Anna Jones Buttimore's Blog, page 9

Free Editing, and how to do it

Last week I blogged about setting up a new group for authors who were happy to edit the work of other authors for free. Well, it's taken off in a way I could never have imagined in part due to the enormous enthusiasm of the members. We have even had people join who are not writing their own books but are still happy to help others with theirs. It's a reminder to me of what nice people there are in the world. If you're interested in joining the group, click here.
A question has arisen, however, about how to present a manuscript for editing. I thought it might help to have a few guidelines so that we are all "singing from the same hymn sheet . It's probably easiest if we follow the standard format which publishers suggest when submitting manuscripts:
If at all possible use Microsoft Word or a programme which is compatible with it. It's what most people have.Use a clear font (Times New Roman 12 point, for example) Paper size should be A4 (UK) or 8"x11" (American) with margins of at least 2cm and preferably 3.Line spacing should be set to double, but without extra spaces between paragraphs (I know it looks enormous, but in the old days of written editing it allowed space between the lines for annotations, and now it is standard)First lines of paragraphs should be indentedEach chapter should start on a new page, and starting it halfway down a page also looks better.Number the pages sequentially in the header or footer. Don't start numbering again with each new chapter.The header or footer should also contain the title of your work and your name and email addressIf you're editing a manuscript use "Track Changes" (in the review tab) to show any changes you make to the manuscript. You can also comment (review tab again) if you want to say anything more detailed about the text, for example, "This paragraph works really well."
Authors getting back an edited manscript, you need to know that lots of changes and annotations on your text is a good thing. It means the editor did a very thorough job. It doesn't mean the editor didn't like it, or that you're not a good writer, so don't be downcast if there are a lot of changes to work through. My first editor told me that a lot of red ink on my manuscript (she edited by pen in those days) is the sign of a good editor, not a bad manuscript.
Authors, remember too that it is your work. You don't have to accept the changes or suggestions your editor makes.

A New Editing Opportunity

I've had a rather amazing idea.

Here's how it came about. I have read several self-published books recently, and the standard varies widely. While a few are extremely good (Wool - wow!) many others are not. Most I've read are potentially good books but badly in need of editing. Simple typos, spelling mistakes, continuity errors, plot holes and poorly worded phrases crop up too often in indie books. These things spoil the reader's enjoyment of the book, make indie books seem unprofessional and sloppy, and lead to poor reviews and thus bad sales.

Yet common problems like these could easily be avoided if indie authors would engage a private editor before publishing.

I'm in the fortunate position of having been published traditionally as well as self-publishing my most recent book. My traditionally published books all passed through at least one edit (and usually more) by at least one editor (three, in one case) as part of the contract with the publishers. Having seen just how much red ink can appear all over a manuscript which the submissions editor called "relatively clean" I would never dream of publishing a book which hadn't passed through the hands of a professional editor. I like to think I'm a relatively competent author, but I have discovered that there are always errors you can't see, and there is always room for improvement. (Just look at my [unedited] blog posts for proof of that.)

So when it came to my self-published book not getting it edited was never an option. We (my co-author and I) were lucky enough to find an editor who agreed to work for a percentage of the royalties. (Possibly not her best decision since the book isn't exactly flying off the virtual shelves and there haven't yet been any royalties.)

It's all well and good my declaring that every author who intends to self-publish MUST engage the services of an editor, but despite the 70% royalties on ebooks many indie authors don't make much money and are therefore understandably reluctant to pay for editing out of their own pockets. If editing costs around £700 and the author doesn't expect to make more than £200 on their book it's not surprising they decide to skip the editing part. I'm sure most of them would really love to have this valuable help with their book, but the financial reality is that they can't afford it.

So here's my brilliant idea. I've started a Facebook Group called The Authors' Editing Co-Operative. The group is for authors who are happy to have their manuscripts edited by fellow-authors in return for doing the same favour for someone else in the group (or maybe for the person who looked at their manuscript, it doesn't really matter).

The thing is that we authors, while not highly trained and professional editors, do know what makes a good story, and generally we do have a good grasp of the English language and an extensive vocabulary. We are readers, and we know what makes a good book. We may not be as good as a fully qualified editor, but we're a lot better than nothing.

I'd like to think that there are authors out there who would happily spend a few hours reading and marking up someone else's manuscript in return for nothing more than the knowledge that they too will be afforded that service when their work-in-progress is completed. Either a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" or a "pay it forward" basis.

