Mike Duran's Blog, page 80

June 9, 2011

Reader Reactions to "Why Christians Can't Agree About Christian Fiction"








It's been a couple weeks since my post Why Christians Can't Agree About Christian Fiction. The volume of comments—that's volume as in emotional decibels and quantity—that followed, and the conversations that ensued, has been fascinating. I wanted to take a minute to recap some of those varied reactions, ponder why this subject maintains such interest (or loathing, depending upon where you stand), and what I'm learning along the way.


Let me begin with this email I received from a reader a few days after that post:


Mike,


I think your blog post, the other day, Why Christians Can't Agree About Fiction, really threw me for a loop. I can't stop thinking about it — and I think you're right when you boil it down to the honesty/holiness camps. This differentiation, to me, is prevalent everywhere in our faith. My family and I recently switched churches for this basic idea — the old one wanted my artsy husband and I to conform, the new one just accepts us the way were are.


I think my readers, who are all starting in their writing journeys, need to find some encouragement to be themselves, to be honest in what they write, and more importantly, avoid the shackles of legalism, which often calls itself holiness… Thank you. I believe that Grace always wins, and writers of graceful stories might not be on the cover of the CBD catalog, but I think we have, in the long run, the most power to change the world.


Like this reader, others seemed to draw sufficient inspiration (or ire) from the post to pursue the subject from other angles at their own blogs. Jessica Thomas asked Should Christians Be Concerned About the State of Christian Fiction? While Katherine Coble pondered how Christians are to relate to the world in In, Not Of. Tracy Krauss mused, To CBA Or Not to CBA, That is the Question, and over at Speculative Faith, Fred Warren did a very entertaining parody of our debate in a post entitled Showdown. Thanks Fred for the much-needed levity! Interestingly enough, a forum of Christian filmmakers also ran with the subject so, apparently, the issue is not confined to the CBA.


The post made the Twitter rounds, and another blogger requested an interview from me regarding the topics raised on that post (which I am still working on). And I received notice of several other posts (or stealth rebuttals) that addressed the topic from other angles.


But unlike the emailer above, not everyone was enthused or inspired. For instance, I received this challenge from someone on Twitter in response to a RT of the post:



Nothing like trying to talk theology in 140 character chunks.


In the post comments, someone linked to Kat Heckenbach's Put Down Your Sword… and Write. Kat said:


There seems to be this war going on between Christian writers. Because there are "preach to the choir" Christian books, and "edgy" Christian books, and books written by Christians that aren't overt at all and really could be classified as secular. And there are straight-up secular books read by Christians as well.


Everyone has their own idea about what makes a book "Christian"—whether that means squeaky clean, edgy, or horror. And to be honest, I'm tired of people pounding their chests, exclaiming that their kind writing is the best kind of Christian writing. (emphasis in original)


Whether or not Kat had me in my mind when she wrote this, I don't know. At least, I sure hope I'm not viewed as someone out here pounding my chest :( . Nevertheless, I was directed to the post by others three different times the following week, which I interpreted as a confutation of the opinions I've expressed.


Then friend and novelist Becky Miller took dead aim at what she perceived was my inaccurate characterization of "holiness," specifically linking it with legalism. Her posts Holiness Is Not a Dirty Word spun off into a four-part series on holiness at Becky's website. Becky's concerns about my use of the word "holiness" could be probably summarized in this statement found in one of her comments:


To me it really is offensive to take a word God uses about Himself to delineate His moral purity and apply it to people who are perverting the very concept of righteousness.


The comments on Becky's post are rather interesting. There are references to "sanctification," Pelagianism, the Keswick Movement, Sabbath laws, even the Greek word hagios, the root word for "saint," is dusted off.  Now that's my kind of discussion!


In all honesty, I came away feeling that Becky had misrepresented my point. (Which is one reason I've waited two weeks to bring the topic up again.) However, since then, Becky and I have had a face-to-face talk. Our friendship has never been in question. But neither has our differing perspectives on Christian fiction.


Anyway, it's left me slightly pensive.


On the one hand are people like Marion who commented, "This is a much needed discussion and maybe there is some real growth taking place in Christian Fiction." And then there are folks like Becky who believe I am hurting the cause of Christian publishing and Kat who is wearied by "this war going on between Christian writers."


So which is it? Shut up and write, or keep up the discussion?


Listen, I am not in this to make enemies. I am not in this to start or maintain a war. I have no desire to stifle anyone's career. My mission is not to change anyone, disparage anyone, get rich, or become famous. I love Jesus and want to serve Him. I love God's Church, God's people, and want to see the Gospel furthered. I am a Christian artist. I am not ashamed of saying that, and believe our calling and our heritage is the highest of any! I feel the arts — specifically, the Christian arts — IS a discussion we must continue to have. We owe it to Him! We owe it to ourselves. We must brave the ridicule, the potential hurt feelings, and the career implications. And we must remain humble. I am not above reproof and correction… and don't mind being told so. My positions are not infallible. And neither are yours.


All that to say, this "conversation" may seem tired, divisive, pointless, and unresolvable. But if the amount of heat it generates is any indication, the topic appears to remain relevant.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on June 09, 2011 05:38

June 7, 2011

Postmodern Grooming








I had to laugh when I read the following Tweet yesterday by novelist and fellow client of Rachelle Gardner, Richard Mabry.



I gave up on MTV when they dropped the "M" and morphed into the cable version of TMZ. So had Richard not pointed out that MTV Movie Awards took place, I would have never known. (Unless someone was shot, stabbed, or had french-kissed a member of the same sex on stage, which would have found its way into network news.) In either case, I wouldn't care.


However, this trend toward sloppiness amongst the rich and famous intrigues me, and appears to have a trickle down effect. Nowadays it is not uncommon to see college students going barefoot on campus, wearing pajama bottoms, or sporting matted rat nests. Who would have thought that the "bed head" would ever be en vogue? And to think, all the gel I've wasted trying to look cool.


