Followers, Readers, and Venn Diagrams

I don't actually like the Followers widget on the sidebar there. I mean, yes, it feels nice every time the number goes up, but it's misleading. Followers do not mean readers. Readers don't mean fans. Fans don't mean friends. And really, I think we all want our blog/Twitter/whatever followers to be one of those last two.

Getting followers is easy. Well, not easy -- it's a lot of work. But it's mostly within your control: comment on and follow 1,000 blogs, and you will instantly get 100 or more followers. Just like that. Elana Johnson has some great advice on getting lots of followers, and I agree with every one of her points. But followers do not mean readers.

Turning followers into readers is a bit harder, but still within your control. Just write something people want to read. It takes practice and (again) hard work to figure out topics both you and other people are interested in (hint: it's not you, not at first), but it can be done.

Now I'm not large enough in the public sphere to understand how readers become fans, though I do know how to make friends (be one). But here's a secret: it's not a progression. The diagram above is far too simple. In reality, it's more like this:

You can have readers who aren't followers. Friends who never read your blog. Followers who genuinely like you and would help you out, but don't have time to read all your posts. Readers who like your blog and like you, but aren't really a fan of your fiction.

It's a complicated world, but the encouraging bit is this: you don't have to get a lot of followers to be successful. You don't have to follow everyone who follows you. You don't have to chain yourself to that stupid widget.

I admit, things can change when blogging becomes part of your profession. In the comments of Elana's post, she points out that her editor sees a 1400-follower blog. In fact it's the only measuring tool an editor, or anyone else, has to see how popular a blog is. But Elana uses her blog to make money. If only 100 of those followers buy her books, that's 100 books she wouldn't have sold otherwise.

But most of us aren't there yet. If I got 500 more followers right now, what good would it do me, even if I could turn them into fans? Not much. Blogging for me is more of a long term investment, so I invest slowly. I use it for practice, for networking, and yes I'm looking for fans and friends, but only so I have some folks to celebrate with when I sell something. I don't need "followers" to do that.

Twittering from the Other Side of the World

I've been using Twitter for a while now, and I like it, really. It's how I met some of my favorite people. But often I get the feeling I use it differently from other people. A lot of that is just living on the other side of the world.

I don't know how Twitter is for you, but when I get on the computer in the morning, I'm greeted with 50-100 tweets from the folks I follow. I'm too obsessive-compulsive to NOT read them all, even though most of them are conversations long dead. Occasionally I find a piece of information or a link that makes me glad I searched through them, but that, of course, only reinforces my OCD.

This is why I have to limit who I follow. I WANT to follow everyone who follows me, but I can't. And I can't take part in most conversations that occur during the American day. I realized how big this was while we were in the States. I got to chat with EVERYBODY. I finally saw what Twitter was good for. Unfortunately, it's not very good for me.

So I just have to use it my way. I'll toss out a tweet when I wake up, maybe another before I go to bed. I respond to any mentions, even if it's hours later. Really, there's little else I can do. And every once in a while I'll get someone who stays up extra late, or someone from the UK, and have a really great conversation. That, really, is why I'm still on it.

How do you use Twitter? Do you read everything, or only whatever shows up when you're on? Do you follow everyone who follows you? Do you expect others to do the same?

(I want to ask something of the folks who don't use Twitter, but all I can think of is "Why don't you use it?" (A) That sounds rude, and (B) I already know most of the possible answers. But feel free to chime in even if you don't use Twitter. I never want to be exclusive.)

The Ocean

I'm sick, so today's post is short. This picture is from our recent trip to the US, in which my son sees the ocean for the first time (that he remembers).

"That's the ocean, Isaac. When you grow up, the Earth will be covered in it, and you'll be the most famous pirate in the world."

Marketing Books for Boys

Okay, sorry for that detour on Monday. That was a lot of videos to dump on you at once, but oh my gosh they're fun to watch. Next time you're bored, that's 25 minutes of free entertainment right there.

So, last Friday we talked about how boys actually do read OMIGOSHWHOKNEW?! Well you guys knew, for starters. The general (and thumbs-up scientific!) consensus seems to be that boys read, they just don't read a lot of YA. Probably, says the consensus, because there's not a lot of YA for them to read.

The thing is, guys like me -- most boys, too, I think -- will read a lot more than we're given credit for. I'm not going to go all the way and speak for all guys everywhere, but these are some of the things said about boy readers, along with how true (or untrue) I think they are.

Boys won't read books with romance. Not strictly true. I think a lot of boys will tolerate romance (that's kinda how we see it, sorry) so long as it's not the point. Look at the Harry Potter and Ender's Shadow series, the Mistborn trilogy, Graceling, or Hunger Games. All of these have romance -- Hunger Games even makes it an essential part of the conflict -- but because it's not the primary tension of the books, boys can read past it and still enjoy the ride.

Boys won't read books written by girls. Not true! Honestly when I was a boy I didn't even look at the author's name (unless I had to for a book report). You think the droves of boys who read Harry Potter didn't know "J. K." was a girl? So long as it was well-written and had characters I could identify with, I didn't really care where it came from.

Boys won't read books with girls on the cover. Okay yeah, pretty much. I mean, I'll read these now, but I wasn't so secure as a teen. Even as an adult, sticking a girl prominently on the cover -- without any guns or dragons or spaceships or anything -- tells me the folks who made the book don't really want me reading it anyway.

Boys won't read books with girly titles. True, but kind of subjective as to what constitutes a girly title. Red flag words include: girl, kiss, love, lips, pretty, diary, sweet, and affair. The thing is other guys are going to ask us what we're reading, and we'd much rather say Vampire Slayer than Pretty Lips Love Affair.

Boys won't read books with girl protagonists. Not true. Sure we want boy characters we can identify with, but we'll read pretty much anything if there's a chance someone gets stabbed, shot, or explodes.

Okay, so I did slip into talking about 'we' there, but in truth this is just my opinion. What's yours?

Japanese Game Shows

This post is entirely the fault of Natalie Whipple, who with a single YouTube link, got my family to spend all Saturday morning watching Japanese game show videos.

I love these things. You just don't get game shows like this in the States (even when they're taken directly from Japan). I think it's a combination of wacky challenges, insane costumes, and contestants who aren't afraid to ham it up, even if it means losing. Watch and enjoy.

1. In which contestants wearing bug costumes must navigate a scooter through a narrow passage. Try and figure out what their punishment is.
   
2. In which men in suits must charge up a treadmill, eat four cookies, and get to the end before time runs out.
   
3. My personal favorite, in which contestants must position themselves to squeeze through oddly-shaped holes in a moving wall.
   
4. In which players must successfully swing over a rolling log and onto a floating platform, while wearing the worst costumes imaginable.
   
5. A combination of 2 and 4, in which contestants must swing onto a moving treadmill, grab a platform, jump OFF said platform to grab another rope so they can land on the floating goal. (I'm not sure, but I think they put something in the water on these last two. Some of those contestants seem to be reacting to more than just cold.)
   

Boys Read! Stop Saying They Don't!

Every so often you get an article like "10 Tips to Get Boys to Read" or "Books Boys Will Actually Like". Or else you get someone super excited because, "Oh my gosh, it's a miracle. My son actually likes to read!"

Okay, listen. I'm all for encouraging anyone to read, especially kids. But this whole "boys don't read" thing has to stop. (A) It's not true and (B) it seems to be leading the publishing industry to the more sinister "boys don't read, so we better stop publishing books for them or else we'll lose money."

Start with me: I'm a boy, and I read. I always have. And I know other boys who read. My dad reads, my best friend MattyDub reads, my friend Cory reads, Bear, Emmet, Jamie (he reads like six books a week), Whytey, Mike, Dave...

Those are men, Adam. I thought we were talking about boys.

