Questions from those who Write to those who Read

[The Pirate Ghost, Long John Silvers Wanna-be]

We have a thread for questions from readers to writers. It's only fair that we have a thread for writers to ask readers questions. If you have a question for readers, post here!

[The Pirate Ghost, Long John Silvers Wanna-be]

Sally Pomeroy wrote: "Can I ask a question from those who write to those who read? In his review of our first book; Butler Did It!, I, Curmudgeon mentioned that it had some of the typical problems of an indie published book. What are the mistakes indies usually make?

Okay, these are what ”I” believe are common Indie mistakes. This is based on my experience reading Indie pubs and books run through the corporate publishing machine and reflect only my opinion. (yes, everything I say is completely supported by my own opinion.) The fact that “I” identify these things with Indie Pubs does not mean that I think they are exclusive to Indie Pubs… it is conceivable that one could say any new author has these issues. It is also fair to say that some of the things I mention here could be considered a question of artistic style, not a mistake, so, in that case, the mistake is not the authors but mine for choosing a book that is written in a style that doesn’t appeal to me. In this area I am an expert, but I am only an expert in my own opinion and what appeals to me. I am not an expert in publishing writing or literature, theater, or anything else, save what my opinions are on those subjects. As a consumer I would like to believe that this is important information. As a consumer, I realize that my tastes may not conform to the majority group of reader’s tastes and opinions.

I should also point out, that, this is “common mistakes.” That label is only indicating things that I thought could have been done differently. It doesn’t take into account the many books I read that have managed this hurdle with flying colours. Generally, I like Indie Pubs, and I recognize the talent and skill that those who work in the publishing industry bring to the table. What would Steven James books look like without his publishers and editors sanding it smooth for him? Sometimes it’s just a case of too much ground area for a single set of eyes to cover. Sometimes, what I identify as a “mistake” or weak point in one book, could be something that I accepted for artistic reasons in another (which would make it an exception in that case).

Also, though Sally Pomeroy asked the question because of comments on my review of her book, I am going to address the question as it was written. What are common mistakes made by Indie Authors? That means not all of these things apply to “Butler Did it!” Some of them shall, but I’m not going to differentiate between a single book here. (If that is desired, I’ll be more than happy to respond in a PM).

And, for the record, I liked “Butler Did it!” Own a copy of Buttler’s Island and will be reading it soon. Let’s call this rule one or “the basics” and, when in doubt, go back to the basics….if you follow me.

That was one heck of a disclaimer wasn’t it? Oh, I forgot one “…your mileage may vary.”

Okay, in no particular order, these are things that I find in common to Indie Pubs that I believe are less common in pubs that benefit from a team of polishers, publishers and editors. (again, only my opinion)

1) Lack of complexity in the plot. -- Sometimes this might be termed as “a predictable plot.” I liked to think of it as a lack of “layers to the plot.” If we envision the plot of a story to be like an onion, and, as we read through it, we bite deeper and deeper to the core of the onion each layer represents a thread, sub-plot, theme side bar etc. If we plotted it out on diagram, each plot factor would be like a leaf on a family tree that covers several generations.

The plots of some indie books when diagramed out might look like a single generation with a lot of children, rather than several generations. In other words, everything, for whatever reason relates to a singular obstacle or problem for the heroes to overcome, or maybe a few closely related problems that are in direct straight lines from villain to hero. What works better for me as a reader, are connections to what I call “second tier” villains. For example…The senator on the take who’s been throwing road blocks in front of the hero. What makes this work is not the villain leveraging the senator, but the fact that there is enough flesh and blood in the supporting character “senator” that he has an identity separate from the villains rather than an extension of it. Competing factions out to get the hero’s treasure that have few or no ties to each other. Only one can be “the main villain” but this makes a more complex problem for the heroes to deal with. “Who’s doing this to us? And why?” Or maybe the presence of an ally of the Hero who has his own agenda and questionable motives who’s been working both sides of the street all along. You know, like in Jaws (the movie) the mayor who, despite the presence of half eaten bodies on the beach, refuses to close the beach because it’ll kill the islands economy and squash the tourist industry.

I think the mistake is, not that indie writers do not include or envision such things in their stories, but that they do not breathe enough life into all parts of the supporting cast for them to be distinguishable from a single villain/villain group with a single set of related motives. Cardboard cutouts are scenery not people.

