t make you a surgeon. Writing is a craft; writing well is difficult; writing a compelling story, a full book, takes so much more than a general understanding of grammar. It takes a vivid imagination to create a world and in depth knowledge of reality to make a fantasy world realistic. It takes a keen understanding of human behavior to create fascinating characters. It takes years of study and practice to learn pacing, scene development, authorial voice, tension elements, theme building, and dialogue that reads like real life (without actually being at all realistic). Unless you’ve actually done it yourself, you don’t understand, and if you start by assuming it’s easy – well, you know what happens when you assume…

And the idea that wanting to be a writer is a silly dream is equally frustrating. Sure, it might be a passing fantasy for some folks, but most of the writers I know take it very seriously and put in the kind of effort to realize their dream that would overwhelm most folks who are too afraid to embrace life to the fullest. We know that success is not easy, and we’re not doing this to become rich and famous (though no one would complain about it). We write because we love it, because it gives us a great deal of joy, purpose, and satisfaction. We've chosen a route that we know is difficult and put all our effort into achieving success. I wish more people would do that with their lives.

Do Ask Us About Our Book

Just like any other professional, most of us are happy to talk about our work. In fact, some of us are hard to stop once we get started. So feel free to ask us what kind of books we write. Ask us where we are in the process and what our goals are for the future - but only if you want to hear the answers. If you met a plumber, you might ask them whether they handle commercial buildings or private homes. Do they work for a national chain or run their own shop? Are they planning on opening branches or happy with their job as it is? Same type of questions apply to writing. But if you don't have the slightest interest in plumbing (or writing), then feel free to skip the questions and just wish us success.

Do Ask What We've Published

It can be a bit of an awkward question, since many writers haven't gotten published yet. But it's a fair question - just be prepared for the answer: nothing. Think of it this way, if you meet lawyer, do you ask them what cases they've won? If they've been a lawyer for a while, that might be okay. If they're fresh out of law school, it's likely to lead to a tense silence.

Corollary: Don’t Ask When Our Book Will Be Out

Most people have only the slightest idea of how the publishing world works, so they assume that once you’ve written a book – poof, it gets published. Writing a book is hard, getting it published is harder and out of our control. The traditional route involves finding an agent – that means convincing a stranger that your book is going to sell and they should work hard to help you, without any upfront payment, in hopes that you are correct. You have to convince them that you are worth their time when the other fifty people who approached them this week are not. Then you need to do the same with a publisher, getting them to spend the money to print and sell your book on the hope that the public will ultimately buy it. Even after you sell the book to the publisher it might take a year or two before it’s actually in print and available in a store. It’s not a fast process and much of it is out of our control. Trust us, we’d like to see our book published as soon as possible, but asking us when that will be is like asking us when the cable guy will show up for the installation. When we get to the point where we have an agent, a publishing contract, and a release date, we’ll be the first ones to let everyone know.

Don’t Suggest We Use Kickstarter

It always surprises me when people start to offer advice on how to publish a book even though they’ve never done it and have no idea what it really entails. Kind of like meeting a teacher and telling them about some article you read on Common Core and what they should be teaching the kids – as if they might never have heard of it or don't know how to do their job. If you are an expert on publishing, if you work in the industry, feel free to share away. Otherwise, trust that we know a little bit about the process, that maybe we've done the real research on the career we're pursuing. Just because your second cousin got their collection of poetry published by winning a local grant from the Kiwanis Club doesn’t mean that will work for our epic fantasy trilogy.

Don’t Suggest We Should Self-Publish

First, there’s nothing wrong with self-publishing. But it’s not as simple as that. People offer the suggestion like you can just self-publish and sit back as your book makes all kinds of money. That’s not the reality. Sure, it only takes a few minutes to upload your manuscript and make it available as an e-book. And it doesn’t take much more to do print-on-demand. But then what? It’s one of the half a million books that just sits in the ether and does nothing. To truly self-publish means taking on the job of publishing. It means doing cover design, text layout and typographic setting, marketing and distribution. It can be a great choice for some people and if you do it well you can achieve success. But it’s like telling a lawyer that they should just start their own practice. Unless you know them well, unless you know their specialty, their industry, their financial standing, their career goals, their skills and abilities – unless you know that  and more, you have no idea if self-publishing is a good choice. So maybe you should hold back on the career advice.

Don’t Say You’d Love To Read Our Book

Don’t offer to read our book unless you really mean it. Most people throw it out there the same way they say they’d love to see your new kitchen cabinets. That means they plan to spend five minutes looking at them, nodding appreciatively, and telling you how nice they look while trying to figure out how much you paid. Unless you know what genre we write, unless you read that genre and read regularly, unless you are actually going to put in the time and do it this century, don’t bother shining us on.

