Johnny Eaton's Blog

Re: When did our society get so sensitive?

[This is not directly relevant to my writing, I know, but this is the platform I have to say my piece about things, so this is what I'll do. Needless to say I cared enough about this topic to add it here.]

Dear Ms. Blatchford,

I do not need your help in understand how society got to where it is today. I know my history.

I know that women were once relegated to glorified house slave roles. I know that eventually they were allowed to vote, and gained the same rights as men. I know they fought to join men in the workplace, and that today they fight to be paid equally to men for equal labour. I know that throughout the above processes, they have been subject to physical and verbal abuse, and that they still are.

What does that say about our society?

It hasn’t “lost its way” as you put it. It’s come a long way—evolving to end slavery, give universal voting rights, elect gay people to office, consider transgender rights, debate a woman’s right to choose, and slowly release prejudices fuelled by irrational fears.

But we have not evolved far enough. Recently, young unarmed black men with their hands in the air have been shot by police, transgendered people have been banned from bathrooms, and dentistry students have created facebook groups about ‘hate —-ing’ women. And that’s just a small selection from recent news.

We haven’t come nearly far enough, and sadly your article is a step in the wrong direction.

It saddens me that, in reference to the Jen Grant case, you say, “I don’t know… that anyone would be surprised that an after-golf tourney night is predictably a bit of a zoo,” as though she should’ve known what she was getting into. That puts the onus on her, and off of the man who uttered the words. Excuses like this have been heard before, in phrases like “boys will be boys” or “she was wearing revealing clothing.”

So let me help you out here: The lewd comments made by the man in the audience that night were NOT acceptable. They were aggressive, suggestive, unsolicited, and made the recipient feel very uncomfortable. They were verbal harassment. And just because Jen Grant knew she would be performing in a country club after a golf-tourney does NOT mean that her reaction was unfounded, or that it was at all her fault. The only “snafu of misplaced expectations” was the man’s expectation that it was acceptable to say such things to a woman.

Don’t be concerned that society does not comprehend the difference “between sexual assault and a kiss, however unwanted, between harmful actions and hurtful words, however mean, and between rape and a tone of voice, however leering.” Society understands differences of degree.

Instead, be concerned that all of the above acts, forced on an unwilling participant, are acts of abuse. Abuse of societal position. Be concerned that young men think it’s acceptable to embarrass reporters with sexual slander, be concerned that men of all ages suffer from addictions to images that objectify women, be concerned that sexual abuse and rape are still rampant in society.

Despite these problems, there are still members of our society who dream of equality across humanity, of a world of tolerance and non-judgement. It is these people who have, and will continue, to encourage our civil evolution. And as long as they are with us, society has not “lost its way,” Ms. Blatchford—it’s finding its way.

Please don’t slow it down.

Sincerely,

Johnny Eaton

Ottawa, ON

References:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-when-did-our-society-get-so-sensitive http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/this-was-beyond-heckling-this-was-harassment-female-ottawa-comedian-walks-off-stage

The post Re: When did our society get so sensitive? appeared first on Johnny Eaton.

Interviewed by Apt 613

Last week I was interviewed by the blog Apt 613 as part of their “Write on Ottawa” series. It was a lot of fun to answer their questions. Thank you to Alejandro Bustos!

Link to interview: http://apt613.ca/write-on-ottawa-local-writer-debuts-new-fantasy-series/

 

The post Interviewed by Apt 613 appeared first on Johnny Eaton.

Good News: A Review

Good News!

Georgina Parfitt over at towerbabel.com has produced a wonderful review of Summons. Here’s a link to it: “A Motley and Endearing Set of Characters Makes this a Fun Read”

I call the review wonderful because it is helpful to my writing. The praise for my strengths boosts my confidence, and the criticisms are helpful.

I encourage Georgina to continue writing reviews, because I think she has a gift for it. Personally, when reading a review, I want it to help me build or temper my expectations while not spoiling anything. I want to know if there is goopy, young-adult cheese dripping through the pages of a story, or if there is raw animal lust groping through the lines. I want to know a bit about the good parts, and get a little taste of the author’s style. Georgina’s review of my book, I think, gets a potential reader excited about all the right things, and makes them aware of some of the pitfalls in the book. This is exactly what a review should do. So my hat, in turn, is off to her.

That is all the news for now. I am currently working in a tree-planting camp north-west of Prince George, British Columbia, Canada, loving almost every minute of it. There is little time for writing or internetting or outside-life interaction. I will try to supply another update before August, but I can’t make promises. I hope my readers aren’t cringing right now because I’m not currently frantically writing the second book.