Fine. Forget the fact that most of those guys have been reading since they were boys. I've also got three teenage boys who come over every week to borrow every book I've got: Pratchett, Card, Tolkien, Rowling, Collins, Gaiman, Crichton, *DEEP BREATH* Asimov, Sanderson, Cashore, Brennan... (The only book I couldn't get them to borrow was Silver Phoenix, I suspect because of the girl on the cover -- sorry, Cindy, I tried).

Anecdotal evidence not good enough for you? All right. I searched for actual statistics on boys not reading and found a single article. I guess in 2002, for overall book reading (whatever that means), young men were at 43%.

That's not a lot, Adam.

I know, hang on. It also put girls at 59%. Fewer boys than girls, but not much. It's still A LOT OF BOYS READING. In a classroom of 30 kids, it means half of them read. Of those readers, 9 are girls and 6 are boys. Certainly enough that books should be published for them, right?

Well, no, apparently. The biggest push still seems to go to books with lips on the cover, "Kiss" in the title, or protagonists with pink, sparkly tasers (for the record, I'm very excited about Kiersten's book that comes out in 4 days, but you have to admit we boys are not the target audience).

There are exceptions, sure. But hearing from people in the industry, it sounds as though they're AFRAID to market books to boys. Jason Pinter suggests this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Publishers believe boys don't read, so they target their book at the biggest market (girls). Boys find only romance stories (with girls or unrealistically hot boys on the cover) and head for the comics section or out the door. Publishers say, "See? They didn't touch [obscure boy-oriented title stocked between "Girl's Rock" and "My Secret Desire" (totally made-up titles)]. They must not like to read at all!"

And the cycle continues.

Jason also says that if the industry pushes boy books, boys will come to read them, even if it's slow at first. I agree. But for now can we stop being surprised when we see boys reading? Can we just believe that a lot of boys DO read, even if it's a whole 15% fewer than the girls?

Cuz the statistic that really worries me is that half of the kids in that study DON'T read. Let's work on them instead, aye?

Writer Tips for MS Word (and to a Lesser Extent, Open Office)

There's lots of great novel-writing software out there, but chances are good you don't use it. Chances are, like everyone else in the industry, you use MS Word. But how do you use this thing -- designed for 10-page essays and well-outlined reports -- to keep track of 100,000 semi-organized words? How do you critique someone's novel so it won't be hard to find your notes or make use of them? Here's what I do. (Note: screenshots are from Office 2010, but all these features are available at least as far back as Office XP. Probably farther.)

DOCUMENT MAP
Also known as the Navigation Pane, this useful feature allows you to see all headings and sub-headings in your document at a glance. It appears on the left as an outline structure. You can click on any heading, and Word will automatically take you to that spot in your document. Also it will highlight the section where the cursor is at the moment, so you don't have to wonder which chapter you're in.

Unfortunately Word doesn't do this for you automatically. You have to tell it what your headings and sub-headings are. To do that, select a line of text, right-click, and choose "Paragraph...". Then look for a drop-box called Outline Level. In that box, "Body Text" is any text you do NOT want to show up in the Document Map. "Level 1" is for top-level headings, "Level 2" for sub-headings, and so on.

I use Level 1 for my chapter titles and Level 2 for each scene (enlarge the picture above to see what that looks like), but you can use it however you want. If you get tired of manually selecting outline levels, you can use Styles.

STYLES
In the toolbar on top, MS Word has a number of styles preset for you -- a list or drop-box with selections like 'Normal', 'Heading 1', 'Heading 2', etc. These are a quick and easy way to use consistent formatting throughout your document.

You probably won't want to use Word's default styles, but it's not hard to set up you're own. If you use them for the months (or years) it takes to write your novel, it's time well spent. Decide on a font, typeface (bold, italic, etc.), and an Outline Level, then save it as a new style. (I forget how it works in Office XP, but 2010 lets you select text, right-click, and choose "Save Selection as a New Quick Style...").

NOTES
This is my favorite feature of MS Word. Anywhere in the text, you can hit Ctrl-Alt-M (in Open Office, Ctrl-Alt-N) to add a note or comment in the margin.

I love it because it lets you type anything you want without screwing up the formatting or word count of the manuscript AND it's really easy to scroll through without missing a single note. (Open Office actually keeps track of Notes in the Navigation Pane, so it's even easier).

They're great for critiquing other people's manuscripts or just for making notes to yourself that you don't want to forget. In the screenshot, I've used it to record comments people made when Natalie workshopped my prologue. I also use it when I'm revising my own stuff and get stuck on something. Rather than sit there for an hour trying to think of a better phrase than "She ran", I'll add a note that I don't like it and come back to it later.

---

SIDEBAR: OPEN OFFICE
A quick note on Open Office. It's open-source software designed to do everything MS Office can do, but for free. That's a major plus, and if you're low on cash or want to go legal, you should check it out.

But even though it costs over $200 less than Microsoft, I'm hesitant to recommend it. Some of the things that bothered me (they might not bother you, so pay attention):

• Open Office lost outline levels when opening or saving from Word Doc format.
• Bulleted lists and outlines didn't play nice when swapped between OO and Word.
• For the life of me, I could not get OO to save my manuscript in RTF without totally screwing up the formatting. (This one made me particularly mad as an agent asked for my full in RTF format).
• OO's thesaurus sucks.
• This has nothing to do with novels, but MS Office has a nice feature that allows you to compress all pictures in a document or PowerPoint slideshow (meaning it reduces the size and resolution to what is actually displayed), thus significantly reducing the size of your document. Open Office doesn't do this, and as far as I can tell has no plans to.
• Numerous minor, mostly-cosmetic annoyances (many to do with Notes and Track Changes) that I would normally put up with if they were the only problems.

Now back to our regularly scheduled post.

---

TRACK CHANGES
Last one, then I'm out. You know how to use Track Changes, right? No? Man, it's the best way to do line edits. Turn the feature on (it's in Tools or Review or something) and then make any changes you want to your buddy's manuscript. Your changes will show up in a different color, making them easy to spot. Deletions will either be struckout or put in a Note on the side, so all the original text is still there. And of course you can add your own Notes to explain why you're making the change.

When your friend goes through the changes, they can cycle through each change individually, accepting or rejecting each one (so you don't have to manually make the changes if you don't want to). Optionally you can choose to accept or reject all changes at once.

So that's how I use Word. What program do you use for writing? If you use Word too, are there any features I neglected to mention that you find useful? (Maybe I don't know about them!).

Accomplishments

I feel a little weird just jumping back in with a post on writing, so here are some things I accomplished in the last two weeks:

1. I did not die. Surprisingly, no one else did either.
2. I discovered the most awesome Lando Calrissian ever:

3. My wife and I celebrated our 10th anniversary. We even got to go out!
4. I learned that no matter how many toys you have, Children A, B, C, and D will always fight over the one Child E has. (I already knew this, but I learned the theorem scales to any number of kids).
5. J. J. DeBenedictis enriched my life with this tiny, fully-functional cannon.
6. I discovered this guy's videos. They're kinda hilarious.
7. I had a weird/awesome dream about Dr. Horrible.
8. I learned how to say "Don't be bossy" in Thai. Repetition is key.
9. After a month's forced vacation (that only partially had to do with the new kids), I finally added 2,600 words to Cunning Folk.
10. I did not hear from a single agent.

There, I hope that's thorough. If it's not, we can do an informal question/answer session in the comments.

Hiatus

Those of you who follow me via other means may know we recently added to our family. That is, we added FOUR KIDS to our family.

Being as fatherhood is my primary job, and as these kids are far more important than writing, blogging, or even (dare I say it?) reading your blogs, I'm going to focus on them for a couple of weeks. So the blog will definitely be quiet. I probably won't be commenting on your blogs (though I'll try to read them when I can, honest), and my Twitter/Facebook updates will be focused on letting people know that I and the kids are still alive (so remember that a comment about Nathan eating trash bags means we're well and in good spirits).

Two weeks. I plan to be back on August 23rd, if only to say, "Hey, guys, I need another two weeks to love on these kids."