In case you live on Pluto (or don't watch MTV), this phenomenon has a name. It's been called "messy chic," "earthy elegance," and "the new bohemian." Urban Dictionary calls it slobby chic and follows with the single best definition:


The art of dressing like shit or wearing the same outfit for consecutive days or even weeks even though, or even because, one possesses an extreme amount of wealth and because they know they can get away with it. Often, people who subscribe to the "slobby chic" mentality will complain about "rich people", intentionally ignoring the fact these "rich people" generally include themselves, their parents, their siblings, their extended family, and their friends.


But before you go trying to emulate the latest celeb's "thrift store" wardrobe, consider how expensive it is. You see, buying clothing that looks used is quite costly. It's not enough to own designer jeans. If you're going to capture the anti-Barbie / anti-Ken look, those jeans must appear faded, have perfectly placed holes and trail threads. And if the price is any indication, tearing holes in designer fabric is a science. It used to be you could look homeless for a fraction of the cost. Needless to say, it's got me wondering whether the new bohemians are just as conscious about their image as the glam models.


Anyway, I recall hearing some sociological theory about all this suggesting that how people dress is indicative of a society's trajectory. The theory goes like this: When the lower class try to dress like the upper class, a society is on the incline. But when the upper class try to dress like the lower class, a society is on the decline. In other words, fake Gucci's are a good sign. Pricey designer jeans with holes in them, on the other hand, are a sign of the Apocalypse.


Cleanliness may be next to godliness, but apparently it is not evidence of wealth or a high IQ. And if you're looking for tips on personal grooming, you may want to bypass Michael Moore and Lindsay Lohan. As for me, I can only dream of the day when I replace my Dockers with pajama bottoms and my hair weave with a bed head. Alas, the only thing keeping me from chucking my toothbrush, comb and razor, is a few million bucks.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on June 07, 2011 05:31

June 5, 2011

Sober Cannibals & Drunken Christians








Mitt Romney announced last week that he was running for President of the United States. While Romney is currently considered the GOP front runner, he presents a problem for many Evangelical voters. Why? Because Mitt Romney is a Mormon.


Before I proceed, let me say that I have no stake in Romney's success or failure. I have none of his swag, have not contributed to his campaign, and plan to do neither. However, if it came down to it, I'd have little problem voting for him. Which sets me at odds with many of my Christian brothers and sisters. (For example, see THIS ARTICLE in the Washington Times.)


But this post is not about politics, per se. Or Mormonism. It is about this "Evangelical hurdle" Romney faces. I've seen it time and time again: Evangelicals tend to be more idealistic than pragmatic. We would rather elect, appoint, or support someone who is a Christian and mildly proficient at their craft, rather than someone who is not a Christian and very proficient at their craft. Of course, finding both is the ideal. But it's also rare. And when it comes to politics, finding a very strong, very proficient Christian politician is even more rare.


So how do we navigate this muddle? Must we sacrifice faith for pragmatism? Or should faith be a litmus test for everything we subscribe to, everyone we elect, and every service we seek?


Martin Luther illustrated it this way: "I'd rather be ruled by a competent turk than an incompetent Christian." Or to put it another way, a capable Mormon president is better than an incapable Christian one. This principle has broad application.



A competent atheist CPA is better than an incompetent Christian CPA
A competent Hindu heart surgeon is better than an incompetent Christian heart surgeon
A competent Kabbalist mechanic is better than an incompetent Christian mechanic
A competent Wiccan carpenter is better than an incompetent Christian carpenter
A competent Darwinian police officer is better than an incompetent Christian police officer

This is not to suggest that it's wrong to seek out Christians or desire God-fearing folk in positions of power. Nor is it intended to mean that a person's faith has no bearing on their skills, values, or performance. After all, if I learned my butcher was a Satanist, I would probably begin to purchase my ground beef elsewhere.


Nevertheless, our faith cannot be a litmus test for everything. Sure, if we are selecting a pastor, a Sunday School teacher, a worship leader, or a seminary professor, we should have a doctrinal checklist. But if we are looking for a good accountant, a competent mechanic, or a steady-handed neurosurgeon, what they believe about God or the afterlife shouldn't really matter.


A person's faith is not the measure of their proficiency. And unless we are talking about teaching theology or providing spiritual counseling, we should be careful to not be overly idealistic. Pragmatism has its advantages… especially when it comes to balancing budgets and international diplomacy.


Herman Melville suggested, "Better [to] sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian." I think we've had our share of "drunken Christians" in positions of power. So maybe it's time for a "sober cannibal."


I'm interested in your thoughts…


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on June 05, 2011 14:49

June 2, 2011

God, Chance, or eHarmony








Is there a science to finding your soul mate? Can Destiny be boiled down to algorithms and formulas? Or is finding that Intimate Other flat-out luck?


When I pastored a church, one of the more frequent questions I faced, and one of the more difficult, was How does a single Christian man meet single Christian women? Of the eligible kind? It's a dilemma us old married folks can easily lose sight of. Having found your sweetheart, it's easy to forget the angst of the search.


I hate to admit it, but far too often, I surrendered to the clichéd "trust God."


Trust God to bring the right person to you.

It sounds good — and of course it's true — but there's so much more to the equation. Does trusting God mean a person shouldn't read the Singles pages or attend Singles groups? If a person trusts God, shouldn't they wait for Him to bring someone their way, rather than go hunting? Or maybe that's presumption. After all, if you're gonna land a live one, you gotta have a hook in the water. So perhaps trusting God for a mate doesn't mean sitting still and doing nothing… it means getting out there and looking.


The other day, I was reading Chris and Krystal's blog (my son and daughter-in-law). They've been married for a year-and-a-half and make a terrific couple. But Chris's "search" was anything but… Divine.