It is coming. Don’t you worry.

It is coming.

 

Johnny

 

The post Good News: A Review appeared first on Johnny Eaton.

Misinformation, misconception, and misunderstanding: The 3 Stigmata of ADHD

Daniel Boffey wrote an article recently in The Observer recently with the sensationalist title, “Children’s hyperactivity ‘is not a real disease’, says US expert.” The title overshadows a number of astute observations by Dr. Bruce D. Perry that feed the ignorant opinion expressed in the title:

That ADHD “is best thought of as a description. If you look at how you end up with that label, it is remarkable because any one of us at any given time would fit at least a couple of those criteria… We are very immature in our current evolution in giving diagnoses. A hundred years ago, someone would come to the doctor and they would have chest pain and would be sweating. And they would say, ‘Oh, you have fever.’ They would label it, just like we label it [ADHD] now. It’s a description rather than a real disease.”
That prescriptions for psychostimulants are “too readily” being handed out to children, despite limited research on their long-term effectiveness and side-effects.
That instead of psychostimulants, treatments should focus on holistic strategies for the stressed-out parents to manage a child that exhibits symptoms of ADHD.

All of the above conclusions are thoughtful, and I agree with the last two. But that first one irks me. ADHD is indeed a description of a combination of symptoms, but that does not mean it is a nominal disease. A disease by definition is an impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning. Trust me, if you exhibit all the symptoms of ADHD, you will not be functioning normally, and your health could very easily be impaired, especially if one of your symptoms is impulsiveness.

It is this sentiment of illegitimacy that prompted Oliver Keane to write a reactionary article titled “Mad as Hell: ADHD and the Media.” He begins by sharing that his has ADHD, and calling “bullshit” on Boffey’s article. His anger is apparent, and he goes on to explain it after a PSA on what ADHD is, which really shouldn’t have to be done anymore, but that’s part of the point of his article.

There are 3 major factors stigmatizing ADHD today:

Misinformation, misconception, and misunderstanding.

There is a massive game of telephone going on, spreading information about ADHD. The media isn’t the only one on the line. Parents and doctors are on the line too. Trust me when I say that it is very likely that your friends, other parents, your family doctor, possibly even your psychologist or psychiatrist, do not know what ADHD is. It’s all through the telephone, and there is likely much more to it than you think you know.

When I signed up to get tested for ADHD at a Montreal hospital, I was shocked at how thorough the process was. There were interviews the doctors conducted with friends, family, and myself. There were tests of all sorts. Exhaustive questions about my history, my personal experience, childhood, relationships, etc. They took a copy of my resume. I didn’t even know what all the symptoms were at that point. All I knew was that my psychologist suspected I had it, and thought it might help me to know for sure. Now I do. Is life any easier? No, not really, because I still haven’t really figured out how to manage it with any consistency. In what I now know as a typical ADHD move, I got super-focused for a while on living in a healthy routine that would corral my condition into a manageable pen, but then living a different way, doing something new, going out with friends and having a drink, lifted the gate and I was back to where I was before, drifting on the daily ocean with its crests of interesting and valleys of boredom, being unproductive, struggling to get by. I’ve flirted with the idea of medication, but I treat that route as a last resort. I’ll take more therapy and life-coaching first, but yeah, one way or another I know I’ve got to deal with it, especially considering that those who read this blog want to read about how I’m finishing my second novel or a short story, not how I’m struggling to get any words on the page on any day of the week.

As Oliver Keane said, ADHD is real. To say it isn’t is an insult to everyone who truly has it and truly suffers because of it, and contributes to the misinformation, misconception, and misunderstanding.

If you are among the millions who do not know what ADHD is, or have bought into the ignorant disbelief in its existence, please educate yourself. A good start is to buy a copy of Driven to Distraction by Edward M. Hallowell, M.D., and take a look at his “Suggested Diagnostic Criteria for Attention Deficit Disorder in Adults” pdf.

Source articles:

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Daniel Boffey ~ “Children’s hyperactivity ‘is not a real disease’, says US expert”

RESPONSE ARTICLE: Oliver Keane ~ “Mad as Hell: ADHD and the Media“

The post Misinformation, misconception, and misunderstanding: The 3 Stigmata of ADHD appeared first on Johnny Eaton.

