Successful Fiction Writing = Organizing + Creating + Marketing

Organizing Your Writing Creating Your Story Marketing Your Work

Advanced Fiction Writing Blog

Archive for March, 2011

Just Write the Story

Wednesday, March 30th, 2011

Sometimes you can get yourself tied in a knot about whether you should or shouldn’t write the story you want to write. When in doubt, my rule is simple. Just write the story.

Melina posted this question on my “Ask A Question For My Blog” page:

I’m new to your blog (it’s great btw!) so forgive me if you have already answered a similar question.

I would like to write YA fiction and I have an idea I really like, but I’m unsure about whether its concepts/themes will appeal to teenagers. The obvious solution would be to write it for adults, and I would be happy to do so, if it weren’t for the fact that my protagonist is a 16-year-old girl.

It will be speculative fiction set in a somewhat dystopian future, with themes strongly addressing beauty and the media. But as much as it will be a story about this world, it will also be a story about a teenager who’s just trying to find out who she really is and where she fits in the greater scheme of things.

As a 21-year-old, both appeal to me, but as I sit in the middle as a reader of both YA and adult fiction, I’m afraid this idea won’t fit in either market.

Should I abandon it, change it, or just write it anyway?

Randy sez: Write it.

Teens are a lot smarter than many people want to think. They don’t mind big issues. If you’ve read THE HUNGER GAMES or the Harry Potter series, then you can’t possibly doubt that. When I was in my teens (feels like about two years ago), I didn’t like it when adults assumed that I wasn’t smart enough or serious enough to get what they were talking about. Teens who read a lot are plenty smart and plenty serious.

Teens do like to be entertained, same as every other age group. So the same rule applies to writing YA as applies to writing every other category — write a good story. Make it entertaining. Make it move the emotions of your reader.

Other than that, there aren’t any rules that can’t be bent, bashed, beaten, or broken.

Just write the story. If it’s any good, then you should be able to sell it or self-publish it and gain a following of loyal fans. If it isn’t any good, then figure out why.

Then go write another story. Over and over again for the rest of your life.

If you’ve got a question you’d like me to answer in public on this blog, hop on over to my “Ask A Question For My Blog” page and submit your question. I’ll answer them in the order they come in.

Blog of the Day: Larry Brooks just posted Part I of a two-part interview that I did with him last weekend. Larry knocked himself out coming up with what I consider the best set of interview questions I’ve ever been asked. I knocked myself coming up with answers that were (I hope) worthy of the questions. I even used the tongue-in-cheek phrase “mentally impoverished scoundrels” but I won’t tell you the context. You have to read the interview, which you can find here: “Interview With a Superstar Writing Mentor — Randy Ingermanson.” I’m still laughing at the title, which Larry came up with, not me. Have fun!

The Art and Science of Writing Scenes

Thursday, March 24th, 2011

Novelists talk about scenes all the time. But not all of fiction is composed of scenes. What is it that makes a scene a scene?

David posted this question on my “Ask A Question For My Blog” page:

I have a question regarding story structure. While I was reading through one of your blog posts about a strategy for writing a synopsis you described how the typical novel has 80 to 100 scenes and that some scenes are more exciting than others so that you get “sequences of scenes” (clumps of 3 to 5 scenes where the tension rises to a peak). Well, what I was wondering is how do you define a “scene”?

According to your article “Writing the Perfect Scene” a scene has either a Goal, Conflict, Disaster or a Reaction, Dilemma, Decision. But what exactly IS a “scene”?

Consider the beginning of the first Harry Potter Book. It opens talking about the Dursleys. Clearly JKR had a goal when she wrote it: to get the reader to buy into the premise that there is a secret world of magic. But where’s the CHARACTER’S Goal, Conflict, Disaster or the CHARACTER’S Reaction, Dilemma, Decision? Who exactly IS the POV character? If it has none of these things, then what makes it a “scene”?

But my question extends beyond that. Where does setting fit in? When I think of the word “scene” I think of a scene in a movie or a play: a specific location at a specific time where a relatively significant part of a story occurs. Using this definition there could conceivably be more than one “scene” per Goal, Conflict, Disaster unit.

When you say a typical novel has 80 to 100 scenes do you mean it has 80 to 100 Goal, Conflict, Disaster/Reaction, Dilemma, Decision Units? Or do you mean it has 80 to 100 of the “movie” scenes?

Randy sez: There is more than one question lurking here. Let’s take them in order.

First, what is a scene? That’s relatively easy, and David got it pretty close to the standard meaning. A scene is a sequence of events that happens at a particular place and time and that moves the story forward. The scene consists mostly of “showing” though it may contain some “telling.” The scene has a particular structure that gives the story motion.

When we say “showing,” we mean that the author is using the following tools:

  • Action.
  • Dialogue.
  • Interior Monologue.
  • Interior Emotion.
  • Sensory Description.

