Mike Duran's Blog, page 81

The Real Divide in the "Christian Horror" Debate

I've been gearing up for my quarterly 10 Great New Christian Fiction Book Covers list and, frankly, I'm having a hard time finding ten. Sure, there's a lot of pretty Christian fiction book covers out there — gauzy, lacy, blue sky, dandelion, doe-eyed, sassy, flowery, fair-skinned, book covers. But after several dozen, it just seems like so much of the same.

Is it any wonder "Christian horror" is such a hard sell?

In my recent interview with Jason Sizemore, founder of Apex Publications, I asked him what advice he'd give to Christian authors who enjoy speculative stuff but struggle with the "ultra-conservative strictures" of the current Christian market. He answered,

My suggestion to the writers who frequent your site is to repackage their work. Don't market it as faith-based. Use words paranormal fantasy and religious horror. Describe it as having a bit of an edge. That should boost you out of the ultra-conservative gutter.

Please note: Jason's advice is not to strip the story of religious elements but to "repackage" it. This distinction is important and points to a fundamental struggle for the Christian horrorist: The issue is the market, not religious content.

Perhaps this is obvious to some of you. Forgive me. I'm slow like that. As someone who has attempted to outline a theological basis for the "Christian horror" genre (see THIS, THIS, or THIS), it is a bit disheartening to realize that the issue has nothing (or little) to actually do with theology. The issue is the Christian market.

"Religion" and "horror" are tethered in very natural ways. Whether it's fallen angels, animal sacrifice, demonic possession, the slaughter of innocents, plagues, brimstone, antichrists, or the fires of hell, Christian Scripture and history supplies sufficient fodder for volumes of ghastly tales. Elsewhere I have suggested that the best argument for "Christian horror" is the Bible itself. Heck, after reading Bram Stoker's Dracula, one of the seminal pieces of horror lit, I expressed surprise at how inherently religious it was.

So why can't "Christian horror" gain any traction? It's the market, stupid. Zombies, vampires, and ghosts don't stand a chance against parasols, buggies, and golden tresses. And here all this time I've mistakenly believed that articulating a theological basis for works of horror would help expand the genre.

The truth is theology doesn't matter.

The real divide in the Christian horror debate is not between whether the horror genre is compatible with Christian fiction, but whether Christian horror is compatible with the current religious market. Those like myself who hope so, may be spinning our wheels. Apparently, no apologetic in the world can overcome our insatiable appetite for "pretty" covers.

Interview w/ Jason Sizemore, Publisher and Editor of Apex Publications

Apex Publications is one of the premier small press publishers of speculative fiction and horror on the market. Founded in 2005 by Jason Sizemore, Apex has grown from being a small print digest, to a pro-level online zine, to now publishing books and ebooks.  Jason has graciously taken some time to answer some questions about Apex magazine, the state of publishing, and small presses. Also, one lucky commenter will be randomly selected to receive a digital subscription to Apex Magazine for one year, courtesy of the deCOMPOSE staff. Please leave a comment on this post to be entered to win. I'll announce the winner Saturday AM. And once again, thanks to Jason for the terrific interview!

* * *

MIKE: Jason, thanks so much for taking time to visit with us today! 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?

JASON: I don't see indie presses booming at present. A boom would be an explosion of growth, editors wearing (faux) fur coats, and the small press becoming the big press. On the contrary, I see the traditional publishers struggling to find their place in the new publishing paradigm, the small press enjoying a nice boost in sales due to eBooks, and big-assed technology conglomerates like Amazon and Google who are wedging their way into a position to monopolize the business if they're allowed.

MIKE: Tell us about Apex Publications. What prompted you to start it? Are you a natural entrepreneur, did you see a void that needed filled, or do you just love books so much that you can't be apart from them? And where are you at in your operations, staff and volume?

JASON: I started Apex Publications all because of an early mid-life crisis. In 2004, three months after the birth of my first kid, I hit an emotional wall. Perhaps it was the loss of sleep, the constant crying (the baby, not me…), or the stress of the day job, whatever the case, I started getting a feeling of "What now?" I'd pretty much wasted the first decade of my adult life on dumb shit. I could not think of a single accomplishment that I could smile about. That's when I decided I should start a small business.

