Chip MacGregor .com

A Lesson in Self-Publishing

A couple of folks have asked if I'd offer some thoughts on how to self-publish successfully, since we were recently chatting on this blog about self-publishing options. If you go to Lightning Source, the setup for the book is $35, plus another $35 for the cover. You also pay another $35 for the ISBN number. They'll send you a cover template (complete with barcode, which you MUST have if you're going to sell it in any store). You'll pay about $3 each for the ink/paper/binding of a 200 page book, or $4.50 for a 300 page novel, plus an extra $1 apiece for the cover. You can order as few as you want, but you'll discover there are discounts starting at 50 copies. Then you'll have a shipping charge added to that. They're fast, and will get you your books in about two to three weeks. So... your total per book cost is going to be roughly $6 per book, give or take how many pages it is, how many copies you get, and what all you do with the cover. 

You know why most self-pubbed are looked down upon? Because they are badly written, poorly edited, and have lousy covers. (Wait -- before you self-pubbed types write to tell me how wonderful your book is, you should know that I've done this a long time. I've self-pubbed my own books. I've been involved with dozens of self-published titles. And I've been in the industry for a couple decades. Believe me, I can recognize crappy writing, editing, and design -- and most self-pubbed titles have all three. Yours may be the exception, but that's the common impression people hold of self-pubbed books, and they hold it for a reason.) So keep this in mind: There are a lot of good people working in publishing, and if they all say the book isn't that good... well, they may be right. So don't parade your arrogance around by publishing another lousy book. 

So what can you do to make your self-pubbed book better? First, do your research. If you don't know anything about the process, talk to some people who have successfully self-published. Second, hand it over to a professional editor. That might change your book cost by dollar or two per copy, but it's worth it. A second set of eyes will catch things you've missed because you're too close to it. Be wary of paying an editing fee to a vanity press, who may or may not have quality editors on staff. With very little work,you can locate a good editor to assist you with your book. Third, invest a couple hundred bucks with an artist who can create a nice-looking, salable cover. Again, this will drive your price up. But you'll never sell a book with a bad cover. (In fact, I've seen pretty good books fail because of horrid covers.) Fourth, before you hand over your print file, hire a copyeditor to do one last check. Yes, that's another expense... but having that third set of eyes will simply make your book look much more professional. Fifth (and perhaps most important), have a plan in place to market your book BEFORE it releases. Most self-publishing authors fail because they can produce the book, but then don't know how to sell the actual copies. 

I've self-published several books successfully. I did hardcover nonfiction books, had a lot of editing done, paid an artist for the cover, and had a plan in place. Those books cost me about $8 each. They were a specialty item (books of card tricks for magicians), so they had a high retail price tag -- $40. That worked great for me, but I knew exactly how to sell books of cards tricks. I knew which magazines card magicians subscribed to, knew how to get them reviewed in magic magazines, knew how to get the books to magic conventions, and knew who my audience was and how to reach them. I also knew their language -- what they wanted in a book of card tricks. So I had a plan for selling the books. I've helped other people do trade-size paperbacks. Those cost about $6 each, and they normally sold for $10-$12, so the author was making more on his self-published books than if he had sold the book to a traditional publisher and received a royalty. BUT HE HAD AN AVENUE FOR SELLING THEM. The issue for most self-published authors is that they think through how to get the books, but not how to sell them. If you don't have a platform, if you don't know who and where your audience is, and if you don't have a written plan to reach them, you're probably just publishing a book out of vanity. 

Think about this: Some of the self-publishing ventures you'll discover will charge you as much as $100 per book. They'll try to get you to sign on with their marketing efforts (generally for a very large fee). They may or may not deliver on their promise. Think of it as building a house -- you can pay a big fee to a general contractor to have it done for you, or you can do much of the work yourself and get it done for less money. I'm not saying the self-publishing companies are unfair -- they're just trying to make a profit. But be aware that you can probably accomplish the same thing for far less money. 

Two other notes: First, there is, in my opinion, almost ZERO market for self-published novelists. No matter how much time you spend improving your manuscript, people don't want to buy a novel unless it comes from a legit source. You have to hand-sell every copy. If you've got a big group of friends, and you're satisfied you can make this work, have at it. But be aware that you're not going to make any money. Second, my friend and fellow literary agent Rachelle Gardner put it very well when she noted recently, "Understand that self-publishing is an alternative to regular, royalty-paying commercial publishing, not a stepping stone to it." She said it perfectly. I don't believe that your self-pubbed book will get you a publishing contract with Random House or Harper Collins. Just so you know. 

Let me close with something you'll appreciate... A couple years ago, some folks decided to try and find the worst self-published book on the market. I was sent a copy of the winner, just for a laugh. The title: How to Good-bye Depression. The subtitle (and I swear I'm not making this up), is: If you constrict anus 100 times everyday. Malarky? or Effective Way? 

With a guaranteed winner subtitle like that, I'm sure you'll agree this must be one life-changing book. The author is Mr. Hiroyuki Nishigaki. His chapter titles include: Turn to bay throwing away pride, Save sex energy and rotate vortex, erase your bad stickiness and multiply various good feeling, and of course the immortal Stare, shoot out immaterial fiber, ucceed in concentrating, behave with abandon-largess-humour and beckon the spirit (I double-checked to make sure I had that one correct, complete with the word "ucceed"). 