How it would work is this: once your "final" draft is ready, you outline it on the Facebook page and explain what you are looking for:

"Looking for someone to edit my 50,000 word children's fantasy thriller."
"My 80,000 word romance novel needs a proofreader."

"I'm seeking three beta-readers for my sci-fi adventure book."
Other members of the group who are interested in the genre - maybe even writing in the genre - can then offer to edit/beta read/proofread the manuscript. The author selects one (assuming more than one person volunteers) and the two group members get in touch via Facebook messaging. From there it's up to them to reach agreement on what needs to be done, timescale, etc.

Once you have edited someone else's manuscript you can add this when you come to look for the same service for your novel. And I'm hoping that if you say so on the page, others will feel more obliged to help you.

"I edited By Dawn's First Light for Jane Brown. Now I'm looking for someone to edit my comedy novella."
In a nutshell what I'm suggesting is this: a free edit of your book in return for you offering a free edit of some else's book.

Sound good? I'm starting the ball rolling. I've agreed with Hellen Riebold to edit her YA novel, Race for Eden. In a couple of months I will be looking for someone to edit my collection of short stories, Random Ramblings.

If this sounds like something that could help you in your writing career, and you're prepared to help others, come on over and join us in the group. Invite your author friends too!

I'm sure you have lots of questions (about copyright, how to mark up a manuscript, etc), and I will answer them all eventually in future blog posts, but for now let's just see how it goes.

Let's see if we can't improve the image of indie together. (That's a link. Click it.)

Just Keep Running

I've just woken up to the news about the explosions at the finish line of the Boston marathon. Whatever I was going to blog about today is forgotten, because, to be honest, when this sort of senselessly horrendous thing happens everything else seems really trivial and petty.

So I'm stuck with having to write a blog about this traumatic atrocity but for all my writing credentials really having no words to make it better. That's because there are no words to make it better. There are no platitudes or soundbytes which can make any sense of this terrible tragedy, or explain away the evil which is evident in events like this.

However, one of the marathon participants who was there inadvertently gave what I think constitutes the best advice to those of us reeling over the shock of this event. She told of how she had come to the finish line to find it full of carnage and horror, and race officials told her to "Just keep running".

Imagine it for a moment. You have trained for months, even years, towards a goal many people would consider impossible. You have planned and prepared. You have carefully studied the course, worked out your pacing strategy, and put all your mental and physical energies not only into running and running and running however exhausted you might be, but into reaching that final goal of crossing the finish line.

But the finish line is gone. Having just run for at least two hours, you somehow have to keep running. You have to run past the despair, destruction and death. You have to find reserves of energy you didn't know you had and somehow keep going. You have to just keep running to get past it all.

If you have the voice of Dory from Finding Nemo in your head, don't try to silence it. Her catchy little line, "just keep swimming" has been something of a personal mantra to me for some time. It's good advice. Sometimes all you can do is just keep going. Whether you just keep swimming or just keep running, the message is the same. Like those runners we have to keep running. We have to find reserves of energy we didn't know we had and get past the despair and destruction and death.

Why? Because the alternative is to stop. If we stop to dwell on it we become overwhelmed by the horrors of the world. If we stop we lose our personal dignity by playing into the hands of those who wanted us to do just that so that we might be overcome by their power over us. If we stop we forget about all the good there is in the world (many of the people who just kept running ran to the hospital to donate blood) and about our own duty to add to the good and fight the evil. If we stop we let this impact on our families, our loved ones and our lives, often to their detriment.

Naturally we spare time, prayers, thoughts and love for those who are suffering and those who have lost loved ones. Of course we pause to offer them our support and care and to lift them up. But we don't let this beat us. We can't stop and let it destroy us. We don't let it destroy more lives than it already has.

Like the runners who had to just keep running even though they were at the end of the course, we who are struggling with this horror have to find the mental and physical strength to just keep running.

Priesthood? No, Thank You.

This weekend was a pretty historic one for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Following polite "protests" and appeals to the church leadership, a woman has given a  prayer in a session of General Conference for the first time. (Two women, in fact, in two separate sessions.)

I missed this momentous occasion on account of being on a transatlantic flight, and then comatose, for much of proceedings, but I shall endeavour to catch up with the entire conference, including the prayers, via the internet once I am awake again.