I'm not a natural entrepreneur. Publishing appealed to me because I've been a book nerd all my life. I can't say I had the know how to run a publishing business, but I have both stubbornness and personal motivation in spades. I nearly have to die before I'll give up. And if I can't figure out how to do something, I'll find a way to learn. These traits have treated me well running Apex. It's a cruel, heartbreaking business. That's what happens when the product you're selling to your customers is created via an author's personal and emotional investment.

Apex is technically still a single employee operation. Legally speaking. I have a group of 20-25 wonderfully talented and dedicated individuals who donate their time (or work for a monthly stipend) that make Apex possible. I consider myself one of the luckiest guys in the business for this reason.

MIKE: What kind of learning curve was there to starting a new press and what were some of the unexpected obstacles you encountered along the way?

JASON: This is my sixth full year of running a press… and this is the first year where I feel like I "get it." I get the big picture and how it all fits together and all that. The first couple of years I had help from experienced mentors, plus being the new guy, my mistakes were forgiven. Years three and four I made a number of private and public blunders that still sting. Years five and six has been smoother… but at this point, when I make a mistake, it's a bigger deal because the public is less forgiving. "He should know better."

The biggest obstacle has been the returns system that has helped cripple the small press for the past eighty years. I underestimated the impact returns would have on the bottom line and nearly went bankrupt. I've since become even more disgusted by the returns system that I'm loath to sign with a distributor. The returns system feels like a cheat to me, and a cheat decidedly not in my favor.

MIKE: In a recent blog post entitled "Marginalizing Your Work," you wrote, "As a writer, I worry that authors are walking on a slippery slope. We're training these millions of new digital book readers into believing that 99 cents will become the norm and EXPECTED price of all titles. By selling at 99 cents, we're devaluing your work to an insulting level." Some would argue just the opposite: that this empowers the "little guy" and is the ultimate form of democratization, even if it leads to the "cult of the amateur." Could you expand on your thoughts a little bit?

JASON: People who would argue that it empowers the "little guy" are delusional. First, a good many of these authors selling their work for 99 cents are the same people who believes that the expertise of an acquisitions editor is nothing but shit. It's the whole "They rejected me, they're idiots, my work kicks ass" mentality. Second, they're not able to discern the difference between outliers and what is normal. They see Amanda Hocking, Joe Konrath, and that ilk and honestly believe that if they retrace the steps those authors take, they'll get rich, get noticed, and become famous. Hocking and Konrath won the lottery. On top of that, they're bright individuals. They're good writers. In the case of Joe, there was a sizable fan base to begin with. It took all these factors PLUS being in the right place at the right time for them to become a success with 99 cent books.

I'm not so concerned about 99 cent books these days. After readers get burned over and over, it'll become a price point that means "crap writing" and they'll avoid it like the plague.

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 about independent presses?

JASON: At least in the science fiction, fantasy, and horror small press, it's extremely insular. At seminars, I often tell the students that the best thing they could do for their careers is attend fan conventions such as World Fantasy Con (if they're genre writers). You're not going to be published unless you're a professional level writer, but that personal touch with an editor might be the difference when it comes down to deciding whether they select your novel or the novel of somebody they don't know.

Indie press is rife with myths and misunderstandings. I could fill a book… I'll address one of the most popular ones: small press publishers only publish their friends. This is false for the most part. I believe the reason this myth is believed by so many is that editors and their authors share a friendly intimacy that doesn't exist between New York and most of their authors. After working with a person on their book for six months… editing, marketing, publishing, traveling… I almost always find myself becoming a good friend of the author's. You'll see me chumming around with Maurice Broaddus and Sara M. Harvey at conventions and events and someone who doesn't know better will think "Ah, now I know why he published them. They're best buds!" Sure, they're best buds. But they're also damn awesome writers who earned their spot on the Apex roster.

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

JASON: I think we're in the death throes of the backlist title. Every midlist writer in the world will start dumping their old books unto the nook and Kindle and use services like Createspace to keep them in print. Why not when you get a much bigger part of the pie?

A good small press will offer many of the same positives that a New York house will. Editing. Marketing. Promotion. Review copies. And so on.

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

JASON: Apex publishes a broad spectrum of genre titles, but one of our specialties is faith-based genre work. We have a Stoker Award nominated anthology titled DARK FAITH that seeks to examine the concept of faith using dark fantasy and horror. One of our more popular titles is a short novel by Dru Pagliassotti titled AN AGREEMENT WITH HELL that features all sorts of spiritual and religious themes.