There's obviously much to think about here. Rotating your vortex is no doubt a good thing. I've long been an outspoken vortex-rotator, as my friends can attest. And I'm all for erasing your bad stickiness -- a topic that just doesn't get enough mention these days. I'm not as sold on shooting out immaterial fiber, but I may not be as far along in the process as Mr. Nishigaki. Still, you've got to admit the whole idea offers many helpful benefits. As he says in his back cover copy, "I think constricting anus 100 times and denting navel 100 times in succession everyday is effective to goodbye depression and take back youth. You can do so at boring meeting or in a subway. I have known 70-year-old man who has practiced it for 20 years... His eyes sparkle. He is full of vigor, happiness and joy. Furthermore, he can make * * three times in succession." The copy goes on to mention that this man has burned out his stickiness and is busy shooting out his immaterial fiber, so it MUST work. As the author puts it, "If you don't know that... your life looks like hell." 

Just think of the promise offered there. If you're facing a boring meeting this week, you may want to order a copy...

http://www.amazon.com/How-Good-bye-Depression-Constrict-Everyday/dp/0595094724/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259546539&sr=1-1

What is a platform?

I've had a couple people write to ask, "What is a platform?"

The simplest way to view this is to say that a platform is a NUMBER... the number of people who have contact with you and your writing. Let's say that you speak at conferences -- how many? in what venues? to how many people? All those folks who hear you speak over the course of the year add up to a number. 

Next, let's assume you have a column in a newspaper, or maybe you do occasional feature articles. All those folks read your words, so the readership of that paper is another number. 

If you are regularly on a radio show, or perhaps host the occasional program on local radio or TV, the listenership or viewership has a number. 

Perhaps you've got a popular blog, or you post online articles on e-zines. That readership can easily be quantified. OR you're heavily involved with social media, so that you spend a lot of time Facebooking or Twittering, checking in with LinkedIn or ShoutLife friends. All of those folks who have regular contact with you and your words via the web -- another number. 

And yes, your previous books have a readership, and perhaps you've captured names and email addresses so that you can more easily re-connect with them. That's another number. 

If you're well-connected to an association, or you're a member or leader of an organization, those folks all have contact with you. So your church, your city's arts council, the college alumni association that interviewed you for their newsletter -- all of those types of connections present a number of readers who are familiar to you.

That's a how a platform is built. You make friends and build an awareness of yourself and your writing. You don't think of it as "selling a product" but as "sharing your gift." Then you add up all those numbers, and you let your publisher know. You present a comprehensive view of the number of people to whom you can say you have some sort of connection. The bigger the number, the happier your publisher will be. 

Two additional thoughts: First, while the concept of building your platform may scare you (especially if you're a quiet writer type, rather than a public speaking/media type), keep in mind that everything I listed above is based on WORDS. Sometimes they are spoken (from a dais or over the airwaves), but more often they are written. So you get to use your best gift to build your platform. Second, your publisher is going to count on you helping to sell your book. A big platform can help you accomplish that.

Now, the next thing people want to know is, "Does a novelist need to have a platform?"

You'd like to think that a novelist can create a career based on nothing more than great characters, snappy dialogue, and a page-turning plot. And that sometimes happens. But in a tough publishing market, publishers are looking for every edge they can get. So yes, they'll take into account an author's platform. Hey -- these are business people. They want to know an author can help them sell books. So by all means include your platform information in your bio when you send in your proposal. 

Getting ready for the next Fiction Marketing Seminar, coming to Indianapolis this Friday and Saturday. There's still room to join -- find out more at www.themasterseminars.com

Amanda (Chip's assistant) steps in...

I'm Amanda -- Chip's assistant at MacGregor Literary. I've been handling the over-the-transom queries sent to the office for the past few months. It's been enlightening. Below are a few strange yet horrifically common trends I'm seeing with queries. They'll make you laugh, they'll make you cry, but hopefully, they'll make you check over your queries to see whether you're among the guilty. So, without further ado, I present:

Three Things Currently Annoying Amanda

1)    People who don't do their homework. Within a week's span, I saw about five different queries from self-professed psychics who wanted to take the next step in their career by publishing a book. Now, I've taken great pains to resist the urge to chastise them for wasting my time when they could just as easily have consulted their special powers and foreseen my inevitable rejection.

But I'm too nice. Furthermore, their failure to use their powers to their advantage isn't the core problem. The core of the problem is this: Authors seeking an agent don't do their research. A bit of poking around at macgregorliterary.com would have thrown up obvious red flags and told authors such as this that Chip typically represents Christian authors. He's probably not interested in anything that has to do with special powers.

2)    Relentless submitters. It's one thing if an author truly polishes their work and queries it again. It's another if they're on query number 77, having ignored the first rejection that came after query number 06 (yes, this has happened).

Another pet peeve are the authors who get antsy and resubmit a pending submition. My only piece of advice to these people is this: Don't get offended if this results in your work getting rejected twice. You submitted it twice, after all. It's only fair.

3)    Friends of the Archangel Gabriel. Believe it or not, I've seen queries from more than one person, claiming that the Archangel Gabriel visited them, told them super-sensitive information, and now it's up to me to see to the fruition of God's will in the form of a 90,000 work of nonfiction.

That's right. The fulfillment of God's will is dependent upon me. Me. (And you thought your job was stressful . . .)

Now, if only I could make them believe that my rejection is a sign from God as well . . .

Rants and Raves

Rave: I just got back from our first-even "Fiction Marketing Seminar." We held it in Dallas with a half-dozen novelists, and we had a GREAT time. Everyone found it helpful, and our brainstorming with authors about how they can help promote their own novels more effectively was the highlight of the weekend. Thanks for participating everyone! (And if you're interested in attending, we're doing the Fiction Marketing Seminar again in Indy in just a couple weeks -- December 4-5.) 