I recall a party we once had for Chris. Fifteen friends and relatives gathered to celebrate his 24th birthday. The fact that he was the only single guy in his group was a continued source of jabs and jest. His "search" had led to awkward blind dates and short-term flameouts. At the time, he'd sworn off girls to finish his degree. But he was always a good sport about being a bachelor, and the butt of his buddies' jokes. Anyway, someone at the table had to go and suggest he try eHarmony, which drew the expected smirks, snickers and guffaws.


Until a couple at the table said it worked for them. A Christian couple. A married Christian couple.


Which seemed like an oxymoron. Doesn't a "science of compatibility" rule out God?


I've been privileged to perform dozens of marriages. And the way people meet is as varied as the people themselves. But while some see relationships as nothing more than a social construct or a complex (sometimes volatile) chemical stew, most attribute their significant other to Sovereignty, or at least, Fate. Yet if real, long-lasting relationships are somehow Destined or Divine, should it matter HOW those people come together?


I mean, why CAN'T God use eHarmony?


I can already hear the naysayers: How can a person who wholeheartedly trusts God turn to a matchmaking service for a compatible partner? Doesn't this take the issue out of God's hands and put it into the hands of scientists, clinicians and shrinks? Doesn't this make our relationships more a Formula than a Divine encounter? These are legitimate questions. Nevertheless, that Sunday afternoon we met a delightful Christian couple. One that has remained married and now has a son. They met through eHarmony and tied the knot.


So was it Science or Luck? If you ask them, they'd say their relationship is wholly Divine.


Chris and Krystal are happily married. They didn't meet through eHarmony. Their relationship was far less science… and more chemistry. They got set-up through my daughter Melody. Melody worked for a friend of mine named Mike. Mike's daughter, Krystal, also worked for him. I knew Mike because he and his wife had attended my church. They were invited by another couple who attended my church. That couple, the ones who invited Mike and his wife, lived across the street from another couple who attended.


And everything just kinda bleeds together after that.


So was Melody the hook-up? Or was it me and Mike? Then again, perhaps it was Mike's next-door neighbor. But they had no idea Chris and Krystal would ever get married. Which proves it was Luck. Or not.


Okay, so I'm just thinking out loud. Three of my four kids are married. Only Alayna remains. I had prepared myself for the day that Alayna asked me, "Hey Dad, should I try eHarmony?" At that point, I would probably shrug, feign fatherly wisdom, and say with confidence, "Trust God."


But, alas, Chance has stepped in.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on June 02, 2011 05:09

May 31, 2011

Interview w/ Debra Dixon — Pt. 2








This is Part Two of my interview with Debra Dixon. You can find Part One HERE.


* * *


MIKE: Debra, what does a small, independent press do that a large, traditional publisher cannot? I mean, what reason would an author seek a small press as opposed to a NYC conglomerate?


DEBRA: With the change in distribution, a strong independent publisher can do a good job of building audience and giving the author the time it takes to build. NYC Big6 don't have a lot of second chances built into their play book. Every title has to perform instantly or you're done. They don't often add advertising or review support to a title after the first flurry is done.


Small press does a lot of the editorial development and market nurturing that Big6 simply doesn't have the time to do anymore. That is not to say that quality small press will take poorly written and poorly conceived books. Any press you sell your book to should NEVER have the reputation of accepting almost anything submitted. You want to sell to a selective, controlled press with quality editors, who have strong credentials. You want the books of that press to be well-reviewed and well-packaged. Covers are critical.


Independent press is a great place for a writer to "cut their teeth," build audience share, publish more quickly (usually) and to see a rapid sharing of profits. Advances are lower but generally most small press publishers have more royalty payment periods than Big6. Not always, but often.


Small press can offer attractive royalty schedules for electronic books when compared to NYC Big6. NYC is offering about 25% of net. We're offering 40% of net (dollars in the door).


Our press (to use the soapbox you've given me!) not only distributes to all the same platforms as Big6 and publishes every book in print, we routinely sell books to foreign markets, to large print and even in mass market paperback deals. We produce audio or sell books to audio publishers. We actively work the subrights side of a book. Our review programs are robust. We print advance reading copies, use review services, and put the actual final book and ebook copies into the field for review. We attend trade shows and cons. We advertise. Produce full-color, printed promotional materials. We employ a piracy monitoring service. Again, the list goes on.


When you combine this much attention to a book's publication and the strong editorial development, independent publishers can be the perfect home for writers (bestselling or newbies) who are looking for a strong relationship and support in their publishing career.


The questions I think writers should ask themselves before submitting anywhere are:



Is this an advance paying publisher with known authors and books?
Does this publisher invest in their authors?
Does this publisher have strong editorial?
How does this publisher view its role?

MIKE: From my perspective, there seems to be a lot of illusions about independent presses, the types of quality they will "tolerate," and the insular, perhaps "cliquish," nature of their business. What are the most common myths or misunderstandings you've encountered about independent presses?


DEBRA: The one "idea" I think some people have about independent press is that the quality is less than Big6 quality. That starts with the cover and continues with the editing in both the macro and micro elements. There is no denying that SOME small presses do not have quality fiction on offer. There is a reason for the quality perception. Too often I receive emails from writers who say they're withdrawing their submission because XYZ publisher has made them an offer. I'll lance at the submission prior to deleting it from my queue and am frequently amazed that the book has been picked up by anyone based on the amount of work that I believe is needed to make the project publishable.


Conversely, I've made a revision request of a talented small press author who had submitted to us. For significant revisions we require authors not known to us to do the revision on spec before going to contract. This author had never made the jump to Big6 or to what I'd consider strong numbers judging from his rankings and reviews. I believed I knew why and had spent a great deal of timing crafting a detailed revision document so we could take his work to the next level. That author contact me a couple of months later to say, "I'm not doing your revision because XYZ publisher is going to go to contract without revision."


There are plenty of authors who do not want developmental editing. They want to be published quickly and often. Volume of titles is their goal. Maybe that works for them. I'm not a fan of this kind of publishing. I don't think it's a good career move, but I don't know the numbers being put up by other publishers. It's possible that poorly edited, poorly packaged, poorly reviewed books do well. And I'm only half-kidding.


