It would be impossible to be around the two writing conferences I presented at in the last month without getting an overwhelming reinforcement of the idea that publishing is undergoing very real, very radical change and that writer strategies are changing with it. Self-publishing and other alternatives to the crumbling agent/publishing industry model were all over the place and enthusiastically endorsed by a wide variety of speakers.

At last year's SCWC I listened to a panel of five agents and six editors field the question of whether self-publishing was a stigma to agents and editors. The answer was unanimous: not only did all eight say they would consider self-published work and be more inclined towards successful self-published work... all eight said they HAD contracted books based on their track record as author-published work.

A year later, I was hearing both camps actually advising young writers to regard self-publishing not as a last resort, but a first career move.

At the San Diego State University's Writers Conference conference, I gave three hours of presentation on self-publishing, and they were very well, and very attentively attended. Beyond that, my conversations with agents and editors (and my assertion in all three classes that most writers would be better off considering self-publishing their first move, not their last ditch) drew agreement from every agent and editor I talked to.

At the Southern California Writers’ Conference that attitude was even more in force, and a sub-theme of the entire conference. Director Michael Steven Gregory actually said twice, both times while addressing the entire conference—including many agents--that agents had become irrelevant. Many were the same agents and publishers who, a year ago at the SCWC, unanimously mentioned having signed writers based on their successful self-publication.

A few anecdotes:
--Michele Scott, who has been very successfully published by a “Big Six” publisher, stated that she was doing her own publishing in the future, including reverted rights and new work. She showed her new title from CreateSpace and was emphatic about her decision to go solo mostly because she can make more money that way.
--Another writer who has titles out on smallish presses with a degree of success openly wondered why, if she’s doing all the promo, she should be giving up 95% of the money to the publisher and will probably go solo on her next book.
--Another author with 6 very successful books from big houses has gone resolutely self-published and convinced a young writer on a cloud from getting repped by a flaky agent to drop her and publish on her own.

In fact, it was interesting that writers who most openly entertained the idea of self-publishing tended to be experienced writers with some degree of success or familiarity, while youthful newbies with their heartfelt memoirs tended to hold out for the traditional model.

This is the first of my posts about writing conferences.
I welcome additional input on my Linked-In and FaceBook groups, both entitled “Writing Conference Link-Ins”.


There are similarities between the San Diego State University's Writers Conference and the Southern California Writers’ Conference: both held in San Diego a few weeks apart in a city where January and February lack their sting. Aside from that, they are so different as to lend themselves to textbook contrast.

For one thing, these two large, long-lived (over 25 years apiece) conferences really belong to two separate categories. There seem to be three distinct types of writing conferences out there: “Write Better” cons, “Sell Your Stuff” cons, and “Starhumper” cons. The latter is the smallest category, the kind where people come to be in the presence and kiss the hem of the garment of a literary idol, perhaps get some comments from the great personage on their work. “Writing cons” are generally about the writing process itself, with an emphasis on critiques and workshops on writing. “Business cons” tend to run towards contact with agents and editors, improving networks and queries, and such marketing skills.

Obviously there are overlaps. Writers tend to see the SDSU conference as heavily loaded towards getting published—with an impressive slate of NYC insiders and workshops on professional development—but they also feature writing instruction and improvement workshops with noted authors. Meanwhile, though the SCWC conference has a great deal of input on accessing agents and publishers (and a major stance towards “entrepreneurial authorship”) and a track record of success for attendees, they are best known for writing exercises, including their famous “Rogue Workshops” where reading and critting go on into the wee hours.
Despite the SCWC con’s slant towards script writing—director Michael Steven Gregory is a film-maker, and screenwriter—dramatic writing is also served at SDSU.

For presenters, the contrast is most clearly seen in levels of organization and pampering. Well, funded and enjoying university support—as well as director Diane Dunaway Kramer’s penchant for order—the SDSU is more organized than many military invasions. Presenters find themselves wined and dined: their lectures are immediately available on CD’s. By contrast, the SCWC organization is often reminiscent of a Chinese fire drill, and there are less frills for lecturers and workshop givers. Yet people return over and over. As in the film “Parenthood”, some like a roller-coaster, some don’t. The very improvisational overtones of the SCWC are enjoyed by many attendees and presenters.

Another similarity: unlike many conferences that pad out their slates with people trying to get authors’ money for their “coaching” or “consultant” services, both of these San Diego cons insist that presenters are there to help attendees, not cop clients. The SDSU con is especially eagle-eyed on these issues. Obviously this is better for paid attendees, and if you are a prospective presenter who mostly hopes to get somebody to hire you, it’s best to look elsewhere. Also, both insist that agents who attend are actually looking for clients, not a paid weekend and reading fees.