Some writers feel like their book is their baby. I’ve never been fond of that analogy, but our books are incredibly important to us. We put ourselves into them. Letting someone read your work is opening up your heart to them and laying yourself bare at your most vulnerable state. If you don’t want the responsibility of taking care of such strong emotions, don’t glibly offer to do so. We’re fine with people not reading our book – we know that it’s not for everyone. But nothing’s worse than someone saying that they’ll take the time to appreciate the months or years of suffering you’ve put into crafting a story, only to blow it off like it’s nothing. Books are not kitchen cabinets, don’t treat them (or us) like such.

Don't Ask How Much Money Our Book Will Make

First, we don't know. Some books make five thousand dollars, some five million. Some never sell and don't make anything. Even those who have sold books before don't know how much the next one will make. And it's always a tacky question to ask how much money someone makes. So unless you want to follow up by revealing your salary, then show a little respect and leave the question of money off the table.

Do Treat Us Like Normal Human Beings

Writing is a job, just like any other. Writers are people who work at that job, even if they don't get paid well (or at all). If you show our career path the same respect you would any other, then we'll get along fine. Don't assume you know about it because you've read a book - just because you drive a car doesn't mean you know how to design and build one. Like most interactions, give a little thought to the other person's perspective before you speak, and everything should go fine. I love it when someone asks about what it takes to be a writer, expresses interest in how publishing works, wants to know where I get my ideas. The chance to explain my world and educate others on something that I think it really cool is appreciated. And as a writer, I'm always interested in learning more about other people and what they do. We're all students, all teachers, and if you approach interactions in both capacities we'll all be the better for it.

Anything Else?

For you non-writers, hopefully this will give you a little insight into where us writers are coming from when we interact. And for you writers - feel free to share in the comments anything I've missed. What would you like non-writers to know about us?

Reading as a Writer: Prince of Thorns

I don't normally do book reviews because that's not what this blog is about. It's about writing and my journey in that world. But reading is a part of writing, and working at the craft has definitely influenced how and what I read, so it seems fair game to discuss a recent book that made me think about how my writing has influenced my reading.

Prince of Thorns by Mark Lawrence is a buzzy book in the fantasy world, supposedly turning everything about the genre on its head and receiving lots of praise as well as a fair share of criticism. Most of both center on the generally evil nature of the protagonist, an anti-hero who kills, tortures, and has little or no regard for morality in any sense of the word. For me, that was a non-issue, and once you get past the apparent shock value of a story following the 'bad buy', there's some really good stuff in there and some things that made me just roll my eyes and want to stop reading. WARNING - SPOILERS AHEAD.

I like books, I like stories, that's why I write them. Some I like better than others, but rarely do I not enjoy reading a book, as long as I can lose myself in another world for a period of time, I'm happy. I've spent the last several years working on my own stories, studying both the concepts of storytelling as well as the art of writing meaningful prose, it's given me a more critical eye and different measuring sticks I can use to judge a book, but in the end it's still a good book if I can get lost in it. That's where Prince of Thorns let me down.

First, I think Lawrence is an incredibly talented writer. Great prose, vivid characters, lovely little details that show his world. I feel like if he tackled something a little more conventional I would have loved it wholeheartedly. But Prince of Thorns is built on gimmick, more concerned with trying to subvert convention than really tell a good story. I was all too often aware of the author using some author trick to accomplish something, rather than the world developing as it should.

The first and most glaring problem for me was the voice. The story is told from the first person Point of View of a fourteen-year-old boy (except when it flashes back to when he was ten) named Jorg. Not once did I feel like I was in the mind of a fourteen-year-old.Now, this isn't your average kid, and his life included some pretty gruesome things done to him and done by him, so a certain world-weariness would fit. But a brutal, psychologically damaged kid is still different from an evil monster of an adult. Lawrence took great pains to explore Jorg's background and justify how he ended up where he was and how he was. And Jorg does have a great voice, just not believable for his age.

This isn't a YA book and I can understand why most readers would give him a pass and just accept that the voice works for the story. But I do write YA; I work very hard to try to make the voice match the age of my characters and it can be incredibly challenging. To me, it felt like Lawrence just didn't want to work that hard. I'm sure it was much easier to create the adult voice of a hard-bitten man and throw it on top of the fourteen-year-old character. The young age of Jorg does add to the story, but it's not a necessary part, it just makes it more shocking - that a kid could be so bad - and shock-value seems to be a lot of what he was going for.