Small press comes in all shapes and sizes. There are presses that have built large followings and who sell books direct. I hate to make blanket assumptions about anything to do with sales. Those books we think aren't ready for publication might be selling. I can't speak to that.


Obviously reputations are earned. Not every small press takes every book submitted. Some publishers are quite selective. There are great small press publishers out there. There are also not-so-great small publishers. Track record is important. I think a comment in this blog actually led you to us and this request for an interview. That's the sort of thing we love to see happen. It makes our day when the general public can see the work we put into our titles and the careers of our authors.


We've spent twelve years proving that small press doesn't have to be unknown authors and spotty sales. We routinely work with agents, Big6 published authors, brand new authors and small press authors making the jump to us.


As for being insular, I don't think small press is any more clique-driven that Big6. This is a fairly small industry when you look at the "controllers" or the gate keepers of the industry. Everyone knows everyone. We go to conferences, cons, dinner, etc. Networking happens. If I'm going to put together an anthology, I am going to ask one of my authors. Right now I'm working on a YA SF anthology. I've acquired a great story from NYT Bestselling fantasy author Anne Bishop and I'm also going to include Anthony Francis, one of our current authors. The other spots are open. It's good business practice to utilize your assets and broaden the readership for an author when you can. Then those people tip others and recommend. The recommended submission, because it has a pedigree, is going to make it to the top of my submission pile. (Which is hideously behind all the time.)


MIKE: Many authors are currently seeking self-publishing. What advantages are there to small press publishing versus self-publishing?


DEBRA: Despite all this opportunity for authors, I don't think *quality* publishers are in any danger whatsoever. There is a reason Amanda Hocking signed a contract with traditional publishing despite her unprecedented and unusual success as a self-published author. Trying to do everything yourself interferes with the writing. Most writers actually need editing. Most writers aren't equipped or don't want to do the kind of marketing quality publishers do. Technology is changing every day and writers don't necessarily want to keep up with new technology. They don't want to think about turning everything around again when industry best formatting practices change. I could write for days about what publishers bring to the table. I've mentioned some things above. All of that and more is why a quality small press is a great career move for most authors.


Why? Most smart writers who aren't Dan Brown or Nora Roberts with a readership already queued up are going to continue to want and need traditional publishers to help them drive their careers so they can get to that broad readership. The "unknown author coming out of nowhere" is a great story, but of the million books put up every (let me repeat. . .EVERY!) year now. . .that is not the common story. "Unknown author makes it big" is the UNcommon story. There were one million traditional and nontraditional books published in 2009 according to Bowker. And that's before everyone jumped on the "I'm publishing my own book bandwagon."


Authors have choices. No one can say which choice is the best choice. Writers have the happy and daunting task of figuring that out for themselves.


All the publishers can do is stand on their track record. To survive, we have to be a part of the solution for and to an author's career.


MIKE: A lot of writers who frequent my site are Christians, but are unhappy with the current content being labeled "Christian fiction." They want "faith" elements in their stories without the ultra conservative strictures. Does Bell Bridge publish books with "spiritual / religious" themes and, if so, what advice would you give to writers of such a genre?


DEBRA: We've just published Lindi Peterson. Her book HER BEST CATCH is a contemporary Christian romance. We publish historical author Jacquelyn Cook. She'd written strong inspirational books for the large Christian publishers, but when the market swung to the ultra-conservative, heavy-dose-of-faith Christian books, she wasn't a good fit any longer. We've done three Christian historicals with her as well as some reprints. She writes heavily detailed, impeccably researched family sagas, based-on or loosely based on real-families of the South.


We aren't by any stretch of the imagination a "Christian publisher" but we don't shy away from books with spiritual themes and issues of faith. Our list is small and the book, first and foremost, must be a strong piece of commercial fiction. "Preaching as plot" doesn't work for us. We are not a CBA publisher. Our books have to appeal to a secular market.


Readers are happy to have good, strong, "clean" fiction that they can pass around to their mothers, daughters, aunts and friends. You'll find a lot of "clean fic" in our lists. BelleBooks is known for that kind of fiction. But we don't expressly seek it out. Bell Bridge Books has a mix of books that could be considered "clean reads" and books that are dark and raw and scary. We publish good books. Period. We aren't as concerned about labels.


MIKE: What kinds of submissions are you currently most looking for now? Is there a genre that you have the hots for, one on the rise, or something entirely from left field?


DEBRA: We love to see strong suspense, urban fantasy, women's fiction, cozy mystery. Dark YA fantasy is always welcome. But we're slow. It's just the nature of the beast. Our time and attention must first go to our contracted books.


I always hesitate to say "what we're looking for" because the bottomline is that we want a good book, strong voice, incredible characters and a concept we can sell. The books we buy grab our attention and won't let go.


MIKE: Finally, what advice would you give to someone who wants to start a small press? Aside from the money — no small thing indeed — what factors should the entrepreneurial small presser consider before diving in?


DEBRA: Consider the long haul. This market is changing every day. Competition is changing every day. New presses need to be in this for the long haul. They need to be well capitalized. They need to be prepared to invest in authors and find ways to force discoverability of that author in today's crowded market.


A quality editorial staff is worth its weight in gold. Editors have to have vision.


Competent technical and operational people are a must. You'll be dealing with multiple formats, multiple platforms and eventually quite a list of titles. Title management over the long haul has to be considered.


And give up sleep.


* * *


Debra, thanks so very much! I really appreciate you taking the time to visit with me and my readers. Continued luck to you and your team.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 31, 2011 16:13

May 29, 2011

Interview w/ Debra Dixon — Pt. 1








I'm thrilled to have publishing industry veteran Debra Dixon with us. Debra sports quite a resume! She's written ten books and contributed to twelve anthologies.  Her popular Goal, Motivation, and Conflict workshop spawned a book that is now in its ninth printing. She's also President/Publisher of Belle Books and its recent imprint Bell Bridge Books, which covers SF/F, young adult and horror.  Debra kindly agreed to answer some questions about the state of the publishing industry, small presses, and how writers can navigate their ways in these tumultuous publishing times. I think you'll find Debra's perspective insightful and instructive. I'll be posting part 2 of our conversation on Tuesday, so make sure to check back in!