I personally enjoyed presenting at both conferences. I liked the generous treatment at SDSU, and the high-level of contacts available, but there is a certain family/cult air about the SCWC that feels good and personal. I’d highly recommend both conferences to both presenters and potential attendees alike.

I would hope this suggests that people thinking of these conferences (or any conference) either to attend or present ask around to see which would best suit their needs and personal styles. I started the “Writing Conference Link-Ins” groups on LinkedIn and FaceBook for the purpose of being clearing houses for that sort of concern and would invite you to join and/or read.

This is a special page that links to posts on writing conferences. Drawn from my impressions attending conferences, and hopefully of help to both presenters and attendees.

Two San Diego Conferences

Self-Publishing Big Hit at SD Conferences

This has become almost ubiquitous in private-eye and thriller series recently, an addition to or morph of the tough guy’s traditional “family” constellation of characters.

Basically, the PI (or whatever specific of that template) has a buddy who is amoral, deadly and pretty much omnipotently evil. This allows the main character to be a good guy, while also dealing out the havoc and forced entry solutions we always like.

Spenser’s Hawk, Easy Rawlin’s murderous buddy Mouse, Harlan Coben’s hero Myron Bolitar turns to incredible millionaire assassin buddy Win Lockwood III, are a few of the better known, but lesser known ad hoc buddy/killers pop up over and over. The PI happens to know a Mexican heroin dealer who helps out, Thomas Perry’s masterful single-titles so often involve an Everyman who runs into some dire guy who can do dirty work as a day’s work.

This was not always the case. Mike Hammer didn’t need to call for help when it came to some gruesome torture or rubout of the baddies, Spade and Marlowe did lay their guilt off on others--in fact the PI bearing the stigma of the ensuing nastiness was part of the mythos.

But these are different times. Sensitive new-age Spenser sold to women as well as men, Wambaugh cops become feminists--we need out good guys to be squeaky clean any more, it seems. But still want to see illegality and bloodshed...so there’s a surrogate. And the good guys might not actually do the rotten stuff, may not approve of it...but there they are, hanging with the sociopaths, just like TV ‘tecs from the seventies always seem to have pals that were kind, gentle pimps.

The lesson to writers trying to break in is obvious: don’t let your good guy get his skirts dirty. Even if he feels bad about it ala Jack Bauer. Craft an intriguing dark shadow for him, make the relationship ambiguous. Make the baddy as charming/horrifying as possible (hell, even Hannibal Lector was a cat’s paw for the FBI agent, no?)

There was a time when the scruffy loner sat in his office, reluctantly took the job for the bombshell with baggage, took his lumps, messed somebody up, and had a drink. This isn’t those times. If you’re crafting a thriller or snooper, take a long look at the Sidekick of Death when setting it up.

Writing is not like any of the other arts, something it often takes writers awhile to figure out, and which has impact on how one approaches improving at it. Here are some examples of factors taht set writing apart from all the other arts.

--Alone among the arts, writing requires learning to be able to access at all, and worse, that learning is not universal. Learning Swahili doesn't provide a lot of access to literature. There is no real universal pool of literature as with music, painting, dance, and other arts that can be experience and enjoyed by anybody alive.

--Alone among the arts, writing has no demands for technique. There is no interface where the inner image "touches the world" as it does with a ballet shoe, paintbrush, of violin bow. There is nothing comparable to learning to read music and playing scales or burning in muscle memory. An uneducated person can sit down at 60 years old to write for the first time and produce a best-selling novel. It happens. This is impossible in music (other than "idiot savants"--themselves a good argument for the idea that talent is a lightning strike that has little to do with schooling.

--Alone among the arts, writing requires publication. A musician can just go sit on the corner and play for passers by, a painter can give paintings away or hang them in his house or on his front fence...you don't do that with a novel, especially not an unpublished manuscript. Some would argue against the idea that an unpublished novel doesn't really exist, but it's certainaly a lot less real than an unrecorded song. Obviously film and theater require production...but you see guerilla street theater and YouTube films.

--A book requires time. There is no other form that requires hours or weeks or months to apprehend.

--Writing is sui generis. There are performing arts, like acting and singing and dance with audiences present. There are plastic arts like sculpture and painting, which are statically displayed for a revolving audience. But writing fits neither cateqory. So what category does it fit? And what other art form would be in there with it?

It's said in football that when you throw a pass there are seven things that can happen and only one of them is good. Self-publishing offers four eventualities, and while some are more desireable than others, none is actually a bad thing.

This is a sort of baseline evaluation of the outcomes of self-publishing. Once you get by the false ideas that it costs a lot of money makes you a industry pariah, you start sizing up what it can do for you. Here are the four main possibilities I see:

1. You establish a readership that you grow and nurture, perhaps reaching the "1000 True Fans" or a level that can support you.