When we say “telling,” we mean that the author is using the following tools:

  • Narrative Summary
  • Exposition
  • Description

I have blogged often about all of these tools, so I won’t try to define each of them here. Being a selfish money-grubbing author, I’ll also note that these are explained at infinite length in my book WRITING FICTION FOR DUMMIES.

[And by the way, the paper edition of my book is currently selling at half-price on Amazon, and my publisher is giving a $5 rebate, which is a pretty good bargain for those few remaining souls who don’t yet have a copy.]

Second, how shall we categorize the opening of Harry Potter? That’s easy, now that we’ve laid out our tools. The opening page or so of Harry Potter is a brilliant use of exposition to bring the reader up to speed on the incredibly Mugglish Dursley family. We learn that they are all very sorry excuses for human DNA carriers and that they have a secret. We desperately want to know that secret, because we don’t like the Durleys.

That’s the first page of Book One of Harry Potter. The rest of the paragraph uses quite a bit of narrative summary to take us through a day in the life of the Dursleys, the day that Harry Potter’s parents are killed and Lord Voldemort loses his grip on this mortal coil. The day that baby Harry is foisted off on his none-too-willing Dursley relatives.

As the chapter progresses, we see increasing amounts of “showing” and decreasing amounts of “telling.” We really don’t see much of a scene until Professor Dumbledore and Professor McGonagall arrive at the Dursley home and then Hagrid shows up with Harry.

So the second half of the first chapter qualifies as a scene. It’s in fact a proactive scene, in which the goal is to place Harry with the Dursleys. The conflict is that they just aren’t all that suitable, but they’re all the relatives Harry has. The setback is that Harry is left with them and when Mrs. Dursley comes out in the morning, she actually screams when she sees him.

It’s a bit easier to launch a fantasy with this kind of narrative summary, because fantasies are grown-up fairy tales, and fairy tales have a long history of beginning with narrative summary. You’ll notice that very few police procedurals, romances, thrillers, or any other kind of fiction begins with “telling.”

Third, David asks whether a typical novel has 80 to 100 scenes of the type that I define in my book and in my Writing The Perfect Scene article, or whether the novel has 80 to 100 movie-like scenes. The answer is the former, although it seems to me that most movie scenes have a similar arc to novel scenes. I could say more about that, but I think this post has gone on long enough.

If you’ve got a question you’d like me to answer in public on this blog, hop on over to my “Ask A Question For My Blog” page and submit your question. I’ll answer them in the order they come in.

What Makes a Flashback Sizzle?

Monday, March 21st, 2011

I often hear that flashbacks in fiction are always bad. Is that true? If not, then how do you know if the flashback in your novel is working? And what do you do if it isn’t?

Caroline posted this question on my “Ask A Question For My Blog” page:

I am writing in first person and having difficulty with inserting back story. Currently my dilemma is with flashbacks. To use or not to use them, and if so how much is too much, or when is the best use of them? Frequently when I resort to a narrative in a flashbacks place I think what I have written is boring and stiff. What is your take on the flashback?

Randy sez: A flashback has one thing going for it and one thing going against it.

What’s good about a flashback is that it’s written in “immediate scene”–meaning that it’s shown happening right here, right now, minute by minute, without summary. That’s the most compelling kind of fiction (although if your novel is 100% immediate scene, something is probably wrong).

What’s bad about a flashback is that it’s yesterday’s news. Or last year’s news. In extreme cases, it can be last millennium’s news. It’s backstory. Flashback is a compelling way to show backstory, but it’s still backstory.

If you’re going to use a flashback, a generally good rule of thumb is to wait until the reader absolutely, positively MUST know the information contained in the flashback. Then show as little of the flashback as possible. Then return to the main story.

No reader on the planet ever said, “Wow, I’m going to buy this book because I’m dying to hear what happened before it takes place!”

Nope. Readers buy a book because they’re dying to hear what happens DURING THE MAIN STORY.

Backstory is a necessary part of any story. Strong backstory makes a strong story. But in writing fiction, practice the fine art of withholding information. That creates mystery. It creates suspense. It keeps your reader reading.

Can you hold off on showing any flashbacks until at least 25% of the way into your story? If not, then maybe the real story isn’t your story. Maybe your real story is the backstory and you should have started sooner.

Can you hold off on showing any flashbacks until you’re 75% of the way into your story? If so, you might have a real killer of a story. Remember, as long as you’ve got a secret, your reader wants to know it. Once you’ve told the secret, your reader no longer wants to know it.

Delay, delay, delay on that pesky backstory, whether it’s a flashback or any other kind.

If you’ve got a question you’d like me to answer in public on this blog, hop on over to my “Ask A Question For My Blog” page and submit your question. I’ll answer them in the order they come in.

Blog of the Day: Barry Eisler recently turned down a two-book deal for half a million dollars with a major publisher in order to self-publish in e-book format. Is Barry crazy? Not hardly. Read a mammoth 13,000 word dialogue between Barry and his buddy Joe Konrath on e-books, legacy publishing, agents, self-publishing, and money on Joe’s blog, A Newbie’s Guide to Publishing.