* * *


MIKE: Debra, thanks so much for spending time with us! There's so much debate about the state of the industry and the future of books and publishers. Is it safe to say that indie presses are booming? And if so, are the factors that have contributed to this a good or bad thing?


DEBRA: The answers depend on whether we're talking booming opportunities or booming sales.  And if we're talking what that means for authors.  So. . . here are my thoughts about some of these issues.


What we're seeing in the industry is a sharp contraction in the amount of shelf space available.  We're seeing unprecedented declines in print sales due to the rise of digital sales.  The end is not in sight.  That means print runs will continue to drop, unit costs will go up.  Even so, most publishers will continue to publish books in print formats.  Especially established publishers.  We want the book available in every format the reader wants to buy, but the reality is that the market driver is the ebook, which radically changes the marketing and delivery system for books.


It is safe to say that the industry has seen a surge in independent publishing outlets over the last few years as publishing became less investment intensive (i.e. using a just-in-time inventory model or no inventory as opposed to large print runs of books-in-warehouse model).  Whether those new outlets are putting up strong sales numbers for individual authors is less certain.  There is such a range of small press houses out there.  We don't know how many of the new publishers will still be operating in five years.  Anyone can hang out a shingle and say, "I'm open for business."  The trick is in building a strong list, developing authors and creating real sales in a marketplace filled with visual clutter and noise.


The number of small presses has certainly gone up, but the jury is out on how many of these are quality presses and how many will survive.  A start-up, regardless of opportunity, is still a start-up filled with unknowns.  At the five year mark probably less than half of new businesses are still operating.  Other studies have shown that only 40% of new businesses are actually profitable. Capitalization is important. . .except in the new world order of publishing.  I feel like I'm in a poker tournament these days.  Anyone with a "chip and a chair" can pull a viable seat to the table!  One other analogy I love is that this is the Wild West and a land grab of epic proportions.


Some newbie publishers might think they can jump into publishing ebooks because they know how to format digital text and slap words on a photo in Photoshop.  I'd posit that publishing is more complicated than that and successful publishers not only see the opportunity but invest in the opportunity.  By investing, I mean critical investments in editorial staff, advertising, review programs, broad distribution, piracy monitoring, subrights management, quality covers, and the list goes on.


I do think that the established small-to-medium publishers are very happy with the state of the industry.  As readers increasingly abandon store browsing as a way to find their books, independent presses have had the opportunity to grow sales in an unprecedented and significant way. Instead of scrapping for those last few shelf slots at Barnes & Noble and other booksellers to achieve "push" marketing, the small press can focus on "pull" marketing. We can deploy strategies to reach the motivated reader to pull them to our books.  Small press is ideally suited to take advantage of the reader who is comfortable with the new reality of books, the reader who will search for books, buy from reviews, seeks recommendations, checks rankings/ratings and enjoys price promotions.


How readers buy books is no longer heavily weighted to the experience that begins with going to the bookstore to "see what is there."  Our buying methods and habits will change.  They'll have to.  They already are.  We're going to lose a lot of bookstores in this bloodbath as the print reading public converts to an e-reading public.  Bookstore shelves will be repurposed to other merchandise that works well with a small mix of titles.  We've seen implosion before. It happened in wholesalers when market conditions forced consolidation.  This sort of change happens quickly.  I believe this will happen much more quickly than Big6 and consulting pundits are predicting.  (When I said that 10 months ago, it was a much more impressive and bold statement.  At this point, I think the pundits are even convinced that this is going quickly.)


Authors with brand names may try getting into the game with original fiction and "self-driven" books as opposed to putting out "publisher driven" books.  We're seeing a few do that already.  We're seeing a great many published authors doing the "Reprint Rush."  (i.e. rushing to get their backlist up in ebook formats.)


All of this opportunity and choice is a good thing.  The sales picture for small press is fabulous right now, but it also comes at a price.  Currently ebook sales are dominated by one very large company which single-handedly created the tipping point for ebooks. What I don't want to see is publishing become a "company mining town" with one dominant company calling every shot.  We need competition for a robust industry.  Otherwise, this could be a bad thing.


But overall, I'd say this is boom time for the smartly positioned small press.


MIKE: Your team has been in the publishing business, in one way or another, for quite some time. Was there still a learning curve to starting a new press and, if so, what were some of those unexpected, or under-expected, obstacles?


DEBRA: Experience in publishing was an absolute blessing.  Still, we had a few bumps in the road. Strong personalities and passion for the work had to sort itself out.  We had to deal with the company growing faster than we anticipated.  Those early days are all a blur now.


I wouldn't have called us the typical small press.  Between us we had written more than 200 books for large New York publishers.  Most of us were under contract to New York publishers at the time we opened our doors.  One of our folks was a NYT bestseller.  We had Fine Art and Journalism degrees among the ownership group.  I had almost 20 years of business consulting under my belt.  The group that pulled together BelleBooks was a diverse and incredibly talented group of creative assets.  We pretty much checked every "box" you can think of as a credential for opening a publishing company.  And still it was a hard, long slog to get to where we are today.


In those days, print distribution was the only game in town, so that was the biggest challenge.  Creating enough demand that the wholesalers stocked your books automatically.  Getting the whole package right so that Barnes & Noble "picked up" the books for national buys.  In the early days we only published about two to four titles a year.  These days, not counting our limited reprint program, we'll publish about 30 originals a year.  Our biggest challenge this year has been stepping up our web presence.  We've just redone our company blog and connected everything (Facebook/Twitter, etc.) and we're in the process of redesigning our website.  All publishers these days are slowly dragging themselves into the new reality of capturing ebook sales right on their websites.  We have DRM concerns so we have to do a complete upgrade/rethink of everything.