If you want to know how the kids are doing, what they look like, or how long it takes for five little boys to turn the rest of my hair gray, you can follow my other blog, Facebook, or Twitter (depending on your surfing preferences). I'll still be checking my e-mail too.

Otherwise I'll see you all in a couple of weeks.

Piracy Part 2: Culture Change

On Wednesday, I talked about how piracy isn't just a legal matter. It's an entire culture that believes digital media should be cheap or free, and that if it isn't, they have a right to pirate it.

How can you fight something like this? How do you fight a culture that looks at you like a freak just for obeying the law? I don't know how to change a whole culture, but I know it starts with the individual.

Do the right thing. It's hard to fight piracy if you pirate (though I guess there are levels of piracy, and you're welcome to fight at whatever level you're comfortable with, aye?). It can be super-hard to tell your friends you don't want to borrow their pirated DVDs (I know!), but doing so raises their awareness that maybe NOT everyone does it. It shows them some people still care (even if they think you're weird for caring).

Talk about piracy. Some people may have no idea what they're doing is illegal. Others figure that since "everybody" does it, it's okay. The more people talk about it, online or elsewhere, the more others will get that it's illegal. But while you're talking, remember...

Don't judge. This is probably the most important thing to remember. It's easy to care about piracy laws if you don't own anything pirated. But you have to understand that when you say, "Pirating is illegal," some people hear, "You're not a good person unless you throw away all your favorite stuff." Keep that in mind when you bring it up, and don't make it worse by hating on people who do it.

Know the law. There are a lot of myths about what is and is not legal, so it helps to do your homework. Loaning a book? Legal. Burning songs you own? Usually legal. Giving that burned CD to a friend? Probably not legal.

Support anti-piracy laws. One of the things that encouraged my wife's conviction was when the police cracked down on some of the illegal movie shops here in Chiang Mai. The law won't solve the problem, but it's easier to do the right thing if the authorities are doing something about it too.

I mean, I don't know how culture changes, but I figure this is a good start, yeah? What do you think? (By the way, there's no part 3, so if this mini-series was making you feel guilty don't worry. I'm done.)

Piracy Part 1: Free Culture

Piracy is a difficult topic for me. On one hand, I like free stuff and I'm a professional at justifications (we all are, really). On the other hand, the logical flaws in those justifications irk me no end. Plus, you know, my conscience.

Up until recently, we owned a fair amount of pirated stuff -- movies, music, software... Not because we are evil people, but because we live in a free culture. I can buy a DVD of any movie or TV show for $3, not in a back alley, but at a kiosk in the mall. To find legal software here, I have to walk past four illegal shops just for the privilege of paying 30x the price.

As we got rid of our illegal stuff, I realized the fight against piracy is not just about enforcing the law. Legislation and enforcement is part of it, sure, but free culture is powered more than anything by belief.

How do you fight it when your friend tells you about this awesome game that you just have to play with them. "Oh, I can't afford it," you say. "That's okay," they reply, "I made you a copy. Here."

Or you're homeschooling your kids, but curriculum costs more than you make in a month. "Don't worry," your friend says, "I'll copy my books for you at Kinko's."

Or say you love the TV show Babylon 5, but the entire box set is almost $300. What do you do when your friend gives you the whole set as a gift, knowing (because of the distorted disc labels and DVD jackets with Chinese on them) that he paid less than $50 for it?

That's what free culture looks like. When we got rid of our pirated stuff, we heard a lot of comments like, "I wish I could do that," or "You're just throwing it away!" or "I don't know how you can live like that in Thailand." (And these were from the missionary community).

When people believe that digital media is cheap to make, that corporations are extorting us, that everybody pirates and nobody gets hurt -- at that point it doesn't matter what the law is. People will look at you funny, even resent you, when you pay full price for stuff. In many ways, we're there already. I've got more to say, but that will have to wait until Friday.

In the meantime, I'm curious, what is piracy like in your own community? Is it something people look down on, or is it considered normal? Does anyone do it? Does everyone do it?

Networking for the Unpublished Loser

I hate networking. I hate small talk, I hate getting business cards I'll never use, and I hate feeling like I have to "connect" with people just so I can use them to further my career.

Thing is, that's the exact opposite of what networking is.

Networking is making friends. It's connecting with people and learning what they do. It's being yourself with others who are being themselves too.

Networking is following a contest winner because you really enjoyed their entry. Commenting on their blog because they're also into zombies and ninjas and pirates. Entering contests they run and discovering that you like each others' stories enough to swap critiques.

Networking is following an author whose book you enjoy. Friending them on Facebook. Discovering that you went to the same college and share a mutual friend. It's just talking.

Networking is following an agent's assistant on Twitter because they're funny. It's replying to their tweets in a (hopefully) funny, professional manner that gets them interested in your tweets. It's caring about their lives, even when things don't go well or they cease to work for an agent.

Sometimes I get a new critique partner out of networking. Sometimes I get someone willing to spread the word about a contest or a short story I got published. But whether or not they choose to be helpful to me, I always get a friend.

And sometimes I befriend someone who goes on to get an agent or a book deal, someone who--theoretically--could give me that Holy Grail of the unpublished: a referral. But here's the thing: if I did all this networking just to get a referral, I'd never get this far. People can smell Self Serving, and it stinks. Even now, I would think long and hard before asking for such a thing, simply because the friendships are more important to me than the (supposedly) quick path to getting published.

And that's the point. Networking isn't about using people. It's about finding friends. And the thing about friends is, when you really need them, they're there for you.

So that's my advice today. Be kind. Be funny. Be clever. But mostly, be a friend. Maybe that friendship will be useful to you some day, maybe not.

Hopefully, by then it won't matter.

"You Write Science Fiction? Oh, That's... Nice."

I'm always hesitant to tell people that I write. "Oh, cool! Like what?" they say.

I try to look them in the eye and smile, as if I'm not ashamed of what I'm going to say next. "Science fiction and fantasy. That kind of stuff."

The conversation then diverges to one of two places. On most people, you can see their face drop as they struggle to remember any SF/F they read in the last 10-50 years. They can't think of anything, but they don't want to offend me so they default to the polite, "Oh. That's nice."

Ah, but the OTHER reaction! The folks who light up and say, "Really? Like what?" And I get to tell them about my story and they actually think it's cool. Or they ask where my inspiration comes from, and we get to talk about things like Firefly and anime. Or they tell me about all their favorite SF/F books, and I get to tell them about mine.

It's worth the risk to find these people. It's worth having some folks glaze over my shelves of Card, Gaiman, and Pratchett for that one person who doesn't walk away scratching his head, who pulls down Neverwhere and says, "I love this book. Have you read Sandman?"

Now for all those people who aren't geeks but who like me anyway, I gotta say thank you. I know how hard it can be when something like Star Wars slips through my filter, and I'm halfway through a rant about George Lucas before I realize you're just smiling and nodding. You are awesome for talking to me again after that.

And for the rest of you geeks, I don't know why something as materialistic as comic books and movies should make us feel closer, but it does. Or maybe it just helps us to let our guards down so we can get to know the person behind the first impression. I don't know, but I'm always glad to find fellow geeks out there.

So You Want to Start a Blog...

Jodi Meadows (and Mary Kole before her) talked about writers and social media -- specifically blogs and whether unpublished authors should have them. Both posts are worth reading, and I pretty much liked all of their points, but it really got me thinking. Why do I blog? It takes up a significant percentage of my available work time. Is it worth it? What have I gained?