American Hustle, or the Curse of the Casting Director [Movie Review]

Movies can be made or broken by casting. One prominent example of the former is the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which took limited range actors such as Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Liv Tyler, Orlando Bloom, Christopher Lee, and several others, and placed them in roles which they fit extremely well. That series of movies was a piece du resistance for the casting director, Victoria Burrows.

American Hustle, on the other hand, smacks of a casting director’s love affair with actors and actresses who just didn’t fit the roles they were given, and sadly hurt a fantastic script.

A few of the choices — Christian Bale, Amy Adams, and Bradley Cooper — worked out brilliantly, resulting in some Oscar-worthy performances. Unfortunately, two other top-billed performers — Jennifer Lawrence and Jeremy Renner — were grossly miscast. Lawrence was an error of vetting, as the question, “Can you do an accent?” was clearly never asked. Renner, differently, seemed to be cast by a blind person unaware of what an Italian-American looks like. The crux of my argument is that all the actors cast in these roles were not natural to them, and those who had the chops rose to the challenge, but overall the casting was a tragic failure, spoiling a movie that could have been brilliant.

But, I have to be fair…

Who were the alternatives for this movie? Was it even made at the right time for it to be successful?

To begin, is there anyone that could’ve done what Amy Adams or Jennifer Lawrence did better? Maybe. Jessica Chastain could’ve. Maybe she was busy. I can see Rachel Weisz nailing either role, but she’s been quiet lately, not carrying the same momentum as Amy Adams. So I must give a pass to the casting director on Adams’ role, at least. But Jennifer Lawrence’s post-Oscar performance is tragic. Silver Linings Playbook took what she had to give and highlighted all the best parts of it. I still don’t think her performance should’ve won, but there’s no questioning it was good. This time, though… ouch. Just ask Kevin Costner how blowing an accent can ruin a role for you. Suspension of disbelief goes right out the window. Also, and this might be totally personal, Lawrence is too young to play a mom. There’s a list of older actresses I could see possibly taking this role to greater heights – Debra Messing, Courtney Cox (in a Tarantino-like comeback), Famke Janssen, Selma Hayek, Carla Gugino. None of them have the current cache of Lawrence, but as Gugino could tell you, having turned in an excellent performance with limited screen-time in Sin City, cache doesn’t mean shit.

What of Bale, Cooper, or Renner? Anyone better suited to their roles? I can’t imagine anyone else putting in Bale’s work, which was Oscar-worthy. I can see Matt Damon or Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Cooper’s role, but I think Cooper suited it nicely. Which leaves me with Renner, who left me with a bad taste in his mouth. DiCaprio was obviously busy, and too big for such a role, but was there anyone else who had the look and the chops for it? Were chops even necessary? I think Michael Pitt could’ve pulled it off, though he’s a little young. John Hamm might’ve been even better, if they could pry him away from Madmen. Or just find any old no-name because, to make a sports analogy, Jeremy Renner is acting below replacement value in this one.

In the end, my point is that the Casting Director for American Hustle may have taken risks, but not the right kind. There’s no Tarantino move here, no rescue-job or unexpected yet perfectly fitting hire. Nor is there a Burrows job, casting relative no-names who fit the roles extremely well. There are five actors all on the Mugatu “He’s so hot right now” list and that’s a mistake. I get the sense that, with this movie, screen-testing wasn’t a thing that happened; the casting director walked into the producer’s office and said, “Lawrence is in. We got her. Renner too.” And the producers thought, “Sweet. We’re going to make money with this one.” Sadly they were right. Money wins, art loses. Same old story.

It’s too bad. This could’ve been a kick-ass film.

The post American Hustle, or the Curse of the Casting Director [Movie Review] appeared first on Johnny Eaton.

Summons now Available through Apple, B&N, and Kobo

For those of you who have asked about the availability of Summons in other ebook formats, here is some good news:

Summons can now be purchased at the following places:

This website! That’s right, buy direct from the author here, and save a buck!
The Apple Bookstore
Barnes & Noble (BN.com)
The Kobo Store
Lots of Amazon stores: Amazon.com, Amazon.ca, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.in, Amazon.de, Amazon.fr, Amazon.es, Amazon.it, Amazon.com.br, Amazon.com.au, and Amazon.co.jp

Happy reading!

The post Summons now Available through Apple, B&N, and Kobo appeared first on Johnny Eaton.

Six Questions for Kureishi

Recently, Hanif Kureishi, an author and Kingston University professor, spoke at the Independent Bath Literature Festival. His words were controversial, and possibly self-sabotaging. They also raised a number of very important questions.

