May 23, 2012
Anatomy of an eBook: Something Real
You might be scratching your head and saying, what happened to Man of Her Heart?
That's easy. I changed the title.
As I was writing, one of my characters, police officer Terrence Gulliver, earnestly states how he's been looking for "something real" in regard to a relationship, and how he thinks he's finally found it with Francesca "Cesca" Perry, and the more I thought about that, the more I liked it, and the more I felt it would make a nice title. I checked Amazon and saw just one earlier book with that title, and that is acceptable to me (one book with the same name is okay...three or four is not). "Man of her heart," on the other hand, is something I can picture another character saying about her feelings for the man she has secretly loved for years. That couple (entertainer Olivia "Liv" Oliveira and magazine publisher Brian Price) are featured prominently in this story, but their relationship does not wrap up here (you've been warned). In fact, I intend to throw a real wrench into the mix that will likely leave readers muttering, "WTF?" (You'll have to wait until the book comes out to see what it is.) So I will still be using that title, but for the book that finally wraps up Liv and Brian's love story.
That said, it occurred to me that I need to step up my game if I expect to publish a new eBook every four to six months. Yes, stuff happens unexpectedly that requires my immediate attention. But too many times I've become sidetracked, and my writing is the first casualty, with nothing down on paper for three or four days at a time. If that keeps happening it will take a lot longer to complete the book.
For the last few weeks I have been religiously knocking out 1000 words a day, seven days a week. Only two days did I miss the mark and produce roughly half of that. I find that regular writing makes for higher production. I look at my synopsis and decide what scene I'm going to work on ahead of time. I often put down a "starter sentence," and then just type (or dictate, depending on whether I'm sitting at home, out walking, or driving to errands). At the end of the day I hook up my recorder to my computer, open my Dragon software, and let it transcribe what I've recorded. Already I have most of the pivotal scenes recorded.
The next challenge for me will be the structure of the book. I've already decided to make it Book I and Book II, the former taking place after Save The Best For Last closes, and the latter taking place after The Heat of Heat closes. I feel it's best to go in chronological order and intermix the main romance with the secondary romance to keep things less confusing. I'll have to start putting my text in order to see if anything is missing.
The good news is that I'm on target for fall publication, maybe even--dare I say it?--a late summer release? After all, this is not a long book. It really should take closer to four months rather than six.
Will I make it? Stay tuned!
April 26, 2012
Anatomy of an eBook: Sequel to Save The Best For Last and The Heat of Heat
For months now, my WIP has been hanging around, growing more each week, with no name other than "the sequel." I've decided it's time to name the baby.
I really liked All She Ever Wanted, a nice and fitting title, but one that is hardly original. Feeling optimistic, I checked to see just how many times this title has been used.
When I counted eight titles, I decided I needed to find something else. I work very hard to come up with storylines a little off the beaten path. Slapping a common title on a book is kind of negates those efforts, don't you think?
I decided, with some help from my Facebook friends, on Man of Her Heart, a title that, surprisingly, is not showing up at all on Amazon.
So my baby now has a name. What do you think?
Anatomy of an eBook: Sequel to Save The Best For Last and The Heat of Heat
For months now, my WIP has been hanging around, growing more each week, with no name other than "the sequel." I've decided it's time to name the baby.
I really liked All She Ever Wanted, a nice and fitting title, but one that is hardly original. Feeling optimistic, I checked to see just how many times this title has been used.
When I counted eight titles, I decided I needed to find something else. I work very hard to come up with storylines a little off the beaten path. Slapping a common title on a book is kind of negates those efforts, don't you think?
I decided, with some help from my Facebook friends, on Man of Her Heart, a title that, surprisingly, is not showing up at all on Amazon.
So my baby now has a name. What do you think?
April 14, 2012
Partial Disclosure
I'm tired of people manipulating facts to give a different impression of events or situations. I have several examples of this, most of which have occurred in the past week:
As a writer, I have to begin with the publishers who reissue books with different covers and try to bury the fact that it is a reissued title in the fine print at the end. This is particularly galling when they publish $20 hardcover versions of previously paperback novels (some dating back 20 or more years!) that can be bought at used book stores for $1. When readers see a newly available hardcover title, they do not expect it to be a reissue. I have seen authors get unfairly skewered when this deception is done by the publisher...most of the time. Which brings me to...