There may be those somewhere out there who imagine that allowing a woman to take part in proceedings in this way was some kind of tremendous climb-down or back-pedalling on the part of the church hierarchy. Not so much, however. A statement made by a President of the Church (too lazy to find the exact reference right now) decades ago explained that there was no reason a woman shouldn't offer a prayer at any church meeting or gathering. It seems that the reason it had never happened in General Conference is because the honour is usually given to priesthood leaders, and they are all men. Giving a woman the chance to direct the prayers of the entire church membership was something which was almost accidentally overlooked year after year.

So, what next for the Sisters of the church? Well, the movement is already taking strides in a new direction and asking why it is that the priesthood is open to all worthy male members of the church, but not females. Why is it that every boy turning twelve gets ordained and thus blessed with power and authority to act on God's behalf while his mother and sisters watch from the sidelines? Why are women unable to pass or bless the sacrament, pronounce blessings of healing or comfort, baptise or confirm, or serve on Bishoprics or Stake Presidencies?

I was an Anglican (a vicar's wife, no less) for many years, and the women priests debate was going on in that church at the time. I was entirely in favour, and was delighted when the General Synod decided that women could indeed be ordained and thus earn a stipend working as Vicars, Rectors, Curates, etc. Yet here it is a couple of decades later and I find that I don't support the idea that LDS women should have the priesthood.

I'll say it again, just to be sure you understood. I don't want the priesthood.

You may think it's because I'm a bit of a Molly Mormon and I'm toeing the party line and sustaining the status quo. Not so. The reason I don't want the priesthood is that I have quite enough responsibility in my life, and I really can't handle any more.

Each day I am responsible for ensuring that three human beings are woken up in time for various schools, and have clean uniforms to wear and packed lunches to eat. I have to get them to those schools with all the books and equipment they need, and collect them again at the appropriate time. In between school runs I have to work for five hours a day and keep a house clean and tidy, laundry washed, dried and folded, wet beds changed, pets fed, walked and cleaned up after and gardens presentable. I have to ferry everyone to ballet, gymnastics and horse riding, seminary and mutual and kids' parties. Every single day I have to prepare a balanced meal which everyone will eat, and ignore the snub when they turn their noses up at my efforts, get themselves sandwiches or cereal and leave plates, cups and bowls all over the house.

I have to empty bins and put them out on the right day, alternating recycling and rubbish correctly. I have to remember birthdays and send cards and/or presents, and I have to do the weekly shop (three times a week in our house). I have to iron shirts, wash pans and empty the dishwasher. I have to clean out the fridge, oven and microwave regularly, find shoes and put away toys. I have to remember doctors appointments, insurance renewals and car repairs. I have to go to parents evenings and school plays and help with homework. I have to know where everything is, always, because a child will ask and I need to be able to say, "You left it in the garden" or "It's in the wash".

I am responsible for all this. Me. Yes, I have a very good husband who helps me despite working at least eight hours and day and commuting for at least another two, but ultimately all this is my responsibility. If I don't make dinner we don't eat and it's my fault. If the laundry isn't done and eldest child doesn't have her Morrison's uniform to wear to work, I'm to blame. No one else.

'New man' is all very well, and many men do a good proportion of the housework, but running the home and raising the children remains essentially the responsibility of the woman and probably will for many generations. I don't mean to complain about my duties, because I love being a mother and making a nice home for my family, but the fact is that they are my duties. Ladies, if you think they're not, consider whether you thank your husband when he hoovers the carpet. Why, when it's his carpet too? Does he thank you when you do it?

Sometimes I bow under the weight of my responsibilities  I cannot handle any more. If you want to give me the additional burden of having God's authority to perform ordinances and run His church then first you are going to have to absolve me of the burden of running a home and raising children.

I admit that women already hold callings which are in every way as time-consuming and onerous as those held by men. I've been a Primary President, I know. I recognise that there are super-women out there who want to have it all and prove that they are in every way better than a man by single-handedly balancing career, show-home and priesthood duties. I take my hat off to them. I admit that extending the priesthood only to men can look to as though men are in some way more favoured by God, or better than women. Personally I am happy and confident in my womanhood and my standing as a daughter of God and don't see it that way.