Rant: You know, that last blog post of mine was awful. I was busy at the conference, looked at my emails late at night, and decided to simply re-post something I'd written recently. In retrospect, that was a bad decision. Michael Hyatt, the President of Thomas Nelson, had written a blog post about "why agents may be opposed to self-publishing," and I wanted to quickly get something up in response. In doing so, I failed to adequately touch on his points. Worse, my words suggested Mike was purposefully not telling the truth about the way his business is run. That's a huge disservice to Mike, a man I like and respect. Nor did it really add anything to the conversation. So... Mike, I apologize for that. I was wrong. The next time I'm in Nashville, I'll buy you a fish taco. 

Rave: Mr. Hyatt spent a lot of time responding to comments on his blog, http://michaelhyatt.com , and I recommend you read not only his blog but the discussion in the "comments" section. There are good points made from all sides. It's worth a look. I'm not enthusiastic at the way literary agents are referenced in this particular post, but Thomas Nelson has a track record of working with agents, so I'm taking Mike's notes in the comments section to heart. 

Rant: Just so we're clear, this particular agent isn't opposed to self-publishing. (In fact, I've self-published books.) I didn't much like the image Mike used at the top of his blog (a bunch of supposed agents pointing fingers and screaming), but I don't really care if Thomas Nelson gets into the self-pubbing business or not. I think the industry is changing, and we're going to see more of these types of difficult decisions. I'm still of the opinion that (1) most self-publishing exist to take money from uninformed wannabe writers, (2) as a novelist it is EXTREMELY rare to find any success at all with a self-pubbed book, so therefore (3) the people who will have success with a self-published book are nonfiction writers with a mechanism for selling their books.

Rave: I'd also like to point people to Rachelle Gardner's excellent blog, http://cba-ramblings.blogspot.com/, where she spoke to the issue with a lot of passion. I think she said it best when she noted that self-publishing "is an alternative to regular, royalty-paying, commercial publishing, not a stepping stone to it." Good stuff, Rachelle! 

Rant: I have now heard from more than 100 Ted Dekker fans, who have convinced me that I'm wrong -- there are PLENTY of readers who found deep spiritual truths in his novels. Okay, I was wrong. I should have kept in mind that one diner likes chocolate, another vanilla. My bad. (For those not in the know, this got started when bestselling novelist Ted Dekker blogged about a list of words he'd discovered on a publisher's website that were not to be used by Christian romance writers.) AND I need to add that there were certainly a couple words on that list Ted mentioned that did, in fact, concern me... "priest," for one. 

Rave: I had a great conversation with Ted Dekker about all this, and he was very gracious. He has taken steps to try and let people know he wasn't trying to demean all romantic novelists. The two of us decided that we are still friends, and still don't want a Celebrity Death Match (which is a good thing, since Ted is younger than me). 

Rant: Now Harlequin is jumping into the self-publishing game. They made a big, splashy announcement about "Harlequin Horizons," which is a new vanity press they set up for those who want to do their own romance novels. Mystery Writers of America and Romance Writers of America immediately called them out, since the marketing language certainly makes it seem as though an author paying for the privilege of self-publishing a book with that imprint is given the impression that they are part of the Harlequin family, and therefore a Harlequin author (specifically, they referred to this as a "gateway for aspiring authors"). Again, I don't care if a publisher wants to try new ideas in order to make extra income in a lousy economy. But they have to be careful to not over-promise. There's no way Barnes & Noble, Borders, or Books-a-Million starts stocking self-published books. Perhaps Harlequin, like Thomas Nelson, promises they're going to be reviewing the self-pubbed titles for possible publication down the road. But be aware, fiction writers... it is a rare thing indeed to self-publish your novel and have anyone buy it. 

Rave: This has nothing to do with publishing, but for the first time in my life (and I'm 51) the Oregon Ducks will play the Oregon State Beavers for the Pac 10 Championship and the right to go to the Rose Bowl. Life is sweet here in Oregon. And... GO DUCKS!

Responding to Self Publishing

Last month I talked about self-publishing, and today Mike Hyatt, the President of Thomas Nelson, asked, "Why are agents so opposed to self-publishing?" As an agent, who really isn't opposed at all to self-pubbing, I thought it was worth a revisit to my post. If you want to read Mike's original blog, you can go here:  http://michaelhyatt.com/2009/10/should-you-consider-self-publishing.html and here  www.news.thomasnelson.com  

If you want to read his latest musings, you can go here: www.michaelhyatt.com. And let me point out that I'm a big fan of Mike Hyatt -- a good guy, whom I respect, and who also likes fish tacos. Here's the post from last month:

Some people are angry, thinking Nelson is profiteering... but my feeling is, "They're a business. OF COURSE they're profiteering." I mean, I'm in business to make a profit. That's what a business does! The team at Nelson has simply noticed the abundance of wannabe writers out there, and decided to create an option for them to get into print. Nothing wrong with that. The industry is changing rapidly, and we're all trying to figure out how to make a living in the new economy. If Nelson wants to start a self-pub unit, it's not much different than if they started a "plush toys" unit or a "TV movie" division. That said, I do think there are some issues to think through.

First, there's no getting around the fact that the Thomas Nelson name has huge cache. So there's the potential for offering a bit of a "come on." I think that's what has upset people -- the notion that the team at Nelson is saying, "Self-pubbing with WestBow is sort of like publishing your book with Thomas Nelson." And that's just not true. 