As authors receive rights to their previously published books and issue eBook versions, most do not indicate that these are reissues. Some are forced by the terms of their old contracts to change the titles of the same book but deliberately do not mention its previously published status in the book description. I'm sorry, but this is just plain sneaky. What satisfaction can there be in tricking people to buying your book?
Regarding current events, I'll begin with the despicable act of a network audio technician, who edited out part of the conversation George Zimmerman had with a police dispatcher when he called to report a suspicious person in the neighborhood. That person was, of course, the late Trayvon Martin. We all know that this young man ended up dead. I personally believe this was a case of racial profiling based on Zimmerman's near-pathologic desire not to let him "get away"--like the others who he mentioned in the conversation as always getting away--but that technician edited the tape to make it appear that Zimmerman's impressions (which are damning, given that the young man carried only candy and a drink) of the stranger looking like he was "up to no good" and like he might be high on drugs were immediately followed by the words, "and he's black." The truth was that those last three words were not spoken until several minutes later, and were in response to a question from the dispatcher. The edit made Zimmerman's words seem even more inflammatory than they really were, and I see no reason for this other than a desire to incite tensions that were already running high. This technician has since been fired. I think he deserved to be...and I hope that anyone else in this position takes dramatic license with audio to give a deliberate misconception remembers what happened to this man.
Speaking of the Trayvon Martin murder, there was a lot of righteous indignation from people who criticized the President for "speaking out" on this topic. Never in their outrage did they express that the President did not voluntarily make a statement, but rather made his very empathetic and sensitively phrased remarks in response to a question at a Rose Garden press conference that had been scheduled before the details of this tragic murder became the #1 news story. The President knew he would be asked to comment, and he had his words ready. Would these people have preferred it if the President refused to answer the question? That sounds like something that wannabe Mitt Romney would do.
Governor Romney's staff, on the other hand, was not prepared when they were asked a question about his stance on the Equal Pay (AKA Lily Ledbetter) Act. Luckily for him, the Governor had the opportunity to create a diversion from his own unpreparedness in what became a leading news story in the past few days. I am speaking of the Hilary Rosen comments about Ann Romney not being the ideal person for the Romney campaign to point to as understanding women's economic concerns. Yes, it was a poorly phrased comment (or at least the first part of it):
"His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing."
The firestorm that erupted from this was just unbelievable, as everyone from the President on down focused only on the first sentence and totally ignored the second, including, 95% of the time, the media. Even a fifth grader would know Hilary Rosen's intent was not to denigrate stay-at-home moms, but to point out that Ann Romney never had to worry about how to make those mortgage and car payments, how to pay for things like mortgages, cars, the kids' college tuition, and everyday expenses like new shoes and soccer leagues. Today's woman has to cope with rising gas prices that cut into their food budgets, plus rising food prices, wondering and worrying where all this extra money is coming from to maintain the same standard of living.
Those who were so morally outraged were quick to paint Rosen as a member of the President's campaign staff, which she is not...yet another case of deliberate misleading from people with an agenda.
White House staffers were as quick to distance themselves from Rosen as they would be to get out of a burning building, with David Axelrod declaring that the remarks were "offensive and inappropriate." While I really can't disagree with him, I do feel he could have come to Rosen's defense. Even if he reminded the public that the current administration feels that candidate's family members should be off limits (a wise position, in my opinion), he still could have said added that he didn't feel that Rosen's ill-chosen words were meant to demean stay-at-home moms because of the rest of her statement, thus reminding the public of the full context of Rosen's observations, before declining to discuss the matter further based on the administration's policy.
Vice President Biden also concentrated only on Rosen's first sentence, sprouting some politically correct rhetoric about how he wants his daughter to be able to choose whether to be a stay-at-home mom or to work outside the home (I half expected him to declare that America is a free country, since he's talking pointless jibberish that we all already know). This is a man who has on more than one occasion put his foot in his mouth...he couldn't say something in Rosen's defense?
As for the First Lady's tweet that all women should be respected again only addresses the first sentence of Rosen's remarks and easily could have been left out of the equation entirely.