My suggestion to the writers who frequent your site is to repackage their work. Don't market it as faith-based. Use words paranormal fantasy and religious horror. Describe it as having a bit of an edge. That should boost you out of the ultra-conservative gutter.

MIKE: What are some of the small presses that you most admire and, you think, are putting out some of the best stuff?

JASON: Nightshade Books is far and away the best small press of science fiction, fantasy, and horror. The press I admire the most would be Permuted Press.

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?

JASON: You best have a thick skin. Everybody thinks they know your business better than you. There will always be naysayers. There will always be a subset of people who, inexplicably, want to see you fail.

Get experienced professionals on your side if you can. They'll give you invaluable advise and prestige.

And don't forget to drink a lot of booze. You'll need it!

* * *

Great stuff, Jason! (Not so much the "booze" part, but the rest of it.) If you're interested in some great sci-fi, fantasy, and horror, check out Apex Publications. And if you're interested in being included in the drawing for a one-year digital subscription, don't forget to leave a comment.

Misc. Updates

As part of my series on indie presses: On Monday, I'll be posting my interview with Jason Sizemore. Jason is an author, editor and publisher of  Apex Publications, one of the premier small press publishers of science fiction, fantasy, and horror. Apex went from being just a small print zine, to a pro-level online zine, to books, and now ebooks. Very excited about this interview. As an added bonus, one lucky commenter will be selected to receive a digital subscription to Apex Magazine for one year. Please be sure to check back next week.  (You can see my last interview, with managing editor of Port Yonder Press Chila Woychik, HERE.)

Also, the Inspy Awards are gearing up for their second year, announcing some new categories for 2011. Inspy is unique in that it recognizes faith-driven literature without the more conservative constraints of the mainstream Christian market. Last year, I interviewed founder Amy Riley about the awards, what makes them different, and her perspectives on the state of Christian fiction publishing. You can find that interview HERE. Nominations for the 2011 INSPYs will open on May 16th.

On that note, I wanted to give a shout out to writer friend, and rising star, Gina Holmes for her recent Christy Award nomination. Gina's Novel Journey (where I contribute monthly commentary), was once again selected as one of Writer's Digest's Best Writing Sites for Writers. In fact, I interviewed Gina way back in April 2006, when she was less famous (but still considerably sassy). Gina is nominated for Best First Novel. You can find the entire list of nominees HERE. Way to go, Gina!

Finally, I had so much fun with my recent Genre Challenge that I'm thinking about doing it again. If you follow this blog, you know I am often critical of both Christian Fiction and Christian Romance. In seeking accord, I offered to read one Christian Romance novel and review it. That novel was Redeeming Love (you can see my review, and the ensuing slugfest, HERE). Well, believe it or not, I had a lot of fun and, in an attempt to better understand the market (and shut up my crtics ), I want to do it again. But I need your help in deciding a genre. So, if I had to read and review one CBA ___________ novel, what should it be? Here's the genres I'm thinking about:

Young Adult
Fantasy
Amish
Contemporary
Science Fiction

Looking forward to your suggestions. And make sure to come back Monday for my interview with Jason Sizemore and a chance to win a year subscription to Apex Magazine. Have a great weekend!

 

Pushing Your Imagination Envelope

Is it just me, or are stories getting more… out there? For example, try explaining Inception to a friend.  Or watch the trailer for Cowboys and Aliens. Nowadays, stories involving parallel dimension, time travel, environmentally-friendly blue-skinned aliens, and Go-Go Girls of the Apocalypse are fairly commonplace.

It makes sense. We've become conceptually jaded. Ray Harryhausen's stop-animation claymation used to be state-of-the-art. Now it's ancient history. In fact, CGI, the successor to Sir Ray's dynamation, has now given birth to advanced 3D technique. How long before we're watching our films in hologram?

The author is competing in a marketplace whose conceptual boundaries are expanding exponentially.

Okay, so it's possible to go overboard. One website recently asked Does the Green Lantern movie introduce too many zany creatures? Too many zany characters? Is that possible? I mean, did anyone see Hellboy II? Earth elementals, tooth fairies, aquamen, and do-gooding demons. Oh well, better too many than not enough. Especially when the gatekeepers are so… bored.

If storytellers are culture's "unacknowledged legislators," as Mark Bertrand suggests in his wonderful book Rethinking Worldview, then imagination is one of the commodities they traffic in. The studio exec and the acquisition editor are not just gatekeepers but conceptual sieves, sifting ideas, premises, and taglines, for public consumption.