So, as I often do, I broke it down into lists. Here we go:

GOOD REASONS TO BLOG

1. Make friends. A blog is a place for people to get to know you, to connect with you. The writing friends I've met outside of blogging can be counted on one hand (one finger actually, and he's blogging now too, so...). You don't need a blog to make online friends, but it can help.
2. Learn how to be interesting. Both Mary and Jodi make the point that blogs shouldn't be boring. I agree, but I think it takes time to figure out how to do that (it took me like a year and a half, and I still struggle with being interesting 3x a week).
3. Find your blogging voice/your brand. This is related to the previous one. If you've never blogged, and you suddenly get a book deal and your publisher says, "You should really start a blog, like that Kiersten White girl," it may be difficult to just jump in and try to be funny or informative or whatever it is you're supposed to be.
4. See if blogging is something you want to do. While it can be good to start a blog early to find your voice, it's a terrible idea to keep blogging if it's something you don't enjoy doing. There are plenty of other ways to sell books, many of which you'll probably enjoy more. It might help to learn that sooner rather than later.
5. Practice summarizing. One common complaint about the query process is that writing a query or synopsis is so much different than writing a novel. That's true, but if you're serious about this business, summarizing your story is something you have to learn how to do. Talking about that story online is a good way to practice.

BAD REASONS TO BLOG

1. Sell books. Blogs don't sell books. Blogs CAN BE used to make friends, and friends SOMETIMES buy books. And when you're still unpublished, they can't even do that.
2. Impress an agent/editor. There's a myth that if you have a blog and a following, it'll make getting a book deal easier. Thing is, everyone has a blog and anyone can get a couple hundred followers if they're willing to hand out books to followers. But followers aren't always readers. Readers aren't always friends. And, as above, even friends don't always buy books.
3. Impress your wisdom upon the world. I'm thoroughly guilty of this one. I like to tell people what I'm learning, which is fine, but it often comes out as, "I've totally got this thing figured out, you guys. It's so easy." I, uh... I don't have the authority to say that.
4. Rant. I mean, of course you can rant a little. About angry retail customers. About whitewashed covers. About adults acting like children. But rant with class. And DON'T rant about those commercial whore sell-outs (or whatever) who are rejecting your novel.
5. Because everyone else is doing it. This is a bad reason to do anything. Blogging's no different.

Conclusion? I think unpublished writers can benefit from blogging if their goal is to make friends and practice blogging. I don't think it's a good idea to blog in order to build a platform for books you haven't sold yet (how do I know? Oh, I know).

Blogging takes a lot of time. The skills you learn don't always translate into fiction, and may never translate into book sales. But as long as you're intentional about what you're doing, and careful to keep your priorities straight, I think blogging can be beneficial to some.

Form Rejections

In honor of the Rejectionist's blog birthday, I give you a top 10 list of what form rejections REALLY mean:

#10
"If it makes you feel any better, getting this rejection means you're not on my blacklist. Yet."

#9
"My cat threw up on my keyboard, but I still have to answer these stupid queries."

#8
"No."

#7
"Your query did not give my computer a virus. Good work."

#6
"Congratulations. You successfully bypassed my spam filter."

#5
"On the bright side, that query service you hired sent it to at least one real agent."

#4
"I can only request 1 partial per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either."

#3
"I'm only rejecting you now because the queries never stop. They just keep coming and coming and coming, there's never a let-up. They're relentless. Every day they pile up more and more and more! And you gotta get them out, but the more you get them out the more they keep coming in. And then your computer freezes and it's the last day of NaNoWriMo!"

#2
"No!"

And the number one thing form rejections really mean...

#1
"This rejection means the same as if I said nothing. Except if I actually said nothing, you'd pester me with e-mails or (God forbid) phone calls asking why I haven't said SOMETHING. Even though you give your resume to hundreds of human resource departments without wondering if they received it. Even though you give your phone number to God-knows-how-many potential girl/boyfriends, yet never track them down to see if maybe they lost it. For whatever reason, those expectations do not apply to me.

"So consider this your non-interview. Your fake number. I am turning you down in the nicest way I have available to me. Please, please, PLEASE don't e-mail again asking why."


Happy birthday, Le R! Thank you for brightening our depressing, rejection-filled existences.

That Deeper Meaning Nonsense

When people admire art,* they often want to know what the artist meant by it. I get that. I do it myself. But honestly I don't really like "explaining" my art.

* I'm including books in this.

Part of it is plain old fear. If I have to explain it, it means I didn't do a good job of it, right? Or what if I explain it, and they don't like the deeper meaning of it, and therefore don't like the work? Orson Scott Card's Homecoming Saga is really thought-provoking science fiction, for example, but I know people who stop liking it when they find out it's patterned on the Book of Mormon.

Should that matter? Should the author's interpretation of what they wrote affect MY interpretation?

Shortly after it was published, someone wrote a review of my story "Pawn's Gambit". He really liked it (and I was bouncing for a few days after reading it), but here's what he got out of it:

We come to understand the true meaning of family, of love, of sacrifice. We have all had our differences with the ones we love, but even when we dislike our family we still do whatever it takes.

When I read that, I was all ==> O_o.

I mean, I see how he got that out of the story, but I can't say that's what I was trying to say. I can't say I was trying to say anything, really. It was just a fun adventure.

Does that invalidate his opinion? This is what the story meant to him. And like I said, he's not pulling it out of thin air. There IS family, love, and sacrifice in the story. There IS a father trying to rescue his daughter, even though his daughter wants nothing to do with him.

And who says I didn't mean all that, at least subconsciously? Fatherhood is something that's very dear to my heart, and a common theme in many of my favorite movies. So if it comes out in what I write -- even when I don't intend it -- I'm not surprised.

So what matters more? The author's intention, or what the reader brings into the text? Have you ever changed your opinion of a story because you found out the author didn't mean at all what you thought?

The e-Pocalypse Won't Be So Bad

Before we go anywhere, thank you to everyone who participated in Lurker(slash-Regulars) Week. I had fun, and I hope you did too. I'm not sure I trust the results (the first poll, in particular, seemed pretty buggy), but for what it's worth, here they are. We're going to talk about one in particular today:

E-books:
Good: 40%
Bad: 30%

I'm not sure where the other 30% disappeared to (thanks a lot, BlogPolls), but even without it, it's clear there are some fears concerning e-books. Personally I'm not so sure there's anything to be afraid of, but like any good sci-fi author, I asked "What if?" WHAT IF we took the e-book revolution to its extreme? What if paper books disappeared forever, and all we were left with were digital stories?

So consider this a thought experiment, and I guess an encouragement to not worry about the future -- to relax and enjoy the ride.

WHAT I'LL MISS

• New Book Smell. Yes. Hi. My name is Adam Heine, and I'm addicted to new book smell (also new card smell, but I understand they have a different group for that).
• Browsing a Bookstore. There is something nice about looking at all the books I COULD own, even if I'm never going to buy them (because, really, not all of them are that good).
• Showing Off My Library. I realized a while ago that one reason I like to own books is so people can come over, see my bookshelf, and instantly know if they're going to like me or not (and vice versa). Saves lots of time and needless small talk.
• Loaning Books. I know you can kind of, sort of loan with the Nook. And maybe they'll get better about that in the future, but until I can loan and borrow my e-books indefinitely (and more than once), I'll miss that aspect.*
• Being Able to Read During Take-Off/Landing. Hopefully by the time paper books are extinct, they'll have figured out a way to shield airplane electronics from other kinds. Otherwise those first and last few minutes of every flight are going to be mind-numbingly boring.

* There's also a significant discussion to be had here about libraries, but that's way beyond the scope of this post.