But most disappointing of all for me was President Obama declaring that "motherhood is the hardest job there is." Really, Mr. President? Hilary Rosen, a mother herself, probably had no idea (yes, I'm being sarcastic). I would have a lot more respect for the President had he simply stated his well-known belief about candidates' family members being off limits and changed the subject, keeping that sanctimonious, self-serving statement to himself. I am ashamed that these men all chose to abandon Rosen like a sinking ship. Rosen ended up apologizing, which was all right with me because of the words she used, but it was a spirited apology, expressing regret at her word choice while simultaneously emphasizing her true intent, standing by it if not her original words. Apparently this did not satisfy someone (perhaps the person who signs her checks), because Friday morning there was a second apology that had no fire to it at all. She sounded as wimpy as the President did. I could practically see her tail wagging between her legs. This made me very sad.
Everybody knows damn well what Hilary Rosen meant, even though as late as Friday morning (I turned off the political discussion shows) it was either being addressed gingerly or with faux confusion (a political analyst on MSNBC said this morning that he was "still trying to figure out" what she meant). I don't understand why everyone is pussyfooting around the clear intent. No one can be that dumb where they can't grasp the meaning of the two sentences that appear above, ill-chosen words or not. If that's all it takes to be a political analyst, I'm going to apply.
Finally, it occurred to me that I have not watched the Today show since the day they brought in Sarah Palin to be a sort-of guest host. Instead I've kept Morning Joe on for that third hour. It wasn't until I found myself tuning in to Good Morning America that I realize I'd made an unconscious decision not to watch Today anymore. In probing my thoughts further, I realized that Palin's constant references to the President as "Obama" while the on-camera talent fell all over themselves to address her as "Governor" really grated on my nerves and was the final turn-off for me (it's also not much fun watching the somewhat strained interaction between anchors Matt Lauer and Ann Curry, but that's a topic for another day). I doubt that there's anyone in the country who doesn't know that Palin resigned from her elected office for various money-making opportunities, while the man she calls "Obama" is still the President, but it sure sounded as if they were trying to make people believe she is still a governor and that he is someone who simply wants to be President of the United States. I have no problem with utilizing the titles of former elected officials, but only when they complete their terms in office. I saw this as an attempt at manipulation no different from the others that I've mentioned, with the exception that this fooled no one.
Here's to full disclosure in the future...and while I doubt this will happen, at least the world knows I'm on to the games people play!
Partial Disclosure
I'm tired of people manipulating facts to give a different impression of events or situations. I have several examples of this, most of which have occurred in the past week:
As a writer, I have to begin with the publishers who reissue books with different covers and try to bury the fact that it is a reissued title in the fine print at the end. This is particularly galling when they publish $20 hardcover versions of previously paperback novels (some dating back 20 or more years!) that can be bought at used book stores for $1. When readers see a newly available hardcover title, they do not expect it to be a reissue. I have seen authors get unfairly skewered when this deception is done by the publisher...most of the time. Which brings me to...
As authors receive rights to their previously published books and issue eBook versions, most do not indicate that these are reissues. Some are forced by the terms of their old contracts to change the titles of the same book but deliberately do not mention its previously published status in the book description. I'm sorry, but this is just plain sneaky. What satisfaction can there be in tricking people to buying your book?
Regarding current events, I'll begin with the despicable act of a network audio technician, who edited out part of the conversation George Zimmerman had with a police dispatcher when he called to report a suspicious person in the neighborhood. That person was, of course, the late Trayvon Martin. We all know that this young man ended up dead. I personally believe this was a case of racial profiling based on Zimmerman's near-pathologic desire not to let him "get away"--like the others who he mentioned in the conversation as always getting away--but that technician edited the tape to make it appear that Zimmerman's impressions (which are damning, given that the young man carried only candy and a drink) of the stranger looking like he was "up to no good" and like he might be high on drugs were immediately followed by the words, "and he's black." The truth was that those last three words were not spoken until several minutes later, and were in response to a question from the dispatcher. The edit made Zimmerman's words seem even more inflammatory than they really were, and I see no reason for this other than a desire to incite tensions that were already running high. This technician has since been fired. I think he deserved to be...and I hope that anyone else in this position takes dramatic license with audio to give a deliberate misconception remembers what happened to this man.