And, yes, you can blame them for Scream 4.

So it almost stands to reason that, in order to get a hearing nowadays, you have to let your imagination run wild. I spoke to one literary agent who confessed that, after hearing hundreds of pitches a month, it's pretty easy to spot something original, different, outside the norm. Conversely, it is pretty easy to get bored. After all, how many boy-meets-girl / boy-gets-girl pitches can one endure without suppressing a yawn?

Throw in a zombie, robot, or a talking plant, and now you've got my attention.

In a recent survey, Write to Done asked 10 top writing bloggers about Tips for Writing Excellence. Larry Brooks of Storyfix gave this advice:

Until recently, publishers did all the vetting. Today that power exists in the digital marketplace.

Which means you, the aspiring author, need to play the odds: a "small" story about your grandmother's childhood in Des Moines is less likely to make a dent in the Amazon rankings than, say, a story that takes an astoundingly compelling concept and sends it sailing over the fence.

So think big.

I wonder how many of us are camping on "small stories"? We're as far away from an "astoundingly compelling concept" as Kansas was from Oz. So is it any surprise that your query can't get out of the slush pile?

G.K. Chesterton said the duty of the artist is to remain artistically awake:

The dignity of the artist lies in his duty of keeping awake the sense of wonder in the world. In this long vigil he often has to vary his methods of stimulation; but in this long vigil he is also himself striving against a continual tendency to sleep.

Your call to the arts is not a vacation but a vocation,  a "long vigil," a "striving against a continual tendency to sleep." And part of this "artistic vigil" is to remain imaginatively lucid, conceptually un-boxed. To "vary [your] methods of stimulation" in such a way so as to grease the gears of your fancy.

Maybe more than anything else, our culture's "unacknowledged legislators" are looking for big ideas, new twists, and innovative slants. Yes, it's evidence that our culture is growing increasingly jaded. But for those of us who traffic in imagination, it's also evidence that the bar has been raised.

So if you think you've nailed your story premise, before you do anything else, find the limits of your credulity, the edges of your imagination envelope and… push it.

* * *

QUESTION: What's the most wild premise you've ever had for a story? What's kept you from writing it? What are some of the "methods of stimulation" that you use to keep your imagination well-oiled?

Is "Subjectivity" a Smokescreen for Bad Art?

In my recent review of Redeeming Love, I was pummeled for pointing out what I considered poor craft and patchy execution. The conversation took a turn when the "subjective nature of reading and reviewing" was introduced. And rather than discuss the merits and demerits of the book, the comments devolved into defenses for and against individual opinions.

After all, if good writing is subjective, the only thing we have is "individual opinions." Which pretty much nullifies every opinion.

Okay. This is a discussion that has kept academics and artists squabbling for decades. Which means there's definitely something elusive and abstruse about art and it's appreciation that I won't resolve here. Nevertheless,  when I see someone — especially an artist, writer, performer, or reviewer — play the "art is subjective" card, I tend to see it as a defense of two things:

Poor craft, and
Personal tastes

Of course, it might be neither. I don't think anyone disagrees that subjectivity is a part of reading and reviewing. My issue is when we use the argument to downplay poor craft or to justify lame opinions. For instance, last year I finally read Peace Like a River and thoroughly enjoyed it. Does everyone share my enthusiasm for the book? I don't expect them to. However, many of the one-star reviews on Amazon are just unfounded. Now, I don't expect professional-grade reviews on Amazon. That's the downside of democratization. However, some of those reviews prove my point. Like this one-star review of Peace Like a River that dismisses the book on the grounds of… animal cruelty.

I struggled through shooting and wounding a snow goose and skipped many pages to try and avoid the awful details. Started reading again and they were out hunting Canadian geese. That was enough for me. I have no intention of continuing this book and would advise anyone who does not like to read about suffering animals to not even try it.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, you say. Amen. Then I'm entitled to mine: That is the STUPIDEST reason to give a book a one-star review. Just plain moronic. What about the story? The level of craft? The prose? Character development? Predictability? Suspense? Plot? Use of the language? Okay, so the characters hunted geese and you're an animal lover. Go ahead and say that. But please don't pan the book because you object to roasted goose.

And whatever you do, do not defend this review on the basis that art is subjective. Because this review has NOTHING to do with literature.