Holding the priesthood is an honour and a privilege, but it's not one I seek. I'm a mother and a home-maker, I have all the honour and privilege I can handle. Let the men serve the women in this one thing, given that we do everything else for them.

Why Punctuation Matters

I have to admit to being one of those really horrible people who go around correcting punctuation mistakes wherever I see them. I'm the militant wing of the Apostrophe Protection Society. I'm a Lynne Truss groupie.

Recently a company posted on my Facebook wall suggesting I order some of its products for Easter. Their post read, "Easters coming, so order you're personalised gifts now." Naturally I felt obliged to point out to them that people might have more confidence ordering "they're" personalised gifts if they felt that someone at the company was actually literate enough to get the text right.

But it's not just online. Oh no. I don't consider it vandalism to correct the punctuation on official signs. There's a local pet shop where I am no longer welcome after being caught annotating a display (in my defence it read "Corn Snake's") and I took a long walk around Thundersley Common with a black permanent marker shortly after the council erected several signs saying, "Please pick up after your dog by not doing so you risk a fine."

Does it really matter, though? Am I just being pointlessly obsessive and annoying the heck out of people in the process?

Well, I think it does matter. How many times did you have to re-read the sign from the Common before you understood what it meant? Good punctuation conveys meaning. Bad punctuation obscures it and confuses the reader. It can even change the meaning entirely, as the Prudential Building Society discovered several years ago when they ran full-page adverts in the British press with the tagline, "Were here to help you."

My daughter learned the rules of apostrophes, commas, capital letters, etc. in year 1 at school. She's now in year 3, and she knows that "Corn snake's" is wrong. From this I conclude that the reptile shop owners have a lower level of intelligence than my eight-year-old.

At the very least I would suggest that if you are a public-facing business your grammar, spelling and punctuation needs to be perfect. If it isn't, go back to infant school and relearn the basics. Otherwise I will not be held responsible for my actions with a permanent marker.

Fifteen Reasons Ebooks are Better than Print

Sitting on the Tube last week (Circle line, St. James' Park to Liverpool Street, if you must know) I was struck by something about my fellow travellers. There were eight of us in the carriage (so, not rush-hour) and six were reading books. But there wasn't a single book. Two had Kindles, one had a Nook, two more were reading on i-pads and one was using a smartphone. The twenty-first century has well and truly arrived in subterranean London.

So I was a little surprised to see certain comments on a competition in which an author was giving away several copies of his ebook as a prize. Many people were complaining that they didn't like ebooks and would rather have a physical copy, so they weren't entering the competition. I was, frankly, mystified by their attitude, because what's not to love about ebooks?

Now don't get me wrong, I love print books too. I love the smell of a new book, and the smell of an old book. I love flicking through the pages to snatch a glimpse of what's to come, and I love going back and devouring the cover art once I've read it to see what part of the story it depicts. But I'm not about to turn down a free ebook just because I like the weight of a physical book in my hands.

There is much I don't like about physical books:

Pages get torn, dog-eared or illegible with dirt.  Unless you are very good with a bookmark (and who can ever find one of them when you actually need it?) you have to waste precious reading time trying to find your page. You can lose them. On holiday last year we had to buy another copy of The Hunger Games because my eldest daughter had left it somewhere and couldn't bear not to know what happened next.They are heavy. Every schoolchild with a rucksack full of textbooks knows that, next to water, books are about the heaviest thing to have to lug around.You have to have space to store them. We have an entire alcove in our lounge and another bookshelf in the hall given over to books, but most books I have had to give away to charity shops because I just don't have the space to store them.You have to be able to find them. Do you organise your bookshelf by genre, or alphabetically by author? Or maybe (like me) by the size of the shelf and which books will fit on it?Once your eyesight starts going (sometime when you're as young as 44!) you have to buy large print books or reading glasses or bifocals in order to be able to see them properly.If you come across a section which particularly inspires or impresses you, you have to choose between writing it down somewhere or defacing the book.Everyone can tell what you're reading. Not that I would ever dream of reading that appalling Fifty Shades obscenity (now there's a waste of paper) but it gets awkward when you're waiting for a business meeting to start and your fellow professionals can see that you're reading The Magic Faraway Tree. Books are expensive. They cost a lot in postage because they are so heavy, and although they don't attract VAT (tax) the cost of printing means that it's unusual to find one below £5.If it's no good, you can't get a refund. Several years ago I bought a book by my favourite diet guru, only to discover that it was largely a rehashing of her last book. Annoyed, I took it back to the shop to complain but of course I couldn't get a refund. "You might have read it," the shop assistant protested. "I have," I replied, "It was no good, that's why I want a refund." No refunds on books, apparently, ever. That's pretty standard.It's really difficult to get LDS books here in the UK. They are printed in America and have to be shipped over, which can cost upwards of $20 per book, and then extra if they get waylaid in customs.
Whereas...