When the president of the company, Michael Hyatt, blogged about it, he alluded to this when he stated self-pubbing "provides us with a kind of 'farm team.'" Um... Mike... please. I respect you very much, and I've publicly sung your praises, but that looks like you're letting the marketing guys create your copy for you. You're already publishing 500 titles per year, and these books weren't good enough to make your list. Sure, if somebody self-publishes and sells 10,000 copies, you might sit up and pay attention to them -- but so will everyone else. A "farm team" implies that your editorial and marketing people will be investing in these authors, shaping them for a brighter publishing future. And, in my humble opinion, that won't be happening. 

(A side note: Mike also mentioned that authors wanted to self-pub "without getting ripped off." Uh... ripped off by who? Haven't the majority of the complaints been aimed at iUniverse and XLibris and Author House? Nelson has announced they're doing this in a partnership with ASI, who, um, owns iUniverse and XLibris and Author House. So if you're concerned authors are getting ripped off, it's by the very company you're partnering with. But I'm not trying to cast aspersions. I don't have any firsthand knowledge of problems with Author House, for example. And I know Michael Hyatt -- he's a good man, who's just trying to make his company successful.)

Second, the Nelson group must understand that some folks are afraid of the huge potential to scam people -- having some editor say, "We're not interested in publishing your book through our regular publishing company... but have you considered self-publishing with us?" No, I don't expect that will happen. But do you know that's exactly why members of the Association of Author Representatives aren't allowed to have their own editing services or publishing companies? There's too much temptation to look at every bad manuscript that passes an agent's desk and say, "This isn't ready... but for $500, I have an editor who could really get this in shape." A successful agent would have a bonanza -- EVERY crappy manuscript would have the potential to earn the agent money. (And there are several literary agents who do this -- running an editorial service or offering "proposal consulting." They'd be drummed out of the AAR for that reason. Stay away from them.) 

Third, the folks at Nelson probably wish they hadn't decided to use the name WestBow. They used it for expediency (Thomas Nelson already owned it; WestBow was the name of their fiction program a few years back), but that creates real issues... Can a WestBow author now say, "I'm published by the same imprint that publishes TED DEKKER"? Yeah, they can. (And yes, the WestBow authors are livid about this.) My guess is that they'll change this. 

Fourth, I have a real problem with the blog stating, "We want to work with agents and affiliates as 'WestBow Press Affiliates.'" That would mean I, as an agent, would supposedly send an author to WestBow, so that I could get a bird-dog fee? Um... no. Sorry. That's a clear ethical violation. 

In retrospect, I was surprised the Nelson folks did this so publicly, since most people in publishing look down on self-pubbing as the low-end, potentially seedy side of the business. Another CBA house, B&H, has a self-pub company -- Cross Books -- but they keep it under wraps. So far as I know, there are no connections between their self-pub side and the actual B&H publishing business. And if this whole enterprise is going to come back and bite Thomas Nelson in the backside, it's because of that. There's at least one publishing house (NOT Thomas Nelson) who has sent out rejection letters stating, "We've decided not to publish your book... but you may want to consider self-publishing with us." That letter doesn't pass the smell test. 

I'm not down on self-publishing. In fact, I've self-pubbed my own books (they were books of card tricks) and done very well. But all of us who work in the industry have seen poor quality, badly written books with no editing and poor production qualities. So, to make sure we leave with a learning tool, let me answer one question: Who should self-publish? 

The answer is simple: Only authors who can sell their books. Period. If you can't sell your book -- either by speaking to a group or pitching them to your organization or offering them to your regular readers, don't self-publish. You'll just lose money. It's extremely rare for a fiction writer to sell any self-published books, no matter what company name is on the spine. So be aware, and do your homework.

More on the Wonderful World of Publishing

I'm getting a ton of emails from people regarding the Ted Dekker stuff (if you missed it, read my last blog post). It's funny how people respond in a disagreement -- they tend to move completely to one side ("I love Ted's books -- I can't believe you're attacking him!") or the other ("Amen! Stick it to him!") and focus on emotion rather than the issues. I've heard from numerous Ted Dekker fans, basically accusing me on attacking their hero, and a few have asked if we've got some sort of personal feud going. 

Nope. Sorry. Ted and I are acquaintances (I'd say we're friends, but that may be stretching it a little bit -- however, we're certainly friendly when we see each other). There's a lot of mutual respect between Ted and me. He's a fine writer who tells a great story and has built a remarkably successful career. I particularly appreciate the fact that Ted has helped take CBA fiction in new directions. I just didn't happen to agree with what he said about romance novelists in general, and Love Inspired authors in particular. Since he felt he could post on the topic, I felt I could respond. But I assure you, there's no bad blood between us. So relax, people. The two of us aren't going to be having a Celebrity Death Match or anything.

Yes, I think his writing has gotten awfully dark recently. And no, I don't believe his books are moving readers toward a deeper spirituality (no matter how many irate college students write to tell me so). But that's not a personal attack, it's just this one agent's opinion. Ted could just as easily write and say, "Chip has represented a bunch of romance novelists, health books, and business/finance stuff, so HE'S not helping American Christians deepen their spiritual lives either!" And I'd plead guilty, I suppose, even though I'm very proud of the authors I represent. (And no, he won't do that. Trust me. Ted isn't taking this as personally as some of his followers.) But that DOES bring up the notion of followers, and it's a topic I've wanted to write about for some time...