2. You achieve enough sales to impress an agent or publisher.

3. You achieve neither level, but are happy having your work read and with your however minor-league identity as an author. You're known as an author in your milieu, perhaps speak or do book events. You get the satisfaction of the regard of people you actually know.

4. You absolutely fail. Nobody wants your crappy book at any price. You have therefore gotten the ultimate feedback and can use it to either improve your next book, or to seek self-expression in other areas. This ties into a current business theory called, "Fail better, quicker". There is no point sustaining the illusion of success if it ain't in the cards.

A fifth might be, you try it but only halfass or stupidly (paying big bucks to vanity mills or promo jerks, not doing promo, etc.) In which case you wasted your time. Maybe you learned something. If nothing else, you can say you tried it and have been exposed to the business side of books.

Most self-publishers fall into category 3, just like most golfers and athletes and painters fall into some local form of "weekend painting" or club tournaments or company leagues.

Note that NONE of these is possible while sitting around for years waiting for the traditional publishing's Godot.

If you have the stuff to be a major seller for a publisher, it can emerge at any time, and experience doing it yourself will not prevent that--can only help it. Your second book will be seen in the context of you already having readers and some savvy at promotion. Titles light up the altar called your "author brand".

If you are NOT one of the elect, the sooner you deal with that and find your place on the multi-level pyramid of modern publishing possibilities, the happier and more successful you will be.

This is a special page that links to posts on conceptual underpinnings of the contemporary approach to publication.

Four Outcomes of Publishing Your Own Work

Responding to a question about covers selling (or not selling) books, I suggested that it's not as simple as most new authors think--get a great cover and it will help your sales.

One thing I notice is that cover impact varies from one genre to another. Horror is the most spectacularly unique: if you see a book with foil embossing, peekaboo diecuts, paper shaping, it's almost invariably horror.

On the other hand, romance covers tend to be totally generic. They are saying, essentially... this is a romance and you can see how steamy and/or reserved it is right here.

Science fiction is known for covers so generic that they often have nothing whatsoever to do with the book. This gets whined about in SF writers groups all the time, "I wrote this heavy DNA/psych story and it came out with a starship braving wheeling galaxies on the cover".
The "pitch" there is essentially, "Hey,gotcher SF here."

Westerns. same thing. Two guys galloping along shooting at each other of an Indian on horseback... guess what's inside.

You see books with just a single item pitching the reader. A swastika, for instance. Or hammer and sickle. (Both of them cover elements that mean I will immediately reject the book based on that one square inch of cover alone, by the way)

There was a time when naked chick + gun = "Hey Bond fans!"

Literary books are known for the non-descript blah cover. (I mean what are you going to do, photograph intense, wringing depictions of obscure emotions?) You see the stock vauge photograph, the color arrangment with no artwork, etc. They should just stamp "If you listen to NPR, check this out" on them all.

One thing I'm saying here--becuse these publishers aren't all that stupid--is that the cover doesn't have to be beautiful to work, it doesn't have to be a picture that equals a thousand-word book report. It's a signal to the reader that may not have anything to do with the specific content, like a red lightbulb meaning there's a whorehouse here, or "emporium" or "shoppe" suggesting classier merchandise than "store" or "mall". Like most pitches, it works best on people who know what they are looking for and only need to be signalled that this is it.

Other cover tropes: The writer has a Hispanic name. If Chicano, the book will feature pictures of border images, if Latin American, the cover will be earthy, magical realism/naif paintings featuring flowers, animals and dark-skinned women.

Chicklit: jazzy colors and Jetsons design with squiggly/sassy magazine depictions of chicks, cartoony typefaces.

Vietnam: picture of a some old, gray dude on the back.

Dirty Mexican politics, journalism, femmes fatale, and baseball sprawl across Mazatlan's carnival week as Mundo Carrasco tries to find out who killed the mayor and why they're also trying to nail him and the amoral beauty he's infatuated with.

Part crime action, part romance, part travelogue, "Sweet Spot" is a lived-in look at a unique Mexican resort town located in Sinaloa "the Sicily of Mexico". Dashing, funny, and gripping by turns, it's a fun read that takes you to a foreign party port in some exciting and menacing company.

This book has been a long time coming: accepted by two different publishers who fouled up getting it out...but finally produced beautifully by Adoro Books. In addition to the other many types of book it is, it's a love letter to my old neighborhood, friends, enemies, women and weirdness from my years living above Olas Altas Bay in the "Pearl Of The Pacific".

A dramatic writing knack I haven't seen discussed is what I'm going to call "the engineering of misunderstanding". It's very vital to a lot of drama--and more so comedies--and you get an ear for the guys that really do it right.

And sometimes you have to just fluff it all and hope you get away with it.

Basically, I'm talking about setups that depend on one person's actions or attitudes being depending on a misunderstanding of another character's actions of speech. The closer they move together, the tougher it is to rig up.

