Rob Osterman's Blog, page 10

New Pricing Paradigms

Mind the Thorns has finished it's giveaway period on Goodreads, the books have been out in the wild for a week now and many have landed at their destinations.  Yay!  One kind reveiwer has already spotted some typoes that slide past me, my editor, or both of us.  More than likely my editor caught them but I didn't make the transition over to the document from the one he sent me.

This, dear readers, is the glory of Google Documents.  There's no file swapping.  He makes comments and they're right there for me to make the required changes.  It's glorious.

Now that all said there was one little thing I feared would come up, and I'm glad it did because the reviewer was very kind about broaching it.

It was a quick read (about an hour), and the author sets it up for a great series (though I think it would be better to compile it all into one whole book rather than a lot of self published novels). 

So I'm going to, if you'll indulge me, lay some cards out on the table.


One thing that I did struggle with was how to make the story available in other ways.  Ultimately I decided on three chapter "issues".  Each issue represents a fair chunk of story (between 9k and 12k words), with usually a good deal of character development and interaction.  Like a comic or graphic novel series, the story is always advanced but mostly just enough to keep you interested.

These Issues are available on Amazon.com (both in print and Kindle format) and on Smashwords.  I have kept the prices as low as I could to encourage people to buy them to show friends, have on the shelf, and leave at coffee shops.  Overall, though, these are not money makers, given the amount of money charged by Amazon and Createspace for printing and listing.  

So why did I settle on 3 chapter issues?

To be honest the flow and the timing feel right for it.  Coming out a little more often than once a month, and costing only a dollar to add to your eReader (now that they are listed on Smashwords) I felt that was enough to encourage people to keep up, without taking more than an hour or two to get caught up if you went a month between reading issues.

But because of the nature of the Web Novel, I'm not entirely sure when the story will end.  In theory, if the readership keeps Regan from achieving her goals, resolving her plot points, or any other way to keep the story going, it could be years before I finally type "Fin" into the computer and post.  While I understand the value of spending a good deal of time on a finished work, I think it does not fit with the format I'm going for with this particular project.

I found myself roped into many many conversations about piracy of books and other media while I was hanging around the groups on Goodreads.  By and large there was the insistence that free content was the future, and that quality writing would be rewarded.  That is one of the reasons that the core of Mind the Thorns remains free.

It is a multi-faceted experiment.  How will a reader-driven novel go?  Will it grow with audience or will the novelty of voting on the path of the main character wear off and leave me with a dead website?  Will this become something that can support itself with subscriptions? 

I'm only 9 weeks in and so far I remain optimistic.

FFV: Bob Ross Remixed

Nothing to add.  It speaks for itself.

Movie Review: The Dark Knight Rises

I want to begin by saying that it is incredibly hard to write an adequate review of this movie without including spoilers.  While I normally try to provide a spoiler-free reading for those that are on the fence I have to apologize that some of the plot is going to have to come out.
This movie represents the final chapter in the Dark Knight Trilogy directed by Nolan.  It began with the origin story and pitted Batman against his standard rival of The Joker.  In part two we saw Batman fall into disgrace and despair as a hunted vigilante.  And here in three we see his rise and redemption.
The main players reprise their roles.  Bale comes back as Bruce Wayne, Cain as the ever loyal Alfred, Freedman as Fox, and Oldman as Commissioner Gordon.  Simply all of them are spot on in their performances and provide exactly what they brought to the previous films.  It is a little sad that this has been declared that Bale has hung up the cape and cowl with this movie as I do think his Bruce Wayne/ Batman is as solid a pairing as the Batman movies have seen since Micheal Keaton began the modern era of Batman movies.
I also am a huge fan of Micheal Caine and believe that anything he touches is golden.  He ~is~ Alfred and honestly I have a hard time with too many other actors trying to take on that part.
And at the same time, his part in this movie was right on as the young but aware cop who knows that evil has to be stopped.  He never quit believing in the Batman and he always kept up the fight.
Hathaway was one I was worried about going in.  She seemed a departure from the usual Catwomans we've seen in the past, but my fear was totally unfounded.  Of course, she also did a great job as Agent 99 in Get Smart so perhaps Catwoman wasn't as much of a stretch.
This installment sees the rise of Bane and another round of taking all of Gotham hostage.  Being totally fair, there is a question of plausibility seeing how often Gotham has been taken over by some gang of thugs and had nuclear bombs set up, fire bombs thrown, etc.
If you accept that once again the city can be put under siege again, then what you get is a nice flow of events and twists and social commentary.  Bane wants to return the city "To the people" and you get to see what happens when the mobs take over.  
I have heard that this movie is somewhere between Occupy Wall Street fantasy, and cautionary tale. There are elements of the French Revolution and related imagery, as well as a certain "eat the rich" kind of imagery.  I don't think that it treats either "Side" too well.  The rich are shown to be decadent, and the unwashed masses to be uncontrollable without law and order forcing them to behave.
As such the movie proves to be evocative and engaging.  There is a lot of conversation to be born from it and I do think, like a great deal of literature, it is both an examination of our times and forces us to engage that examination to see what we believe to be valid and invalid points.
As someone who is familiar with a lot of the Batman stories in a general abstract sense, it was also interesting to see which continuity they were going to follow.  Several times I thought "oh... they're going to do ~that~ here" only to find out they went another way.  
Overall this was the perfect end to the trilogy, making a series of movies that rose, fell, and rose again to a new height.  I do not like that it seems movie #2 is becoming the "downer movie" so that the third is the true finale, but I can live with it if it means we get more like this.