As one who is striving to become a better writer, I must believe there is a way to do so. Or is there? I mean, if a newbie approaches you and asks, "How do I become a better writer?" you'd probably say something like this:

Read good books
Study the craft
Attend a workshop
Listen to more experienced writers
Seek out wise critique

However, the writer or reviewer who believes writing is totally subjective, has no ground whatsoever to give another writer advice. Why? Because the moment that you say "Good writing looks like this" you establish a standard by which to judge written things. And that's what the subjectivist fears.

Andrew O'Hehir recently used the movie Soul Surfer as a springboard to ask Why are Christian movies so awful?

…it's a trite, sentimental puddle of sub-Hollywood mush, with mediocre photography, weak special effects and an utterly formulaic script that somehow required seven (!) credited writers. Believe me, I have learned, over and over again, that ordinary moviegoers, a lot of the time, want to see a story that's positive, predictable and not all that challenging, but even measured on that yardstick this one is pretty awful.

Christians will object to this review on numerous grounds. Some of those grounds might be valid. But the fact that O'Hehir gives reason for his argument, a "yardstick," makes it more sustainable.

Mediocre photography
Weak special effects
Formulaic script

Photography, special effects, and script are, dare I say, measurable. Sure, the author might hate Christians. Yes, he might be part of the grand conspiracy against faith-based product. Nevertheless, good photography, special effects, and scripts are not entirely subjective. And if you believe this, please watch some of these worst movies of all time and get back to me.

I spoke to an artist friend of mine who recently visited a show and was rather appalled by what he found. Evan's gallery is in Laguna Beach. He paints what he calls "abscapes," impressionistic landscapes using a particular acrylic. He is very conscientious. Anyway, during the show, Evan and his wife came upon a painting that stopped them in their tracks. It was a large blank canvas with a single hole in the center, slightly shaded, and puckered.

It was a sphincter.

Call me a Philistine, an uncultured dimwit. Yet someone who finds something profound in a rendition of a sphincter — much less, pays hundreds of dollars for it — is STUPID. Yes, that's just MY subjective opinion. But dude, any way you look at it, it's an asshole.

So go ahead, talk about taste, preference, and individual opinion. But all I see is a smokescreen.

Happy Mother's Day!

Dixie Lee Duran. I don't believe I've ever met someone else named Dixie. That's fitting, I suppose. My mother was the brains behind our family. She loved art and animals, two traits I've inherited. Toads, snakes, lizards, hamsters, ducks, chickens, dogs — we had them all. And she was creative: drawing, painting, scrapbooking, reading, quilting, and crafting.  I guess I caught some of her flare, huh? She bought me one of my first books on writing long before I'd ever even thought of a career in the field. And at seventy-something, she's still going strong… her and her canine roommate.

Mom, I love you so much! You've been a blessing. Thanks for all you've done for me, for your patience through my teenage years and for your ongoing encouragement. Have a great Mother's Day!

Why Writers Should Read in Their Genre: A Lament

Reading widely used to be a luxury, but apparently now that I'm a writer, it's a hindrance.

I was recently asked by my publisher for some comparable titles for my second novel The Telling. "Comparable titles" help the marketing team discern a target, a demographic, a genre. You know, "If you liked Water for Elephants, you'll love __________________."

"Comparable titles" are the blank before your book.

"If you liked _______________ , you'll love The Telling."

Do you know how you'd fill in that blank? Well, I twaddled. Probably because I've been perusing Worlds in Collision, which has about as much in common with The Telling as Redeeming Love has with Lucifer's Hammer. And on my bed stand, I'm working my way through Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, which bears similar symmetry. Or not.

I guess this is why writers should read in their genre. I mean, how else can I become "the next Stephen King" if I only read Immanuel Velikovsky? Forget that reading out of genre helps me air out my noggin. It also keeps me ignorant of "comparable titles."

And that's a no-no.

Okay, so I finished The Silent Land this week. I read it not because I'm a Graham Joyce fan. Honestly, I'd never heard of the guy before I bought his book. It was recommended by another writer friend as part of my effort to read "in genre." It wasn't bad. It kept me turning pages. And helped me add another "comparable title." And then it struck me…

Now I'm reading books to stay up on the genre, not for pure enjoyment.

Sigh.