Naturally every screwball comedy or "Lucy" episode has the broad misunderstadings: the half-overheard phonecall, misinterpreted message, etc. I'm talking about something a little more substantial than that.

A masterpiece is seen in an excellent script: Nurse Betty. Betty is under the delusion that she is engaged to the doctor on a TV hospital sitcom and lights out to hook up with him. The closer she gets in--actually finding the hospital in L.A., for instance--the harder it gets for her not to get clued in. Finally she is actually on the shooting set of the show, face to face with the actor, but the writer keeps pulling rabbits out of his hat that enable her illusion to remain intact without straining belief or doing anything too ridiculous or contrived.

When you examine films with this in mind you start seeing many dialogues in which everything has to be excrutiatingly word-for-word in order to avoid having the people tumble to the fact that she's not really shacked up with the Count or he isn't really a fortune hunter or whatever.

A good example of one way such a confrontation is handled is when the dance instructor confront's Baby's father in "Dirty Dancing". Dad says, essentially, "I see an irresponsible womanizer who got his partner pregant, then abandoned her for an innocent younger girl."
All Swayze has to do is say, "Wait a minute, it wasn't ME who knocked her up," and our movie goes down the drain.
Instead, he huffs, "I guess that's what you would see." and stomps off, leaving the fallacious impression.
It's pretty hokey, really, but it flies.

Here's an example of a way such an interaction can get blown to pieces, yet still work, I think: In "Head In The Clouds", Gilda, whose been sleeping with a Nazi asshole, is confronted by the brother of a girl her SS boyfriend torured to death. She says, "You don't understand," and he kills her, a real punch in the gut because the character is about as perfect as you can imagine Theron could make her.
But all she had to do was say, "I was spying on the Nazi. You can check with...." Instead they cut.
Leaving, I would surmise, other who saw it like I was:"Jesus Christ, what a waste; all she had to do was say..."
But perhaps that's the intended effect?

Anyway, the purpose of this is to heighten awareness of such moments and not only the delicacy required to trip through the wires of perception, and some examples of how it can be slam-dunked, finessed, or simply lopped off and let the viewer stew in it.

IMAGINARY LINES VIDEO WINS AWARD!

I was pleased and proud when the video for IMAGINARY LINES won this category in the Covey Awards. The Covies aren't the Oscar, but they are one of the very few awards in the area of book videos. Since there is a popular vote component, I would like to thank all the fans and supporters who voted for this vid, which can be seen by clicking the picture above.

Thanks again

Lin

FINDING AN AGENT

You cringe every time you see some newbie bop onto a forum and say, "I'm thinking of becoming a writer. Where can I find a cheap agent who handles gonzo confessions and flash fiction?"
And maybe refrain from telling them they could have used google quicker than typing into the forum.

But agent search is a legitimate question and like many such things it's not secret or esoteric, but takes a bit of work to scour around and find good resources. So once again I do all the work around here while you chill in your BarfaLounger eating cheetos and joysticking.

One thing. These aren't exactly fragile resources but every nitwit that clogs them up with frivolous queries is just strengthening the industry barricades that make it harder for everybody to land on a desk. Before you approach agents have a solid query letter and a handle on the etiquette for submitting it. Have something ready to show and a 50 page sample (adaptable to what they ask for on their website) with no formatting so you can paste it into your email. Please?


COMMON SENSE, LOW TECH

This is the easiest, most "duh" way to search for agents. But it also can be the most effective. Find out who represents the writers whose work is most like yours or appeals to your target audience. This also allows your query to say,
--I am approaching you for representation of my new novel, "The Man Who Killed Agents Who Rejected Him", because of your association with Charles Manson, whose work appeals to my target audience.
Instead of
--I found your name on some database recommended in some knucklehead's blog.

Search google intelligently to try to find the agent who represented the book or author. Also, cruise those books in the bookstore or library. Often writers, especially in their first book, will have dedications to their wonderful agents in front or back of the book.


AGENT DATA BASES (Click red titles for links)

AGENT QUERY
This is my favorite, and it's a beautiful searchable site with a very comprehensive coverage of agents. States what their memberships and status is. Mostly full, solid profiles on the agents and agencies. Search by category of book and keyword.


PUBLISHERS MARKETPLACE
This sort of "slices the agent pool different". And is thus an excellent adjunct to Agent Query.


WRITERS NET
This database is HUGE. Which is part of the problem: it's so vast it dredges dregs and you have to sort it out. But it's got a LOT of names in it.


AAR
The Association of Authors' Representatives is as official as it sounds. Not all agents (including some very good ones) are members, but it should be in your top 3 sites to search and is a good checkup to see if people are really members. Anybody who claims to be but isn't should get your quick dismissal.


CHILDREN'S BOOKS
A specialized list for kids' books.

There are many such special lists. Google is ever a friend to those of narrow interests.