FFV: Exploding Waterheaters

Nothing is as humbling as watching a waterheater "fail" and demolish a house. Happy Belated 4th of July!

Self Promotion: How many ways can you get yourself out there?

This week I was able to finally put the final touches on Issue 1 of Mind the Thorns.  It's the first three chapters, packaged as a mini-novella, and available as an eBook and in print edition.  This week, over on Mind the Thorns, I'll be posting chapter 6, which will also bring Issue 2 to a close.  Between time to edit it again, format for publication and have the copy editor work over it, I should, in theory, have it ready by the 30th.  It's still a little slower than I would like but it can work.


The real question, though, is if any of this will work to add to the overall exposure of the website, the story and my other writing.  


Just getting into brick and mortar stores is a challenge, too, because there just are not that many traditional book stores in my area any more.  There's still a Borders, about 45 minutes away.  There are a few comic shops that I'm hoping to get into but they're not really known for novels.  Really the best way to get your hands on a dead tree edition of a book is Amazon.com.





The logic goes like this.  If you use traditional publishing  you may sell 100 copies.  But if that same work is pirated to 10,000 people and just a 5% of them like it enough to buy it (or any other work you produce) then that's 500 sales.  Simply put the free promotion gets the work into the most hands possible.


So begins a bit of an experiment.  I am committed that Mind the Thorns will always, always, be free.  Anyone can go to the website and give it a read.  If they want to contribute that's completely optional.  There's no requirement, no pay walls, nothing to stop them from only enjoying the free website edition.


But, if they do want to support it, they can purchase the eBook, the print edition etc.  I'm hoping soon to have a subscription model set up where people can sign up and receive by mail a signed copy of each issue.  


So now there's a certain curiosity as to whether or not this will work.  It's far far too early to know for sure as the website is still growing and building a following.  It may be too early to even talk about financial support as the page count is in flux.  On the other hand, when people do want to make a financial contribution, I want to be ready for it.


As I blogged last week, while it was good that FantastiCon got into the top 20 for free sales, and hundreds went into circulation, it will be some time before I have any idea if that will translate into additional sales.  I have a feeling that Mind the Thorns will be much the same thing.

Mind the Thorns Give Away

While you can always find Mind the Thorns for free on the website, you can also enter to win a free copy of Issue 1 on the website Good Reads.  I'm happy to sign and dedicate any copies I give away if people would like.


.goodreadsGiveawayWidget { color: #555; font-family: georgia, serif; font-weight: normal; text-align: left; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; background: white; } .goodreadsGiveawayWidget img { padding: 0 !important; margin: 0 !important; } .goodreadsGiveawayWidget a { padding: 0 !important; margin: 0; color: #660; text-decoration: none; } .goodreadsGiveawayWidget a:visted { color: #660; text-decoration: none; } .goodreadsGiveawayWidget a:hover { color: #660; text-decoration: underline !important; } .goodreadsGiveawayWidget p { margin: 0 0 .5em !important; padding: 0; } .goodreadsGiveawayWidgetEnterLink { display: block; width: 150px; margin: 10px auto 0 !important; padding: 0px 5px !important; text-align: center; line-height: 1.8em; color: #222; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid #6A6454; -moz-border-radius: 5px; -webkit-border-radius: 5px; font-family:arial,verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; background-image:url(http://www.goodreads.com/images/layou... background-repeat: repeat-x; background-color:#BBB596; outline: 0; white-space: nowrap; } .goodreadsGiveawayWidgetEnterLink:hover { background-image:url(http://www.goodreads.com/images/layou... color: black; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; }
Goodreads Book Giveaway Mind The Thorns Issue 1 by Rob Osterman Giveaway ends August 03, 2012.
See the giveaway details at Goodreads. Enter to win

FFV: Dora Movie Trailer

That's right. She's getting a movie, folks.


CollegeHumor’s Favorite Funny Videos

ABB: Authors Being Bullied?

