Scott Tracey's Blog, page 9

The winner of BLOODLINES!

Thank you to EVERYONE who entered!  You guys rock! Without further ado, our winner is:

Congratulations, Sarena!  Email me at scottshouldbewriting (at) gmail (dot) com with your mailing address, and I'll get that out to you with a little bit of extra swag thrown in for good measure.

And remember guys, tomorrow will be the contest for the ARC of WITCH EYES.  There aren't a lot of these to go around, so be sure to come back around for that!

Win a copy of BLOODLINES!

Okay, so last time, I gave away a copy of FOREVER.  This time, I'm thinking we'll give away an ARC of BLOODLINES by Richelle Mead.

When alchemist Sydney is ordered into hiding to protect the life of Moroi princess Jill Dragomir, the last place she expects to be sent is a human private school in Palm Springs, California. But at their new school, the drama is only just beginning.

Populated with new faces as well as familiar ones, Bloodlines explores all the friendship, romance, battles and betrayals that made the #1 New York Times bestselling Vampire Academy series so addictive – this time in a part-vampire, part-human setting where the stakes are even higher and everyone's out for blood.

Rules:

1.  To enter, leave a comment on this blog post with who your favorite character in the Vampire Academy series is.  That's it!  No tricky steps or requirements for this contest! If you want to blog/tweet/Facebook whatever, it's appreciated, but not required.

2.  Contest is open to US/Canada only.

3.  The contest will run from now (Tuesday morning) until Wednesday, June 22nd at 8 am.  Winner will be announced on Wednesday morning.

Now, on Thursday will be the last contest I'm doing for the foreseeable future, and that one's going to be the most important one.  You see, I have exactly ONE ARC of WITCH EYES, and I'm going to offer it up as the third prize in this week's contests. So be on the lookout for that!

In the meantime, you can check out more about WITCH EYES by clicking the tab at the top of the page, or by checking out it out on Goodreads.  You can also look me up on Twitter if you like.

Good luck!

The winner of FOREVER!

How fun was this?  Thank you to EVERYONE who entered.  You guys are so awesome.  But without further ado, our winner is:

Congratulations, Annie!  Email me at scottshouldbewriting (at) gmail (dot) com with your mailing address, and I'll get that out to you with a little bit of extra swag thrown in for good measure.

And be on the lookout.  I'll be doing a giveaway for Richelle Mead's new book, BLOODLINES, starting tomorrow.  And then later in the week, I've got this ARC of WITCH EYES to give away.  I should probably make that one more difficult, as there's only a handful of ARCs out there, shouldn't I?  Any suggestions for contests I could do?

Win a copy of FOREVER!

In Maggie Stiefvater's SHIVER, Grace and Sam found each other. In LINGER, they fought to be together. Now, in FOREVER, the stakes are even higher than before. Wolves are being hunted. Lives are being threatened. And love is harder and harder to hold on to as death comes closing in.

I thought it was about time I started doing some giveaways of the books I got at BEA.  First up is an ARC of FOREVER, by Maggie Stiefvater.

Rules:

1.  Leave a comment on this blog post.  That's it!  No tricky steps or requirements for this contest! If you want to blog/tweet/Facebook whatever, it's appreciated, but not required.

2.  Contest is open to US/Canada only.

3.  The contest will run from now (aka Friday morning) until Sunday, June 19th at 9 am.  Winner will be announced on Monday morning.

This Week's Vlog

This week, I started talking about marketing (I'm not sure why) and some of the things you never think about when you're starting out as a writer.

Enjoy!

What My House is Like

And before you get all excited, I mean what you need to watch in order to understand half the jokes that go on around our house on a daily basis.

Although, I do occasionally have the rumblies that only hands will satisfy.

Also, not safe for work. Or small children.  Or if you don't find sociopathic llamas funny.

Musical Chairs Friday

I think it's been awhile since I've done a music post.

Right now, I'm listening to THIS – it's the theme in my head for the project I'm currently working on.

And then there's this, which has been stuck in my head for two reasons – Leah has a mashup of this song on a cd, and it was also featured in the Secret Circle trailer.

And finally this one.  I adore Natalia Kills – she's like a mashup of Kat Graham and Lady Gaga.

[image error]

What about you guys?  What have you been listening to?

Goodreads and the Author/Blogger Divide

Okay, so yesterday I made a comment on Twitter about Goodreads.  I didn't spend too much time dwelling on it, it was something that popped into my head during  a conversation, and I tweeted it.  Happens on occasion.

The comment in question: Goodreads is kind of like the Fox News of book reviews. You're not really going to get 'Fair and Balanced' coverage out of it.

The conversation was in regards to things being said that cross the line – reviews that attack an author's weight, or comment on his/her looks, or generally move something from "thoughtful criticism of a work" to something more like an attack.