Another problem that I consider lazy writing is the use of multiple deus-ex-machina plot developments. To his credit, Lawrence created a story were seemingly random or incredibly lucky (unrealistic) happenings are explained by 'magic'. A key trait of the main character is his rash nature and constant rushing into danger against all odds and common sense. He always survives, even when he doesn't - he's killed once and just comes back to life because, well, magic. You can get away with a little of this in epic fantasy - we all acknowledge that the 'chosen one' needs some lucky breaks to defeat the stronger enemy. But when that's the core of the plot, that the MC doesn't need a plan, or rational thought, or even to actually survive, then it takes all the tension out of it. Most of the set up seemed to just give the author another chance to point out how immoral the character was and that he survives through strength of will - his evilness/will to power is just that strong.

Again, I write plots, including epic fantasy. I even use magic as an underlying force in some of my stories. But I work really hard to make things plausible, to have the characters act within the rules of their world and for there to be consequences to their choices. Without that, the tension fades. By the end of Thorns, I found myself laughing at the implausible happenings and just waiting for the next silly instance, knowing that it would all work out for Jorg regardless of what he, or anyone else, did. That's not really what you want in a dark and 'shocking' saga.

I think in my younger days I would have enjoyed the book more. Been more willing to overlook these faults, or not even be able to articulate what was wrong. But I'm a writer now, and I hold myself to a high standard. I can't help but hold others to that same level. While I do admire Lawrence's skills, and admit that on many levels he's a better writer than I am, I am a little disappointed in the book and don't plan to continue the series. I'll wait for him to write a good story without falling back on gimmick and shock value - that I'd love to read.

Yet another Amazon vs. Hachette blog post

One of the most talked about topics in the publishing world these days is the ongoing contract dispute between Amazon and Hachette Publishing. Only those on the inside know the exact stakes that are being fought over, but enough info has leaked for most everyone to have a sense of the argument - though knowing facts has never been a prerequisite for stating an opinion on the internet. I am not an insider, I'm not involved in this fight in any material way, and I don't think my opinion is really worth adding to the scrum, but I do have something to say about the economics involved.

What has surprised me about the discussion is the fact that so many writers have taken sides, defending one or the other combatants as their champion, as if the fight is actually over the souls of the creative folks it affects. It's not. The fight is over money, profits for million/billion dollar companies. If anyone thinks that either side is on a noble quest, they really don't understand business.

That's not to say that the outcome won't affect writers. It will. And knowing that, it might very well behoove a writer to choose the side they think will benefit them the most and throw their support that way. Like everyone else in a free market system, we're supposed to look out for our own self interest. The problem is that different people legitimately have different interests and thus different (and quite correct) opinions over which side is 'right'.

Now Entering the Ring

The fight itself is over who gets to control the pricing of books, especially ebooks. Neither Amazon nor Hachette is suggesting that writers get that control; both want control of the final retail price of books published by Hachette (price control in general is a different topic - this battle is strictly over Hachette books). It's a simple truth that when a writer works with a publisher, they effectively give up control of pricing in the hopes that the publisher handles the business side of things in a way that maximizes their (the company's) profits which also maximizes the author's royalties. Hachette is fighting to do exactly that. So is Amazon.

As an economics major, I simplify the differences this way. Hachette's model (and that of the big publishers as a whole) is to find a 'select' group of writers, chosen for their quality and money-making potential, and sell their work at a premium that distinguishes it from random fare. Amazon is a retailer, and their business model is to sell as much of everything as possible, at the lowest price possible, to maximize market share. It will generate more revenue but likely distribute it over a larger number of products (thus diminishing the return on any individual product = fewer royalties for each author). Which side is best for you depends mostly on whether you are (or hope to be) in the 'select' group of published authors.

The War, not the Battle

There are some bigger questions at stake beyond self interest that I think are worth talking about, and once again an individual's position is likely to be determined where they stand in relation to the behemoths. It's worth considering how outcomes affect writers as a whole and what type of system we want to have in place to allow authors to earn enough to provide for the continued creation of fine pieces of literature (and by that, I mean good books of any stripe). For the free market is never really free and rarely arrives at the best solution for all of society - anyone who says differently hasn't taken a freshman Econ class.