What the hell is talent and who are you to say who has it and who doesn’t?

According to Kureishi, referring to his students, “It’s probably 99.9 per cent who are not talented and the little bit that is left is talent.” If you’re one of his students, Ouch. Self-sabotage strike one. Do his students still want to learn from him knowing he has so little faith in them? I know I wouldn’t. What makes him an authority on talent? And what is talent, anyway? It’s harder to define than love, if you ask me. In my dictionary, it’s “an innate ability.” Great. What’s ability? “Being able to perform.” Well, in that case, anyone who is able to write creatively has talent. I’m guessing every student in Kureishi’s class is able to write creatively, or they wouldn’t have been accepted. So what’s missing? Only Kureishi can answer that. Problem is, he didn’t.

Can a student be taught how to write an engaging story?

Kureishi says, “A lot of my students just can’t tell a story. They can write sentences but they don’t know how to make a story go from there all the way through to the end without people dying of boredom in between. It’s a difficult thing to do and it’s a great skill to have. Can you teach that? I don’t think you can.” (same source as above) This one’s the nail in Kureishi’s coffin. It is his job to teach this, and not through simple lectures on plotting, character, and other basic elements of writing, but through brainstorming with the students. What’s lacking here? How could we make it better? Which leads to another question:

If most teachers “are going to teach you stuff that is a waste of time for you,” what should they be teaching instead?

In my humble opinion, the classic lecture format is not useful for a course based on imaginative output, because the lecture is a one-way input process. Also, the competitive workshop format that is all too common in creative writing courses is counterproductive. Amateurs critiquing amateurs is not only a waste of time, but is discouraging to a process that is already very difficult and very sensitive. A metaphorical anecdote: When I played music for a living, I used to critique instrumentalists who ‘wanked,’ i.e. a player who played with themselves instead of the song. I always thought that every member of the band should be a slave to the song, doing all in their power to make the song better. Such an approach would be excellent in creative writing courses. Orient them collaboratively. Use the term ‘we’–How can we make this story better? Brainstorm each piece a student brings to the group. Which brings me to questions about approach that could be useful not just to students but pros as well:

What should the creative writing professor make the primary focus?

Imagination; that is, imaginative output. Kureishi wrote a whole article on the value of imagination. A student should be encouraged to write as often as possible, and as much as possible. The professor could even take on a role as workshop curator, choosing pieces that show the most potential or promise or imagination for a group improvement effort. The whole idea is encouragement. From my own experience as a student, this was one element that was tragically lacking the majority of the time, leaving me on my own to battle creative self-doubt and still manage to be productive. Seriously–school would be so much easier if teachers and professors simply embraced and encouraged their students’ passions. Which leads to the next question:

Who should take a creative writing course?

People who love and have a passion for writing, not people who ‘want to be a writer’. As Kureishi says, “You start off wanting to be an artist, and once you’ve got children, you’ve got to work in the market. You look at them and think: ‘I’ve got to support you through writing.’ It’s a real nightmare trying to make a living as a writer for a long time… ” If you sign-up for a creative writing course because you love writing and you want to write more and get better at it, you’ve done so for all the right reasons. If you sign-up because you want to make a career out of creative writing, you’ve done it for the wrong reason. If you want both, if you have hopes and dreams and tempered expectations, that’s fine too.

6. How else might one learn the ropes of writing?

On one’s own, by doing it. But better would be to do as Kureishi suggests and “try and find one teacher who can really help you.” And ‘teacher’ is a flexible term here. It could mean ‘mentor’ like Gertrude Stein was to Ernest Hemingway. It could mean ‘editor’. It simply means one person who you trust and look up to as someone who understands and loves your writing and knows how to help you make it better. Every writer needs somebody like this, for encouragement and perspective.

So what of Kureishi? What’s the final verdict on him?

Based on what he said, I get the sense he’s a better writer than a professor, and I wouldn’t want to be in his course right now. I feel sorry for the students who are. He sees “his relationship with his students as part-mentor, part-therapist,” which is all well and good, but he also said that “the idea that you’re in a school for producing great writers is not the point.” I would personally not want my professor to be so jaded. I would want him to have hopes for me, to encourage me, to do all in his power to help me become the best writer I could be, even if he thought that my chances of writing something truly remarkable were slim. If Kureishi’s mind thinks producing great writers is not the point, he is simultaneously on point and missing the point. Making his students writers is the point, and the only thing he needs to do to make that happen is to get them to write. ‘Greatness’ shouldn’t be a factor. For most that comes later in life anyway, and many after death.