Oh well. I haven't lost my convictions entirely; I still believe there's virtue in reading broadly, venturing out of one's genre to explore pirates or petticoats, past revolutions or future technologies, sherpas or mermen. Of course, the price for such reading may be a disconnect from your target market. However, even though Horton Hears a Who is way out of my genre, I still believe that Dr. Suess has something to offer. No, Horton isn't a "comparable title." But it does something more important than provide marketing fodder.

It makes me smile.

Building a "Vertical" Fan Base

One result of the publishing industry's growing pains is a plethora of new terminology. Like "vertical community." I'm not sure who initially coined the term, but the concept behind it is fascinating, and one I've been thinking about lately.

Apparently, marketing widely, to reach as broad an audience as possible (would this be horizontal marketing?), is part of the old model. In its place is marketing vertically – reaching more deeply into a "narrower," more specific, audience or reading community. So instead of a mass mail approach, the author should first identify their niche and then dig in: develop friendships, support others' efforts, familiarize themselves with the "language" of the community, contribute to the niche "culture," build a fellowship of readers / followers, and stoke their enthusiasm. It's about relationships, not numbers.

A vertical fan base is made by digging in rather than spreading out.

Call it hair-splitting, if you like. But it makes a lot of sense and raises some questions about genre niches and niche marketing. For instance, building a "vertical fan base" assumes that there are more people in a niche than meets the eye, or that there is more energy in a fan base than what has been harnessed. Think of it in terms of website "lurkers." Do you have any of these folks? They show up in your stats, read your stuff, watch the conversation, but they never join in. Until one day, they pop in and say…

"…first time, long time."

So what brought them out of the shadows? Usually, this is slightly different than what brought them to your website in the first place. And this is the difference between traditional marketing and the more vertical approach. Those differences might look something like this:

HORIZONTAL MARKETING


VERTICAL MARKETING




Broadening your audience
Deepening your audience


Acquiring new readers
Engaging existing readers


Spreading out
Digging in


Increasing numbers
Increasing passion

 

The point is obvious: We must distinguish between getting people to our website and keeping them there, attracting readers and engaging them.  Both are important. But garnering more traffic is just the first step to thinking vertically. Website optimization, interesting topics, compelling headlines, and great content are important. But they're just the first part. Verticality is about building relationships with our readers and tapping their passions; it's about drawing them out of the shadows. A vertical fan base is not measured in terms of how many people know about you, your book, or your website, but about how passionate, supportive, intrigued by, and "committed" to you they are. It's really a whole other way of thinking.

* * *

QUESTION: Are you more of a Horizontal marketer or a Vertical marketer? Can you think of some other differences between a Horizontal and a Vertical approach to blogging?  What are some ways that a blogger can better tap the enthusiasm and passion of their readers?

Should Authors Be Social Media Experts?

It wasn't long ago that I railed against Twitter and vowed to remain Twitterless. Now, almost three years later, I have 430 Twitter Followers and am a fairly big Twitter fan. Furthermore, since that little rant, I have purchased an SEO friendly web template, installed a Google Friend Connect box (in my sidebar there), embedded a Twitter widget below every post, a Feedburner widget, joined LinkedIn, joined Goodreads, developed an RSS feed, and expanded my Facebook presence. So what happened? How did I go from being generally resistant to social media, to jumping on the bandwagon?

To put it simply, I just got serious about my writing career.

Call me a sellout or a shill, but I came to realize what most experts are saying: The market is changing and authors need to adapt. Because of the decreased investment of publishers, platform development has become a necessity for the aspiring author. Nowadays, publishers want to know that authors are working the system, using all the tools at their disposal. And really, the market is wide open. The only real obstacle was me. Once this sunk in, I realized I could either rage against the machine or get in line. I chose the latter. And it's paid off.

But not everyone is so easily swayed.

I spoke via email to an author recently about ways to increase their web traffic and expand their web presence. They did not know basic HTML, were not interested in optimizing their website, did not Tweet, retained a rather small circle of Facebook friends (and liked that), and generally viewed social media with disdain. When I pressed this author about expanding their use of social media, they fell back on four common objections:

I don't have the time for social media.
I'm not computer savvy.
Social media takes away from actually writing.
Social media requires marketing skills, which I don't have.

Okay, if you're Stephen King or J.K. Rowling, perhaps I can understand using these excuses. (In fact, Rowling's last tweet, 3 months ago, read:  "…you won't be hearing from me often I'm afraid, as pen and paper are STILL my priority at the moment.") Apparently, social media is a luxury for some best-selling novelists. But if you're a new, midlist, or unpublished novelists, believing the above excuses is self-sabotage. And let me be clear: These ARE excuses.