Take a look at the comments after Ted's post. "Amen!" "You de man!" "This is brilliant!" Then, after he apologized to the Love Inspired authors, he got a fresh batch of "Fantastic!" "Brilliant stuff!" and "What a wonderful human being you are." It makes you wonder how saying one thing, then apologizing for it, can solicit the same attaboy responses. I have great respect for Mike Hyatt, the Prez at Thomas Nelson, and I read his wonderful blog faithfully, but I can't help but smile at the list of folks who regularly go on and comment "Mike -- you're the most amazing man in publishing!" I mean, sometimes he writes about fish tacos, and they'll still call him a genius. (And, to be fair, I sometimes have people comment on my own blog in ways that make me think, "You know... I really wasn't THAT brilliant.") My point is just that people seem to become fans of certain individuals, and it might blind them a bit. I know I could have a reasoned dialogue with Ted (or Mike) about a disagreement... I'm not sure I feel the same way about some of the followers.

Here's why this is important to me: I worry about people getting so wrapped up in a personality they lose perspective. I had two kids graduate from Seattle Pacific University, and I noticed when on campus there were students who seemed to think this guy who pastors a mega-church in the area walks on water. Honestly, the students acted like mindless drones -- "Pastor is above reproach..." You could NOT criticize him or they'd start attacking. I found the whole thing sort of scary. I had a chance to talk with that pastor a couple times, and found him to be an arrogant blowhard with a need to continually remind us what a tough and virile superman he is. He said at least two things to me that were obvious exaggerations, but the sycophants around him kept laughing and offering verbal slaps on the back. He was anti-education, borrowed his view on women from Neanderthals, and basically gave me the impression he had zero accountability in his life. In short, the guy was a putz. But no matter how much you explain that to his followers, they think he's Mr. Wonderful. And I fear going there. I fear ever having people act that way toward me, since I'll be the first to tell you that I do NOT know everything, do NOT always set a good example, and do NOT want the responsibility of being the last word on everything in publishing. 

Just thought I'd mention that, as we talk about the decisions and directions of publishing today. On to more interesting stuff: Thomas Nelson has jumped into the low-price fiction wars (or maybe they decided to help smaller booksellers jump into that war) by offering four backlist titles at only $2.99. [Earlier versions of this post said "frontlist" titles. My mistake.] Yeah, that won't leave any money at all for the writer, but what a great way to get some market attention and build a readership. Love this idea. ("Mike Hyatt is a genius!")  :o)

If you're looking for an agent, WEbook, which was launched a little more than a year ago as a collaborative site for writers, has added a new service that links authors and agents. The agents make themselves available for authors to send them materials, authors learn to shape the proposals according to editorial guidelines, and everybody gets a chance to network. Publishers Marketplace reported that eight literary agencies have signed on, and one has already signed a new client. If you're in the market, you might want to check out the site. 

If you're interested in making a living at writing, make sure to read this great post on the realities of the writers life: http://www.genreality.net/more-on-the-reality-of-a-times-bestseller

The fact is, making a living at the arts has never been easy. My wife is a quilt artist, I have a daughter who is a dancer, a brother who is a trombone player, a brother and a sister who were both dancers, a mother-in-law who is a painter, and I used to make my living performing. None of us have found it an easy road. Making a living at the arts (ANY art) is a tough road to travel. 

Last thing: On Friday and Saturday, I'm going to be in Dallas for the first Fiction Marketing Seminar. Jim Rubart (a longtime marketing consultant) and I are teaching a small group of novelists who want to know how they can take charge of marketing their own novels. We're going to do this again in Indianapolis December 4 and 5. There's still space, if you'd like to join us. This seminar is aimed at helping novelists create their own marketing plans -- something that's become essential in today's publishing economy. If you want to find out more, check it out at:

www.themasterseminars.com

-Chip

The Good, the Bad, and the Faux Deep

The Big News in publishing today is that they've refined the Google Book Settlement. (If you're unaware, Google is going to digitize nearly every out-of-print book and make it available for sale -- that's huge news to anyone involved in the publishing industry.) They still plan on setting up a Book Rights Registry to make sure some of the money goes to the rights holder of those oop books, but they couldn't get all those pesky foreign governments to work with them (the nerve!). So now the settlement will basically be limited to books published in English -- that is, books from the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. So the pool of books, while still huge, has been limited considerably. The other big changes include: an oversight board to look out for orphaned books (where it's not clear who the owner is), a reworking of the financials, and a clause that allows someone other than Google to control the whole mess. Is this done yet? Not sure... but it certainly looks like we're moving toward some sort of digital book registry, so that every book ever published in the English language will be available to you in a digital format. And yes, I still think this is a good thing, if you consider the big picture.

Over in the world of Christian publishing, novelist Ted Dekker made a big splash, showing incredibly poor judgment in deciding to slam the biggest segment of publishing, apparently because it doesn't make him happy. He took aim at Christian romance publishers in general, and Harlequin's Love Inspired in particular, poking fun at their rules and offering a big list of words they can't use. (You can read the whole diatribe at http://www.teddekker.com/2009/11/07/whats-wrong-with-this-picture/ ). He then turned it into a crusade, suggesting all right-thinking religious writers "call out" the terrible issue of...um, not being able to use the word "hooters" in fiction, I guess. 