Someone called me out about my tweet, and needless to say it led to a discussion.  I totally appreciate this – I'd much rather someone come up and say "wow, that was inappropriate, here's why" then not to say anything at all.  I explained my opinion a little more in depth, and realized that I probably hadn't chosen the best way to express myself initially.  My main criticism with Goodreads is not an 'across the board' criticism – it's not something that everyone does.  Is Goodreads really like Fox News?  No, obviously not.  But the situation was a little more in depth than that.

One example: I don't think it's every okay to authorbash.  You can say whatever you like about my book, but making fun of my double chin crosses a line.  Ahem. For a totally hypothetical situation.   I think if you're going to review a book, review the book.  Don't lower yourself by attacking the author's appearance, or personal life or whatever.

Does everyone on Goodreads do this?  Of course not.  But my tweet was more geared towards the writer end of the community (i.e. if you're going to go on Goodreads, do not expect that everyone will love and adore you).  I honestly hadn't thought about how the blogging half of the equation would take it.  And that's something to take heed with – it's not always just about blogging or talking to other writers.  You have to keep in mind what all of your audience is going to think.

As a writer, the sentiment behind it is something I stand behind.  For other writers.  If you can't handle the criticism, you shouldn't be reading your reviews anyway.  In fact, it's probably better not to read them.  But you should especially not read your reviews on Goodreads, because while there may be (and are) well written positive and critical reviews, there are also the other reviews.  Ones where the author is bashed, or many people jump on board to agree with just how awful a book is, or the reviewer mistakes 'vengeful' for 'critical.'  One star reviews where people jump on board, gleeful to agree

Where I'm coming from is if you're looking for a source of reviews that, across the board, are going to adhere to your sensibilities and even your detractors are going to do so kindly, Goodreads is not for you.  Because some people on there can be mean, and vicious.  Does that mean everyone on there is?  Of course not.  But there are some – it's one of those truths about the internet – anonymity makes it easier to give into the cruel, vicious parts of ourselves.

I think it's part of the reason why some reviewers get gleeful at the latest bad review to someone's book.  Do I think that some people write reviews on Goodreads specifically so they can trash certain writers?  Yes.  But again, NOT the majority.  Not even really the minority.  Just a handful of people.  The problem is that that handful of people tends to get REALLY LOUD.  And they stand out.  And it gives other, sane book bloggers a bad name.

Did I mean to imply that there was nothing fair and balanced about Goodreads?  Absolutely not.  But 'Fair and balanced' are the buzzwords of the Fox News Network, and what they so often defend themselves with. Essentially, my tweet was sarcasm (I know, shocking, right?), allusions and a metaphor wrapped up in a clunky dialogue.  It happens.  If this were a book, I probably would have caught it in the second draft.  Mea culpa.

Blogs aren't the only source for reviews, obviously, and a lot of people only use Goodreads.  And just like with blogs, there are good and bad seeds.  The difference is that on a site like Goodreads, everyone is clustered together, instead of all on different sites.  There are a LOT of reviewers who put a lot of time and effort into their reviews.  Goodreads is not a bridge where all the trolls hide under.  But one or two or ten bad reviewers doesn't mean that the whole website needs some sort of pest control.

It's like when you go to a restaurant.  They say it takes 10 good visits to make someone forget about their one bad visit.  And most people will only tell one or two people about a good visit, while after a bad visit they'll tell almost anyone.  It's those bad, harsh, over the top reviews that stick out.  And if, as an author, you can't handle that?  Then you shouldn't read your reviews.

Now, for clarifications sake: I read all my reviews, because I don't take it personally.  My book is not my child.  I'm proud of my book, but I respect that you might not.  And I respect your right to express that, however you like. Or wherever you like.  Or if you don't want to read my book, that's fine too.  Again, no big deal.  You have the right to feel however you want about it, and I don't have the right to judge you for it.

Book bloggers are never the enemy, and implying that, even in a roundabout way, is never really okay.  So on that end, I was a little out of line in the way this whole thing started.  Because I actually like bloggers, and it's always fascinating to get to talk to them about how they work.  But there also needs to be some sort of channel, or communication process to say 'stuff like this is not okay' between the two sides of the industry.  And as it stands, there isn't.  If a writer is perceived to be criticizing bloggers, the bloggers get up in arms.  And if bloggers criticize an author, vice versa.  We've seen it happen, on both sides of the fence.

One of the things pointed out during my conversation yesterday, was that Goodreads is and should be more for the readers and consumers, and I definitely see the truth in that line of thinking.  It would certainly make things easier if everyone subscribed to that belief.

I've heard about authors commenting on their bad reviews as well as other kinds of bloggerbashing, and I think that's just as out of line.  Being an author never means you're the smartest person in the room, or that no one else's opinions matter.  And making bloggers feel like that (however it happens) isn't okay, either.

I think part of the problem is that both sides are so different.  Differences it would make sense for all of us to remember more often.  For authors, you're taught right from the start to keep your criticisms private, if you need to vent or bash, you don't do it out in the open where anyone can Google you.  And for bloggers, you're used to having discussions in public, where anyone CAN Google you, because you're not taught to hide it.  And the only way to really make any progress, is for dialogues to open up when something becomes an issue.