 

Sources:

“The Independent Bath Literature Festival: Creative writing courses are a waste of time, says Hanif Kureishi (who teaches one)” — Alice Jones, Nick Clark

“Hanif Kureishi: What they don’t teach you at creative writing school” — Hanif Kureishi

The post Six Questions for Kureishi appeared first on Johnny Eaton.

Critical Entitlement and the Artist-Critic Relationship

I’ve been thinking lately about critical entitlement, mainly because of a rant a friend of mine posted on facebook a couple of weeks ago. I’ll paraphrase his or her words to hide identity:

“One can form their own opinions, but one should not criticize something unless one can actually do that something, i.e. Don’t criticize a writer if you can’t write; don’t criticize an actor if you can’t act; don’t criticize a drawing if you can’t draw; don’t criticize a musician if you can’t play their instrument, etc. I will listen to such criticisms, but I will assume they are sourced by ignorance and not take them seriously.”

I can sympathize with the fair, if undiplomatic, sentiment of the above ideas. Why should someone who has never tried their hand at writing a novel be taken seriously when they criticize a novel? Shouldn’t they walk a mile in a writer’s shoes first? My first instinct is to say, “Damn right!” After all, since writing a novel myself I find myself critiquing with a lot more respect for the accomplishment of writing a novel, for all the planning and energy that went into it. But then I remember that every artist, whether they like it or not (yes, I’m talking to you, J.D. Salinger), is in a relationship, a give-and-take. Otherwise, it’s us and them, us on one side of the wall and them on the other, and we throw our work over on the other side. But if we never get a message back from the other side telling us what those people over there thought, then it’s just us, right? There’s nobody on the other side of the wall. It’s crushing. We’re in a worse spot than Evey in V for Vendetta, who at least got messages through a hole in the wall.

We’d lose our artistic sanity without feedback. Artists need feedback. Artists need critics.

In addition, one is not unqualified to criticize a piece of art simply because one is not an artist in that medium. Why? Because for every writer there is a reader. For every musician there is a listener. For every visual artist there is an observer. For every actor there is an audience. An indispensible part of the relationship is the reception, the absorption. A reader who has read 1000 fantasy novels surely has enough comparitive knowledge to warrant a critique to be taken seriously.

“But what of those who haven’t absorbed so much?” you might ask. “Shouldn’t they keep their mouths shut?” I would say yes, but only to a degree. You see, there’s nothing wrong with someone saying, “I just like it” or “It just wasn’t for me.” Such opinions might not be strong recommendations to take into account when you are considering the purchase of a work of art, but they shouldn’t be discounted, because they are simple opinions, and opinions are neither right nor wrong. They just are.

To return to what my friend said: “One can form their own opinions, but one should not criticize something unless one can actually do that something.” In my humble opinion, I agree that everyone has a right to an opinion. Opinions are subjective, and shouldn’t really be taken too seriously. They should be joyed in when people find common ground, though, i.e. “You hate Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge for the totally irrational reason of hating his stupid smile and cheesy singing voice too? Awesome! High five!” As for criticisms, they are most effective, and usually most well-received, when they are objective, concrete, and come from a source of knowledge.

To my friend I might say, “ wrote a few screenplays in the 70s and acted as himself in some movies, but he never directed, was never a cinematographer, never sound-edited. Still, I don’t discount his criticisms on movies. The man knows movies. Sometimes, though, I just don’t share his opinions on them. I loved Zoolander. He gave it 1 star out of 4.”

The post Critical Entitlement and the Artist-Critic Relationship appeared first on Johnny Eaton.

Movie Review: Beasts of the Southern Wild

I love movies. Maybe more than books.

I love acting, cinematography, musical scores, direction, riveting plots, and laughing my ass off.

So, I figure, why not review some on this blog, where I have a voice, and my personality is supposed to shine through?