Speaking of the Trayvon Martin murder, there was a lot of righteous indignation from people who criticized the President for "speaking out" on this topic. Never in their outrage did they express that the President did not voluntarily make a statement, but rather made his very empathetic and sensitively phrased remarks in response to a question at a Rose Garden press conference that had been scheduled before the details of this tragic murder became the #1 news story. The President knew he would be asked to comment, and he had his words ready. Would these people have preferred it if the President refused to answer the question? That sounds like something that wannabe Mitt Romney would do.
Governor Romney's staff, on the other hand, was not prepared when they were asked a question about his stance on the Equal Pay (AKA Lily Ledbetter) Act. Luckily for him, the Governor had the opportunity to create a diversion from his own unpreparedness in what became a leading news story in the past few days. I am speaking of the Hilary Rosen comments about Ann Romney not being the ideal person for the Romney campaign to point to as understanding women's economic concerns. Yes, it was a poorly phrased comment (or at least the first part of it):
"His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing."
The firestorm that erupted from this was just unbelievable, as everyone from the President on down focused only on the first sentence and totally ignored the second, including, 95% of the time, the media. Even a fifth grader would know Hilary Rosen's intent was not to denigrate stay-at-home moms, but to point out that Ann Romney never had to worry about how to make those mortgage and car payments, how to pay for things like mortgages, cars, the kids' college tuition, and everyday expenses like new shoes and soccer leagues. Today's woman has to cope with rising gas prices that cut into their food budgets, plus rising food prices, wondering and worrying where all this extra money is coming from to maintain the same standard of living.
Those who were so morally outraged were quick to paint Rosen as a member of the President's campaign staff, which she is not...yet another case of deliberate misleading from people with an agenda.
White House staffers were as quick to distance themselves from Rosen as they would be to get out of a burning building, with David Axelrod declaring that the remarks were "offensive and inappropriate." While I really can't disagree with him, I do feel he could have come to Rosen's defense. Even if he reminded the public that the current administration feels that candidate's family members should be off limits (a wise position, in my opinion), he still could have said added that he didn't feel that Rosen's ill-chosen words were meant to demean stay-at-home moms because of the rest of her statement, thus reminding the public of the full context of Rosen's observations, before declining to discuss the matter further based on the administration's policy.
Vice President Biden also concentrated only on Rosen's first sentence, sprouting some politically correct rhetoric about how he wants his daughter to be able to choose whether to be a stay-at-home mom or to work outside the home (I half expected him to declare that America is a free country, since he's talking pointless jibberish that we all already know). This is a man who has on more than one occasion put his foot in his mouth...he couldn't say something in Rosen's defense?
As for the First Lady's tweet that all women should be respected again only addresses the first sentence of Rosen's remarks and easily could have been left out of the equation entirely.
But most disappointing of all for me was President Obama declaring that "motherhood is the hardest job there is." Really, Mr. President? Hilary Rosen, a mother herself, probably had no idea (yes, I'm being sarcastic). I would have a lot more respect for the President had he simply stated his well-known belief about candidates' family members being off limits and changed the subject, keeping that sanctimonious, self-serving statement to himself. I am ashamed that these men all chose to abandon Rosen like a sinking ship. Rosen ended up apologizing, which was all right with me because of the words she used, but it was a spirited apology, expressing regret at her word choice while simultaneously emphasizing her true intent, standing by it if not her original words. Apparently this did not satisfy someone (perhaps the person who signs her checks), because Friday morning there was a second apology that had no fire to it at all. She sounded as wimpy as the President did. I could practically see her tail wagging between her legs. This made me very sad.
Everybody knows damn well what Hilary Rosen meant, even though as late as Friday morning (I turned off the political discussion shows) it was either being addressed gingerly or with faux confusion (a political analyst on MSNBC said this morning that he was "still trying to figure out" what she meant). I don't understand why everyone is pussyfooting around the clear intent. No one can be that dumb where they can't grasp the meaning of the two sentences that appear above, ill-chosen words or not. If that's all it takes to be a political analyst, I'm going to apply.
