Ryan Field's Blog, page 545
July 9, 2011
July 8, 2011
Can Self-Published Books Be On the NYT Bestseller List?
I ran across an interesting comment today asking about whether or not self-published books are listed as NYT bestsellers. No one seemed to know the answer in the comment thread. And the blogger is one of those who is always above commenting on her own comment thread.
I've been reading about a few self-published authors selling .99 e-books who are getting on the NYT bestseller list, so I went checking around and found this piece. And this is what they said:
Both books sell for $.99. What's interesting, and sort of odd, is that the list mimics Amazon's bestseller list, but not entirely. Popular self-published writers Amanda Hocking and John Locke are missing from the Times. As the Times footnotes:
Rankings reflect weekly sales for books sold in both print and electronic formats as reported by vendors offering a wide range of general interest titles.
So this is for print titles as well, except Diary of a Mad Fat Girl is not available for sale in print. So there's a seeming arbitrariness to the Times list. They both do and don't allow in self-published titles – it would seem that the books are self-selected, not based on actual sales.
Interesting. What does "self-selected" mean? And why aren't all self-published books allowed on the list?
Then I read this:
"Among the categories not actively tracked at this time are: perennial sellers, required classroom reading, textbooks, reference and test preparation guides, journals, workbooks, calorie counters, shopping guides, comics, crossword puzzles and self-published books."
Hmm....
The above is dated from February, so things could have changed by then. But I couldn't find anymore information about it.
Now this is interesting, too:
Even though the New York Times indicated it would not count self-published books on its new ebook bestseller lists, one has made it to the top.
Not surprisingly, it's a book that costs just 99 cents, which might have a lot to do with the high sales. I admit I'm often persuaded to buy an ebook that looks interesting at that price point. Nancy Johnson's Her Last Letter is Number 31 on the "also selling" list of fiction ebooks.
So I'm guessing that if sales are high enough, self-published books can, indeed, be on the NYT bestseller list. If anyone has any knowledge about this, please comment. I'm curious now.
I've been reading about a few self-published authors selling .99 e-books who are getting on the NYT bestseller list, so I went checking around and found this piece. And this is what they said:
Both books sell for $.99. What's interesting, and sort of odd, is that the list mimics Amazon's bestseller list, but not entirely. Popular self-published writers Amanda Hocking and John Locke are missing from the Times. As the Times footnotes:
Rankings reflect weekly sales for books sold in both print and electronic formats as reported by vendors offering a wide range of general interest titles.
So this is for print titles as well, except Diary of a Mad Fat Girl is not available for sale in print. So there's a seeming arbitrariness to the Times list. They both do and don't allow in self-published titles – it would seem that the books are self-selected, not based on actual sales.
Interesting. What does "self-selected" mean? And why aren't all self-published books allowed on the list?
Then I read this:
"Among the categories not actively tracked at this time are: perennial sellers, required classroom reading, textbooks, reference and test preparation guides, journals, workbooks, calorie counters, shopping guides, comics, crossword puzzles and self-published books."
Hmm....
The above is dated from February, so things could have changed by then. But I couldn't find anymore information about it.
Now this is interesting, too:
Even though the New York Times indicated it would not count self-published books on its new ebook bestseller lists, one has made it to the top.
Not surprisingly, it's a book that costs just 99 cents, which might have a lot to do with the high sales. I admit I'm often persuaded to buy an ebook that looks interesting at that price point. Nancy Johnson's Her Last Letter is Number 31 on the "also selling" list of fiction ebooks.
So I'm guessing that if sales are high enough, self-published books can, indeed, be on the NYT bestseller list. If anyone has any knowledge about this, please comment. I'm curious now.
Unpublished Excerpt: HOT ITALIAN LOVER
In this scene from HOT ITALIAN LOVER, the mc is out on a date with someone new, and he runs into his ex-partner...and his ex-partner's new, much younger, boyfriend. It's also what I consider a "raw" excerpt. In other words, it's never been copy edited.