The problem with the classical publisher model is that there are barriers to entry - the high cost of publishing lots of books - which creates limited competition. This allows publishers to act as gate-keepers and control the product, a good and bad thing. Good in  that it raises prices to a point where authors can make a living and continue to produce quality work. Bad in that it takes the choice of what is considered quality out of the consumer's direct control. As a consumer (reader), I appreciate that a big-publishing-company book is going to have a standard of quality that separates it from the large amount of garbage that gets produced by writers in general (and yes, I realize I'm one of those garbage producers at the moment). I also think that the system could expand to be more inclusive and I believe self-publishing has widened the range of materials available to the market. I think things are trending in a good direction, but ultimately I do want controls on the marketplace and royalties high enough so support those creating decent work - i.e. I want to be able to find high quality widgets made of steel, with good craftmanship, not just cheap plastic ones mass-produced in China.

The problem with Amazon is the future. While cheap prices may seem like a boon for the consumer, the truth is a little darker than that. Amazon has a huge market share and uses it's power to sell books under cost, thus driving out competitors (Barnes & Noble anyone?) and ultimately leading towards a monopoly. Even people who haven't had freshmen Econ should know that monopolies don't create optimum results for society. And Amazon is actually taking control on both ends - they are the single largest purchaser of ebooks from publishers (a monopsony), thus allowing them to dictate at what price they buy, regardless of what price is necessary for the survival of the producer of the goods (authors). Those who back the free market pricing of Amazon need to take a deep look and decided if the company's goals really match that ideal in the long term.
[A simple yet compelling write up of the situation by agent Andy Ross is found here, actually written years before the current situation with Hachette.]

And the Decision goes to...

There's no simple right or wrong here, no one answer that all authors should be fighting for. I just don't like to see authors fighting each other in a battle where the the true contestants are fighting for their own bottom line. Don't for a second think that a corporation ever has your best interest at heart - their only responsibility is to earn profits for the shareholders, and any benefits to anyone else are incidental. While a free market can lead to the best result for society, it's only a theoretical construct, about as meaningful as freshman physics calculations where we ignore friction and a rolling ball never stops. Book-selling has never been a free market and for many reasons it may be best that it not be. The question is what type of restraint ultimately serves the best interest of those interested in writing and reading good books. I'll let each person make their own call on that.

Update

The fight is over. Who won? Who knows. The details of the settlement between Amazon and Hachette haven't been released. Both claim victory. Personally, I think everyone has lost a little, especially us authors.

Lessons Learned from WriteOnCon 2014 - part 2

Last time I talked about what I had learned from the critique forums at WriteOnCon (read that post HERE for a refresher and more info on WriteOnCon itself). I do feel that the critiques were the best part of the conference for me, but I also participated in the Twitter Pitch sessions - sort of. I think I learned quite a bit in the process but my pitch was never selected so I didn't actually get any feedback and no agent ever laid eyes on it.

First, if you're not familiar with Twitter pitch sessions, you're not alone. I've been on and off Twitter for a couple years and never really connected with the medium. I don't like the 140 character limit and while I have come across a lot of cool people and learned interesting things about the publishing industry and agent preferences, in general it's just a giant time-suck that doesn't interest me. I have known for a while that a number of pitch contests exist on Twitter (#Pitchwars and #Pitmad to name a couple) and that they've actually helped people land agents, but I didn't put much stock in those facts. That's the background I brought with me to WriteOnCon.

The general idea of a contest is for people to submit a pitch for their manuscript through a tweet, tagging the appropriate contest so that whoever (hopefully an agent) is following that hashtag will see the pitch and respond. The WriteOnCon version was moderated, so everyone who wanted submitted a Twitter Pitch to the conference and they randomly selected which one would get tweeted and the agent would respond with feedback to each pitch. If yours didn't get chose (like mine), then you could at least see how agents were responding to the other pitches. I think I learned a few things from that process.

I now realize that twitter pitches are a useful and relatively easy way to try to attract the attention of an agent. I also confirmed (in my own mind) that tweets are short and relatively meaningless, showing the arbitrary nature of this industry in its results. It's good and it's bad, but it's part of the game you have to play.

The Good

A well-crafted tweet can outline the basic story idea and show some writing skill. But the responses of the agents didn't really depend on the quality, completeness, or clarity of the pitch. Poorly written pitches that didn't explain anything were shot down quickly, but most of the time the agents seemed to respond to the category of the pitch more than the content. If it was a fantasy re-telling, and the agent was looking for a fantasy re-telling, then they liked it. If it was urban fantasy, and that agent wasn't real psyched on the genre, then it was a pass. The quality of the pitch didn't matter much.