Ebooks are always pristine, and the last page is never missing.My Kindle opens each one of the hundreds of books in its library to the last page I read. I can't lose any of my ebooks. They are all stored in my Amazon account. If I get a new Kindle it'll take just five minutes to transfer all my books to my new device. If I lose it somewhere it's not convenient or possible to buy another one, I can still read all my books on my smartphone, laptop or PC.Kindles are apparently not targets for thieves either because each one is registered to its owner via Amazon which makes them very difficult for the thief to sell on.My Kindle weighs less than my purse and fits in my handbagI have several hundred books on my Kindle. Storage space - see point 4My Kindle is organised into collections, and if I want to find a particular book there's a quick and nifty search facility.I can enlarge the font on my Kindle.On my Kindle I can not only highlight section and make notes, but see how many other people have highlighted the same line, and ask for a list of all the sections I highlighted. I can also delete my highlights and notes, or choose not to have them show.No one knows what I'm reading on my Kindle except me. And the commuters sitting either side of me on the Tube.Ebooks do carry VAT, to my extreme annoyance–there's probably a petition to sign somewhere–and yet are generally far, far cheaper than the printed version.Ebooks are another story though. A book I bought on Amazon just last week turned out to have rather more swearing than I like. A few clicks, and Amazon had refunded me my £3.60 and deleted the book from my device.A book available in America is (usually) available in the UK too at a comparable price, and instantly downloadable.You can hold the book and turn the pages with one hand. One digit on one hand. You can download free samples if you're not sure the book is for youIt switches itself off if you fall asleep while reading. 
I was a little unsure about the Kindle at first, in particular how it would compare with the precious and wonderful experience of reading a book. I found that after about a minute I forgot about it. The Kindle reading experience is maybe best described as looking at a normal book page in a discreet and elegant frame. The battery lasts for several weeks, and rumour is that the cheapest Kindle (currently £69) will eventually be offered free by Amazon, because, of course, they want you to buy books from them and giving you a Kindle enables you to do so.

So I'm at a loss to know why anyone would turn down the option of a free ebook. Anyone care to enlighten me?

My Facebook Fast

Sitting in a church meeting a few weeks ago the speaker mentioned that many youth today see Facebook as a substitute for real relationships, waste hours each day on it when they should be doing something more productive, and cut themselves off from their non-Facebook-using relatives because of it.

Never mind the youth, I thought, that's me.

Shortly before that my friend and co-author, Hellen Riebold, had told me about a sermon preached at her church on the importance of reading the scriptures. The pastor, Dave Smith, had said that people wake up in the morning and immediately reach past their scriptures to their phone to check Facebook. "It's like he's been in my house!" Hellen commented. Mine too.

So on the spur of the moment that Sunday I decided to do a Facebook Fast and give up Facebook for two weeks.

Now, I've thought about this before but hit a snag: I need to use Facebook for work and to promote my books and blogs. This time, however, I solved the problem by linking my Twitter account into Facebook. (Hey, I never said anything about giving up Twitter!)

So now I've come to the end of my Facebook fast I have discovered something.