Jarrod welcomed them both with hugs and kisses, and then he led them to a small table at the back of the bar. But as they crossed the small wooden dance floor, Joey heard someone call out his name from the other side of the room. He stopped walking and turned. When he glanced to the right and saw who was calling him, it felt as if someone had pounded him in the stomach with a golf club.
Ned Stevens waved at him from across the bar. And Passion, the younger lover, was waving and bouncing, too. Joey grabbed his old friend's arm and said, "Did you know Ned was here, Jarrod?"
Jarrod shrugged. "I just came in. I was in the office upstairs writing checks. I had no idea."
Joey rolled his eyes. "What the fuck is he doing in Florence?"
Antonio put his arm around Joey's waist and asked, "What's wrong?"
Jarrod lowered his voice and said, "Joey's ex-partner is here, with the guy Joey found him in bed with." He kept his voice low and his expression somber. But Joey couldn't help thinking Jarrod was holding back a smile, enjoying this act of fate a little too much.
"I think I'd like to leave," Joey said. He looked at Ned and Passion again. Passion was still waving and they were both making their way to the dance floor. "If I'd known they'd be here tonight, I never would have come."
Jarrod said, "You can slip out the back way through the dressing room. I'll just tell Ned you weren't feeling well."
But Antonio didn't seem pleased at all. He grabbed Joey's waist with more strength and said, "We're not going anywhere."
Joey looked up at him. "Oh yes we are. And we're taking the back door."
Antonio shook his head and said, "We are staying right here and we are going to enjoy ourselves. You don't have to run from anyone, not as long as I'm with you."
By the time Ned Stevens and young Passion reached them on the dance floor, the music had changed to a slower song and they didn't have to shout over the Italian lyrics. Joey wanted to kick Ned Steven between the legs, but he kissed him lightly on the cheek instead. Joey didn't hug or kiss little Passion. He smiled and nodded in his direction, trying hard not to glare at what Passion was wearing. Passion's tight shirt, made out of some type of fake shiny material, was fire engine red and exposed an inch of his tiny waist. He wore eyebrow pencil, mascara, and some type of glittery cream above his eyelids. His leopard tights hugged his tiny legs and his bright red shoes had checkerboard laces.
Joey pressed his palm to his chest and he smiled at Ned, and then he said to Passion, "I just love your outfit, sweetie. It's so colorful." Though he was still ready to kick Ned Stevens in the balls, seeing how ridiculous little Passion looked that night gave him a sense of satisfaction that made him smile more than he had in the past month.
Still On the Fence About "Fracking," Nothing Harmful Found Yet by EPA
I've been following a lot of news reports about fracking, which essentially means drilling for natural gas. Wiki defines it this way, here. And, being a professional writer, I need to know all the facts before I speak.
I know one overzealous person who believes fracking is the end of the world as we know it. I know others who don't think it's harmful at all. And then the rest are like me: we're still on the fence, and waiting for more results to see if fracking, indeed, is harmful to humans or the environment. If you search the web, you won't find much, other than basic definitions or those overzealous types who blog without facts or knowledge; just emotion.
This article below (link) was the best example I could find on the internet that says so far the EPA hasn't been able to find anything harmful about fracking. But like I said, I'm still on the fence. I'm not ready to start waving protest signs. But I'd like to see more information and more studies done, so that if fracking is harmful regulations can be imposed.
Good News For Fracking: EPA Confirms No Water Contamination
Rob Port • May 25, 2011
One of the chief complaints of the fracking hysterics – who turned on the drilling practice after they realized that it would increase access to cheap, reliable fossil fuels and thus further marginalize energies like solar and wind – is that it puts our water supplies at risk. Indeed, one of the most high-profile images of the anti-fracking movement is a scene from the movie Gasland where a man sets his own tap water on fire, claiming that it had been contaminated by fracking near by.
The problem? There's been no solid evidence to link fracking – be it for oil or natural gas – to ground water contamination. And in an inconvenient turn of events, Obama's EPA chief Lisa Jackson was forced to admit as much before Congress.