My take away was that it's important to lay out what your cool story idea is. Pretty much everyone has a cool story idea - that's actually the easy part of writing. Executing that story, putting your own touches and flair on an idea, that's the hard part. But you don't need to show that in a tweet. One agent asked for a partial of a tweet that simply said the story was a re-telling of a classic fairy tale, not bothering to share what made this version different. If your cool idea falls into what the agent is looking for, then they'll take a closer look. If not, doesn't really matter how cool you make your idea sound.

The Bad

The bad really goes along with the good - there isn't a whole lot you can do to help your pitch if it's not what the agent is looking for. Let's face it, some people come up with a catchy description that fits in a tweet, and some ideas are easily explained in such a small time frame (Buffy meets Godzilla), but that doesn't work for everyone and everything. I don't feel that writing skill is the same as Twitter catchiness, I don't believe that every story concept really breaks down into a mashup of two popular movies. More importantly, I don't believe that agents really do either.

Because what I saw come out of the pitch contest for the 'winners' was a request for a query and sample pages. Pretty much the same thing you get when you submit a blind query. Yeah, you might gain a little more advantage in that they will (most likely) look at your actually pages, but if your query letter, where you get a full page to explain and impress, doesn't do that job then it's highly unlikely that an agent would be interested in your sample pages anyway. So I'm entirely unconvinced that getting interest in your twitter pitch is that big an advantage and those who've had success through it would most likely have found success through the standard query route as well. That being said, any additional advantage is a good thing, and if it doesn't take much effort then it's worth it.

The Final

So it's worth taking a little time to come up with a twitter pitch for your project. It's worth a little time trying it out in an appropriate contest, but I don't recommend thinking of it as your best shot. It's more like one more arrow you're firing at the target, and the more you put in the air the more likely one will hit the bullseye. Take a look at the agents who might be reading your pitch and make sure they're someone you'd want to query. Clever is good, but really try to get across the basic story element and what makes your idea cool. If they like that, they're likely to want to read more.

In my efforts to come up with a Twitter pitch for SYNTHESIS, the book I'm querying at the moment, I came across an incredibly helpful blog by Gina Denny with 10 tips for writing a pitch. Following that advice, and trusting my own instincts, I came up with several versions. Let me know which one you like the most.

1. Chased by Alexander the Great, aided by Achilles, half-alien Emily wields ancient technology to rescue her mom.
2. Ageless aliens, Alexander the Great, Achilles. Emily half-human, caught between warring factions, wants to rescue mom.
3. Surprise, your boyfriend’s an alien. Your mom too. Half alien Emily is hunted for her DNA while she tries to rescue her mom.

4. Ageless aliens among us. Emily the first human hybrid. Caught between warring factions she just wants to save her mom.

Lessons Learned from WriteOnCon 2014 - part 1

WriteOnCon 2014 is officially in the books and I thought I'd summarize a few things I'm taking away from it. This isn't really anything new, and it applies to life in general as much as this particular online conference, so even if you have no idea what WriteOnCon is, these ideas still hold. (But if you write kidlit, you should definitely check it out next year!)

WriteOnCon consists of two major parts (though it had more in the past). First, and opening up a week ahead of the conference dates, are the critique forums, where attendees post their work - a query, the first 250 words, and the first 5 pages. Everyone critiques each other and if you get your stuff up there early it gives you the chance to make edits from the feedback so you're ready for the ninjas. Ninja agents are the other big draw to the forums - industry professionals troll the boards and make comments or even request submissions based on your work. There's a list of agents attending, but you don't know exactly who is commenting unless they private message you. And not everyone gets ninja comments - they pick and choose who and how they want to interact.

The other aspect of the conference are the 'live' events that happen over two days - the actual conference dates. Mostly this consists of twitter pitch sessions with an agent or editor, but they also had a couple of Q&A sessions with industry folks. Both the twitter pitches and questions are moderated and chosen at random, so there's no guarantee your stuff will show up. But you can follow along in real time and read the feedback from the pros for those who get selected.

My twitter pitch never saw the light of day, so I'm going to start off with what I learned from the forums - which really is general advice for critiquing and interacting with other writers.

Be positive!

This is actually a hard one for me - I'm used to critiques that focus on what needs to be improved and can come off as rather harsh. But everyone needs encouragement, especially when you are dealing with what amounts to a bunch of strangers. Not only is it nice to be nice, but people are more willing to critique your work if you've given them a positive critique. WriteOnCon is very good at being a place of support and positivity.

Be Honest

Positivity is not the same as flattery - you should speak up when something doesn't work for you or you see something in another's work that you consider a problem. A good critique is always going to point out things that can be improved. But take some extra time to say what you liked and what they are doing well. Then make suggestions for HOW to improve things - don't just say it sucks.