But I'm NOT computer savvy, you object. I'm NOT a marketer, and I really DON'T have time for Tweeting and Facebooking and blogging. I can't be a writer AND be a social media expert.

And maybe that's part of the problem: We think we have to be experts, as if only savants can master social media. Listen, I can sympathize with these objections… if they were leveled by your 92 year-old grandmother.  However, managing a blog, Tweeting regularly, learning basic HTML or web design,  and building your own platform, doesn't require some unique, high-level skill set. Yes, it involves time. Yes, it involves a certain acumen. But this is not gene research, people. I've been married for 31 years and I can assure you, understanding HTML is a lot easier than deciphering female communication. So when I hear authors go on about computer illiteracy and reasons they avoid social networking, all I tend to hear is blah, blah, blah.

Several of my Facebook friends happen to be children of people I know. Not long ago, one of those kids (a 20-something) began posting some risque pictures and saying some disturbing things. Hey, she's an adult. However, I happened to speak to the parent about this and they shrugged. "I can barely check my email, much less go on Facebook." As if ignorance is a reasonable rejoinder. Memo to parents: If your child is computer literate (especially a teen living under your roof) and you are not monitoring them on the grounds that you are a computer illiterate, please check yourself. Parents CANNOT afford to be computer illiterates nowadays.

Well, the same is true of authors. Authors cannot afford to be social media illiterates.

If you choose to remain Twitterless, blog irregularly, shrug off platform building, and repeatedly break The 10 Commandments of Social Media, you forfeit the right to bitch about your writing career. Of course, these things are no guarantee of increased sales or a bigger fan base. In fact, the author who is shrill, one-dimensional, insecure, and uncreative, will only amplify their issues with social media (which may be one reason why writers subconsciously avoid social networking). Nevertheless, there are very few legitimate reasons why an aspiring author should not be growing in social networking.

Part of the beauty and power of social media is that it is accessible to the average person. You don't need a degree, a diploma, a brand name, or tons of money. Yes, it takes time. It takes persistence. It takes creative energy. And I'm guessing you have those things.

But everything else is just an excuse.

* * *

QUESTION: What's your biggest frustration or obstacle to expanding your use of social media?

Interview w/ Agent Rachelle Gardner on Spec-fic in the CBA

In her post Book Genres and Blog Stats, literary agent Rachelle Gardner summarized the findings from a recent poll of her blog readers. Surprisingly, the largest percentage of her readers were writing fantasy and sci-fi. Why is this surprising? For one, Rachelle represents neither of these genres. Secondly, the CBA (Christian Bookseller's Association) publishes very few speculative fiction titles. The findings at Rachelle's site led to an interesting conversation (see her comments thread), and possibly further proof of an industry that doesn't know what to do with this genre. There's much talk about Christian speculative fiction, the lack thereof, and the reason for this. Anyway, the conversation at Rachelle's blog re-opened questions about this subject. Even though speculative fiction is NOT her specialty, Rachelle Gardner kindly agreed to answer several of my questions about spec-fic in the CBA.

* * *

Mike: Thanks for doing this interview, Rachelle! When some of my friends first learned that you were representing me, they were surprised. "I thought Rachelle didn't do speculative fiction?" they said. According to your website guidelines, you represent "supernatural" but not "fantasy or sci-fi." Can you be more specific, Rachelle? What kinds of "supernatural" or "speculative fiction" titles would you be willing to consider?

RACHELLE: Okay, here's how it really works. I do not take fantasy or sci-fi unsolicited, but I do look at it—if it interests me—when it comes from a referral.  It's very difficult to sell Christian fantasy or sci-fi and even supernatural, so I'm probably only going to have one or two clients writing in that genre. If I were to open my queries to the speculative genres, my total incoming submissions would probably double (at least). Yes, half the projects in my inbox would be speculative. I can't be looking at hundreds of speculative manuscripts when I'm unlikely to sign more than one per year (if that). So I'm better off waiting for a personal referral.

As far as how I delineate the genres… and as you know, there can be overlap and blurry lines. In general, sci-fi is usually futuristic. Fantasy involves characters and worlds that do not exist. Supernatural is usually more realistic and involves people of this world being impacted by the unseen world of spirits, angels, demons, or ghosts. (Please don't hold me to this—it's an abbreviated definition.)