WRITERS FREE REFERENCE
This guy is a resource/gadfly/crackup/godsend/nuisance of the first water. It's a howl to read his approach to the agent market, but there's a lot of good info here. Call it "Gonzo dBasing".


CHECK THEM OUT (Fer Crissakes)

It's just astounding how many forum questions run like, "Has anybody heard of WritersLitAgency? I signed a life contract with them in blood but now they're demanding money and my children and I'm wondering if...."
CHECK THEM OUT--on forums BEFORE THE FACT and on these sites.

ABSOLUTE WRITE
Has a whole thread on agents to beware that is often more up to date than the classic checkup sites, has more in-depth reporting form the inflicted. Sign up for the newsletter and get a free list of agents.


EDITORS AND PREDITORS
This is the "most referred" to watchdog site, and it's very cool. But also very incomplete and they have to walk a pretty tight rope. Click on "Warnings".



SFWA's WRITER BEWARE
These guys don't dance. You have to know that in contemporary litigation-happy America anything they say had better be bulletproof or they'll have platoons of winged monkeys with briefcases all over them like a cheap suit. So you can take this stuff to the bank. Unfortunately that also makes it impossible to cover every sleazebag in the sewer. But check here first. The last "Did I screw up?" newbie post I saw was asking about an agency that's on their TOP TWENTY THUMBS DOWN list.


GET IT TOGETHER FIRST

This is beyond the scope of this post, but DO check yourself BEFORE you wreck yourself. Many of the sites above, and the agency sites (which are more important to you, needless to say) have guidelines for querying them.

QUERY TRACKER
Consider this.


A POSITIVE ROLE MODEL
This little guide to writing agent queries has been praised by many from both sides of the fence.

Writing is the art form without technique. There are almost no little tips and secrets. But there are a couple and I'm going to give you one, for free. Just cause I'm a hell of a guy.

Consider the concept of Narrative Voice. You don't hear this mentioned much along with all the claptrap in "How To Write Gooder" classes and books, but it's vital. And unlike so much of that stuff--oriented to critics, teachers and smartasses and of no use to somebody actually trying to get something written: it's useful! Once you identify the distinctive narrative voice of a piece, it practically writes itself. Without it, you can spend years screwing around uselessly.
So what is it? Jack Cady, a sort of outlaw college writing prof I first heard it from, said. "It's like there are lots of singers singing the same song and each version is different. But the song has it's own voice, something that is the same in all versions."
That is a little mystical for me. But this isn't: the first time I ever spoke to Ken Kesey he told me that he was getting nowhere writing Cuckoo's Nest until suddenly the minor but pivotal character of The Chief leaped in and made himself felt. That unique, mute narrative became the fulcrum for unleashing the story.
The narrative voice is the way the story wants to tell itself. It's the "voice" you are hearing as you read it. It includes, but is not limited to, POV, first or third person, past or other tense, style, sentence structure, all that good stuff. None of which are worth worrying about one-on-one: they fall into place once the voice is identified. It could be some sarcastic onlooker, the child nobody pays attention to and speaking in a child's way, it could be cold and clinical depiction, it could be a breezy recollection later in a character's life. But once you have it, you're on your way. This happens kind of automatically when things work. But, unlike so much writerly advice, it can be of use to a writer when things aren’t working.

So, Mr. Genius, you're saying. How do I identify this voice. Sorry, you can't: you're screwed.

Just kidding. But yeah, that's the trick. Part of it is just knowing what you are doing while you are spinning your wheels. You aren't coming unglued, you aren't up against something you can handle, you aren't unable to apply the proper technical terms: you are just going through what a writer goes through to get his story to sing. That can be comforting in itself.

So, how to go about that? One way is to get away from the beginning and just start writing down scenes as they occur to you. The scene is probably "talking to you" in something close to the voice you need.

Run through your notes and look for scenes that pop out at you, write them. Write other ones, not worrying so much about whether they are in the same voice. You should feel yourself closing in on it.

Give a shot at writing the ending. It always helps when you are confident you know where things are going and sometimes the last scenes, by their final nature, include clues as to the mood and personality of the story.

Write some chunks of dialog. This is different, characters have their own voices, nothing to do with the narration voice of the story. But maybe it turns out one of the characters IS the narrator? Or several of them are? Or that the momentum from the speeches carry you into paragraphs that you recognize as the way you should be writing it.

The narrative voice is not just important at the writing stage. It's as important to a story as characters and plot. Is Holden Caulfield a great character? Please. Does Catcher have a great plot? Get real. What people like about it is the narrative voice of Holden. (I think it sucks, personally)

There are books where that is pretty much the main thing going on. Often when the voice is humorous. A powerful narrative voice can move from crushing pathos to chuckles easily, just like a good singer can bring you from laughs to tears in the single song.