Usually when you see the letters ABB it stands for Authors Behaving Badly.  There is great fun in watching total melt downs of new, young, and/or self published authors going off the rails and totally destroying their budding career by posting rants about reviews, decrying their lack of sales, demanding more respect for their "art" etc.  Usually it's longwinded blog posts about how mean the world is, or twitter conversations where an author is calling on friends to deal with a "mean" reviewer by voting them down.

Discussing Behaving Badly isn't really what I wanted to talk about this time out, though it's worth a blog post to go over the basic rules for how to deal with negative reviews and personal attacks.  (short answer:  Report to website, and then ignore).

What I did want to talk about was a situation bubbling over on Goodreads regarding another ABB:  Authors Being Bullied.

 Or rather, are they?


Given the nature of the internet that scenario isn't that hard to envision.  Sadly it works both ways.  An author can see a review he doesn't like, call out his friends to vote it down, and then hope it disappears from view.

Good Reads is actually in the process of clarifying it's position on reviews, I think in partial response to this.  They say that they've always had rules about what reviews were shown, they just want to clarify those rules and make them more transparent.  Taken from the feedback group:

This is actually not a new thing. We've "hidden" reviews (which means removing them from the book page) ever since I started working here. The new thing is the message that tells you it's been hidden. We recently decided that we should be more transparent about what we do with reviews, so this is the first step in this.

We'll be posting our review guidelines, which clearly spell out what is likely to get a review hidden, in a couple of days. We've been working on these for the past few months, and we think they'll bring a better level of transparency to the site and make it a better place for everyone who contributes.

Our philosophy is that your review is yours to write as you see fit and we're happy to have you express whatever opinions you like in those reviews. They'll always be shown on your profile and be on your shelves, but the book page is ours to curate, and that's something we've been doing since the start of Goodreads. We want to make sure that we're showing the most relevant and most useful reviews on that page.

The discussion is rather interesting as follows.  It seems that the big rift is what the goal of the Good Reads site is for.  Is it there to serve readers by providing a platform for them to comment on books freely, and without consideration of the authors?  Does it exist for authors to promote their work and grow as artists?  


Or does it exist in the middle ground?  A place for everyone to be a little less mean to each other and understand what's going on.


At the end of the day there is really only one consideration for the moderators of Goodreads:  What will make the best sense for Goodreads over all.  One factor I'm sure is that they make a good deal of their operating expenses from advertisements, and they market those ad slots, partially, to independent authors looking to get a leg up.  I can't imagine that it's easy to sell ads when the prevailing winds are blowing around the idea that Goodreads isn't a place that authors are welcome.
Everyone is benefited when cool heads prevail.  I understand the strong desire to call out an author who acts badly at a con, or in person, or who posts horrible things on their blog.  I also understand the strong desire to lash back, or to be defensive.  In fact, there's a long history of referencing a writer's personal belief's, life experiences, attitude and the like when trying to analyze their work.  Knowing a bit about the life Hemmingway lived helps put his work in a kind of perspective.
One thing that I think gets lost in a lot of discussion about the happenings at Goodreads is the inherent power differential.  There are a lot of writers vying for the limited attention of the readers.  And that puts the readers in a very strong position of power.  So I think this makes authors hypersensitive.  They know they're out numbered and that in reality a single bad review could destroy them.  It does not, however, excuse them acting unprofessionally or sinking to the level of their perceived (or real) bullies.
What Good Reads wants, and I think this is good, is to simply get everyone back to interacting with respect. Everyone is benefited when readers respect what authors bring to the conversation, and when writers understand that they are interacting with their audience in a way that is unprecedented in the history of modern literature.  Whether or not there is actual bullying of authors going on, it seems that the perception of it is enough to cause a change.  Now comes the question as to how the community will respond.
My gut is that 95% or so won't even notice the changes.  As with most groups they're content to "play the game" and use the site as intended, to interact with friends and share book suggestions.  That leaves the other group to either love or hate the changes.  The real issue will be how much Goodreads enforces or Over-enforces these policies. 


A concern I've seen raised a few times is that someone might not enjoy a novel because a writer's personal political views are well on display.  The fact that a writer might be a Conservative might turn off a reader.  Should a review be "hidden" because it mentions the writer's political views and how they effect the way the book reads?  I don't think so, myself, and I would hope that the GR mod staff can tell the difference between "I didn't like it because the author's political views were too on display" vs "Don't read it, it's by one of those cold hearted conservatives."


Of course, someone could argue to leave both reviews and let the reading public sort out which they want to give weight to.


It is after all, a site ~for~ readers.

Life Imitates Art?