Um... Ted. These are novels. The readers buying these books want clean, safe, romantic titles. They won't be buying YOUR books, which are none of the above. Instead, they'll look for a good story, with no bad words or obvious sexual sidelines. What's wrong with that? When did we decide banning certain books was a good idea? And there are a LOT of these readers -- something we can safely state, since in a terrible publishing year, Harlequin actually GREW. In fact, they posted the biggest gains of any publisher over the past twelve months. So maybe they're on to something. If that list of words they don't want you to use (which, taken out of context, is admittedly pretty funny) gets you all hot and bothered, don't buy them. Buy something else -- a Stephen King novel, maybe. Or something racier, if that's what gets your motor running. But your argument suggests that there are good Christian novels (the ones you like) and bad Christian novels (the ones romance readers like), and that we apparently need to stand up and demand... what? That they stop doing the books you don't like?

This is a straw man argument. It's easy for speculative readers to attack romance novels, just as it's easy for academic writers to attack the writers of popular reference. You start shouting, claim the other side is stupid, and give evidence of a couple dopey things they've done. In Ted's case, he wrapped it all up in a veneer of spirituality, asking the "What Would Jesus Do" question. It's what is called a "deep vs shallow" argument, and it goes like this: "What I write is deep... what you write is shallow."

My response: Bull. (And yes, I'd have used a stronger word, but I don't want to lose all those romance readers.) Ted's novels aren't deep -- they're chases and thrillers that tell a good story and, occasionally, offer a spiritual thread. But they're very dark (and, frankly, getting darker all the time). None of them cause you to think deeply about your faith, nor do I know anyone who has come to a deeper walk with God because of reading them. (I suppose it could have happened, but I don't know of anyone who would make that claim.) Different readers want different types of stories. If some people are offended by certain words or situations, isn't it legitimate to write a book for them? In my view, a writer can create a "real" book without using words that might offend a select audience. In fact, we do it ALL THE TIME. Ted's books don't have the F word -- why? Because it would turn off his readership, to say nothing of the retailers. So this is just an argument of degree. I guess, if you read Ted's post, this means I'm voting "A" -- that I call him out for a biased, shallow argument, and tell him the only thing I'm appalled at is his arrogance. 

On a happier note, check out  http://www.ajc.com/news/blogger-raises-30k-in-193483.html . 

Jon Acuff, the genius behind the popular Stuff Christians Like website, told his readers he'd like to help the Samaritan's Purse organization raise $30,000 to build an orphanage in Vietnam. (This came about because Jon's six-year-old daughter read a story about starving children in that country and she wanted to help.) So Jon challenged his readers to make a donation -- and something that would have taken the organization months to accomplish was done in 18 hours. That's right -- he raised $30,000 in 18 hours, just by asking his friends on his website. In fact, the money came in so fast that Jon decided to try and double it -- and raised $60,000 so Samaritan's Purse could build TWO orphanages. Shows you something about the power of the internet to build a community of like-minded people, doesn't it? Amazing stuff. Check out Jon's website at www.stuffchristianslike.net .

 And, by the way, Jon's book, Stuff Christians Like, comes out with Zondervan next March. 

Creating a Critique Group

This email came from Jess: "You once said we should get all our words down on paper, in order to create a crappy draft. I know you're talking about writing a nonfiction book here, but I've heard the same thing about fiction. My question: Where do our critique partners come in? I sure don't want to pass along a crappy first chapter or two to them...so I write and rewrite, trying to make it perfect before moving on. Any advice on how to make a critique group faster and more productive?"

Sure. First, let me explain to everybody what a critique group is: A collection of fellow writers who come together to improve each other's writing. (And, yeah, occasionally they come together to smack down the arrogant, or to make themselves feel better by criticizing someone else...but the GOAL of the group is to help everyone improve.) Sometimes you'll just have one or two people who are your crit partners; other times you might be part of a group that gathers on a weekly or monthly basis. You pass your work around ahead of time, the others make notes, then they come and share them with you.

Second, let me take issue with a couple things you said. I'm talking both fiction AND nonfiction. In my experience, nearly every writer benefits from having crit partners. And I think you may be stressing too much on showing people your bad work. Everybody has some bad work now and then. The point of the group is to IMPROVE. So get it out there -- let your partners see your work. It will help them as much as it helps you, since they'll be able to see how you handle certain writing problems.

Years ago, in another life, I made my living doing dopey magic tricks and telling jokes. (Really.) I played some nice places (the Comedy & Magic Club of Hermosa Beach was one), and I played some awful places (insert the name of any smoky bar where the customers are more interested in Budweisers, Camels, and the opposite sex). One thing I noticed about the venues: Even if the place was a dive, I learned lessons. Being in front of a living, breathing audience forces you to change your act. You have to work really hard to get people to laugh. All the rehearsal in the world wasn't going to cause me to perfect my act -- for that, I had to go be bad in front of people.

There's a lesson there for writers... A lot of potential writers are simply too sensitive. As a writer, you need a place to bad, so that you can learn to be good. So if your ego is too fragile to allow someone else to read your work, it's time to learn this lesson. Allow yourself to be bad. Give somebody else (preferably not your mom, your spouse, or your best friend) the permission to be honest with you about your writing.

Yes, this takes courage. And it means you're going to have to find a couple people you trust. If you get into a large crit group, chances are you're going to have one person you don't like, who always hammers you for something. Learn to live with it. Paste a smile on your face, say "thanks very much," and move on to somebody whose opinion you actually care about. BUT somewhere, in the midst of all that fake niceness, be willing to at least hear what that individual has to say about your writing. A fresh set of eyes is exactly why you joined the group, so at least listen to the criticisms others have, even if you think they're all wrong and you're above this sort of thing.