Finally, it occurred to me that I have not watched the Today show since the day they brought in Sarah Palin to be a sort-of guest host. Instead I've kept Morning Joe on for that third hour. It wasn't until I found myself tuning in to Good Morning America that I realize I'd made an unconscious decision not to watch Today anymore. In probing my thoughts further, I realized that Palin's constant references to the President as "Obama" while the on-camera talent fell all over themselves to address her as "Governor" really grated on my nerves and was the final turn-off for me (it's also not much fun watching the somewhat strained interaction between anchors Matt Lauer and Ann Curry, but that's a topic for another day). I doubt that there's anyone in the country who doesn't know that Palin resigned from her elected office for various money-making opportunities, while the man she calls "Obama" is still the President, but it sure sounded as if they were trying to make people believe she is still a governor and that he is someone who simply wants to be President of the United States. I have no problem with utilizing the titles of former elected officials, but only when they complete their terms in office. I saw this as an attempt at manipulation no different from the others that I've mentioned, with the exception that this fooled no one.
Here's to full disclosure in the future...and while I doubt this will happen, at least the world knows I'm on to the games people play!
April 7, 2012
Getting Back in the Swing of Things
It's been a very busy year. I began 2012 on schedule...by submitting chapters to my editor the end of that first week. My editor, unfortunately, had some personal issues that landed her in the hospital a few weeks later. This put her behind in her own to-do list, and we worked feverishly to get Isn't She Lovely? edited for ePublication. The situation wasn't helped any when my laptop "passed away" unexpectedly after a sudden illness. I had to buy a new one (thank heavens Office Depot always has good sales) and get my files loaded on it, plus the daunting task of learning Windows 7.
My editor and I managed to get in a three-hour dinner at the Outback when I visited Jacksonville in February, and that leisurely evening somehow gave us motivation to speed things up. The book was uploaded on March 5th.
I've gotten very little writing done in the month since. There are a few reasons for this. One, after releasing a new book I have to let everyone know about it, and that takes time. But usually after two weeks I'm ready to start writing again.
I didn't this time because, although all my files were reloaded on my computer, I had to re-load my software, including my Dragon dictation software, and re-train the software to recognize my voice. I've loaded the software, but haven't re-trained it yet. I've been busy, which brings me to the third reason I haven't done much writing.
My mother flew home to Wisconsin with me after my visit to Florida in late February, and she visited with us for six weeks. My husband and I both loved having her here, but you simply can't keep your regular routine when someone else is staying at your house, even someone who isn't really a guest. Those first weeks I would bring my laptop with me when she wanted to work out at the Y, and I'd sit and read over and revise text while she got on the machines (my mom will be 94 later this year, but she's always been a big believer in physical fitness and has been blessed with good health). After the book was uploaded I stopped dragging the laptop and usually ran errands while Mom worked out.
My mother flew home last week, and while I do miss her, it does feel good to not have to worry about keeping her occupied. So now it's just my hubby and me, doing our own thing...and I'm writing again. Before this weekend is over I'll have my Dragon software and will autotranscribe all the files I dictated prior to my laptop's demise. Right now I'm going over the manuscript for a backlist title.
It's good to be back!
Another
Getting Back in the Swing of Things
It's been a very busy year. I began 2012 on schedule...by submitting chapters to my editor the end of that first week. My editor, unfortunately, had some personal issues that landed her in the hospital a few weeks later. This put her behind in her own to-do list, and we worked feverishly to get Isn't She Lovely? edited for ePublication. The situation wasn't helped any when my laptop "passed away" unexpectedly after a sudden illness. I had to buy a new one (thank heavens Office Depot always has good sales) and get my files loaded on it, plus the daunting task of learning Windows 7.
My editor and I managed to get in a three-hour dinner at the Outback when I visited Jacksonville in February, and that leisurely evening somehow gave us motivation to speed things up. The book was uploaded on March 5th.
I've gotten very little writing done in the month since. There are a few reasons for this. One, after releasing a new book I have to let everyone know about it, and that takes time. But usually after two weeks I'm ready to start writing again.
I didn't this time because, although all my files were reloaded on my computer, I had to re-load my software, including my Dragon dictation software, and re-train the software to recognize my voice. I've loaded the software, but haven't re-trained it yet. I've been busy, which brings me to the third reason I haven't done much writing.