Using Supporting Characters In Your Fiction

Wednesday, March 16th, 2011

In every scene of your novel, you have a lead character, and you can get inside this character’s head. But how do you handle the supporting characters? How do you work them into your scene?

Kyle posted this question on my “Ask A Question For My Blog” page:

I am a little confused with how non-POV characters are supposed to be properly included in the magical “motivation-reaction unit”. If the reaction part must include reaction from the POV character, where does a different character fit in? An antagonist character will fit in the motivation part, but what about a supporting character that is helping the POV character? I don’t want to swith point of view too rapidly for fear of confusing the reader, but I’d also like to include secondary characters in my scenes more often.

Randy sez: For those of you who are just joining us and aren’t sure what a “motivation-reaction unit” is, you can get up to speed instantly by reading my article, “Writing the Perfect Scene.”

Just to clarify Kyle’s question, the “reaction” part of the MRU is everything that the point-of-view (POV) character does, says, thinks, and feels. The “motivation” part of the MRU is everything else that any other character does or says and everything happening in the environment.

So both the antagonist and any other supporting characters are classified as part of the “motivation.”

This of course seems very weird, because aren’t motivations supposed to be thoughts of the POV character? The answer is yes, they are in a different context, which is why I’ve never liked the term “motivation-reaction unit.” The word “motivation” has multiple meanings, and in this context, it means “anything other than what the POV character does, says, thinks, or feels.”

My rule in writing is to show each character in a separate paragraph. If the paragraph is focusing on the POV character, then the paragraph is a “reaction”. If the paragraph focuses on anyone else or anything else, then it’s a “motivation.”

It really doesn’t matter whether a character is the antagonist or merely a supporting character. Either way, anything they say or do is a “motivation.”

Just as an example, let’s make up a few snippets of an imaginary scene involving three characters whom I’ll give the random names, Scarlett, Ashley, and Rhett:

Scarlett grabbed for Ashley’s hand, wondering how she could convince him. “Oh, Ashley, darling. If you marry me, I’ll be the happiest of women!”

Ashley stepped back. “No. I’ve told you a thousand times, I’m the wrong guy for you. You’re a miserable, greedy, grasping, selfish bitch, Scarlett! You deserve somebody like . . .”

“Like me,” Rhett said. “I’m a miserable, greedy, grasping, selfish jerk. Scarlett and I would be perfect together.”

Scarlett blushed scarlet. “Oh, no, Captain Butler! How could you say such a thing?”

Randy sez: Scarlett is the POV character. This is obvious from paragraph 1, where we hear her thoughts. The first and fourth paragraph are “reactions” because they focus on Scarlett.

It’s hard to say whether Ashley or Rhett is the antagonist in this scene, and it hardly matters. All that matters is that neither one is Scarlett. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are “motivations.” One focuses on Ashley, the other on Rhett. It’s quite fine to have two or more paragraphs of “motivation” in a sequence, each focusing on a different character.

Fiction is like a game of ping pong as seen from one side of the table. The action switches from the camera side (the POV character) to the opposite side (any of the other characters). When the ball is on the camera side of the net, we call that a “reaction.” When the ball is on the other side of the net, we call that a “motivation.” It really doesn’t matter how many players are on the other side of the net. All that matters is that the camera side only has one player — the POV character.

If you’ve got a question you’d like me to answer in public on this blog, hop on over to my “Ask A Question For My Blog” page and submit your question. I’ll answer them in the order they come in.

The Economics of E-books

Friday, March 11th, 2011

A friend of mine referred me to a blog post today on “Why Some E-books Cost More Than The Hardcover” by Nathan Bransford.

The article is worth reading because it explains why an e-book can now cost more than a p-book (a paper book). It shows how, until about a year ago, Amazon actually sold some e-books at a loss in order to gain market share. At that time, Amazon would buy an e-book at a wholesale price that was typically 50% of the retail price set by the publisher. Then Amazon would sell the e-book at $9.99, which in some cases cost them several dollars per book.

When Apple announced the iPad and the associated iBookStore, they promised to sell books on an “agency model” in which the publisher would set the retail price and Apple would sell an e-book for that exact amount and then pay the publisher 70% of that price, keeping 30% for itself.

Soon after Apple made this announcement, Amazon made the agency model an option for e-books. 5 of the 6 major US publishers took the agency model option then, and now all of them use this model.

Amazon still sells paper books using the wholesale model, while selling e-books using the agency model. This can lead to cases where the hardcover edition of a book on Amazon is about the same price as the e-book (or possibly even cheaper).

Bransford backs this up with some calculations, but the results are misleading because in most cases, the assumptions are incorrect. Quoting from the article:

Well, here’s the thing that’s kind of wacky about the wholesale model vs. the agency model: the publisher made more money per copy with the wholesale model. 