"I'm not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water, although there are investigations ongoing," she said
Jackson does her best to keep the door open by saying that there are on-going investigations, and there are no cases to her knowledge, but keep in mind that fracking has been on-going for years. If this were the major environmental risk some are claiming it is – and to be sure fracking efforts should be carefully monitored and regulated – then we'd have evidence of it by now.[image error]
I know one overzealous person who believes fracking is the end of the world as we know it. I know others who don't think it's harmful at all. And then the rest are like me: we're still on the fence, and waiting for more results to see if fracking, indeed, is harmful to humans or the environment. If you search the web, you won't find much, other than basic definitions or those overzealous types who blog without facts or knowledge; just emotion.
This article below (link) was the best example I could find on the internet that says so far the EPA hasn't been able to find anything harmful about fracking. But like I said, I'm still on the fence. I'm not ready to start waving protest signs. But I'd like to see more information and more studies done, so that if fracking is harmful regulations can be imposed.
Good News For Fracking: EPA Confirms No Water Contamination
Rob Port • May 25, 2011
One of the chief complaints of the fracking hysterics – who turned on the drilling practice after they realized that it would increase access to cheap, reliable fossil fuels and thus further marginalize energies like solar and wind – is that it puts our water supplies at risk. Indeed, one of the most high-profile images of the anti-fracking movement is a scene from the movie Gasland where a man sets his own tap water on fire, claiming that it had been contaminated by fracking near by.
The problem? There's been no solid evidence to link fracking – be it for oil or natural gas – to ground water contamination. And in an inconvenient turn of events, Obama's EPA chief Lisa Jackson was forced to admit as much before Congress.
"I'm not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water, although there are investigations ongoing," she said
Jackson does her best to keep the door open by saying that there are on-going investigations, and there are no cases to her knowledge, but keep in mind that fracking has been on-going for years. If this were the major environmental risk some are claiming it is – and to be sure fracking efforts should be carefully monitored and regulated – then we'd have evidence of it by now.[image error]
July 7, 2011
And Check This Blog Out...View from the Crossroads of Life and Death
I found this great blog this morning and wanted to share.
http://raval911.blogspot.com/
Unfortunately, he has that weird blogger set up for leaving comments and Windows won't let me sign in no matter what I do, but I love reading the posts.
BTW...for those who have this set up for comments, I'd advise changing it to the type of comment set up I have, and most other bloggers have. If I'm having problems leaving comments on threads like this, I'm sure other people are, too.
http://raval911.blogspot.com/
Unfortunately, he has that weird blogger set up for leaving comments and Windows won't let me sign in no matter what I do, but I love reading the posts.
BTW...for those who have this set up for comments, I'd advise changing it to the type of comment set up I have, and most other bloggers have. If I'm having problems leaving comments on threads like this, I'm sure other people are, too.
A Great Post About Jealousy at Dystel and Goderich...
Frankly, I've been wanting to post something about this subject myself for a long time, but wasn't sure how to bring the topic up. It can be sensitive, from an author's POV. But when an agent discusses it, it's more objective. And I'm glad Miriam brought it up, because I think it's something that affects writers at least once in a while.
Here's the link, and here's the comment I left on the thread.
I don't know if this falls under the catogory of jealousy. But I absolutely despise it when I see online book reviewers promoting certain authors…with an agenda. I'm not talking about giving great book reviews. I'm talking about passive aggressive promotion that most readers don't notice.
You don't see it often. But when you do it shouts bad ethics and lack of quality. And it's not fair to other authors or to readers.
Here's the link, and here's the comment I left on the thread.
I don't know if this falls under the catogory of jealousy. But I absolutely despise it when I see online book reviewers promoting certain authors…with an agenda. I'm not talking about giving great book reviews. I'm talking about passive aggressive promotion that most readers don't notice.
You don't see it often. But when you do it shouts bad ethics and lack of quality. And it's not fair to other authors or to readers.
Why Am I Posting about a "Spiritual" Book Titled, Don't Take Your Treasure with You?
I'm posting about it because a friend and client, Curt von Dornheim, just released this book as a .99 Kindle e-book and I'm helping him spread the word. It's a spritual/self-help type of book, written without a lot of metaphysical jargon.
Curt has been one of my editorial clients for the past nine years. Right now, he's my only editorial client and the only reason I keep him is because I love the way he writes and I love his work.