Think of a hard-boiled detective story, like you're going to write one for a contest. We all know what you are thinking, "I looked up from the cockroaches trying to steal my empty Scotch bottles for the deposit and there she was, total ruination with more curves than I had brakes." This is almost a distinctive voice of an entire genre, in the way that blues has a different attitude from pop or reggae or whatever. BB King and UB40 and Sting do the exact same song... and it's a different song. And people buy blues and hard-boiled stories just for the way they are told. Part of it is almost indistinguisable from attitude. You can tell the same scene with a cynical attitude, a detached attitude, a breathless attitude. When you do an impression of John Wayne or Jay Leno what are you imitating? See what I mean? Bobby Darin modeled himself on Sinatra in many ways, same songs, same clothes, same voice (a better voice, in fact) but he didn't have the attitude and personae that Sinatra did.
AND, not all tough gangland films, for instance, have the same voice. Even with the same subject matter. Look at Goodfellahs, Godfather, Sopranos, Miller's Crossing. and you see some very different voices dealing with the same milieu and even audience.
And attitude is also independent of voice: take a look at The Matrix. Here’s a film that works a young, hip, jacked-in audience but is told in this stodgy old voice.

A crash course in voice would be Portrait of The Artist as a Young Man, by Joyce. Here we see the voice growing, maturing, changing from a child’s wide-eyed viewpoint to that of an adult as the narrator ages. Yet… isn’t the narrative voice conserved?

You can get a taste of what I mean by trying to write a story from the point of view of a different character. Gardner’s novel Grendel is a good example of that...you can actually see the thing as a different book! But I'm not just talking about POV. A film with a very strong, unique voice is "Fight Club". What if the author had been trying to write it from a third person omnicient? And Tyler would tell it very different from any of the other characters?

I’m known to be anti-jargon in writing. And I continue to maintain that there is no reason for writers to use or think in terms like “three act” or “protagonist” or “limited third person”. You’re telling a story, not reviewing it. But Narrative voice is different. It’s a phrase that hips you to something very real, very basic, and tells you something that can help save you time and at least direct your search towards the heart of your endeavor.

This POV obsession has flared out of control lately. I hadn't actually heard the term "POV violation" (Which I interpret as a disguised way of saying "slap some sense into me") until lately, but there it is.

I've responded to forum knuckleheads who get off that whole idea that POV is, 1)Something to be rationed out sparingly and 2)even really worth a writer THINKING about any more than a sprinter thinks about his shoelaces, with paragraphs showing completely natural shifts in viewpoint even within a single sentence.
(They always yelp about the paragraph sucking and being confusing)

But "head-hopping" is just so du jour.

It's crazy and lame, but understanding the why of it can be really helpful to young writers. MOST of the crap you hear on the internet about writing is absolutely worthless. Most of what you read in "how to write gooder" books is also. And definitely seminars.

Here's what happens, at two different levels.

Writers are, for some weird reason, a high target demographic for scamsters, some of them even well-meaning. We are INUNDATED by ways to spend money to get better at what is basically a pretty simplistic art with almost no real technique involved. Ninety percent of the "help" being offered for sale is by people who have never sold anything in their lives except "how to write and sell" books. Writing/marketing advice is the standby first pubication of the truly bogus.

So, since writing just, sorry to say, doesn't have the sort of technical requirement of, say, ballet or photography or playing the saxophone or hitting baseballs for power and placement, they have to come up with things to fill up their books.

So they cook up all this CRAP. Screenwriting is the worst, poetry the loopiest (duh) but you just hear all this complete cowflop.

Adverbs are bad. Headhopping is bad. Flashbacks are a sign of a weak mind. Voice overs are a sign of laziness and probably syphilitic communism. Yada, yada.

Add to this the whole schmear of editors and critics and the way THEY talk about writing (which is TOTALLY USELESS TO THE CREATIVE TALENT--you DON'T need to even be aware of the word "protagonist" to write, just to jabber about it) and you have a blather of solemn, heartfelt, brass underlined twaddle that is pretty much unique in the world of the arts. Okay, maybe acting (another area in which there is very little actual technique to balance talent) is worse for sheer lameness. Maybe.

Then there's the second level--people passing these little cowpies of wisdom on to others. Either in other books that are just like the ones they're knocked off from, or The Internet Forums.

People want to seem cool, expert, knowledgeable. It's natural. I'm a bit of a know it all showoff myself, believe it or not. So they grab these little nuggets, put their own shade of lipstick on them, and pass them on as if they'd baked them themselves after nine months of gestation in the oven.

And defend all this second-hand pablum RABIDLY. They have never sold anything, they don't work in the business, but they go ballistic if you challenge the idea that adverbs are some dangerous thing to be avoided.