Again, napkin math for a $24.99 hardcover. Let’s say the e-book would have sold for $9.99 at Amazon in the old days but now the publisher charges $12.99:

Wholesale model e-book:
Publisher: $12.50 (roughly 50% of $24.99 hardcover retail price)
Amazon: - $2.50 (selling at $9.99)

Agency model e-book:
Publisher:  $9.09 (70% of $12.99)
E-bookseller: $3.90 (30% of $12.99)

Randy sez: The napkin math would be correct, if its napkin assumptions were correct. But one of those assumptions is usually wrong. E-books are NOT usually assigned the same retail price as a hardcover these days. E-books are usually assigned a retail price no higher than the retail price of the trade paper edition, which is typically close to half the retail price of the hardcover.

[Note added on 3/15/2011 as a result of a comment left by Nathan: Even when there is no trade paper edition of a book, the e-book version is generally sold at a price point no higher than a typical trade paper book. I looked at today’s Amazon Top 100 Kindle list and found only 3 e-books priced as high as $14.99. A few were at $12.99 or $11.99. Most were at $9.99 or less. I can’t recall seeing any recent e-book on Amazon in which the retail price for the e-book was anywhere close to the retail price for the hardcover. There are some cases where the retail price for the e-book is about the same as the heavily discounted price for the hardcover, but the retail price for that hardcover is close to twice the retail price of the e-book.]

Let’s wipe off that napkin and do the math again and let’s also figure in the author’s cut, assuming 25% of the publisher’s net, which is the absurd standard royalty these days:

The hardcover price is $24.99 and the trade paper price is $12.99. We’ll assume the e-book price also gets a retail price of $12.99.

Wholesale model e-book:
Publisher: $6.50 (50% of the $12.99 e-book retail price)
Amazon: $3.49 (selling at $9.99 and paying $6.50 to the publisher)
Author: $1.30 (25% of publisher’s take of $6.50)

Agency model e-book:
Publisher: $4.55 (35% of the $12.99 e-book retail price)
Amazon: $8.44 (selling at $12.99 and paying $4.55 to the publisher)
Author: $1.14 (25% of publisher’s take of $4.55)
[Note added 3/15/2011: This is a revision of figures I showed in the original post, where I was using a 70% royalty rate. An alert reader reminded me that Amazon pays only 35% to the publisher for e-books priced above $9.99.]

Clearly the agency model benefits Amazon, costs the publisher and the author, and screws the consumer, who ends up paying $3.00 more for the book and therefore ends up buying 23.1% fewer books because if the consumer has a fixed number of dollars, those dollars will only buy 9.99/12.99 as many books at the higher price point.

That reduction in sales volume needs to be accounted for too. The simplest way to do that is by subtracting 23.1% from the Agency model computations:
Publisher: $3.50 (76.9% of $4.55)
Amazon: $6.49 (76.9% of $8.44)
Author: $0.87 (76.9% of $1.14)

Comparing these to the wholesale model for books priced at $9.99, we see that the publisher and the author come out behind and Amazon comes out ahead.

However, the story changes pretty dramatically when we look at the agency model for books priced at $9.99, where the publisher’s royalty rate goes up to 70%:
Publisher: $6.99 (70% of $9.99)
Amazon: $3.00 (selling at $9.99 and paying the publisher $6.99)
Author: $1.75 (25% of the publisher’s take)
This is why most of the e-books on Amazon are priced at $9.99 or lower. The publisher does considerably better at this price point than it does at higher prices. [Amazon’s royalty is 70% for price points between $2.99 and $9.99. The royalty is 35% for all other price points. The last time I checked, the 70% royalty was paid by Amazon US only for sales to US customers; it was 35% for sales outside the US. I have not checked on royalties paid by Amazon Canada, or Amazon UK. The situation, as you can see, is complicated, and of course it is subject to change.]

What is missing here is the same set of calculations where the author self-publishes the book and prices it at $2.99, where it will sell many more copies because it is now an impulse buy:
Publisher: $0.00 (because the publisher is out of this picture)
Amazon: $.90 (30% of the price of $2.99)
Author: $2.09 (70% of the price of $2.99)

Assuming the consumer will now buy 3.341 times as many books as the wholesale model priced at $9.99 (this is just 9.99/2.99 and it assumes that the consumer only has a fixed number of dollars to spend on books and will spend them on as many books as possible), the real advantage to the author becomes clear:
Publisher: $0.00 (because the publisher is still out of the picture)
Amazon: $3.00 (3.341 times $.90)
Author: $6.99 (3.341 times $2.09)

It should be clear that low-priced e-books with an agency model massively benefits the author and the consumer (as compared to the wholesale model priced at $9.99), slightly costs Amazon, and massively crushes the publisher.

This is why we call the thing happening right now a “revolution.”

Agents and the Wild New World of Publishing

Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

What role will agents play in the not-so-brave new world of publishing which is evolving rapidly? Does a novelist still need an agent? If so, what will that agent do? If not, where will all the agents go?

Charles posted this question on my “Ask A Question For My Blog” page:

First I would like to thank you for the work that you are doing to help newbie writers like myself to delve into the world of fiction writing. I must say if it weren’t for your website and your snowflake method of writing, which in my structured and incredibly anal opinion is pure genius, I would still likely be flailing with the first few chapters, or more likely burning them in the nearest fireplace in frustration.