Be Specific

This is where I feel WriteOnCon can often miss. A lot of the feedback I see is very general - more voice, watch your punctuation. Even if someone wants to improve, they may not know how to do it. I try really hard to point out specific examples of things I think are wrong and then make concrete suggestions of how to improve it. I tell people where I think they should include a more personal expression, or highlight phrases that don't work for me. I don't expect everyone to just take my advice and make every change the way I suggest, but I think it's much easier for them to see exactly what I'm saying and deal with it however they want.

Be Selective

Ignoring advice is an important part of taking critique. Not everyone is right, especially a bunch of strangers of unknown experience and background. Heck, I've even seen agents give contradictory feedback to a person. How do you know who to listen to? For me, I always start with patterns. If lots of people are saying the same thing, then they're probably right. Second, I read the writing of the person who critiques me - if I like their writing then following their advice is likely to help me improve (though not always). But at the end of the day, I'm my own writer. I get to decide what I want my writing to be. The important thing is to understand the suggestions you've been given before you dismiss them.

Be Patient

Another pattern that I noticed this year was in the rate of revisions. Those that made quick revisions, and did it repeatedly, often after a single comment from a single person, normally wasted a lot of time. They would fix one thing but not another; they would change one line and not realize it screwed up the next line; they would spin themselves in circles changing things to please people and end up with a garbled mess. More than once someone would respond to my feedback on their fourth revision by saying that they had done what I suggested in version 2. The format of WriteOnCon, and the deadline to fix things before the agents show up, lend itself to rushing people. But that often creates more work and a worse result. Take in the feedback, wait for multiple eyes on your work, let it digest a bit, then incorporate what you think is best. This is a marathon, not a sprint; pace yourselves accordingly.

Conclusion

Overall, I had a very positive experience with WriteOnCon this year. I got some excellent feedback and feel I was able to incorporate it into both my query and my first chapter in a way that improved my work. I only got the briefest of feedback from a ninja agent - they thought my premise was interesting but I could cut a little voice out of the query (the feedback was definitely split on that point since several folks loved the lines the agent said to cut :), but in the end I came out stronger than when I entered. That's what you want out of any experience.

I also put together my first twitter pitch, even though it wasn't chosen for any of the live events. Now I have that in my pocket and next time I'll talk more about what I got out of those twitter sessions.

WriteOnCon: Fun, Feedback, & Ninjas!

Hey all, I'm busy over at WritOnCon and wanted to make sure everyone's heard about it - and hopefully heading over there as well. It's a fun online conference for writers of kidlit (basically from picture books through New Adult, with the all-important Young Adult in there). The official conference dates for 2014 are Aug. 26 & 27, but the truth is the fun has already started.

The main feature of WriteOnCon is the Forum. In addition to places for general discussions and contact-making, there are specific sub-forums for people to post their queries and samples of their work. Everyone gives each other feedback, which is always nice, but the best part is when the ninjas show up. Ninja agents, that is - undercover agents who read through the queries, offer critiques and perhaps even request a manuscript or two. The chance to get feedback from industry professionals (and it's an impressive list) is invaluable. I have my query, first 250 words, and first five pages from SYNTHESIS up there. It's already helped me tweak things a little and I'm hoping for some ninja attention this year.

There will be more events on the actual conference dates, include twitter pitches and some live sessions with the agents. But even if you can't make those dates, even if you don't get any ninja lovin', it's still a great place to meet some incredibly talented writers and make good connections. And best of all: It's totally FREE! You're welcome to donate to help cover the costs of running the site, but there's no pressure to do so. How awesome is that?

Hope to see folks over there - I'm BBBurke (not too hard to figure out :)

The Birthplace of Harry Potter

I recently returned from a vacation in Scotland which included a couple days sight-seeing in Edinburgh. I spent my junior year of college at the University, and it was fun to visit old haunts and reacquaint myself with beautiful city. It's the capital of Scotland, founded in the twelfth century, with the castle and many buildings on the Royal Mile dating from the sixteenth century. It's role in the history of Scotland, and its present importance to the country on the verge of independence, cannot be over-stated. It's also where J.K. Rowling wrote Harry Potter.