My mother flew home to Wisconsin with me after my visit to Florida in late February, and she visited with us for six weeks. My husband and I both loved having her here, but you simply can't keep your regular routine when someone else is staying at your house, even someone who isn't really a guest. Those first weeks I would bring my laptop with me when she wanted to work out at the Y, and I'd sit and read over and revise text while she got on the machines (my mom will be 94 later this year, but she's always been a big believer in physical fitness and has been blessed with good health). After the book was uploaded I stopped dragging the laptop and usually ran errands while Mom worked out.
My mother flew home last week, and while I do miss her, it does feel good to not have to worry about keeping her occupied. So now it's just my hubby and me, doing our own thing...and I'm writing again. Before this weekend is over I'll have my Dragon software and will autotranscribe all the files I dictated prior to my laptop's demise. Right now I'm going over the manuscript for a backlist title.
It's good to be back!
Another
March 10, 2012
Truth in Fiction/Non-Fiction
I've always been puzzled when readers point out that a novel contains factual inaccuracies and people respond by saying, "It's fiction, who cares?" A historical romance caught my eye the other day, and I briefly considered downloading it until I read the reviews. Several people who read the book stated that the numerous circumstances described either occurred too early or simply wouldn't have happened at all. Between those remarks and the complaints about a meandering storyline and three and four typos on a single page (I'm sorry to say it was an indie published eBook), I decided to stick to Beverly Jenkins, who makes a concerted effort to present accurate information to readers (and in the process informs us about facts we probably previously did not know).
I believe that writers owe it to their audiences to present as factual a story as possible, whether they write fiction or nonfiction, or current or historical. I am stunned by the mistakes readers have pointed out in nonfiction, like dates, for instance. Imagine writing a book that states that Columbus first set foot in the Americas in 1491! Okay, that's an extreme example, but if people buy a book to learn more about a subject they already know and incorrect information is given, they're probably going to spot it. I love movies, and I've seen books that made errors in release dates and the year of Best Picture Oscar wins. Even one error is unfortunate but is at least forgivable. Multiple inaccurcies is not.
Do you have any thoughts about inaccurate facts in fiction or nonfiction?
Truth in Fiction/Non-Fiction
I've always been puzzled when readers point out that a novel contains factual inaccuracies and people respond by saying, "It's fiction, who cares?" A historical romance caught my eye the other day, and I briefly considered downloading it until I read the reviews. Several people who read the book stated that the numerous circumstances described either occurred too early or simply wouldn't have happened at all. Between those remarks and the complaints about a meandering storyline and three and four typos on a single page (I'm sorry to say it was an indie published eBook), I decided to stick to Beverly Jenkins, who makes a concerted effort to present accurate information to readers (and in the process informs us about facts we probably previously did not know).
I believe that writers owe it to their audiences to present as factual a story as possible, whether they write fiction or nonfiction, or current or historical. I am stunned by the mistakes readers have pointed out in nonfiction, like dates, for instance. Imagine writing a book that states that Columbus first set foot in the Americas in 1491! Okay, that's an extreme example, but if people buy a book to learn more about a subject they already know and incorrect information is given, they're probably going to spot it. I love movies, and I've seen books that made errors in release dates and the year of Best Picture Oscar wins. Even one error is unfortunate but is at least forgivable. Multiple inaccurcies is not.
Do you have any thoughts about inaccurate facts in fiction or nonfiction?
March 9, 2012
Anatomy of an eBook: Sequel to Save The Best For Last & The Heat of Heat
I have a first sentence!
Cesca slumped down in the car as she raised the cell phone to her ear.
FYI, she is hiding from a policeman. In New York State, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle while talking on a cell phone (unless it's a hands-free setup). It's probably not the most exciting first sentence in the world, but as these things go I don't think it's bad.
Anatomy of an eBook: Sequel to Save The Best For Last & The Heat of Heat
I have a first sentence!
Cesca slumped down in the car as she raised the cell phone to her ear.
FYI, she is hiding from a policeman. In New York State, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle while talking on a cell phone (unless it's a hands-free setup). It's probably not the most exciting first sentence in the world, but as these things go I don't think it's bad.
Posts