All that out of the way, the question I have is probably painfully obvious to anyone in the business but has become more and more confusing to me. I have been reading your and several other blogs about publishing and the way the business is turning away from printed books and more toward digital versions. My question however, has less to do with which direction I should go than how to get there. I understand the importance of agents and publishers if I am able to go the route of the typical printed author but what about going in the direction of e-books. Should I still look for an agent and if so what is that he/she would do. Does an agent handle the editing and promotion of a digitally published book? If an agent handles such things then do certain agents specialize in this area or would any agent be open to doing it? I guess what Iím saying is what exactly does an agent do that I couldn’t do for myself if I self published in the digital realm. I for one am excited about the way publishing is going, probably because I have no idea of what I’m talking about, but none the less, if my book turns out to be a decent story, I hope to be able to take advantage of this new turn in the publishing world.

Well that was my incredibly long winded and probably overly vague question. I hope you will excuse the lavish butt kissing in the beginning but truly your methods have helped me to do something I have always wanted to do but never had the courage to start. Thanks to you I have one scene left to write in my rough draft and then God willing I will edit and start looking for that way to get my preverbal foot in the door. Thanks again for all you’re doing and I look forward to your response.

Randy sez: I believe agents will play a crucial role in the evolving book market. The reason is simple: Agents are industry pros who understand the complex blend of craft, marketing, and career planning that writers so desperately need. Your agent is on your side. The more money you earn from traditional, royalty-paying publishers, the more your agent earns.

Having said that, what about the e-book thing? Does an agent get a cut of your self-published e-books?

The answer depends partly on your agency contract and partly on exactly what sort of self-publishing you’re doing.

If you have an out-of-print book that you and your agent agree isn’t marketable as a paper book, then you are probably free to self-publish that as an e-book with no money due to your agent. You should of course check with your agent and look at your agency contract to verify that.

Likewise, if you have an unpublished book that you and your agent were just never able to sell, then probably the same situation applies, but again you should check with your agent to make sure.

If you have an unpublished book that your agent hasn’t yet had a chance to sell, then your agent probably has the right to try to sell it for you and take a cut of the profits. Your agency agreement should specify that sort of thing.

If you don’t have an agent, then before you sign on with one, you should discuss your plans for self-publishing e-books, (if you have any such plans) and be clear in advance what books are your agent’s job to sell and which ones are off the table.

If you don’t have an agent, should you get one? That depends:

Do you plan to exclusively self-publish your work and are you willing to do all the grunt work to make that happen (or hire somebody to do so)? If so, then you don’t need an agent. You might need a marketing guru or a freelance editor or a graphic artist or a career planner or some mix of all of those. But you don’t need an agent, because an agent sells your work to publishers and receives payment for that hard work.

Do you plan to first publish your work through a publisher and let the publisher do all the e-book stuff? If so, then you definitely need an agent. The publishing contracts are becoming increasingly slanted to benefit publishers. An agent will get you a much fairer deal than you can get yourself, in much less time.

I have believed for several months that agents are going to shift towards the e-book business. There are two main reasons for this:

  • Publishers are not currently giving a fair deal on e-book royalties. The almost universal royalty rate paid by publishers is 25% of monies received. This is ridiculously unfair to authors. I think everybody in the industry agrees with me on this point. I believe that a fair royalty for e-books is AT LEAST 50%, and probably a bit higher. If publishers won’t budge on this, then agents can and will provide an e-publishing service that pays the author a much higher royalty rate.
  • Many authors have books that are out of print and earning nothing. They would love to put these back into print as e-books, but they’re daunted by the technology. It takes time and effort to put out a good e-book. It may require hiring a graphic artist to create a new cover. Many authors would be happy to give their agent a cut of the profits to just “take care of the problem” and get those out-of-print books back on the market.

The obvious question is, “What about a conflict of interest?” If an agent has a choice between e-publishing an author and selling the author’s work to a publisher, won’t the agent take the option that earns him the most money–even if it doesn’t earn the most money for the author?

Randy sez: Yes, I suppose there is that possibility. An agent gets a 15% cut of an author’s earnings when sold to a royalty-paying publisher. If the agent were to also earn a 15% cut on the author’s e-books, it seems to me that the whole question would become a moot point. In that case, the agent’s self-interest exactly coincides with the author’s self-interest. I might be wrong here, but that seems plausible.

It’s worth noting that agents have ALWAYS had an implicit conflict of interest whenever they represent more than one author. After all, if two authors have similar work and are both represented by the same agent, then the agent has a vested interest in promoting the more salable author harder. And furthermore, an agent may hesitate to be a jerk with a publisher on behalf of one author if that would damage other authors. In both these cases, the conflict of interest is actually pretty minor, and agents have many years of experience in dealing with them. I haven’t heard that either of these issues has caused authors major grief. Again, I might be wrong, but I just don’t see that it’s ever been a big problem.