But I had nothing to do with this e-book. When he approached me about doing this I told him I'd help him promote, but that I knew nothing about self-publishing and I didn't have the time to learn right now. So he found a friend who would help him, and the book was just released yesterday.
I've personally read the book from cover to cover, from its inception in long hand on lined paper to the printed manuscript, and I don't have a problem recommending it.
I did notice a mistake in the title on Amazon, which leads me to wonder about whether or not there are any other mistakes. But I hope for Curt's sake there aren't any. If I'd been helping him you can be damn sure the title mistake wouldn't have happened. But there's only so many ways a person can divide their time. And this has been a busy summer and it's not getting any slower.
Here's the link to Amazon. I don't know if they are giving out any samples or not. I'm not fond of Amazon's product descriptions at all. But I do think this is a worth while book to read...even if there are a few mistakes...for pleasure. It covers a few interesting topics and Curt is one of those authors who draws people into the book.
July 6, 2011
Court Ends Ban: Openly Gay in the Military
I read this tonight and wanted to post about something I think is important. And no one ever mentions this aloud, at least not from anything I've read or heard from the media.
I can tell you all first hand there are gays in the military. I've dated marines, naval officers, privates in the army, and once I had a six month relationship with a guy in the national guard. Most people didn't even know we were gay when we were out in public.
I know other gay men who have dated other guys in the military, and nothing bad happened. The churches are still standing; God didn't come down and strike us all dead.
There are plenty of gay men in the military now, and there always have been. I didn't turn the guys in the military I dated gay. In fact, the aggressive military guys always pursued me. It's simple, it's natural, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Here's the link, and here's the article:
A federal appeals court in San Francisco issued a ruling Wednesday that ends enforcement of the law banning openly gay people from serving in the military, citing the Obama administration's recent determination that gays and lesbians have suffered a history of discrimination.
The statute known as "don't ask, don't tell" was ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in September, and a ban on its enforcement was imposed a month later. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed Phillips' ruling, though, while it was being appealed and to allow the Defense Department time to prepare for integrating gays into the armed services.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court lifted that stay in a two-page order Wednesday, granting a motion brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay-rights advocacy group that sued the federal government over "don't ask, don't tell" seven years ago.
The 9th Circuit order signed by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and two appointees of President Clinton cited recent changes in administration policy calling for "heightened scrutiny" of laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, like the Defense of Marriage Act, which deprives same-sex married couples of federal benefits.
"Gay and lesbian individuals have suffered a long and significant history of purposeful discrimination," the administration said last week in ordering equal treatment of the spouse of a lesbian lawyer who works for the 9th Circuit.
The appeals panel also noted that the Defense Department "is well under way" in its training of soldiers and sailors for the transition to openly gay service by mid-summer.
I can tell you all first hand there are gays in the military. I've dated marines, naval officers, privates in the army, and once I had a six month relationship with a guy in the national guard. Most people didn't even know we were gay when we were out in public.
I know other gay men who have dated other guys in the military, and nothing bad happened. The churches are still standing; God didn't come down and strike us all dead.
There are plenty of gay men in the military now, and there always have been. I didn't turn the guys in the military I dated gay. In fact, the aggressive military guys always pursued me. It's simple, it's natural, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Here's the link, and here's the article:
A federal appeals court in San Francisco issued a ruling Wednesday that ends enforcement of the law banning openly gay people from serving in the military, citing the Obama administration's recent determination that gays and lesbians have suffered a history of discrimination.
The statute known as "don't ask, don't tell" was ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in September, and a ban on its enforcement was imposed a month later. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed Phillips' ruling, though, while it was being appealed and to allow the Defense Department time to prepare for integrating gays into the armed services.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court lifted that stay in a two-page order Wednesday, granting a motion brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay-rights advocacy group that sued the federal government over "don't ask, don't tell" seven years ago.
The 9th Circuit order signed by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and two appointees of President Clinton cited recent changes in administration policy calling for "heightened scrutiny" of laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, like the Defense of Marriage Act, which deprives same-sex married couples of federal benefits.