The challenges in publishing never end.  You have to love what you do otherwise you'll go crazy.  There is no "business as usual" in these changing times.


MIKE: Tell us about Belle Books. What factors prompted you to start it? Are you a natural entrepreneur, did you see a void that needed to be filled, or do you just love books so much that you can't be apart from them?


DEBRA: The idea was floated during a large SF/F con in Atlanta (Dragon*Con).  A group of us were hanging out in a hotel room.  The wholesaler implosion had either just happened or was happening right then.  The internet retailer sales were going up year-to-year.  It was clear that there was a way to reach consumers/readers beyond putting books on shelves.  Amazon was churning books.


Because I have such a long history as a business consultant, I notice these sorts of things.  I mentioned that the timing was right for the rise of strong independent publishers, very much like model producing the quality independent films we now see.  Almost in unison, the authors in the room turned to me and said, "How much will it take and when can we start?"


Our Editorial Director, Deborah Smith, often likens this moment to a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland movie in which Judy says, "Let's put on a play in the barn!" However, these were serious people and they treated the company as a serious enterprise from Day One, which accounts for our success to date.  Only two of the stockholders are actively involved in daily management of the company and staff.  The remainder of the stockholders serve as advisers and make up our board.


The unexpected challenge was that expectations morphed from "selling direct" to becoming a traditional publisher stocked by wholesalers.  Our business plan changed quite a bit.  So, instead of working to develop the internet and direct sales piece, we took aim at traditional publishing and grew in that direction.  How ironic that we are now seeing the industry quickly converting to digital media sold without bricks and mortar or wholesalers.


MIKE: Bell Bridge spun off from the successful BelleBooks imprint. What compelled you to start this new line and what niche are you seeking to fill or capitalize upon?


DEBRA: About three and a half years ago, I bought a Kindle2.  Then I said, "The sky is falling!"  We'd heard about ebooks for more than ten years.  They were always supposed to be just about to "hit big."  But they never did.  I had waited on the Kindle2 because the first version was ugly.  That fact alone was a big clue to me that Amazon was on to something with the second model.  They'd figured out how to appeal to me aesthetically.  I saw the improved design and I popped for the device because it's the business I'm in.  Once I had the Kindle, I knew I'd never buy another print book.  And I haven't.


That's a scary thought when you run a publishing company that ONLY (at that time) publishes print books.  Our Editorial Director was also thinking along these lines and wanted to step up our title output.  We began making plans right then to spin off the new imprint and re-envision not only how we marketed and sold books, but our demographic and whether it was a strong demographic for the typical ebook reader.  We wanted to begin appealing to demographics and genres we felt would be the sweet spots for early adopters of "big retail" ebook technology.


Suddenly our Southern focus at BelleBooks was too limiting if we wanted to make the leap to electronic publishing and establish our brand with these early adopters.


In opening up to more titles per year and more genres, we added more staff, but we still are incredibly selective about what books and authors we work with.  Life's too short.  We're interested in wonderful voices from socially savvy authors who understand that this is a long tail process with independent publishers.  We don't launch a book in six weeks and move on.  Our process from availability to the point we feel we've reached deep enough into the market is about a year.


We're looking for evergreen backlist titles we can continue to promote and sell as we build frontlist.  We're interested in long term relationships with authors.  That's not to say we don't consider and haven't done "one off" titles from authors.  We're never going to turn down a NYT bestselling author who says, "You know. . .I have this odd little book that really isn't a good fit for my Big6 publisher.  Can we work together on just this book?"


Bell Bridge Books is a big tent pole.  We publish what interests us.  We love women's and general fiction, although we're well-inventoried for those genres at the moment.  Fantasy and YA do well for us.  We love mystery/suspense.  May turned out to be our mystery/thriller month with three books in those genres.  Ours is a very eclectic, yet cohesive list.


* * *


Make sure to visit this Tuesday, May 31st, for the remainder of this informative conversation.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 29, 2011 15:50

May 26, 2011

Why Christians Can't Agree About Christian Fiction








Behind the Christian fiction debate is two different paradigms, two contrasting views of Christianity. In one sense, those views are theological. But in another sense, they are cultural. In other words, the reasons Christians can't agree about what Christian fiction should be is because they don't agree about what Christianity is and what its followers should be.


I realize what I'm about to say is pretty simplistic, even potentially divisive. But the more I watch the debate unfold, the more I get the sense we're talking past each other, employing two different sets of terminology. As a result, we're seeing the emergence of two camps. I'll call them The Holiness Camp and The Honesty Camp.



The Holiness Camp — These writers / readers emphasize our separation from the world; we are saints and our conduct, values, and entertainment should be categorically different from secular society. Thus, we should critique the world, avoid what is impure and have no fellowship with darkness, either philosophically or culturally. This separation should be reflected in our stories. Law is the driving principle of those in the Holiness Camp.
The Honesty Camp — These writers / readers emphasize our association with the world; we are all sinners and sin takes on monstrous forms. Thus, we should engage the world, identify with the fallen, look with unflinching candor and deep empathy upon the wreckage of humanity and its redemptive struggle. This should be reflected in our stories. Truth is the driving principle of those in the Honesty Camp.

It's a simplistic division, granted, and can easily be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as an unjust stereotype of either side. Of course, it's not to suggest that writers who emphasize Holiness avoid honesty, or that those who value Honesty are somehow unholy. It's just my way of trying to think this through. Nevertheless, I believe this classification accurately captures a polarization occurring within the market of Christian readers and writers.


As long as there are two camps, two intrinsically different views about what Christianity is and what its followers should be, there will be a demographic of Christian readers who are outside the camp. For the most part, the Holiness Camp has been the one to define what Christian fiction is. Which forces lots of writers and readers outside.


If you think about it, many of the objections to mainstream Christian fiction have to do with cultural preferences and codes of conduct (i.e. cursing, smoking, drinking, sex, etc.), and expectations about what Christian art should accomplish (i.e. glorify God, offer hope, offer an alternative, condemn sin, illustrate Scripture, etc.). The two camps hold fundamentally different views regarding  what their art should accomplish.