WHAT I WON'T MISS

• Waiting for a Book. Driving to the bookstore is a pain. Waiting days for shipping is worse.** But if I could have any book I want RIGHT NOW, I think I'll forget that books used to smell good. (And maybe by then they'll have put some kind of odor software on the e-readers, yes?).
• Standing in Line for Harry Potter #8. I've stood in line for movies before, but a book? No. Not in the 21st century. I'd prefer my pre-ordered, ultra-anticipated, sold-out-in-20-minutes bestseller to be sitting in my library before I even wake up that morning. Thank you.
• Browsing a Bookstore. While it's nice to look at books I could own, it sucks to drive all the way to the bookstore to find they don't have the book I want. But not in the future. The future will be like Amazon where I can buy every book ever made, but WITHOUT...
• Added Costs. That's right, folks. While I'm sure they'll find a way to tax e-books eventually, right now they remain tax free AND shipping free. (I'm aware the e-reader costs money, but it would pay for itself pretty quick, I'm thinking).
• Choosing Which Book to Take on a Trip. I'm neurotic. When I go on a trip, of course I take the book I'm currently reading, but what if I finish it? I need to pack two. I'd like to read Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell next, but it's freaking huge. So I grudgingly toss in another Patterson novel. In the future though? I'll have all my books with me, all the time. Which also means I won't miss...
• Forgetting to Take a Book on a Trip. The worst vacation I ever went on was when I forgot to bring a book. I know: talk to people, see the sights, blah, blah, BLAH. NO! I go on vacation to read, dangit! And if I have my wireless e-reader, not only do I have my entire library with me, but if I finish them all, I can instantly buy a new book.

** And if you think you have it bad, move to Thailand. When I buy books, I have to go through my contact list to see who is both (a) coming to visit soon and (b) willing to carry 20 hardbacks from Amazon for me. Then I have to wait for them to take their vacation.


WHAT I'M PRETTY SURE WON'T CHANGE

• Prices. I don't see book prices coming down much. Sorry. Believe it or not, it costs a lot to produce a book, even if you don't have to print it. (I mean, hello? People don't expect computer games to be $5 each. Do you think that $50 goes towards copying the CD and putting it in a box?).
• Reading in the Bathtub. I've never read in the bathtub (though granted I haven't been in one since I was 10), but I guess this is something people do. I don't see this as a problem. (A) You don't drop your book in the bathtub, why your e-reader? (B) If they can make waterproof radios, cameras, and (dear Lord) laptops, how hard can it be to tub-proof an e-reader?
• Kid's Reading. I've heard it said that parents won't let their kids use an expensive e-reader. First of all, I let my three year olds read BOOKS, which although less expensive are a lot easier to break (trust me). Secondly, during our time in the States I saw many, many kids, ages 3 and up, playing games and watching movies on iPods without once being in danger of destroying them (including my own son, who had never seen one before). If they can do that, they can read books on the things too. In fact, most parents would probably prefer it.
• Reading a Good Story. Honestly, I don't read books because I like smelling paper and flipping pages. I read them because I want a good story. Sure, computer screens give some people headaches (although aren't you reading on one right now?), but that will go away with time and technology. What won't go away, ever, are the stories. No matter how we tell them.

Smarter folks than me have posited on what e-books will do to the publishing industry. I'm not in the publishing industry (yet), but I am a reader, and honestly? This future looks pretty good to me.

Or it will once they figure out that odor software.

Feedback Friday

You guys are awesome. I was all worried Wednesday's post would get nasty for some reason (even though I know you guys; who would be nasty?). Thank you to everyone who shared, to everyone who wasn't mean, and to everyone who is still reading this blog even after learning that I hear voices and indoctrinate my children. I have the best readers in the world.

So we've had the small talk. We've had the deep conversation. All that's left now is to collectively answer the most important issues facing the world today, via online poll.

If at any point you don't see an option you like, feel free to expound in the comments. (Although I intentionally limited the options so you'd have to choose. Mwa-ha-ha!). The first poll is for me. The rest are for the world.

Note: if you're on Reader or e-mail, you'll have to click through for the polls.

UPDATE: There may be some problems with voting. Try voting anyway, and with luck they'll sort themselves out. Otherwise, uh...have a nice weekend I guess.



















And here you thought today was going to be even harder than Wednesday. (Heck, maybe it was. Choosing between Picard and New Kirk? That's like asking me to choose my left or right eyeball.)

The Thing No One's Supposed to Blog About

Welcome to Day 2 of Lurker Week here on Author's Echo. I really enjoyed reading your answers to Monday's random questions. I loved learning more about the regulars, and I'm so happy to see the poking heads of folks I've never met, or haven't heard from in a while. Hi, guys! Glad to meet you and/or see you again!

Today's topic is a little tougher than having tea with Gandalf though, but I think it's important. See, I'm aware that a lot of the blogs I read are written by quiet Christians, quiet Mormons, and more. Their faith is a large part of who they are, but they don't talk about it online, just like I don't. There are many, many good reasons for this, but just once I'd like to tell you what I believe, and hear what you believe, about this crazy existence we're all stuck together in. (For the purpose of this post, atheism totally counts by the way).

Some ground rules:

• This is NOT about converting people. The point is to learn about each other, not to prove a point.
• Likewise, this is NOT about who is right or wrong. Please don't put people on the defensive about their faith (and if I do so without realizing, please tell me).
• DON'T be a meanie head. Nasty comments will be summarily destroyed.

Here are some questions to help voice your thoughts. Feel free to use them or skip them as you want.

1. What is your religion (just the label here)?
2. What's one important way your personal belief differs from what people normally think of when they think of that label?
3. How does your personal belief impact your daily life?
4. Most religions agree that the world sucks: people are hurt, get sick, die. How does your personal belief address that?
5. Why do you believe what you believe?
6. Anything else you'd like to share about your beliefs?

And my answers:

1. Christian (non-denominational Protestant, I guess).
2. I'm not your stereotypical conservative (not conservative at all, actually). I don't froth over the mouth about issues like gay marriage, for example. I tend to believe that loving people is more important than making them follow "the rules."
3. Little ways: I go to church. I teach my kids to love Jesus. I read the Bible and pray most days. Big ways: I believe God called my wife and I here to Thailand to do what we do.
4. Short, short answer is that I think it's a combination of sin and free will. That is, God gave us life and the ability to do what we want with it, and a lot of us (all of us, really) have screwed it up. I have a slightly more in-depth answer here, if you're interested.
5. For years, I was Christian just because that's what I knew. I grew up in the church, a Christian family, everything. When I left home, I realized I had to decide for myself if this was my religion or just my parents'. Over the years since, I feel like God has proven himself to me in a number of ways, to the point where I trust him.
6. I really think the most important thing is to love God and love people, not beat people over the head with their sin (nor make laws so we can punish them for it, for that matter). Beyond that, there's still a lot I'm trying to work out for myself.

I know this is scary (it is for me), but I do really, really want to both share what I believe and know what you believe. We put on these internet personas that are really only part of who we are. Sometimes I want to know the whole person, you know?

Likewise, I understand if you need to protect your internet persona by NOT talking about this. That's okay too. Feel free to say as much or as little as you like.

Lurker Week

As I write this, I have 97 followers, almost the magic number 100,* but (a) I'm pretty sure that many people don't actually read this blog and, more importantly, (b) I hardly know any of you.

So I'm devoting my three posts this week to getting to know YOU -- in serious ways, funny ways, and maybe even potentially uncomfortable ways (don't worry, you won't have to play if you don't want to). While I'm exceedingly happy to hear from my regular commenters, I'd love LOVE to hear from folks who read but don't normally comment (commonly called lurkers). I swear, you'll never have to comment again if you don't want. But if you just let me know once this week that, yes, you're reading my blog, it'll make me all kinds of happy. Even more so if I get to learn a little bit about you.

So today it's question and answer time for you. Feel free to skip questions you don't have an answer for. Post your answers in the comments (I will too--shouldn't this go both ways after all?):

1. Where are you from?
2. Favorite genre to read?
3. Favorite genre to write (if you're into that sort of thing)?
4. Which Star Wars character would you be?
5. Best book you've read in the last 6 months? 
6. Gandalf the Grey stops in for a cup of tea. What do you talk about?
7. Name up to 5 favorite movies.
8. Your pirate crew/ninja clan/former employer has given you the Black Spot. What do you do about it?