Facebook is wonderful.
I don't think it was an atypical fortnight, but here's what I missed or failed at by not being on Facebook.
A missionary we said farewell to on the Sunday I started my fast was still in church the following Sunday. She had explained to the entire ward–via our ward's Facebook page–that her visa hadn't come through so her departure was going to be delayed.A friend's mobile phone broke. He is relatively new to Facebook but we have a lot of friends in common. He asked me to put out a general call for people to message him their numbers so that he could restore his contacts list.I needed to appeal for someone to give my daughter a lift on a school trip, since neither my husband nor I could take her.The NHS Blood service emailed me about their campaign for new donors, asking me to encourage all my friends to sign up. I'm quite passionate about the importance of giving blood (and have been doing so for years) so I would really have liked to post on my Facebook wall about the campaign and encourage all my friends to go to a session. Instead I just vaguely mumbled something to a few people and encouraged them to go to www.blood.co.uk. A link on my wall would have been so much more effective!Several amusing things happened which I would like to have shared. Ceri said, "Mum, don't you know how to be awesome?" for example.The last thing I did on Facebook was to announce my fast. Several people expressed dismay. Particularly my many friends elsewhere in the world who are only able to stay in regular contact with me through Facebook. So I felt regret right from the outset. What if Alison's new baby arrived during my fast and I didn't see the photos right away?  How many birthdays would I miss? I was actually going to have to phone someone to find out what the book club book is, and how many people are going to the meeting.
I also discovered that my use of Facebook is actually symptomatic of something else. I like to take breaks. I'll hoover and polish the lounge and then sit down "for five minutes" on Facebook before I start cooking tea. It's how I relax and unwind. I played a lot of Solitaire during those two weeks (and that really is pointless) but didn't watch any more television than usual. TV requires a commitment of at least half-an-hour and I can't generally give more than fifteen minutes in my busy day. So my real addiction isn't to Facebook but to faffing. In fact, prior to Mark Zuckerberg's brainwave I used to waste those fifteen minutes every couple of hours on Yahoo Answers, and that really was bad (because it's basically a forum for arguments) and I really did have to go cold-turkey on it. (I've been Yahoo Answers sober for about six years now.)

I came back to Facebook, then, with some gratitude. Facebook really has improved my world, and the world, in so many ways. I can interact with what were once big, faceless companies (I follow Taco Bell UK with such enthusiasm that they sent me a "Superfan" t-shirt). I can invite all my friends to parties and events easily in a matter of minutes. I can share my holiday snaps and update all those I care about on events in my life very easily. I am now back in contact with many friends and family members who I haven't seen "in the flesh" for decades, and it's really nice to keep up with the everyday events in their lives. I can be uplifted and inspired, amused and challenged, and in so many ways enriched and educated, in just a few minutes of scrolling. I can also look at pictures of kittens and get into arguments with strangers.
I don't think I mistake Facebook for real social interaction at all, and I'm not convinced young people do either. I love to visit friends, but I also love to see their Facebook updates and be able to "chat" with them without having to drive to their homes. I think most of us know that there is no substitute for actually being with a person, but Facebook helps keep you connected when you're apart.
But my fast has changed how I look at Facebook in ways other than giving me a new appreciation for it. I am now spending less time on it than I was. Prior to my fast I seemed to think that I needed to know every single thing that ever appeared on my wall, and each morning I would scroll through until I got to a post I had read the previous night. Having missed two weeks I now realise that I don't need to read it all, much of it is not actually all that interesting, and I just glance at it occasionally, although I do check all my notifications. 
I have also had a major purge of my "friends". Anyone who posts anything political (especially Americans who oppose gun control or universal healthcare) has been struck off my friend list. Anyone who swears in a post has gone. Anyone I don't really know or remember is out. Anyone who perpetuates a "Facebook will pay $1/Share=prayer" picture of a sick or injured child or animal gets the lecture. Anyone whose posts are generally complaints, grumbles or anything else which brings me down has been hidden. My Facebook wall is now a much nicer place to hang out, and I have no plans to abandon it again.

Oh Deary Me

I feel vindicated at the moment. Around a year ago I posted about how objectionable Terry Deary, author of the Horrible Histories series, appeared in an interview. Well, just last week the dreadful man came out in opposition to libraries, saying that they robbed authors. You can read his comments here and probably should because this is my response to them.

Mr. Deary says that "writers aren't ... middle-class women indulging in a pleasant little hobby. They've got to make a living." Well, I am a middle-class woman indulging in a pleasant little hobby, and I don't expect for a moment that my writing is ever going to make me a living. Very few authors make enough money from their books to live on, and neither do they expect to. I know of two local authors who have done well. One had a bidding war between two of the big six publishers, and ended up with a three-book deal from Harper Collins and a large advance. She has a day-job because writing doesn't bring in enough money to pay the mortgage. The other writes children's books which you have probably heard of (if you're British) and lives a small rented flat next door to my parents-in-law.