Okay, so long winded post.  Basically, I put my foot in my mouth and described something poorly, but I still think there's some truth to where I was coming from.  But I definitely don't bash book bloggers on a regular basis – as an author, that would just be silly. We're both here because we like books.  And really, that's all that matters at the end of the day.

Thoughts?

The Things I learned from Teen Wolf

Okay, I know, I know.  Really?

I mean, REALLY?

But yes, I'm watching Teen Wolf.  Much like any other supernatural-esque show out there, I make a point of watching it.  I consider it market research.  I even sat through The Gates last summer, and THAT got boring super fast.  But I persevered.

Thankfully, it's nothing like the Teen Wolf from the 80s (some sort of supernatural absurdist comedy). The basic gist is that the main character, Scott (what a great name!) is a fumbling, awkward lacrosse player who dreams of a girlfriend and playing first line in lacrosse.  And he has an equally fumbling, awkward sidekick who takes too much Adderall.  When a girl turns up dead, Scott and Sidekick go investigate the woods.  Scott gets bitten by a wolf, and wackiness ensues.

Is the show as good as Vampire Diaries?  No.  But is it better than Skins US?  That's not difficult.  The show looks like it's a network television show, which is a plus.  The writing has it's moments – I laughed a few times between the first two episodes.  There are moments of subtle humor that are awesome, and some of the actors are great.  (Tyler Hoechlin as the intimidating werewolf guy, Colton Haynes as the lacross nemesis, and Crystal Reed as the love interest all stood out).  And there's no shortage of eye candy.  But for all the highs, there are just as many lows.

The football coach and the "conniving popular girl" are the worst kinds of cliches.  And spending more than five minutes with Scott, the main character, makes you realize he's kind of a douche.

Friend: Scott, being a werewolf means you have anger issues.  If you get all worked up by playing rugby or making out with a girl, you could lose control and kill someone.

Scott:  Don't care.  Want a girlfriend.  Want to play lacrosse.

Friend: You could KILL PEOPLE.  What part of this don't you understand?

Scott: …

Friend: Are you even listening to me?  You can't go out with the girl – you'll probably kill her.  And you'll definitely kill someone on the lacrosse field.  Remember when you almost broke Rival Guy's arm yesterday?

Scott: Okay, I'm off to go play lacrosse and see my girlfriend.  Don't wait up!

This is a heartwarming lesson.  Never let something like a little werewolf bite lessen your ability to have a social life!  Who cares if people die in your wake.  They probably wouldn't have appreciated your awesome lacrosse skills anyway!

Scott spends so much time in denial over the course of the first two episodes, he should probably write a book himself, and get on the talk show circuit.  Because the power of positive thinking allows him to just shrug off his sudden ability to hear conversations five hundred feet away, or how he managed to sleepwalk two miles away from home.

At this point, I'm just going to continue watching to see how disastrous things get from here.

The Triangle Is Not Acute

I have an issue with love triangles.

Actually, no.  I have an issue* when romantic entanglements in YA are labeled "love triangles" when they are, in fact, clearly not.

A love triangle implies that there are two very suitable options, one person divided by feelings for two people instead of just one.  That the course of true love never did run smooth (or perpendicular).

But lately, I've read a few books where the love interests are divided between Her True Love and That Other Guy that Fills the Void.  Void-filler guy?  Usually super hot, but he just fills the role of romantic furniture.  Something that the protaganist can lay about on, until the path to her True Love opens up again.  Maybe there's a reason she and True Lover can't be together, and thank god someone's there in the meantime to take her mind off her troubles.

But try as he might, Void-Filler never compares to True Lover.  He's a source of anguish for our heroine, because she will never, ever care for him half as much as he cares for her.

So why is this?

Sometimes, I wonder if there's a fear that The Fans** won't 'side' with whoever the character ends up with.  That if you're given two perfectly good options for who to love, that there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' answer, and so help you god if you choose wrong.  That the character needs to 'move on' and 'be independent' but not TOO independent, because we can't get in the way of true love.

It just seems like one side of the equation is always lesser defined than the other.  So is it really a love triangle if you know all along who the character is going to end up with?  If there's never any question about who she loves, and where her heart will lead her? Wouldn't it be more of a challenging decision (and thus a more compelling read) if both love interests were BOTH good matches?  If they were on equal footing?

Thoughts?

* By 'issue' I am clearly pontificating for attention's sake, and am not really riled up about this at all.  But it sounds all dramatic when I say 'issue' so 'issue' it must be.

** In my head, The Fans is said with the same solemn sense of propriety that one says The Mafia.  "You never want to anger The Fans too much, or you'll be sleeping with the fishes.  And not that cute new were-mermaid novel where she falls in love with a half-chupacabra."