Yes this is my second blog post on the Aurora shootings.  What can I say?  It does have me thinking.
But first a quote:


There are two kinds of folks who sit around thinking about how to kill people: psychopaths and mystery writers. I'm the kind that pays better.
-Rick Castle

I was thinking about the situation in Colorado and how it was orchestrated like an episode of CSI.  Guy shoots up a location, gets caught, and then goads the police into going to his house which is booby trapped to hell and back, hoping to blow up some more people.

In fact I think it DID happen on an episode of CSI: Las Vegas.

So, here's a question:  Are they related?


But I've seen that.  It's been done.

Which starts to beg the question how much our media driven world is starting to drive the world around it.  Would someone have thought about such creative ways to kill so many people without assistance.

Now don't take this out of context and think I'm blaming books or CSI or Castle for this mindless shooting.  That's not my point.  You can't blame anyone but the shooter in this case.  Just because someone does know how to do something doesn't mean they will do it.  He made choices and he must be held, solely, accoutable.

But curious as I am, I do wonder how many of the particulars started in his mind and how many were inspired by other events.  It's mostly an idle curiosity as there's no action to take regardless of where he got his ideas.

As a budding writer I find so many of these dramas inspiring because they present crimes in ways I would not have thought of.  They put out clever twists that most people don't see.  And why would they?  Most people don't think outside the box on a regular basis.  So many things are open and shut, or appear to be.

Why would the police expect a house to be booby trapped?

Maybe he was smart enough and sick enough to plan this all on his own.  Or maybe he wasn't.  Maybe he took his cues from the same shows I watch for entertainment, the ones I enjoy to see if I'm as smart as the writers.

Some of these writers are amazingly clever and I do give thanks that they're using their powers and wit to entertain rather than to harm.  It does make one wonder, though, doesn't it?  We'll have to watch the trials unfold to see for sure, and have curiosity satisfied.

I support banning costumes at movies, for a while

In the wake of the Aurora CO shootings there has been a lot of talk about gun control, a lot of talk about motives and how to profile such monsters before they strike.  Oh, and there's talk about banning costumes at movie theaters.

This started out as a blog post about life imitating art but now that I've said that I want to explore it a bit.  Yes, I do support a ban, temporarily, on cosplay at theaters.


Is it odd that a flower has become synonymous for a school shooting?  You don't even say Columbine Shooting any more.  Simply the word, and a dose of context, and you're all on the same page.

I had a student, who had the nickname Rush from track.  He always wore a trench coat to school.  Big and lanky he was also a nerd, and quite proud of it.  As a bit of a jock though, he was immune, I think, to a lot of the teasing that boys went through who were into comic books, video games, and wore black coats.

He stormed into my room that morning furious.  "Mr. Osterman, they say I need to take off my coat, and that's total BS!  I have a right to wear it."

I nodded and agreed that he had the right to wear it.  "But there are a lot of scared people today.  You're right that you shouldn't have to take it off, but think about them for a moment.  Right now people are frightened.  Not of you, but of those kids in Colorado.  It's not something that has to make sense; you just have to accept that your coat will evoke feelings of fear.  Can you not wear it for a day or two for them?"

And really, why should he change himself for people who could not judge him for who he was, but instead judged him as part of the "Trench Coat Mafia"?  Why feed their fear that he was someone different and dangerous?

Because at the time there was no value in forcing the issue.  What was gained by created confrontations in the raw emotional days following the massacre?  No one was thinking clearly.  Most were just trying to make sense of something so out of the blue and wondering if it could happen there.

In a few days, no one noticed Rush's coat.  He wore it again and nothing was said.  We just needed a little time heal, to realize that what had happened in Colorado was anomalous.  We all needed a chance to catch our breath and reboot our brains.

I think, really, that the costumes at movie theaters is going to be in the same place.  Right now this is fresh on everyone's mind, this unique event and tragedy.  Theaters are rushing to find ways to make people feel safe again, to reassure customers that there is nothing to fear, which, really there isn't.

And in time they'll realize that over all telling people not to wear costumes is a bad thing.  People like to dress up and show off their fandoms.  Imagine telling gaggles of teens that they can't wear their Hogworts uniforms to a screening of all 8 movies back to back to back.  It'd kill sales as the people who want to wear costumes are just the kind who would pay for 16 hours of movies.

But in the immediate they're also trying to get people back into the seats and feeling safe.  Right now the wounds are fresh and painful.  When they sit down next to a guy in a tactical vest, they're going to wonder if he's about to snap too.

It's not a rational thought.  It's not based on logic or reason or probabilities.  But when we are hurt, those are rarely the thoughts we have.

Give it time, fellow nerds.  This too will pass and the bans on costumes will vanish again.

And if it does not, then I'll be upset with you.  But for now I'm okay to give society time to process and heal, and let the would at least stop bleeding.