Specifically, she wrote the first book mostly at the Elephant House, a little coffee shop just down from the castle. That fact is now displayed quite prominently on the shop's front window. Quite a number of places mention their connection to Harry Potter, and we frequently saw tour groups being lead by someone in a wizard's robes. These groups mingled with the regular tours at places like St. Giles Cathedral and Greyfriar's Kirk, but the guides didn't point out the nation-changing weddings or historical characters (like Deacon Brodie, the inspiration for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde), instead they pointed to tombstones bearing names that matched fictional characters in the Potter series, or places J.K. was believed to have visited or gained inspiration from. It made me reflect a little on how a children's book will fit into the history texts of the future.

I have to admit, I still don't understand why Harry Potter was/is such a phenomenon. I read the first book years ago and stopped there because it didn't appeal to me. After my visit to Edinburgh I picked up the rest of the series and am working through them - got a long way on the flight back home. I do think it's a good middle-grade book, and the stories are well-crafted, but it seems too simple, too generic and stereotypical, with rather ordinary prose, to be held up as a classic of our times (though I have no doubt it will be considered so if only because of its unprecedented popularity).

Now, I'm not trying to bash anyone who likes the books. I have no problem with adults reading children's literature. Everyone can enjoy whatever they want and I think that Harry Potter expanded the world of readers and has done great things for books in general. It's just the analysis of what makes one book so successful while others languish in obscurity that's so hard to figure out - probably impossible, but worth the effort to learn what I can and bring it to my own writing.

Greyfriars Kirkyard

For instance, Harry is a rather undeserving hero in many ways. He was born to greatness - didn't do anything to earn it. He's got powerful magic right from the first book, even though he doesn't seem to work that hard in school. He's a natural flier, winning Quidditch matches right off the bat. He constantly breaks rules and does careless things that put himself and his friends (and the whole world) in danger. But at the end of the day he shows some moral fortitude and saves the day, so all is well. I see how this appeals to a twelve-year-old, but don't us adults know a little better?

And the rest of the characters are equally thin, especially the bad guys. Could the Dursleys be any more terrible people? Could Malfoy be any more generic of a bully? Why do Ron and Hermione reset to the same personality after each book, showing little growth or change from what happened last year? And why are all the adults so clueless? Even Dumbledore, who, at the end of every book, seems to have known what was happening all along, never figures out all the stupid things the kids are doing that could end in serious harm. Wizards are so clever but they can't figure out how a telephone works or how many stamps to put on an envelope. And how come the best wizarding school in the land has teachers that are totally incompetent or just plain awful human beings when it comes to interacting with students? It's all funny and silly but even as a child I would have been annoyed with the lack of depth and cut and dried good vs. evil message. Magic beans and silly candy only take you so far.

Heriot School (Hogwarts?)

So what is it that broadened the appeal of these books and swept up the world their rush to greatness? What is it that J.K. buried behind simple words and cookie-cutter characters that brings out such passion and inspires tours in a city with so much more to offer? I don't have a definite answer to that, but I think it's how she tapped into several fundamental story concepts that we all know and love. The orphan child whose real parents did love him; the mystery of who is the bad guy and how'd they do it in each book; the dream of an ordinary person who can save the day, not through hard work but just by being himself and so very special; and above all a world of magic that is full of wondrous things, even if they make no sense. A great mix of things to hook different people in different ways.

I do understand many of the elements that lead to the success of Harry Potter, but I ultimately think that success at that level comes from somewhere else. It's random, a cultural phenomenon that has no complete explanation and certainly no repeatable path to follow. Nothing deserves such success, and it certainly isn't earned, but in this day and age there are far worse things that rise to the top in various media. Harry Potter isn't for me, but it's a good book (or several). J.K. seems as good as person as any, and better than many, to be rewarded by the capriciousness of fate. I'll keep writing what appeals to me and hope it merits at least a little success.

We Need Diverse Books!

If you haven't already heard, a new campaign has been launched to increase diversity in children's literature. The hashtag is #weneeddiversebooks and you can follow the tumblr site here. I'm not involved in the organization of the campaign in any way, but do wholeheartedly support it. If you want more of the backstory and what all is entailed, check out this blog post by Ellen Oh.

In some ways, I feel it should be self-evident why we need diversity in literature. That the more stories the better, that disadvantaged minorities can be uplifted by stories featuring people like them, that the more inclusive our society is the more we all have to gain. But there is a counter argument that always comes up, and it actually has some merit. I want to look at the other side and give it due diligence, because you can't win an argument on the internet but you can discuss topics in a civilized manner. Really - it's allowed :)

No one actually says that diversity is a bad thing (if they do, they can be safely ignored). But some people worry that the push for diversity means attacking those who are not diverse. It's a worry that we will over-correct and any story with a white male protagonist will no longer be allowed. The fear is normally voiced by white males and those who have achieved success in the current system. It's perfectly natural and understandable. And it's actually a good point.