Martin Luther once said: "It is better to think of church in the ale-house than to think of the ale-house in church." Whereas some believers want to take our light to the ale-house, others aim to shut down all ale-houses. Likewise, some Christian writers and readers approach art as a means to leave the ale-house. Others view their art as a means to engage the ale-house.


Both sides have problems. The Holiness Camp is potentially cloistered in their own Geneva, drifting further from the world we're called to influence, hedged in by their own theology and "thou-shalt-nots." We are so busy straining at gnats (like whether or not we can say "damn" in our stories) that we're swallowing camels. Conversely, people in the Honesty Camp can be viewed as worldly, compromised, sellouts. Our liberalism regarding Christian Fiction is proportional to our moral laxness. We are so busy trying to engage the world that we have become like them. We are prone to theological murkiness and our stories are little different from those of the secular marketplace. And thus, the standoff.


Though many suggest there is a balance between "safe" and "edgy" Christian fiction, what's ultimately at odds is our theology. The two camps hold fundamentally different conceptions about God, the world, and our relationship with it. One seeks to critique the world and separate the Church, while the other seeks to contribute to the world and bring the Church to it.


But as long as we Christians define our witness primarily in terms of Law — no cussing, smoking, drinking, dancing, or sex — and see our fiction as a tool to perpetuate those values, we are destined for tension. Go ahead, call me carnal and worldly. But after all is said and done, the debate about Christian fiction is not about fiction at all — it's about the nature of Christian witness.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 26, 2011 06:11

May 25, 2011

The End is… Nearer








The "Bash the Church" Bandwagon made another round this weekend, courtesy of Harold Camping. His failed prophecy about the rapture resulted in a global yuckfest. It seemed like every other post, update, broadcast, or tweet, poked fun at the senile old "prophet."


But I couldn't help but feel that Christians, overall, were the biggest losers.


I know, I know. Camping is a nutter, a fringe fanatic at best. He doesn't speak for me or any Christians I know. Nevertheless, he traffics in something the Christian Church has historically held stake in – The End. Whether it's through rapture, Armageddon, or solar flame-out, we have always believed in The Great Reckoning.


Harold Camping's false prophecy did nothing to change that. I mean, just because the world didn't end, doesn't mean it won't.


And now I'm wondering if more people could really care less.


Call me paranoid, but the media is always primed to pounce on Christians. Any misstep, indiscretion, controversy, or blunder, is an opportunity to discredit or mock the Church. Realistically, the Secular Left has made as many failed doomsday predictions as the Religious Right. In the 60′s it was the promise of an approaching Ice Age. Then The Population Bomb foresaw planetary overpopulation. More recently, the swine flu "pandemic" and Global Warning spelled gloom and doom. For instance, six years ago the United Nations warned that by 2010 the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees. Um, so why did these "false prophets" get a pass?


No. This isn't to justify Harold Camping or any other whackos that follow suit. What I'm saying is that something bigger and far more insidious occurs every time some preacher falsely predicts the End.


We get closer to believing there won't be one.


While the Bible is certainly not cut-and-dried concerning the End Times, some things are pretty clear. One such non-negotiable is that things get worse. Wars, rumors of war, persecution, plague, cosmological catastrophes. It gets pretty bad, folks. But something else precedes all this: A Great Deception (Mt. 24:24). Some will cry "peace and safety" when there is none (I Thess. 5:3), and many will fall away and apostatize (II Thess. 2:3). In other words, the prelude to The End is a psychological climate of…  cynicism, nonchalance, and brash denial.


Sound familiar?


Okay. So my fundamentalist roots are kicking in. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this. But after watching the unbridled mockery of Harold Camping, I couldn't help but wonder if that climate isn't already brewing. Failed prophecies harden us against real ones. Premature warnings about The End desensitize us against ANY warnings. We are so busy mocking Harold Camping, that we miss the One who is standing at the door (Rev. 22:12), the "thief in the night" (Rev. 16:15) who whisks in when we least expect Him.


Yes. Harold Camping was foolish. And continues to be so. He should be ignored. But I'm wondering: Is it those who say "The End is Near" who are most dangerous, or those who say "Peace and Safety?"


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 25, 2011 04:47

May 22, 2011

White Men, Black Women, and Fictional Stereotypes








 


I am a white male. Like it or not, both those things — white and male — say  volumes about me. Of course, some people make them say more than they should. Which is the downside of living in our hypersensitive, politically correct age. But I am also a novelist. Those two things — white male + novelist –  can, if not careful, become a tightrope. Especially as they relate to the opposite gender and other ethnicities.


So what happens when a white male novelist chooses to write about a white female protagonist? Even more to the point, what happens when a white male novelist chooses to write about a black female protagonist? Wow! Talk about a minefield. Even riskier than writing in the opposite sex, is writing in another ethnicity.


Back in 2005, when I was writing The Resurrection, I posed this question to my then-critique group:


In my WIP, there's a cross-section of different ethnic characters: a Hispanic priest, an Asian servant, a Nigerian doctor, etc. Question: Must I articulate these characters' ethnicity or can I leave it up to the reader's  discovery? For instance, instead of describing one character as "a black man," I am tempted to not even mention his skin color, just background info like: he's Nigerian, he has an accent, he wears unique clothes, and let the reader fill in the blanks.


Ideally, it would be cool to not have to attribute race to every character. She is Hispanic. He is Middle-Eastern. They are Chinese. However, I'm discovering what C.S. Lewis suggested, If readers are given the chance to misunderstand, they will. Which is what happened recently with one reviewer.