Examples of this being managed well, “Wool” (for indie pubs) where there were several character groups acting on the plot independently. The kids living in Silo 19, the other silos, the other silo leaders who kept everyone in the dark…the history of who built the silos, the murder mystery, the pitched battle in Silo 18. Even better all of the things going on in the Spinward Fringe series from Randolph Lalonde. The old heroes from the First Light, the new heroes from the Sampson, a new corporation, bits of the old corporation in charge, Eve, Ayan’s cloning and her mother’s role in things, the Triton. Spies, and of course the romantic affairs of Frost and Stephanie (one of the coolest space chicks EVER!) Lots of moving parts.

2) Hyper-Focus on the Hero or a small portion of the “hero-group.” Tunnel Vision. Character driven stories are wonderful, but sometimes we get almost no details on anyone in a story but the Hero. Even the villains appear to be scenery that the Hero wades through and kicks around, or, not enough human detail to the supporting cast. Sometimes it’s not so much the amount of information as it is “what” information and how we get it.

A good example of what worked (even though it’s not an Indie Pub) Grace from Patient Zero was in danger of becoming indistinguishable from the extras or if not indistinguishable, of equal importance to the lesser characters and she was an important cast member established early on by her reaction to Ledger. Just when I was about to write her off as not having a major role, she shows up at Ledger’s door and gives us a huge, wonderful and humanizing moment when she comes clean with him about her history. Another would be Holly, Trip, and Owen’s Brother from Monster-Hunter International. They are nowhere near as important to the story as Owen and Julie but, they are given enough human moments with enough flesh and blood that they aren’t “Red-Shirts.” By the fourth book, we get almost equal time with Holly and Owen’s Brother as we do with Owen and Julie. In one case it was a single humanizing scene, in the other, it was characters grown over time, with the right details rather than a lot of details. Heck Earl even gets the entire book 3 for himself. Again, the nature of the details is more important than the amount. If we get an account of a second tier character’s travel from one country to another, fine, if on that trip we get a humanizing moment where we learn about the person within…great!

3) Weird Dialog. It’s great to let the characters explain the technical and pertinent data. It’s a little weird when they start using technical terms that may come out of a manual when there is perfectly functional common language to describe the same thing. Which one is the scientist going to use, which one is the taxi driver going to use? Though it’s best to “Show” through characters, actions and events rather than tell us about them, if some technical data is needed, maybe that’s the time to “tell” rather than show? Sometimes it’s just the wrong word from the right person (or right word for the wrong person). Or…maybe the forign national that speaks with no accent, the American who says “Bloody hell” instead of dropping an F-bomb.


An example of this working well. Monster Hunter International. Every other page is at least two detailed sentences giving gun specifications and data. They are told to us by Owen Pitt (who knows his guns) or by someone else who knows their weapons and, in that the narrating first person Owen Pitt is telling us, non-gun-people, he even explains the important parts in layman’s terms. Another might be any number of books that have a geeky scientist character who uses the $5 and $10 words and explains things to us.

[The Pirate Ghost, Long John Silvers Wanna-be]

(part two)

4) The Hamster Bubble of Protection - A threat of risk is not the same as taking a risk. The threat of being hurt is not the same thing as experiencing hurt or witnessing it live. Some Indie pubs seem to have certain characters (often the love interest) caudroned off from harm, yet all heroes and characters act as if they are actually exposed to the threat. In the course of the story, nothing happens to show they are exposed to any danger, or even if they were that such a thing would be as devastating as the fear we are told they have suggests. Once I as a reader stop believing that there is a possibility or the character getting hurt, regardless of how all of the characters are acting, the suspense and tension from that situation (often expected to be a main motivator in the plot) is released like popping a balloon and I don’t feel the building tension like I should. It’s like a car’s engine running with one plug wire pulled. Sure it runs, but not like it should. It’s like the character(s) has been put inside a hamster ball and, though visible to danger and vice versa, not likely to be affected by it. Sure the hamster may feel nervous or frightened, but there’s not an army of cats in the world that can get to him when he’s inside that little clear ball, no matter where he rolls it around. If we perceive a globe of protection around a character (main or not) well…might as well be a hamster. The Infamous “Mary Sue” characters.
Example where the character is exposed- The book I just finished “Zero Point.” The villain uses his wicked super weapon to eliminate his partner in crime right in front of the hapless hero, then, uses it on the hero and, instead of fearing pain, he experiences it. We may believe the main character will find his way out of that, but, we have enough to go on for believing that this is real danger and trouble for him, not an automatic “give me” that he’ll come out unscathed.