Scottish people have a saying: Learn to unpack a rebuke. In other words, don't reject a criticism out of hand. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. But give it a little time. Take it and play with it. Be willing to at least examine the criticism and see if, just maybe, there's an ounce of truth in it.

I recently had somebody challenge me on this blog -- they basically snarled at me, "You're playing it too safe! Where's the edgy Chip I've seen on other sites? You've pulled it all in, hoping this 'nice' Chip will be more appealing!" My first response? I slapped her. (No, not really. There I go again, playing it safe.) My first reaction was to defend myself. "No, that's not true." Then I offered a bunch of reasons why I was Mr. Edgy. Except...she was right. I've felt the same thing -- that I was toning it all down. I don't know why, but I felt it, and when I read back over my replies, I could see it. So I unpacked the rebuke. And now...um...I don't know. I'm not going to become Mr. Snotty, but I probably need to cut loose a bit more. I don't want people checking my site at bedtime in order to help them nod off.

Of course, sometimes you'll get a rebuke that's wrong. Somebody will tell you "that idea will never sell" or "you shouldn't do that novel in first person," and your only response is to smile, say thanks, and ignore the moron. That's okay. At least you got another perspective. But you gain an immense amount of wisdom when you allow other people you respect to look at your words.

Okay, so third (and yes, this is really "third" -- look way up there and you'll see there was a "first" and a "second"), I want to suggest that handing around a bad first draft is EXACTLY the point of a crit group. Let them see what you're doing and offer some direction for your writing. You may not agree with all of it, but the point is that you're getting another set of eyes to review your work. I've seen thousands of pages of paper wasted on under-written book proposals. Sometimes these were good ideas, they just needed more work. But I rarely seen an over-written book proposal -- one the author simply over-designed, over-thought, and over-wrote. So my sense is that you probably need to spend more time on your project.

Having a critique group can help you move forward. Besides, having writing friends gives you somebody to share your success and failure with. When those rejections come in, they'll pat you on the back and tell you that, yes, you're a fine writer, you just need to stick with it. Maybe they'll go buy you a Guinness. (Another reason to like critique groups!)

Fourth, you asked how to make them faster and more productive. As for "faster," send the writings out one week  and talk about them the next week. (That said, I don't know that making a group faster is the goal. But I know how frustrating it is to get into a group where one person dominates all the needs.) In terms of making things more productive, I encourage groups to WRITE their comments. It's too easy to weasel out of a tough criticism when we're all sitting around the living room, drinking tea and commenting on Daphne's stupid prairie romance. ("Um...I don't know...but since this is set in the 1830's, maybe you shouldn't have your heroine eaten by intergallactic space aliens.") Instead, ask people to write their criticisms onto the page, then you can talk through them, and hand them to the author, before giving her (a) a kleenex to wipe her eyes, and (b) the number of a good suicide prevention counselor.

Fifth and last, don't think about trying to make it perfect. Seeking perfection in writing is what freezes people up and keeps them from writing (or from participating in an honest crit group). Look for progress, not perfection. You ain't going to make it perfect. So try to make it "better than last week."

Hope that helps. (And yes, I said this before, about three years ago. I thought the topic needed to be covered again.) 

Sandra's Self Evaluation ...

 

My husband came home from work one day this week and we briefly discussed the results of a review he'd done for one of his employees. Nothing confidential, of course, and to this employee's credit, most everything my husband had to say was quite positive.

It got me thinking, though, how much I DON'T MISS the formal quarterly job review process. The nerves leading up to it. The pre-evaluation work required. The "wonder if I'm cutting it?" worries. The hoping for a fair raise and the resulting reminder that as much as I'd like it to be otherwise, my performance was not always directly linked to my paycheck.

When I worked as an employee, my review results were always very positive. "Hard worker. Excellent work ethic. Resourceful, respectful, creative, team player," yada yada. All good skills.

Of course, it's different when you work for yourself. The feedback system is just ... different.

Now, Chip and I discuss our work all the time. We talk through the frustrations and challenges, and celebrate victories together. Work out plans for the future. Help each other figure out strategies for moving our authors move forward. This friendly partner relationship is much more fun than filling out accountability evaluations, trust me. And it's a blessing to know I can go to someone with the wealth of experience he brings to the job of agenting without worrying that I'm exposing my performance "weaknesses."  I've learned more this past 18 months than I thought possible.

And so, realizing that I've hit another milestone in my new(ish) career, I decided to do my own performance review. Chip and I talked about these things earlier this week (while he was in my home office unknowingly spreading the flu bug, thank you very much!) and then I thought since people are still asking me "hey, how's the agent thing going?" and because I'm way overdue for a blog post, I figured I'd share the results here.

Because I usually approach everything from a "what can be better" angle, I started with my "Needs Improvement" list:

1. I don't blog often enough (yeah, yeah, I know ...).

2. I'm still not the email Ninja I wish I was, but I'm working on it.

3. I have a tendency to keep trying new tracking systems - have yet to find the ONE perfect foolproof and simple system which works for me. I need to just pick one and make it work.

4. I tend to over-analyze, and over-think things. (Hence number 3).

5. I still carry a fair amount of "not good enough" around in my head all the time, specifically as it relates to my work. I still struggle with my perfectionistic tendencies - don't know whether I owe this to the left over father abandonment junk I still carry around with me, or maybe Staff Sergeant Goo (yes, that really was my drill instructor's name). Ahem. That's quite personal, isn't it? Oh well. See #4, I guess.