Katherine Coble, who visits this blog (and graciously permitted me to cite her), recently reviewed The Resurrection on Goodreads and had trouble with the book because of what she perceived as a racist undercurrent.  She wrote:


My main objection to the book is that I felt it flirted a bit too much with racism. I actually said "Oh no!" out loud when the Magical Negro made his first appearance. Then, as he monologues his villainous intent and it becomes clear that he is a Black Magical Negro I was fairly upset. It seems that a lot of the negativity in the book is (accidentally, I trust) The Fault Of Ignorant Coloured People. I may be reading too much into that, but it does trouble me.


Well, after I read this, I was the one who was troubled. Who was the Magical Negro in my story that Katherine was referring to? And am I unconsciously a racist? This is not an inference to take lightly. Which I didn't. That night, I tossed and turned, trying to get a handle on Katherine's observations. Then, about 1 AM, it dawned on me:


Katherine mistakenly thought my antagonist was black.


This was partly my fault. Why? Because I didn't say he wasn't. In fact, I never specified his ethnicity. I did however say he had an afro. And apparently this is what misled Katherine. It resulted in an interesting exchange between us, which you can find in the body and comments section of THIS POST. But the whole incident has caused me to ponder the issue of handling race in our fiction. These are some of the questions I've been asking myself lately.


Have readers become hyper-sensitive to the portrayal of race, especially when that portrayal is done by writers of a different race? In other words, have we developed a knee-jerk suspicion of white men writing about black men (much less black women)? Are we overly-cautious against racial stereotypes (like the Magical Negro)? And could this be due entirely to a monocultural publishing industry (like the CBA)?


Secondly, what ways do authors unintentionally employ racial stereotypes? Katherine's observations made me think about the ways I employed characters of color in my story. Perhaps I had subconsciously made my antags Ignorant Coloured People. In the aforementioned comments thread, it led to a rather uncomfortable defense of sympathetic characters of color in my novel. Frankly, I don't put this type of latent or subconscious stereotyping past myself or anyone. So, even if I denied the "charge," it is definitely worthwhile thinking about.


Thirdly, is it safe to assume that when an author does not specify a character's ethnicity, that character is the author's ethnicity? In other words, when an Asian author writes characters, the default race of her characters is always Asian. When a black author writes characters, the default race is always black. Etcetera, etcetera. One of the reasons I resisted attributing race to every person of color in my story was a feeling of pandering to multiculturalism, as if I was populating my story in order to meet some demographic quota. Either way, it seemed to have come back to bite me. So is it safe to assume that when an author does not specify a character's ethnicity, that character is the author's ethnicity? In my case, the answer was "no."


Anyway, the whole affair has been instructive and caused me to reflect deeply on this issue. I'm interested in your thoughts. Do you think we must attribute race to all characters not of our own race? Do you think we pander to a multicultural mindset and are overly-sensitive to the portrayal of ethnic groups in fiction? Or do you think this sensitivity is important for an author to develop and nurture?


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 22, 2011 15:27

May 19, 2011

What Percentage of Your Social Networking Should Be Promotional?








Several years ago, a marketing firm revealed what many already knew: 40% of Tweets are pointless babble. That's "babble" as in tweeting about What you're eating, What you're wearing, What you're watching, and What time you go beddy-bye. Of course, what constitutes "pointless babble" is mostly determined by the follower's interest in the Tweeter. I mean, Neil Gaiman's favorite vegetable is inconsequential to most of us… unless you're a fan of Neil Gaiman. Then suddenly brussel sprouts take on a whole new attraction.


See? Fandom has a way of turning "pointless babble" into "valuable trivia."


I guess the same is true of self-promotion — Interest determines how much promotion is too much promotion. After all, I didn't Like Fleet Foxes or the Coen Brothers to get updates on breaking political news or culinary tips. I want to know about their upcoming projects and/or appearances. In other words, promotion is what I Follow them for.


I'm not sure that's entirely true of writers.


Social networking is typically broken down into four parts, which look something like this:



Conversation — dialogue w/in a like-minded community


Aggregation — disseminating info, news, advice, quotes, etc.


Promotion — pitching / advertising a product or service


Personal — it's about you and your friends



What part, or ratio of parts, one concentrates on depends upon their purpose for networking. Are they selling something, building a business, or just chatting with friends? For instance, @guykawasaki aggregates news, technology, and business insights. The Avett Bros. post when tickets go on sale. And then when the show is sold out. Whereas my wife just likes to post pictures of her grandkids and chat with friends. So the ratio of Conversation to Promotion depends upon one's reason for social networking.


In Using Twitter to Support Your Business Social Media Strategy, this marketing firm suggests that "no one rule stands out."


One expert says he tweets one self-promotion for every 10 tweets. Another uses the 80/20 principle with 20 percent of the tweets being self-promos and 80 percent devoted to helping others, sharing expertise (without selling) and posting useful resources.


Which kind of begs the question. How much self-promotion is too much for writers? Forty percent? Three out of every ten tweets? Or is the answer different per novelist?


It's impossible to skirt the fact that writers network to sell their books. So let's don't. This is why most folks don't mind authors mentioning their stuff. (I display my novel proudly in my sidebar for this reason.) In fact, the author who never mentions their books is kind of wasting their time, and mine, networking. At least they are demonstrating a lack of business savvy. Readers respect the fact that authors are networking to get their name, face, and books out there.


Problem is, if we network JUST to sell our books, we potentially undermine our efforts. Constant self-promotion is no different than spam.


So how much Promotion is too much? What we often miss is the balance between Conversation, Aggregation, Personal and Promotion. In other words, simply talking intelligently, being informative or inspirational, and conversing with authors and readers can be some of our best promotion. I realize that can sound seedy, as if we're Friending folks just to sell books. Nevertheless, as an author, we are our brand. So whether we're aggregating info, talking up one of our favorite authors, pitching our product, or tweeting about brussel sprouts, we are building a potential platform.


I realize this doesn't answer the question specifically. And maybe it shouldn't. Nevertheless, provided we are genuine and not exclusively self-referential, authors can Promote their work without being, well, Promotional.


Question: What percentage of a writer's social networking should be devoted to promotion?


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 19, 2011 06:42