5) Similar to number 4 – protecting the tender sensitive reader from ugly distasteful things—Sometimes I don’t think it’s so much a desire to keep a character safe from harm, as it is not wanting to turn off readers with violent or gory scenes, or scenes involving difficult things like child abuse, rape etc. This is a lot harder to balance. If something is a real part of what makes a character the person they are, then, we need to be exposed in some way to this information, yet if it’s just an act of random violence or ugliness, then maybe we don’t. Even if it is something we should see, how much should we be exposed to? Hard for me to say. It’s easier for me to recognize when I’ve been saved from something I should have witnessed to have a complete effect from what I’m reading than it is for me to set an artificial boundary about what belongs and what doesn’t. (Tough balance and what works may be more factor of the tone and nature of the entire story rather than imposing a universal boundary.) Is it fifty shades of Yay! Or fifty shades of…ew? Some raunchy things work, some don’t, all must fit the story vision.

Place it worked…Lucy Guiardino gets beat all to hell chasing down a child abuser in Snake Skin. We get the brunt of what’s happening, yet, the details are not so freakin’ awful that we have to turn away. (Though I thought she was a bit of a superhero in a mundane universe later in the series) In Galaxy Unknown, what happens to Janetta Carver in the first book at the Pirate Hide-out is just enough detail to feel hurt for Janetta having been through that, but not enough to weird out anyone reading. (after that she goes in the hamster bubble).

6) Formatting problems and general proof reading issues. Mispelled words are not huge errors in plot and the fact that the pages don’t display right on my kindle may not take away from the value of the story…they don’t help and any publishing company worth there salt should have a process that irons these out.

This isn’t a complete list but, I hope it’s enough for now.

I hope this is helpful to somebody.

[Seeley]

Wow, as a reviewer, reader, and writer, I have a million angles on this topic. I had to stop taking review requests and resign from Kindle Book Review because just reading the first three pages and writing a 'needs work' note to the author was taking up too much time.

I'll categorize things into four simple Indie levels:

1) NO WAY -- the guy who should NOT have published the book. I can deal with typos and a certain level of amateur formatting (although those two will greatly diminish a book's market) but the ones with expository paragraphs in the first three pages prove the author to be an enthusiast who has not studied or read on the subject of writing, and hasn't come near a professional editor. If there is exposition (dumps of character/story history that is all backstory and not necessary) that means the rest of the story will ignore basic tenants of writing. Readers don't know what "exposition" is, but they know some stories are boring in the first three pages.

2) TOO BAD, BUT -- The guy who wrote a fair story but has recurring problems (like repeating a scene from a different angle, or dropping in a plot-point more than once). This is usually due to a writer getting too cheap when the editor wanted to do a second round, or using his/her mom for an editor. These are unfortunate mistakes but I can look beyond that to the writer's intent. These books never fair well because readers don't like the treatment, but I keep my eye on the author.

3) OK, I'LL DEAL WITH IT -- Great story, great editing, unfortunate typos & bad formatting. A good example of that is Pagan Moon by William Davis. It looked great on my PC-Kindle but looked like hell on my Kindle Touch. This is usually due to an inexperienced formatter or a DIY author. It's annoying as all get out but forgivable. (I advised Bill to spend $$$ on a good formatter and professional cover, not sure if he took it or not.)

4) JUST AS GOOD AS TRADITIONAL PUBLISHED. Sadly, these are in the minority, which is probably due to the expense. These can run $7,000-15,000 for full 4-stage story editing, intense copy-editing, proof-reading, professional cover art, marketing, formatting. (Advertising is another big chunk that can be as little as $200/month to $25,000 a month.) A great example of a JUST AS GOOD book from a first-time author is "DOHA 12" by Lance Charnes. He hit all the numbers, wrote a great book and is every bit as good (if not better) than James Patterson, Brian Metzler, Michael Connolly or any other traditionally published author. Watch for my review early next week.

Hope that wasn't too windy :)

Peace, Seeley

[Sally]

Thanks for the responses, there's much to think about here!