* Though 100 is really only magic in base ten. 97 is actually better: a palindrome in octal, the beginning of the lowercase characters in ASCII, the number of characters that can be typed on a standard English keyboard, and the seventh happy prime. (And really, how can you go wrong with something called a "happy prime"?).

Kids to the Rescue! (or Adults are Stupid)

Stop me if you know this one. A group of spunky, intelligent kids gets mixed up in a plot to destroy/kidnap/steal/control the world/their parents/other kids/a ton of money/puppies/etc, and the adults they would normally rely on to solve problems like this are dead/captured/kidnapped/stupid and/or otherwise don't believe the kids.

It's the plot all children's fiction must rely upon, because children's fiction must have child (or teenage) protagonists in order for its target market to enjoy it. And those protagonists must somehow become involved in an otherwise adult plot, even though they're not (adults, that is). It's the plot of Spy Kids, Goonies, Parent Trap, and every single Home Alone movie.

It's not always bad, but it can be done badly. It all depends on why the kids have to save the world instead of their parents.

LESSER REASONS

1. Adults are too dumb, disinterested, or just plain grown up to believe the truth. The spunky kids, then, must deal with the problem on their own, often with the parents working against them. I'm sure kids love this trope, but I can't stand it. It's insulting, sure, but it's also unrealistic and teaches kids unreasonable amounts of disrespect (says the guy who's had to parent kids raised on this trope). Examples: Home Alone, Parent Trap, Lost Boys, Goonies.
2. Adults are incapacitated or otherwise out of the picture, and the spunky kids must fill their shoes, even though they're totally unqualified. It's even worse if qualified adults exist, but are too dumb, disinterested, etc. to get involved. Example: Spy Kids.
3. Child of prophecy. The adults cannot save the world because it is not their destiny--even though they're more qualified. Example: The Sword in the Stone; The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; The Hobbit; Lord of the Rings; Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers.

Not all these reasons are inherently bad. Combined with one or more of the better reasons below, they can work quite well. (Also I should point out that I really like Lost Boys, Goonies, and pretty much any plot with a Chosen One (Power Rangers notwithstanding)).

BETTER REASONS

1. Supernatural or unnatural ability. The spunky kid is actually capable of something nobody else can do. Their ability just happens to be needed before they have a chance to grow into adulthood. Examples: Harry Potter, Ender's Game.
2. Adults are incapacitated or otherwise out of the picture, but qualified adults don't exist, and the kids manage to win in spite of their shortcomings. Examples: Eragon, Star Wars.
3. Adults cannot be involved, either because the rules of the conflict don't allow it, or because the spunky kids will fail if the adults know. Examples: Jumanji, Zathura, Adventures in Babysitting.

If you're writing kid's fiction, the main thing is to think about why this kid is the only one who can save the world. Why are they the most qualified, or the only available option? Is it because they can do something no one else can, or because all the adults in the story are useless?

Anyway, that's just my opinion. How do you feel about this trope? Where have you seen it done well? Done poorly?

Quitting While You're Ahead

My favorite computer game genre by far is graphic adventure. These are the games where you're given a character with a story, and where exploration and puzzle-solving is what will win. Reflexes, practice, and endless hours on the XP treadmill won't help--just persistence and a clever mind. Classic examples of the genre include the King's Quest and Space Quest series, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, and (my very favorite) the Monkey Island games.

But adventure games can be frustrating. You might walk around the same screens, looking at the same objects, trying out the same inventory items over and over wondering why you can't GET THE DANG PIRATE TO GIVE YOU HIS FREAKING GOLD TOOTH!

Or something.

Then after banging your head against the wall for an hour, you'll close the game because you have to pick your kids up from school, but when you get back... you don't want to play. Because you know when you do, you'll have that same puzzle staring you in the face, mocking you.*

Does this sound like writing yet? It does to me. I'll get stuck on a plot point, staring at it for an hour, then have to close the manuscript because the baby is crying and the boys are killing each other and my wife needs to buy food (I offer to, but you know)... and when it's all over I dread going back. I dread seeing that cursor just blinking, blinking, saying, "What are you gonna write now, big fancy pants writer, huh? HUH?"

So here's what you do. It's totally non-intuitive, but it works. When you're at a part you're really excited about, don't write it. Stop and save it for next time.

I mean, obviously don't stop if you have another hour free to write. But whenever you are done, try to stop in some place where you know what happens next. Not only will you have the motivation to sit down and write next time, but you'll also have momentum to keep writing after the exciting part.

This won't solve everything. You'll still need persistence many times (I was stuck on that stupid gold tooth for a week), but some days it just might help you get your butt in that chair when you otherwise wouldn't want to.

And if you need a little gold, give the blond-bearded pirate some bubblegum. His tooth will come right out.


* And you don't want to cheat, because then you can't brag that you figured out the game by yourself, even though it took you five years** to beat it and nobody cares anymore.

** NEVER happened.

This is How We Polish

Turns out this writing thing is subjective. Did you know that? So often what works even better than tips on critique is an actual example.

To that end, and because I have to daily read the same stories over and over and over, and because not all of these stories had the benefits of modern editing techniques (or so it seems), I'm going to inflict upon you the same bad prose my boys inflict upon me. Then I'm going to try and fix it.

Yes, I'm aware of how passive aggressive this is.

Before we get into this, note that I'm not a professional editor. I'm not even a professional writer (or I just barely am, depending on what counts). I'm not claiming I Know How To Edit. I'm just giving my opinion on how this could be made better.

Got all that? Let's do it. This is from the mind-numbing tale Garfield the Easter Bunny?*

      "Tomorrow is Easter, boys," said Jon Arbuckle to Garfield the cat and Odie the dog. "We've got to get ready for the Easter Bunny."
      Garfield and Odie watched excitedly as Jon took three Easter baskets from the closet and set them on the table. There was one basket for each of them.
      Garfield looked at his basket and frowned. "My basket is much too small," he said. "I want something about the size of a bathtub."
      "When we wake up tomorrow," said Jon, "these baskets will be filled with treats."
      "By the time you wake up, my tummy will be filled with your treats," thought Garfield with a sly grin.


Rather than do a line edit, I'm going to pick on three things and discuss how they can be fixed. Then I'll rewrite this my own way. Again, your opinion may vary, and that's totally cool. Subjective, remember?

1. Introducing the characters. All three characters are introduced in the first dialogue tag, but inelegantly. It's a mouthful to read and unnecessary. First of all, we don't need to know Jon's last name (especially since this is his only appearance in the story). Secondly, while identifying Garfield and Odie as the animals they are is important, it's awkward to do it all at once. In my example, I cut "the cat" and "the dog" entirely simply because there's a picture of them on every page--it's obvious what they are. In a novel, I'd suggest more subtle ways of telling the reader what they are. Odie wagging his tail or barking, for instance.
2. Dialogue Tags. You don't need a dialogue tag every time someone speaks. I see this a lot in children's books, but you don't need it there either. Kids are smart, and they read the same books over and over again. They'll figure it out, and by not holding their hand, you'll help make them smarter. So, if the speaker is obvious (as is often the case with only two speakers) you can simply drop a lot of the tags. If there's some ambiguity, use an action sentence to imply the speaker as I do in the example at the end.
3. Adverbs. I'm not a stickler for killing adverbs, but I think it's always a good idea to pay attention to them. When you see one, ask yourself if there's a stronger verb or noun that can be used, or if there's some other way the emotion (or whatever) can be expressed.

Here's an edited example, with my changes in bold. I made at least one change not covered by the tips above. See if you can figure out why.

      "Tomorrow is Easter, boys," said Jon to Garfield and Odie. "We've got to get ready for the Easter Bunny."
      Garfield and Odie watched wide-eyed as Jon set three Easter baskets on the table--one for each of them.
      Garfield frowned. "My basket is much too small. I want something about the size of a bathtub."
      Jon pat Garfield between the ears. "When we wake up tomorrow, these baskets will be filled with treats."
      Garfield smirked. "By the time you wake up, my tummy will be filled with your treats," he thought.