Terry Deary apparently gets 30p per Horrible Histories book sold, and only 6.2p each time one of his books is borrowed from a library, up to a maximum of £6,600. So he complains about being done out of about £180,000 because children are borrowing his books, not buying them. But I think he's wrong. Children don't have a lot of money. If they couldn't borrow his books for free, they probably wouldn't buy them. They might never discover them at all. Instead they get to borrow a book from the library and may then request the entire series for Christmas. I discovered The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency after borrowing the first one from the library, and I have now bought all the books, including the latest one in hardback. (If Terry Deary was really worried about being done out of thousands in royalties perhaps he should consider not saying things which make parents hate him so much they boycott his books.)

Deary also states that the libraries are driving the bookshops out of business. Odd, then, that free lending libraries have been around for 160 years and bookshops have only been struggling since the appearance of Amazon and the ereaders. And LoveFilm, Netflix and the TV are giving away films, yet DVD sales are still extremely healthy.

As Neil Gaiman tweeted, "Libraries create readers, they don't starve authors."

And don't get me started on that odious Hilary Mantel...

Bad Reviews Part 3: How To Write Them

Okay, I admit, this is slightly different from the previous two posts in this series as it's not so much about how to write a review of a book you didn't like, but about how to write a bad book review.
Start by outlining the plot of the book. Be sure to include all the spoilers and plot twists you can, including what happens in the end. Make sure this summary of the action comprises about 90% of your review. You could even include the descriptive blurb from the back of the book if you like, just in case readers of your review haven't already looked at that.Explain at length what books you like reading and who your favourite authors are, and what genres most interest you and why. If you didn't like the book, be sure to explain that you didn't like it because it's not a genre you like to read and you only picked it up because it was free/a present/you liked the cover.If the book goes against your political views, religious or cultural beliefs in any way, then it is a Bad Book and should only get one star.Conversely if you know the author, or your best friend's cousin's daughter's roommate knows the author, then you are duty bound to give it five stars.Remember that you don't have to read the whole book to review it, just the free ebook sample. Obviously no book ever got better after the first three chapters.Try not to mention things like writing style, plot complexity, character construction or voice because readers of reviews (and books) really don't understand or care about that stuff.If it has done very well and made the author very rich (richer than you) then it's fine to be really critical and horrible about the book (even if you secretly quite liked it) so that the author doesn't get too big headed. Remember, the more successful they are, the fewer feelings they have to be hurt by bad reviews.Don't worry about grammar, spelling and punctuation in your review. Good spelling and grammar is the author's job, not yours.You might like to use "texttalk" like, "If u r thinking of buying this book 4 sum1..." because there's a limit on how much space you have for your review.If you didn't like the book don't worry about giving reasons why not or explaining which parts were weak. After all, it's just a matter of taste, isn't it? It's not as though it would help the author because he's probably never going to write another book anyway.

Bad Reviews Part 2: What To Do About Them

If you're a writer, whether you're just starting out or you've sold millions of copies, this is what you should do when someone makes public their poor opinion of your masterpiece in the form of a bad review:

NOTHING.

Bad reviews go with the territory for writers. We have to accept it as an occupational hazard, shrug our shoulders and move on. In fact, in this blog post from last year I advocate sending them chocolate.

In reality, of course, we agonise over our poor reviews, dwell on them constantly, analyse them, mourn the loss of our writing dream, and finally convince ourselves that writing the book was all just a big waste of time. Some writers protest them in the comments, or get their supportive friends to do so. Some plead with the reviewer to retract the review. I even heard of one author appealing to Amazon to get a bad review taken down. (Wow, wouldn't it be great if we could delete all our bad reviews!)

Be warned - engaging with the reviewer looks petulant and petty, unless it's to politely thank them for their time and honesty. Not only does it achieve nothing, but it harms our public image, and that matters. In fact, give the bad reviews the same treatment you do the good ones. In my case, that means posting them on my Facebook page and thanking the reviewer. (But no longer sending them chocolate.)

For the avoidance of doubt, I welcome all reviews of my books, good and bad, from those who have actually read them. And the picture which accompanies this blog is of my worst review. Feel free to go and read it properly - here's the link.

The best ever gracious response to a review I got was from Wm. Paul Young. I hated The Shack and gave it just one star on Amazon. But a year later Young's publicist contacted me and asked me to review his second book on my blog and on Amazon and Goodreads. She even sent me a free, pre-publication hardback copy. Now that's respect for an opinion. Unfortunately I didn't think much of the second book either.