MIKE: So from your perspective, what's the status of speculative fiction (I use the term broadly: urban fantasy, horror, supernatural, magic realism, etc.) specifically in the CBA? Are Christian publishers looking to expand spec titles, is interest waning or waxing, and what does the market for "Christian Spec" look like?

RACHELLE: Well first, as Wendy Lawton pointed out in her post "Publishing is a Fashion Industry," things are always changing. But at the moment, my sense is that the prognosis for CBA speculative fiction isn't improving. CBA publishers are seeing what flies off the shelves in big numbers, and it isn't speculative fiction. We could have a long conversation about why this is; suffice to say it's a complex interplay of factors.

The big CBA publishers each have their established author(s) in this genre, and none are very open to newer authors of spec fiction. Recently I asked fiction editors at all the major houses what they're looking for, and none used words like fantasy, sci-fi or supernatural. The one big house that has traditionally done more spec than anyone, Charisma House (Strang/Realms), has stopped acquiring it until further notice.

MIKE: One of my most popular recent posts is entitled, "Why Supernatural Fiction is Under-represented in Christian Bookstores." There's many opinions about why this is. But how would you answer that question: Why is supernatural fiction under-represented in Christian bookstores?

RACHELLE: Mike, I would first ask you, "Under-represented according to whom? And who defines what under-represented even means? By what criteria?" The truth is, Christian bookstores (like any business) try to stock their shelves with what sells the best. So I imagine bookstore owners wouldn't say supernatural fiction is under-represented—they'd say they stock some to have it available for  the few people that come looking for it, but if they stocked more it would sit on their shelves unsold, and eventually be returned. They'd be able to give you numbers to back it up. In other words, they try to match their stock to the demand of their customers.

It's a bit of a vicious cycle. Readers of spec fiction are less likely to enter a Christian bookstore in the first place. So bookstores don't stock it. But since bookstores don't carry it, those readers are even less likely to shop at a Christian bookstore.

MIKE: But why are speculative titles — books, TV programs, films — so prolific in pop culture and so sparse in Christian houses? Every year, some of the best-selling books and films contain speculative themes, whether it's time travel, space aliens, vampires, ghosts, wizards, or elves? Obviously, Christians are part of this consumer culture. So why don't Christian publishers capitalize on this trend?

RACHELLE: For a long time, Christian fiction had a narrow definition and it was difficult to justify how a story involving fantasy, time travel, vampires or similar other-worldly elements could actually be "Christian." Many publishers are still trying to figure it out. At the same time, most of the publishers have dipped their toe in the waters of spec fiction in some way, and haven't been successful at it (whether due to marketing, or their lack of ability to find their audience, or the quality of the books… probably a combination). But when they take a risk and it doesn't pay off, they usually pull back and focus once again on books that aren't so risky. The questions about viability in the CBA world, combined with difficulty selling it, makes it unlikely that the situation in CBA is going to change.

MIKE: Well, what about the Harry Potter phenomenon? It would seem like a perfect opportunity for Christian publishers to capitalize and seek stories for 20- and 30- something adults that would match the epic scope of the Potter books they loved as teens. Perhaps YA could be ground zero for a new CBA Spec uprising, huh?

RACHELLE: It's not as easy as it sounds. CBA publishers, throughout history, haven't been strong in the YA market, and until the last decade, YA in general wasn't nearly as big a deal as it is now. Once Harry Potter hit, all publishers were asking themselves if and how they should capitalize on this "new" market. But to break into a new market, they have to give the new genre or line of books enough time to hit critical mass. The general school of thought is that it takes 3-5 years for a YA author to hit that place where the books become self-perpetuating. Which, obviously, means a loss until that point.

In the last five to eight years, publishers frankly haven't been in a position to take 3 to 5 years of loss in the hopes that a YA author will break out. The ones that have jumped into the market have done so hoping the timeline would be shorter, and when it wasn't, finances dictated they had to bail.

On top of that is the challenge of figuring out who to market YA books to. The reader is often different from the buyer (readers are kids, buyers are parents/grandparents). How do you market to both? You can't really compare CBA young adult fiction to Harry Potter, which was published by Scholastic—a company that has decades of expertise and an insane reach into the lives of  kids, teachers, and parents.

* * *

Interesting stuff, Rachelle! Plenty to think about. Thanks so much for taking the time to visit with us. Any thoughts from you spec-fic readers and writers out there?