Here goes… my inaugural movie review:

Title: Beasts of the Southern Wild
Year: 2012
Run Time: 93 minutes
Genre/Sub/Mix: Drama, Fantasy
Era: Modern
Budget: $1,800,000 (low budget)
Cast: ,
Director:
Summary (from imdb.com): “Faced with both her hot-tempered father’s fading health and melting ice-caps that flood her ramshackle bayou community and unleash ancient aurochs, six-year-old Hushpuppy must learn the ways of courage and love.”
Critique:

Plot/Continuity (C-): While this film does tell a story, its development lacks in execution. It is ultimately a survival tale, but its peaks and valleys are muted and subtle, and some scenes seem to have been filmed to keep the whole from being too short. The result is a lagging, disjointed second half that doesn’t have the strong emotional impact it could. It’s like a girl vs. nature story ran into a father/daughter story and neither one triumphed over the other.
Character Development/Acting (B+): The authenticity of the acting is one of the strengths of this film. This may be due to the fact that most of the actors were not familiar faces on the big screen, so there was no celebrity personality interfering with their ability to draw you in and make you believe. Unfortunately, only two characters are fleshed out to any degree, and neither one undergoes any significant personal shift in their nature, e.g. development is distinctly lacking.
Music/Singing (D+): In a film set in Lousiana, you would think music would play a bigger role, and be better. A few scenes capture singing and revelry beautifully, but the score is neither moving nor memorable. Magnifying its weakness is an attempt to infuse the ending of the movie with extra emotion as a cover-up for the lack of character and plot drama.
Direction/Editing (B-): I tend to take the term ‘direction’ literally, judging the focus of a film. While Zeitlin had a clear aesthetic focus, and corralled all the actors into the same pen of performance, he was not focused when it came to telling the story, and that is a fatal flaw. All the gorgeous shots and clever camera angles and clean editing won’t save a movie with story problems. Zeitlin also seemed to waver thematically between coming of age, the consequences of environmental catastrophe, and family dynamics.
Cinematography/Effects (A): This is the other major strength of the movie. Almost every shot is beautiful, and that beauty comes in a variety of forms, from crumbling iceburgs to fireworks in the night to a woman boiling water as she walks by it and the desolation of a storm’s aftermath. The special effects are poor in comparison to big budget flicks, but almost make fantastic creatures seem real… almost.


Overall Grade: 7.7/10, B-
Worth Seeing?: Yes. The film is so beautiful, and the acting so honest, that the film’s faults fall by the wayside. Not a movie I would watch twice, but once.

The post Movie Review: Beasts of the Southern Wild appeared first on Johnny Eaton.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, or “The Price is Wrong, Bitch!”

I used the quote from Adam Sandler’s Happy Gilmore because it makes me laugh, and makes me think about author-publisher pricing schemes.

There is a pile of advice out there for author-publishers coming from a variety of sources and, as is likely easy to guess, provides little clear sense of the fickle world of pricing a product. Ideally, there would be an algorithm that could maximize profits. It’s possible that large corporations have them and use them. The lonely author-publisher, though… screwed. We have to wing it, all the while getting advice such as “Raise your prices if you’re not getting sales- people pay for perceived value” and “Lower your prices because the market for your niche is down there” or “Set your prices to the industry standard.”

The three examples above all seem logical and practical, but I think all three can be combined into a simple strategy that unfortunately is very difficult for one person to implement: Discovering the value of their book, according to the current market. Sounds simple, right? But it isn’t. If it was, you would be a mass mind-reader, or have a fancy algorithm.

The fact is, at any point in time, your book has a price that will attract the maximum balance of readers and profit.

The bad news: There’s no way of absolutely knowing that balance.

The good news: As writers, we are used to, familiar with, and maybe even comfortable with failure, and the pricing game is a experimental process rife with failures. Edison and Lattimer made over 10,000 prototypes of the light bulb before the final success. So we must do as they did, experimenting, testing price points, recording the results.

The ugly news: As our books gain readership and media successes, the markets for them may shift, i.e. The Lord of the Rings trilogy while the movie was out (or any book turned into a movie), a favourable review comes out, the book gets featured on a blog, etc. We have to be savvy enough to cash in on cache. How many artists can say they do that? Hollywood actors do it all the time, but I suspect very few do it consciously. More likely than not, their agents are the ones with the value-sense, the ones thinking, “My client just did Pulp Fiction for peanuts. I’m gonna make him rich with Michael.” A small morsel for thought: The Casual Vacancy by J.K. Rowling is $18.00/$9.28USD for trade/ebook. I think we all know that without the Harry Potter series, that book does not sit at that price.

So what’s the moral, or the nugget of advice from all this ruminating?

When there is no formula, no universal constant to work with, one is wise to fall back on the principles of scientific experimentation: test, record, repeat test, record … slowly develop a theory. When something changes, re-test. Exhausting, isn’t it?

The post The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, or “The Price is Wrong, Bitch!” appeared first on Johnny Eaton.