Frankly, I’m not that concerned about the potential conflict of interest of an agent who also does e-publishing. The agent is on the author’s side, more so than anybody else.

I’ve said this before, but it’s worth repeating: The world of publishing is changing incredibly fast. E-books are giving authors power they’ve never had before–the power to cheaply publish a book and market it effectively on a global scale without interference from “gatekeepers” who decide what the market wants.

Will agents still be around in 5 years? I am very sure they will, and I believe the best agents will be earning more than ever. I do think some agents are going to transition to other ventures, such as free-lance editing, book development, and e-publishing. But I see most of them continuing on as agents.

Will publishers still be around in 5 years? I believe they will, but they’ll be smaller and leaner, earning less revenue but higher profit margins. I believe they’ll be forced out of the e-book business, though. I foresee publishers being willing to die on the hill of 25% royalty rates for e-books. I foresee that authors will simply walk away from that deal. By the time publishers cave in and offer higher rates, authors will have found better, faster, and much more lucrative deals elsewhere. And authors won’t come back to publishers, except to say, “I’ll sell you the rights to the paper edition only. Take it or leave it.”

Will chain bookstores still be around in 5 years? That’s an open question, but I suspect they will. Again, they’ll be smaller and leaner, assuming they survive. They’re an endangered species, but if they can learn to sell e-books effectively, they’ll survive.

Will authors still be around in 5 years? Now THAT’S a no-brainer. You can’t have books without authors. As long as people want story in text form, we’ll have authors to write them.

If you’ve got a question you’d like me to answer in public on this blog, hop on over to my “Ask A Question For My Blog” page and submit your question. I’ll answer them in the order they come in.

Why James Scott Bell Chose to E-Publish

Friday, March 4th, 2011

Today, I’m interviewing James Scott Bell on why (and how) he decided to self-publish his latest book as an e-book. This interview ran in my e-zine earlier this week, so if you’ve already read it, there’s nothing new here. But not everybody reads my e-zine right away.

The e-book revolution is roaring in even faster than predicted by e-enthusiasts. A few facts will make clear what I mean:

A-list novelist David Morrell recently self-published his novel THE NAKED EDGE on Amazon, in Kindle and audio formats only.

A-list marketing guru Seth Godin is due today, March 1, 2011, to self-publish his next book, POKE THE BOX, simultaneously in hardcover and e-format.

In January of this year, self-published e-novelist Amanda Hocking sold a reputed 450,000 copies of her books on Amazon. She is 26 years old. Less than a year ago, she posted her first novel on Amazon. Now, she’s a superstar.

In view of these, I wasn’t surprised when one of my writing buddies, Jim Bell, recently self-published a new e-book, COVER YOUR BACK. The book contains a novella and three short stories. If the words “film noir” and “femme fatale” ring your bells, then COVER YOUR BACK might well be a book you’d enjoy.

Jim has not abandoned the world of traditional publishing. His venture into e-books simply allows him to do things that he couldn’t have done with a paper-and-ink publisher that thinks a year is a short period of time.

I asked Jim to tell me about his venture in an interview for this e-zine. Here’s a blurb about him and his writing:

JAMES SCOTT BELL is a bestselling thriller author and served as the fiction columnist for Writer’s Digest magazine. He has written three popular craft books for Writers Digest Books: Plot & Structure, Revision & Self-Editing and The Art of War for Writers. Jim has taught writing at Pepperdine University and numerous writers conferences. On June 4th and 5th he is teaching a seminar in Los Angeles for novelists and screenwriters. Information can be found at www.jamesscottbell.com

On to the interview. Let’s see what motivated Jim to take the e-plunge.

Randy: You recently self-published your first e-book, after more than a decade of publishing paper books with a number of traditional royalty-paying publishers. What prompted you to take the plunge into the e-book market?

Jim: Because there is absolutely no downside to it, and plenty of upside. The e-market is exploding and I had several stories and a novella that didn’t have a home. E-book publishing allows me to bring new material to my readers, and introduce me to others. I’ve always admired the old pulp writers of the mid 20th century, who had to write a lot for a penny a word, but created some of the best suspense ever. That’s what I always wanted to be able to do, and now can via e-publishing.

The nice thing is that the royalty for these works is great and I get paid every month.

Randy: Let’s talk a bit about the process.  You decided to write a novella and three short stories.  You wrote them in Microsoft Word just as you normally do.  Then what happened?  How did you take the book from a Word document to its final published form on Amazon and the other online retailers?

Jim: I hired a person to do the conversion for me. There are many people out there who will do this, and the cost is relatively low. You should be able to find someone for between $50 - $100. It may be a bit more if the document needs more work. I toyed with the idea of doing it myself, but was advised by others to let a professional handle it. So I provided the Word document and the person I hired converted into a format for Kindle, for Nook, and for Smashwords, should I expand to that.

Randy:  Many fiction contracts have “non-compete” clauses in them.  Tell us about those and what they mean for the already-published author who wants to venture into the electronic self-publishing world but doesn’t want to alienate his publisher.