(Think about that: telling writers that certain words are no good, like telling painters to avoid certain hues or musicians that there are bad notes. But they DO IT)

If challenged, there is a pattern you see unfolding. Somebody says don't use adverbs (or multiPOV or flashback or gumdrops or whatever) and get some hipster agreement.

Somebody says some degree of "That's nuts." Maybe even, "So tell me how you'd rewrite this sentence without adverbs" (And what is really screamingly hilarious/pathetic is when they DO the rewrites)

Then somebody says, "You need to know the rules before you can break them" and everybody thinks THAT is very wise and cool. So the question has been begged and whatever stupid fad is being discussed is now being called a "rule". Like, you know, the RULE against using adverbs or flashbacks or more than one POV in a (sentence, paragraph, "section", page, novel, lifetime, whatever)

The argument quickly becomes, well, sure you can use them sparingly, but should be careful.

The obvious question ("Why?") sometimes gets asked and the answer is always some variation of "well so many use them badly that they'be started to become bad by association so watch out or the readers will shred your MS or script, and probably also your feet and firstborn child"

Challenge to that usually devolves into "Well I went to Clarion... (know an editor, got a really glowing rejection from an ezine, was in creative writing classes in Community College for six years, etc) and you go right ahead if you want to be a total failure and loser and writhe in limbo."

In other words, there are tools in a writer's work box that should not be used because they have been used badly. And, of course, have a cute buzzword against them.

DON'T let people hem you in. DON'T take seriously the advice of whatever anonymous nobodies who have a good rap on the internet. DON'T take seriously the hooie of people trying to flog books to you.

A writer uses whatever is at hand and maybe invents a few more things that aren't around.

Critics and hucksters and teachers and losers tell you there are places not to go.

I'm doing this post because I'm sick of answering the same question over and over in forums. So here's what I have to say on this as a writer who has been published in many different media, has successfully self-published a best-selling non-fiction book as well as periodicals and a poetry series in the past, and who currently has books available from small presses on POD format.

I know a LOT about print pubishing, a bit about lulu and LSI, and not much about other POD services. I know and have worked with quite a few publishers of various types ranging from backseat entrepreneurs to people who put out millions of copies a year.

Here's the main thing: self-publishing is a valid form of getting your work out to be read, just as self-employment is just as valid a way to make a living as getting a job from somebody else.

It has advantages and disadvantages, strong areas and weak ones. But it's one tool a writer can use in seeking readership and:

A writer, like any other craftsman, should be aware of any and all tools available to him or her, and should familiarize themselves with everything out there and learn a great deal about the tools that he or she feels offer the best chances of working for what they want to accomplish artistically, financially, or socially.

Obviously self-publishing works better in niches, generally non-fiction. If you think you can write a pamphlet than anybody involved in working on motorcycles would gladly pay for, you're not going to have much luck with big publishers and books stores. But you can publish it yourself and sell it through motorcycle parts distributors and bike magazines and perhaps do quite well.

Very successful self-publishers I know personally have put out books on:
Spanish for restaurant workers
Sex tourism in the Dominican Republic
Extremely sophisticated property tax cheats
A climber's guide to the University of Washington campus
and, of course, my own Mexican Slang 101

But don't let people tell you it's absurd to self-publish anything other than non-fiction.

Do you do poetry readings? Have a following? Think they might spring for an inexpensive volume of your verse? And that maybe a few coffee houses or indie bookstores might carry it? So why not do it?

Let's say you live in Niagara Falls, or near a romantic hotel resort. And you write a romance novel or murder mystery set there. Honeymooners in peril. Think the hotel gift shop and some local stores would carry it?

What I'm saying is: you need to be careful about assessing your chances, but don't let somebody else write you off.

Another thing: sneer at the word "vanity". There is a lot of confusion about POD publishing. Which is basically just a technological advance using computers driving printers that use toner to make impressions (like a Xerox copier) rather than ink. That's all it is. Anybody who uses "vanity publishing" and POD as synonyms is ignorant and you my impression to kick their butt.

But more to the point. Let's say you want to produce 40 copies of a family history to pass out at your next family reunion. Or print up your granny's bedtime stories. Or just have a book out there where people can order it and read it. Is that "vanity"? Or is that the sort of impulse that drives artists to do the nutso stuff we do?

People self-publish in otder to be published. Or in order to get something to print without waiting two years for SImon and Schuster to produce the book. Or because they're rebels and don't like working for big corporations. Or because they want to make money and see a way to do it. Or because they just can't help themselves: they want to have a book they wrote on the table at the coffee house to show to hot women.

Your motivations are your own business. But your business can be run smartly or stupidly. My suggestion is that you take some time to investigate self-publishing with an open mind before writing in off or jumping in with a thousand dollar check to XLibris or some other ripoff outfit.

The other posts in this thread are my attempt to present you with information that can help you make a better decision regarding the wide spectrum of publication possiblities open to writers.
Thank me later for my selfless labor.