6. My personal disciplines (excercise, daily devotions, domestic routines) have taken a serious hit this past year.

And of course, to balance things out, I created a list of areas where I've seen improvement and where I feel I excel:

1. I'm progressing in working out the professional vs. personal life balancing act of working (mostly) at home.

2. I'm slower at submitting than I'd like to be, but getting better.

3. I'm good at evaluating and helping my authors create proposals. REALLY GOOD, actually.

4. I have good instincts.

5. I create excellent comp lists for work I'm planning to submit. It's time consuming, and takes me awhile to get to sometimes, but I find this one of the most enjoyable parts of my job.

6. I'm a good critiquer.

7. I've done a solid enough number of deals during a crappy economy to convince me I know what I'm doing and that I'm going to be good at this for the long haul.

8. I get along with people and generally, people tend to like me.

9. I get great feedback all the time from editors who say how comfortable it is doing deals together.

10. My authors consider me a friend.

11. I'm still taller than Chip. And, so far, I still look better in a skirt than he does.

I should probably come up with one more just to round this to an even dozen, but, I figure that's enough self-examination for one week.

But hey, one more thing ... it was such fun this week to place "my" first book on the shelf I recently cleared in my office for those I've agented - Tia McCollors' THE LAST WOMAN STANDING, from Moody's Lift Every Voice line. (And I laughed when I realized it took 18 months and that someone (certainly not me) could have birthed two babies in that time.)

Have a great weekend, everyone!

Sandra

This, That, and the Other Funny Thing

There's a ton of information to report in publishing these days, so let me catch you up...

First, it looks like the Google settlement could be tossed out. Too many arguments among the various parties. If you're an author, and you spent all that time filling out those arcane rights sheets so that you could get paid... sorry! 

Second, Bill Anderson suddenly resigned as the Prez of CBA. It happened after a stormy board meeting. He's been president since the mid-80's, and was a gracious man with a positive attitude. (Bill was always nice to me, even though I sometimes said some things on my blog that made him mad. In my view, I was just reporting the truth -- that CBA is in a world of hurt.) We had our differences (I thought the organization was slow to let charismatics and Catholics really be a part of the organization, and I still think they've done a terrible job involving African-Americans, meaning the core of CBA is still middle-class white conservative evangelical... but they'd argue that's just demographics). Still, the industry came a long way with Bill at the helm. I think he'll be missed, and it'll be interesting to see what direction the organization goes now.  

Third, self-publisher Lulu announced they're now doing e-books, and paying ten bucks on a $13.99 e-book. Wow. If you can actually SELL your books, that's a nice deal.  

Fourth, in case you haven't heard, Wal-Mart, Target, and Amazon are in a price war. Honest. They're each trying to drive the others out of business by charging less for hardcover novels. (I don't think I've heard the words "price war" since Shell and Texaco had one back in the 1960's. Imagine... paying 29 cents a gallon for gas.) And yes, that's just another nail in the coffin for good bookstores everywhere.  

Fifth, in response, Thomas Nelson has talked of staging a rollout with new books (that means having them available only in bookstores first, and in Wal-Mart and on Amazon later) and having a minimum advertised price (a concept that is much debated -- some don't think it's legal, others question if it's enforceable). This will be fascinating to watch -- but it's nice to see a publisher side with actual bookstores instead of the big retailers. 

Sixth, in honor of Dan Brown's newest book release, British newspaper The Telegraph put together a list of what they considered to be the 20 worst Dan Brown sentences. You can find it here: http://tinyurl.com/r6tye2.  Thought you'd enjoy marvelling at how such a lousy writer can sell so many copies of his books.

Seventh, I've had a couple people write to ask, "Are there any humor writers who also write about the church?"

There are a few. Jon Acuff, who runs the fabulous website Stuff Christians Like. Perhaps the funniest thing on religion in America you can find (and currently one of the most-read religious websites in the world). You can find him at http://stuffchristianslike.net/ 

Others would include Mark Twain (his "The Diaries of Adam and Eve" has some touchy humor about the church, but some is laugh-out-loud funny -- if you're interested in this topic, check out McCullough and Baetzhold's The Bible and Mark Twain), Dave Meurer (a very funny storyteller with a nice voice in his writing), Dave Barry (you may not know this, but his father was a Presbyterian minister, and his writings on religion are generally insightful, over-the-top, and hilarious), and Garrison Keillor (his faith stories are warm and funny). Two similar writers are Michael Lindvall's The Good News from North Haven and Haven Kimmel's A Girl Named Zippy.

I suppose we could talk about  Anita Renfroe (humor for women that's actually funny, whereas many of the women trying to be funny in CBA are simply boring...so it's time we all admit that Barbara Johnson is not funny) and Phil Callaway (he's a funny guy, but he always pulls his punches so as not to offend) and Becky Freeman Johnson (some of her tales of life with family are a riot).  If you like funny stories about those of us who grew up in church, read Todd and Jedd Hafer (Snickers from the Front Pew and Mischief from the Back Pew) and Charles Marshall (I'm Not Crazy But I Might Be a Carrier). Finally, Patricia Klein's Growing Up Born Again is a great book from twenty years ago, and if you haven't seen Joel Fitzpatrick's A Field Guide to Evangelicals and their Habitat, by all means pick yourself up a copy. If you have any ability to laugh at yourself (something MANY Christians are unable to do, seeing how they're serious people who need to set the world straight on this whole end-of-the-world scenario), you'll find page after page of laugh-out-loud humor.

That should get you started...