Jim: Well, publishers are investing money in writers and trying to build them. So a standard publishing contract has a clause that says the writer cannot sell a book that might compete with the one they’re publishing. Usually there’s language about potential “harm” to the sales of the contracted book. That could mean that a self-published e-book, at a low price point, could be viewed as competition with the published e-book, which might have a higher price point.

On the other hand, a low priced, self-published e-book can be seen as a marketing tool for the other books. This should all be discussed with the publisher, and a written understanding hammered out.

Randy: Any predictions on the near-term future of publishing?  As we speak, Borders is circling the drain and Barnes & Noble is battling to reinvent itself, while dozens of previously unknown writers are earning thousands of dollars per month.  Where do you see the world of publishing going in 2011? What are your plans to deal with the massive change?

Jim: I do think the traditional publishing model is undergoing great stress now. There are fewer distributions points, less revenue coming in as consumers turn to lower priced e-books. The old guard will have to be experimenting with new ways of doing things, but that’s hard for a big, established business to do.

Meantime, there will be a veritable tsunami of original material self-published. Most of it will be bad. A writer still needs to sweat and strain and get better. The old model provided a filtering system. But for those who learn to write well, the self-publishing avenue has great potential.

I don’t think anyone can predict what the landscape will look like in five years. I have been surprised at the rapid rise in e-readers (as was predicted by one Randall Ingermanson). As a writer I’m taking advantage of the opportunity. Others will do the same. And word of mouth will continue to help the best works get the attention they deserve.

Randy: You probably couldn’t have traditionally published your novella WATCH YOUR BACK and you almost certainly couldn’t have published your short stories in paper format.  Tell us a bit about those stories and why you wrote them.  Isn’t it enough to be a successful novelist?

Jim: I love the short story and novella form. It used to be we had a thriving short story market in this country, lots of pulp and slick magazines. But that all dried up except for a couple of little magazines, through which it is impossible to make a living. And yes, short story collections are rarely published in print form.

So, here is a way for me to write short form suspense fiction and publish it. As I said, there’s just no downside to that. I can provide entertainment for readers at a low cost, and everyone’s happy.

Randy: I bought COVER YOUR BACK last week and read through it in a day. Great read! Lots of fun for those who like darkish fiction. What advice do you have for someone contemplating writing exclusively for the self-publishing market?

Jim: First, always be about getting better as a writer. That should never stop. I started in this business 20 years ago and have kept on studying the craft all that time.

Second, be sure to have your story vetted by several “beta” readers, and even consider paying a freelance editor to go over the manuscript. Readers do notice if the text is sloppy.

Third, hire a good cover designer. You have to make a good first impression with your book cover.

Finally, make some long term plans. What kind of writing will be your specialty, your “brand”? As you build readers, they are going to expect some continuity in your work. That’s not to say you can’t be flexible and try new things, but an audience is grown largely by coming to rely on the type of story you produce. Think of Stephen King and John Grisham. Even they did not deviate from their genres until they were well established in them.

Randy: Great advice, as always. Thanks for telling us about your adventures on Planet E, Jim!

If you’re interested in checking out what devilish games Jim plays on his lead characters, have a look at the Amazon page for WATCH YOUR BACK. Priced at $2.99, it’s a darned good deal.

(Standard full disclosure: The above link contains my Amazon affiliate code.)

Randy Recommends: Story Engineering

Tuesday, March 1st, 2011

Last summer I attended the Willamette Writers Conference. Not to teach. Just to learn. It was the first conference I’ve gone to in years where I didn’t have any duties. I could actually go to workshops and listen.

I wandered into a class by Larry Brooks and sat down. Larry taught a mesmerizing hour on the subject of story architecture and I was hooked. Larry is a master of story architecture. I introduced myself after his class and we’ve been in touch via e-mail since then.

In the last few days, Larry has released his latest book, STORY ENGINEERING, published by Writer’s Digest Books. He sent me an electronic copy a few months ago and I inhaled it in a few sittings.

Here’s the endorsement I wrote for his book: “Nobody on the planet teaches story structure better than Larry Brooks. Nobody.”

Since Larry’s book is new on the shelves, I asked him to do an interview on Story Engineering for this month’s e-zine and also for this blog. Here’s a short blurb about Larry:

Larry Brooks is the creator of Storyfix.com, a resource for novelists and screenwriters, and a frequent instructor and lecturer on the writing conference circuit. He is the author of “Story Engineering: Mastering the Six Core Competencies of Successful Writing,” just released from Writers Digest Books. He has published five critically-praised novels, including a USA Today bestseller and a Publishers Weekly “Best Books of 2004″ entry. To learn more about Larry, visit: http://www.StoryFix.com.

In my opinion, STORY ENGINEERING is going to be the standard reference on story architecture from now on. Click here if you’d like to check out the Amazon page for STORY ENGINEEERING.