What do you think? Do you agree with my changes? What would you have done differently?


* I apologize if you like this book (or wrote it, or edited it, etc.). If it makes you feel any better, it's not the worst book in my house. And anyway, my boys obviously like it.

I Fear Something Terrible Has Happened

My first attempt at something like this. I'm afraid you'll have to click to enlarge.

Making Smart Goals

If you've spent any time in the corporate world, you've probably heard about SMART goals. I hate corporate buzzwords as much as the next guy, but seriously making smart goals is hugely important for writers (and, really, anyone who ever wants to achieve anything). It's an acronym: good goals are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Timely.

SPECIFIC
You can't meet vague goals. "I want to be a writer" is not a good goal. How do you know when you've done it? Even "I want to write a novel" is kind of vague (how do you know when it's finished?). Good goals are clear and unambiguous.

MEASURABLE
This goes along with being specific. If you can't measure success, how do you know you've achieved it? How many words/pages are you going to write? How many drafts? What IS a draft (the first draft is obvious, but does running a spell and grammar check count as one revision)?

ATTAINABLE
Making attainable goals is a matter of practice. A good goal is realistic, but it also stretches you. If a goal is too hard, you'll give up and throw your goals away. If it's too easy, the goal becomes meaningless.

A good practice is to start small. See what you're capable of. When you can hit small goals consistently, increase them.

RELEVANT
This should really go without saying, but you'd be surprised. If my dream is to get published by a big publisher, I have to look at each goal and decide if it contributes towards that dream.

Selling short stories to professional markets? Relevant.
Publishing stories for free in a local newsletter? Aside from the writing experience, probably not relevant.
Publishing with a small press? Yeah, probably.
Self publishing? Probably not.

Tobias Buckell counted his number of rejections as a goal. On the surface, this would seem irrelevant -- you're not making progress if you're getting rejected, right? But to him, getting rejections meant he was producing and getting his work out there. Because "making a sale" was not in his control, he chose something that was, and it worked.

TIMELY
The most important way to make a goal measurable is to put a time limit on it. Without a time limit, there's no urgency. That goal could be taped to your computer monitor forever and ever, neither failing or succeeding.

The thing is, you can gain just as much from failure as from success. Maybe your time limit is too tight, or maybe you just have too many blogs to read or Facebook games to keep up with and you need to cut something (irrelevant) out. Whatever it is, if your goal has no deadline, you'll never evaluate and you'll never know.

So what are my goals, you ask? I'm still working on the larger goals (specifically the deadlines), which is a lot of the reason behind this post. But I keep daily goals with the idea that any kind of steady progress is progress. I try to do 500-800 words a day depending on how much planning/revising I have to do (I still have to figure out how to make a measurable goal out of "planning"). And I usually pick three or four things from my real life todo list to finish in a day. (That's about the best I can do, since most of my job is parenting. And if I've learned anything about parenting, it's that you can't plan it.)

So how about you? What are your goals, daily or long term? Do they fit the SMART criteria?

Parents, Talk to Your Kids About Malware

I fix a lot of computers. I'm kind of the unofficial tech support for the Chiang Mai missionary community,* and the number one problem I find when people complain their computer is slow or broken is malware.

What is malware? I'm glad you asked.

Malware is any malicious software that infiltrates your system without your consent. For example:

• VIRUSES that copy themselves, infecting any system they come in contact with.
• SPYWARE that secretly collects data about you and your computer, sending it to its host via the internet.
• ADWARE that displays pop-up ads and other advertisements where there shouldn't be any.
• TROJANS that pretend to be useful software while secretly hacking your system.

Scary, yeah? At best, malware is annoying, making you wonder what happened to your previously-state-of-the-art computer. At worst, it's the first step to identity theft and serious data loss.


HOW DO I KNOW I'VE BEEN INFECTED?
With the worst types of malware, you can't tell without scanning software. But some are more obvious than others. Any of the following symptoms might be a sign of infection:

1. Pop-up ads where there shouldn't be any (on your bank's website, on this blog, etc.).
2. Your home page (i.e. the first web page that you see when you open your browser) is a page you don't know and never set as your home page.
3. You do a search on Google and it redirects you to some other engine's search results.
4. You receive error messages from programs you don't know and never installed. (I once saw a message suggesting I install an "anti-anti-virus" program. At first I thought it was a stupid typo, but no. It meant exactly what it said.)
5. You try to uninstall a program or search bar, but it comes right back.

WHAT CAN I DO?
Most malware is easy to take care of. Unfortunately, I don't know of any one program that can catch them all. If your computer's infected really bad, you might need two or three different programs to get rid of it all. Don't worry, they're all free.

• ClamWin: an open-source anti-virus program. Provides no real-time protection, but gets automatic updates and scheduled scans.
• Spybot: designed to kill most spyware and adware. Provides some real-time browser protection. Can provide real-time system protection, but I find this more annoying than helpful. Mostly I use this program to scan a computer I think is already infected.
• Ad-Aware: a smart program designed to kill malware. Provides real-time protection and automatic updates. There are pro versions, but the free version is usually good enough.
• Avast!: I haven't used this one myself, but like Ad-Aware it has a free version designed for viruses and spyware.

There are also plenty of good pay-for programs (Symantec and McAfee's are usually good, for example). But understand that any program with real-time protection will take up some of your computer's RAM, possibly slowing things down on older computers. Just something to keep in mind.


PREVENTION
So you've cleaned up your computer, now how do you keep it from getting infected again? That, really, is what this post is about.

1. Get an anti-malware program with real-time protection. Although, as I said above, if your computer is older or doesn't have much RAM, you may not want to do this.
2. Scan your computer regularly. Like once a week. You don't have to watch the scan, just be notified of any bad results.
3. Be careful what you download. Don't accept attachments from strangers. Don't open executable attachments (.exe files usually) from anyone ever. Don't download from sketchy sites, or if you do, scan the file first.
4. Be careful what you install. Don't install something if you don't know what it does or why you need to install it. And for God's sake, READ THE INSTALLATION MESSAGES. Some adware will warn you -- even ask you -- before installing itself so that it can be legal, and you know what? It is.
5. Pirates. Do you download pirated music, books, or games? I won't tell you not to,** but if you download pirated stuff and your computer gets infected, it's your own dang fault. More malware comes via pirated software than any other means.
6. Talk to your kids about malware. No joke. The worst computers I see are almost always the result of a parent who knows little about computers combined with a teenager who thinks they know a lot. If your kids download pirated software, but think they don't need to scan it because "they know what they're doing," your computer is probably already infected.
7. Don't share your computer. Buy a cheap, second-hand computer for your kids. When they complain it's too slow and can't play the latest games, tell them to buy their own.
8. Restrict admin privileges. On Windows machines, a user is considered either an 'Administrator' or not. Administrators can install software and change system settings, and therefore have permission to (unknowingly) install malware. My kids don't get Administrator privileges on the computers I buy for them, mainly because I don't want to have to fix them. If they want something installed, they ask me.

I hope this is helpful to someone out there. Getting rid of malware may not be as critical as backing up your data, but it can save you some headaches and maybe even protect your identity online. Have you had a nasty experience with malware? How did you take care of it?


* Which is weird to me, actually. When I lived in San Diego, everybody knew how to do what I do.

** I should, but I feel weird saying that when I live in a country where I couldn't buy a legitimate copy of MS Office even if I wanted to.

Books I Read: Graceling

Title: Graceling
Author: Kristin Cashore
Genre: YA Fantasy
Published: 2008
Content Rating: R for sex (this surprised me actually; though it's written in such a way that if you didn't know much about sex, you might have no idea that's what they were doing)

Graced with an unnatural ability to kill, Katsa has been her royal uncle's thug and assassin since she was little. Over the years, she has grown to regret what she has become and begun to work against some of her uncle's bullying. On one such mission, she meets a Graced fighter named Po, and gets drawn into a rescue on the far side of the world, against a man with a more frightening power than any the world has known.