Meanwhile, a good place to start, I think, would be THIS CHART.

I see so many people asking about self-publishing in general forums where many people know absolutely nothing about it. (You know, "POD means vanity publishing" kind of responses).

It's a much better idea to ask questions of people who have some experience in being their own publisher. And it is SO ESSENTIAL to learn the ropes of this somewhat boggling and confused thicket of businesses, options, and scams before investing your money, time, and hopes.

Here are few links to get you started on finding out what the deal is before dealing yourself in.


PUBLISHED AUTHORS

Shelagh runs a sprawl of sites, including her ning.com group of the same name, linked-in group, and this easy-access forum.
Some of these people are prolific, knowedgeable self-publishers (Shelagh, for one). Some have done PubishAmerica or other scams and have the scars and tesitimony to back up their advice. Some are authorities on self-publishing.
As with any of these sites, do searches first: you may find your answers are already posted and avoid asking the same thing twice.
A convivial group of people here, tending to be older and more conservative--and thus often wiser and more experienced.


SELF PUBLISHERS PLACE

A forum directly focused on self-publishing. The bad news is that it's not very active. The good news is, there is a LOT of information in the posts and you can search or browse for it.


The POD Forum

Again, experienced voices. It's broken up into subforums for all the POD publishers out there, so if you have questions or interest concerning a specific one, you can find out about it here. A good idea is to first peruse this chart on the same site.


NING GROUPS

The immense collection of social network groups at ning.com is of great interest to writers and promoters.
The lead link above is to the Book Marketing Network, where almost any writer should be registered and participate. Specifically, to the Self Publishing group within that network.
But there are many more sites in the ning.com sprawl and you should search for them from the central hub for NING.com.
A tip: Sign up a "Ning ID" at that site, then you can quickly join all other Ning sites you are interested in without having to repeat all your information and photos, etc.



FONER BOOKS

A HIGHLY knowledgeable guy's blog. Great information here, perhaps a too advanced to interest someone doing the initital sort-out of selfpub options.


AARON SHEPARD

This guy is a leading expert on this stuff. Yes, his site is to sell his book, but he has a wealth of valuable information here for free. Whatever route you take to publishing, there are things here you are dying to know, but just didn't realize it.

HOW TO POD PUBLISH

This primer is hardly the last word, and far from absolute. But it's a good early read for anybody interested in this.

LEO BOECKI

Another site with a wealth of info on self-pubishing. This is a little different, a rather intellectual approach, but some great resources.

PUBLISH ON DEMAND

A site devoted to POD. Examines several of the bigger POD "publishing services", and has some good info charts, such as this one on royalties

And a good early read: Is POD right for me?

As design and technology progress--and concepts are very much a part of design and also products of design--it is inevitable that certain elements and concepts get discarded as new ones are adopted. But sometimes you see examples of old, completely useless design parameters hanging on out of intertia. Some might see an example of that in officials in a determinedly non-religious state swearing court witnesses in on the word of "God". One of my favorite examples was the design of the common 35mm SLR film camera during the height of its popularity and sales.

When the SLR first appeared in the thirties and forties, it fell into a common-sense German design that we are familiar with. The lens, shutter and film are all necessary elements and have certain restrictions on their size and relative position to each other. But there was another consideration: the thing had to be machined out of steel. So it shows that machinist mentality in it's design, like the automatic pistol design from the twenties that is still with us today. But at some point they started making cameras out of plastic. At which point, they could just as cheaply be molded into any shape. In fact, Olympus brought out an SLR shaped like a beercan. You grabbed it and raised it to your eye just like drinking a beer or looking into a monocular. All controls were at the fingertips, giving one-hand operation. The wrist was in a natural position, not the contortions necessary to hold the old type of SLR. The design was brilliant and evolutionarily superior in every way. It didn't sell very well. The old machined design stuck around. This could have been because of designers, or because of customers brainwashed into what they think a camera should look like. But the point is, the old, inefficient, needless design stayed around. (Of course digital cameras came along and made most of the original design restrictions obsolete...but most digital cams still look like old viewfinder cameras.)

The first in a planned line of inexpensive manuals for writers and small publishers from Adoro Works, my new manual is a very comprehensive how-to for absolute beginners at making videos, but with enough information and tips to be of use to intermediate users as well.

And hey, the price is certainly right.

ADORO WORKS

Actually, it's a reprint with a couple of new pieces, but hey...

In fact, a reader on another forum commented on the poem "Fuse", which can be read on the excerpts page and was written like 30 years ago, as being timely and topical. And thinking about it, I guess it really does have more to do with the "post 9/11 world" than before.



Anyway, it's out on adoro books, which is moving into poetry and planning some aggressive experiments that go really well with my long-held opinion that poetry needs to be snatched back away from the constipated academics and made a staple of peoples lives the way it used to be.