The thing is, diversity includes white males. It includes the majority. It has to, otherwise it isn't true diversity. A world where every character is a person of color, genderfluid, or a little green alien would be just as bad as the current situation. The people who are pushing for diversity need to understand and express this clearly - everyone, including the old guard, including white men in power, including those who have succeeded in the current system, is welcome in a diverse world.

The problem with the way things stand is that the playing field wasn't level when it was created. The argument that white male writers have a disproportionate amount of success and recognition because they have achieved (earned) it ignores the fact that they had a leg up to start with. The entire world (in this country at least) is geared for them and if you continue to let the status quo exist it will reinforce itself. There does need to be some tearing down, digging up the earth to flatten the high ground and fill in the holes that exist. Then things can be judged on their merit. Then we can let the better man (or woman or little green alien or whatever) win.

That does mean that diversity will get an extra push. That those without privilege will get more spotlight time and extra opportunities. It's not a head start but a chance to catch up. It's not about weighing down those in front, but distributing the load more fairly. Once we're all even, then the race can start again.

In the mean time, rest assured that people will still buy stories with white male protagonists. Good books will still sell because they're good (and bad books will still sell because many people have bad taste:). The world will not change overnight, but it does need to change. Diversity includes everyone, so everyone should be on board.

Additional:
There is an undercurrent to the argument against diversity that is a little darker. The whole discussion becomes a proxy for a simpler struggle, those in power want to keep it and those who are disadvantaged by the current system want to change it. I talked at length about it in this post on a similar theme in the science fiction/fantasy world. If the fight is about power, then it's going to get messy. If those who have it won't share, then a revolution is necessary. It's the history of the world repeated over and over, and the world of kidlit is no different.

Writer/Reader Power Trips

The internet is an endless land of conflict and strife. Well, that's not all that it is, but that seems to take up a lot of it. I think I understand a lot of why that happens, and mostly there's little to be learned or gained from flame wars. But sometimes there's a kernel of knowledge buried in there that might be helpful to pull from the debris.

Recently a writer wrote an article that in some ways attacked another writer. The full details aren't really important for this discussion, but one key thing is that they admitted they hadn't read the books they dissed. That bought them a lot of flak, and I think rightly so. But in a different instance, a reviewer dissed a book on GoodReads based on a few sample pages. A writer, but not the author of said book, called her out on it. Again I agree that it's not right to criticize a book's theme from only having read a few pages - though he could have phrased things better. But the internet attacked the writer for daring to question a reviewer, regardless of whether she read the book or not. Inconsistent much?

While there are differences in the situations, the basic action was the same: criticism of something without actually reading it. I couldn't figure out why the public response condemned the critique in one case and supported it in the other. It took me a while to puzzle it out, but I think I understand it now and it's kind of important. It's about power.

More accurately, it's about perceived power. The internet as a collective conscious (scary thought) is the public. It's the proletariat. The individuals don't have power themselves, but as a group they can wield a heavy club. They tend to whack those who they think have power, especially in an effort to protect their own. So readers seem to think that writers have power - at least those lucky enough to get published.

This makes sense. Readers look up to writers, often wish they could be writers. Writers get to make stories and get paid for it. Writers are few and famous. They have what we want and don't necessarily deserve it. Yeah, that's not really true, but I think it's an underlying belief out there.

So a published writer who critiques without reading is wrong - not because it hurts the actual author, but because it suggests an arrogance and opportunity that 'normal' people don't have. It's our betters thinking their better than us. But when a reader does the same, they're okay. We can't admit one of own is wrong, or we're admitting that our betters really are better.

It shouldn't be that way. The rules should apply the same to everyone and the collective community should judge on merits and not position. No one should critique a book without reading it, regardless of where they stand in the world. And if they do, the internet should calmly point out their error and give their opinion the lack of weight it deserves (OK, that's not going to happen. The internet will go into a frenzy of rabid hyperbole. But at least it should do it on the right side of the coin.)

As someone who is working hard to become a published author, I don't have much power. At the moment, I'm part of the masses. But if I do achieve some success, that will recast everything I've done before. These words will be viewed from a different perspective. I like to think that they'll hold up; that it doesn't matter what position I was in when I spoke. Truth should be the same in every direction.

But I'm not so sure that will be the case. I probably should be more careful with what I say now, knowing it could bite me on the ass later. Or, I could not worry about it and just eat the cake I'll have when I'm a rich and famous author. That sounds like more  fun :).