"Gay and lesbian individuals have suffered a long and significant history of purposeful discrimination," the administration said last week in ordering equal treatment of the spouse of a lesbian lawyer who works for the 9th Circuit.
The appeals panel also noted that the Defense Department "is well under way" in its training of soldiers and sailors for the transition to openly gay service by mid-summer.
Who, What, When, Where, and Why: Journalism 101
This afternoon I was checking for information about the TV show Big Brother. I rarely watch network TV anymore, and when I do it's usually something specific like Big Brother. I've been following the drama in that house since the first season, and it's become a summertime tradition. It's so bad with me, I've been on vacation and postponed dinner plans so I wouldn't miss an eviction.
By not watching network TV, I didn't even know if there was going to be a Big Brother 2011 this year. For all I know, they could have cancelled it. So I took a quick trip around the web to find out if there was going to be a 2011 season, and found the same problem I always find on the web.
There were tons of pieces about Big Brother. But not one had any information about the date the first show airs. I double checked and triple checked, and finally found a blog post dated July 6, 2011 that said the first show was airing "tomorrow." This is basic journalism101fail. And I can't believe so many get away with it.
Now I shouldn't have to do math to get this information. The blogger or reporter should have said airs "July 7, 2011," and then they should have given the network and the time slot. This is basic journalism, the who, what, when, where, and why. I still don't know what network...I forget each year...and I'll have to check verizon fios for that.
I'm starting to think this lack of information...and knowledge about journalism...is going viral on the web. It happens to me all the time, from book review sites to large news organizations. And this isn't subjective. When posting *information* about something on a blog or a web site, if you don't give the who, what, when, where, and why, no one's going to know what the blogger or reporter is talking about.
This post is all about:
Who: Big Brother 2011/bad bloggers
What: Finding basic info about Big Brother 2011
When: I was looking this afternoon
Where: I was searching online information sites
Why: Because I want to watch the new season and can't find the information I need because so many, who know so much, don't know basic journalism 101.
By not watching network TV, I didn't even know if there was going to be a Big Brother 2011 this year. For all I know, they could have cancelled it. So I took a quick trip around the web to find out if there was going to be a 2011 season, and found the same problem I always find on the web.
There were tons of pieces about Big Brother. But not one had any information about the date the first show airs. I double checked and triple checked, and finally found a blog post dated July 6, 2011 that said the first show was airing "tomorrow." This is basic journalism101fail. And I can't believe so many get away with it.
Now I shouldn't have to do math to get this information. The blogger or reporter should have said airs "July 7, 2011," and then they should have given the network and the time slot. This is basic journalism, the who, what, when, where, and why. I still don't know what network...I forget each year...and I'll have to check verizon fios for that.
I'm starting to think this lack of information...and knowledge about journalism...is going viral on the web. It happens to me all the time, from book review sites to large news organizations. And this isn't subjective. When posting *information* about something on a blog or a web site, if you don't give the who, what, when, where, and why, no one's going to know what the blogger or reporter is talking about.
This post is all about:
Who: Big Brother 2011/bad bloggers
What: Finding basic info about Big Brother 2011
When: I was looking this afternoon
Where: I was searching online information sites
Why: Because I want to watch the new season and can't find the information I need because so many, who know so much, don't know basic journalism 101.
The Virgin Billionaire's Excellent Adventure
Just wanted to post that there's a novella coming out soon for The Virgin Billionaire series titled, THE VIRGIN BILLIONAIRE'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE. And in this novella, a good deal is written in Jase's POV, which I don't do often. Usually it's from Luis's POV.
When the publisher asked me to do this novella, I didn't want to at first. But then I thought about it and realized what a great opportunity it would be to use this novella to bring the last book and the next book together. I'm also glad I got this chance to get back to the basics of the series, which focuses mainly on Jase and Luis. In the last book, I focused a lot on Luis's identical twin brother, Gage, and I wrote most of the book in his POV.
I'm always careful to make sure that all the books in this series will stand alone...in other words, if someone reads the third book in the series they don't need the two previous books to get it.
But the novella stands alone, too. And there's no need to read the other books in the series to get it.