At first, I was a little jaded by this book. Katsa seemed a lot like Katniss from that other book I read -- both of them killers who don't want to be killers. Both of them beautiful, but totally oblivious to their beauty. (I realize this comparison is totally unfair, as these two books came out within a month of each other, but you have to admit their names are really similar). Where it got interesting for me was when Katsa started spending time with Po, and they began learning more about each other's powers.

The climax was less...explosive than I expected, but that doesn't mean I didn't like it. In contrast, the resolution felt long, but it was exactly what I wanted, plus a twist. (Maybe what I wanted was a book about Po?).

But my favorite, favorite thing about this book was the dialog. I laughed out loud so many times at the dry, clever humor of Katsa, Raffin, Oll, and Po. I'd read a whole book with nothing but Katsa's secret missions, just to hear the four of them take jabs at each other.

Overall, I thought this was a good fantasy adventure with a well-developed (if small) world and clever characters. I'd buy a sequel (or maybe the prequel).

Flashbacks (and Cunning Folk Excerpts!)

Flashbacks are hard. Why? Because they're about the past and are, therefore, backstory infodump. On top of that, they're really easy to screw up. So here are some tips I've learned to keep from giving the reader flashback whiplash.

Keep it relevant. This is the same as the rule for infodumps. Only tell them what they need to know to understand this part of the story. This is especially true in beginnings, when we don't know the characters or their conflicts yet. The last thing we want to do is jump back into the past and get to know even more characters and conflicts.

Keep it short. Or rather, only make it as long as it needs to be (really, this is just an extension of the first tip). For example, the flashback below (in italics) is only 10 words long:

(from Cunning Folk)

How could Suriya lose control like that? Aunt Pern had told her how, as a baby, Suriya’s fire kept them warm at night, but that was a long time ago. For as long as she could remember, Suriya had been able to control her power, even in her sleep – to the point where releasing was difficult simply because she never did it.

Don't be heavy-handed. When I first started writing, I thought I had to make the flashback obvious. Like this:

Five minutes to curtain, and Steve was nervous. He stared at the guitar in his hand--the same guitar he'd played with for ten years. It reminded him of the first time he played on stage...

Can you hear the Wayne's World flashback sound? Don't do this. As long as the reader can tell you're going into a flashback, you can just jump right in: "Five minutes to curtain, and Steve was nervous. The first time he played on stage..."

Same with when the flashback ends. Don't toss in a handful of sentences about Steve looking at the guitar and "remembering where he was." Jump right in. Have a stagehand or something (who was not in the flashback) say, "Steve? It's time," and then Steve goes on stage to his legions of fans. So long as the present is sufficiently different from the past, the reader will have no problem keeping up.

Don't worry about tense. I mean, do worry about tense, cuz you're a writer. But don't feel like it has to be perfect. Technically, when you're writing about the past of the past, you're supposed to use "had" a lot (past perfect tense, for you grammarians). "Steve's first time on stage, he had tripped over his bellbottoms." But in practice, doing this for every single verb is annoying.

Instead, use "had" near the beginning of the flashback as a clue to the reader, but then don't be afraid to back off. Mostly, you only need "had" when the reader might be confused as to when the action took place (i.e. in the present, or in the flashback). "Steve's first time on stage, he tripped over his bellbottoms." See? No confusion.

Okay, for those of you still with me, I have a (multi-paragraph) excerpt from my current work-in-progress. It's a flashback that uses all of these tips...hopefully. If I screwed it up, acting like a better writer than I am, I'm really, really sorry.

(SETUP: It's Suriya's first morning after losing her Aunt Pern and after being chased by bounty hunters through the streets of Chiang Mai.)

No dreams. Thank God.

When Suriya was very little, they had lived in a village where people knew what she was and for a while even liked her. Because of her dreams.

The village was called Umong. Suriya couldn't have been more than six years old at the time – old enough to realize her dreams meant something, too young to keep them to herself. It started when she saved an old man's life. She dreamed he had been crushed by a falling tree. Later that day, when Suriya saw her dream was about to happen, she cried out.

The tree missed the old man by a hand's width.

He had thanked her. The whole village had thanked her. They gave her gifts and roasted pigs in her honor.

Then they wanted their own dreams. Almost every morning, they came to ask what she had seen in the night. She told them with the innocence of a child.

Some nights she had no dreams, and the villagers' reactions frightened her. Sometimes she even lied about her dreams just to make people happy.

Other nights she didn't dream enough. She had seen one man – she still remembered his name was Danilay – lying dead on the ground, but she didn't know where or how. Danilay got mad. He shook her and slapped her until Aunt Pern had intervened.

They left Umong that night. She never found out how or even if her dream came true. And she never told her dreams again to anyone, except Aunt Pern.

Aunt Pern. Oh, God.

Suriya jerked upright. She was still in the strange guesthouse. A soft light filtered through the curtains. Anna sat on the stool watching the morning news.

“Good morning,” Anna's voice came into her mind. She didn't turn away from the TV.

¡Viva la Revolución!

(This post brought to you by the inspiration and revolutionary cake of L. T. Host, the Jokerman font, and That Thing Where I DrawPhotoshop)

I'm seeing a pattern. My first novel generated no requests. My second novel is getting partial requests, but no fulls (so far). I fear my third novel will generate fulls but no offers--those will come with my fourth novel.

And then what? Will I have to write yet another novel before I get a book deal? To that I say: NO!

Down with our (imaginary) oppressors! We will not have to write three more novels. THIS is the novel that will be published.

No more slush pile! Representation for everyone!

VIVA LA REVOLUCIÓN!!

* CARPE EDITIO: Seize the book deal (or, if you want to be literal, "the publishing of a book.").

Boy Books on Ink Spells

From Blue Like Jazz, by Donald Miller:

I understand you can learn a great deal about girldom by reading Pride and Prejudice, and I own a copy, but I have never read it. I tried. It was given to me by a girl with a little note inside that read: What is in this book is the heart of a woman.

I am sure the heart of a woman is pure and lovely, but the first chapter of said heart is hopelessly boring. Nobody dies at all.

I talk about boy books over at Susan Quinn's place. Check it out.

Books I Read: Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell

Title: Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell
Author: Susanna Clarke
Genre: Fantasy
Published: 2004
Content Rating: PG (there are a couple mildly freakish bits, like a woman's finger in a box, or dead men brought back to life, but nothing I wouldn't let my (older) kids read)

In early 19th-century England, the great magic of Merlin and the Raven King has disappeared. The only magicians left are merely theoretical -- men who call themselves magicians, but are more akin to historians than anything -- until Mr. Norrell. He's a stuffy, controlling, arrogant little man, but also a practical magician. And he desperately wants to restore magic to England. He is moderately successful when Jonathan Strange applies to be his pupil. Where Norrell is academic, Strange is showy and charismatic, and where Norrell fears the most powerful kinds of magic -- that of the faeries -- Strange believes that is who they should learn from most.

My friend who gave this to me characterized it as "Sense and Sensibility and Sorcery". What shines about this book are the two main characters and their relationship, both as friends and enemies. The story is as funny and charming as Strange, and as stuffy and academic as Norrell. By the latter, I mean that the story frequently tangents into vignettes of English magical history. For example, Norrell and Strange will be arguing about whether the Raven King is really gone forever, and Strange will say something like, "There are stories of people having seen him. What about the conquistador, the farmer in Yorkshire, or the girl in Manchester," and each of those will have a (sometimes very long) footnote relating the story he refers to.

These infodumps are very much part of the style of the book. They are very enjoyable, and they made the alternate history that much more believable, but there were times when I was tempted to skip them and continue with the story. (Oh, but you can't skip them. That's the secret.) This is not a thriller or a fast read (though it has a few exciting and frightening bits). This is a book to live in for a while, and to believe sometimes that maybe magic is real.