On to the interview:

Randy:  There are any number of books on fiction writing on the market. What’s unique about yours and what drove you to write it?

Larry: Great question, one that I actually address in the Introduction of the book because it’s also an important question. I think anybody that sets out to offer up some fresh thinking on a topic that’s this broad and popular harbors an inherent insecurity, wondering if the world really needs another writing book. In this case, while I know there are many terrific books out there on “how-to” write a good story, I also think that the craft remains highly elusive for some folks. That, combined with the belief that we can never get enough fresh thinking on this topic, encouraged me to develop my storytelling model — the six core competencies — to a level of depth that would make it immediately useful to folks while offering something completely new. And, I have to be honest, people in my workshops have been asking me to write this book for the last 15 years, so that helps overcome those insecurities.

In short, it’s unique because it’s a fresh and completely original take on the “physics” of storytelling, which are anything but fresh and unique, they are universal. It’s an eye-opener and game-changer for writers who are still seeking that “ah-hah!” moment in understanding what to write, where to put it, and why.

Randy:  Your book is about the “Six Core Competencies” of the fiction writer.  Tell us more!  What are these six core competencies and what makes them “core?”

Larry: I like to say, and challenge, that there isn’t anything in the writing game that doesn’t reside within one of six realms of craft, which I call the six core competencies. Four of them are elements of story — concept, character, theme and structure (plot sequence), and the other two are issues of execution: scene writing and writing voice.

That’s all we have to work with. All are necessary, a weakness in any one, even if the others would humble Hemingway into quitting drinking, is a deal killer. And yet, it is the magic, artful combination of them, when executed at a professional level, that results in a story that will stand out. That’s why this can never become — or be viewed as — formulaic writing, because no matter the genre or intentions, these six core competencies are as eternal as they are necessary. They empower the ‘art’ of storytelling without ever compromising it. This knowledge bridges the gap between what is, for many, an elusive “art” and the accessible, learnable realm of “craft.”

Randy:  Let’s talk about Concept for a bit.  In my experience in teaching at conferences, this is one of the areas where beginning novelists almost always get it wrong.  Do you have a set of steps for getting this right?  How does a writer move from a bad concept to a good one?

Larry: Many folks confuse concept with theme. Confuse it with premise. Confuse it with an “idea.” One needs to rise above the rhetoric of these words to understand the differences. An idea is to write a story about Jesus, for example. A theme is to show how, in the author’s view, the traditional church has it wrong. A concept — the starting point of real story development — would be a proposition: ”what if Jesus didn’t die on the cross, and evidence to that effect has been hidden and covered up, sometimes at the cost of lives, by the Church for the last 2000 years?” Which is way more compelling than the original “idea.” From there, a premise evolves that describes a hero, a love interest, an antagonist and an unfolding journey for them all, including the reader. The result here would be, say, a book called “The Davinci Code,” which ended up being the best selling modern novel, ever. Confusion ensues when we — including writing teachers – casually confuse these terms.

My favorite tool for concepting is the old “what if?” exercise, using the highest level of “what if?” to develop a descending ladder of ensuing “what ifs?” that take the story in an optimal direction with originality and compelling drive. When a killer “what if?” begets a cascading natural flow of other what ifs, you end up not only with a way to expose the best possible creative choices for the story, but the assurance that you have examined all possible narrative options and have chosen the optimal one. Too many writers, especially “pantsers,” just write along and make the first and natural narrative choice without considering the options. The result is usually a rewrite, or a rejection.

Randy:  You’re probably best known for your work on Story Structure. Outliners and Snowflakers tend to love Story Structure and Seat-of-the-Pantsers tend to fear it.  Why is Story Structure so critical to every novelist, and what do you do if you’re a Pantser?

Larry: Because it is non-negotiable. Every good story ends up with it, so it makes no sense to fear that which you must discover one way or another. Pantsers are hoping to discover it as they write a draft. Planners begin with it. While I favor the latter, both can work. But neither can work unless the final draft demonstrates the “physics” of story structure. You can’t reinvent that, you must invent your story, no matter how original in nature, in light of those storytelling physics. Structure is to story what wings, a tail and an engine, all in context to aerodynamic theory, are to the designing of an airplane. Miss any of these and what you have is a crash and burn scenario.

Once you know what these physics are — the specific sequence, mission and elements of story structure – you begin to see it in every story you encounter.  Even in successful stories written by authors who swear against planning or even the existence of structural principles.  It’s like somebody turning on the lights for the first time. This recognition is the turning point of a writing career, because everything that happens from that point forward is from an enlightened perspective, rather than a random, hoping-to-stumble-on it, imitation-driven perspective. It empowers pantsers as well as planners… though once experienced, pantsers quickly being using story planning in their process.

Randy:  One of your concepts on Story Structure that was new to me was your idea of “pinch points.” What is a pinch point and why does a story need one?

Larry: It’s from the movies, and it works great in novels. The driving source of tension in a story is the presence, the pressure, of an antagonistic force. We meet or sense that force early, we experience it at Plot Point One, and then it’s up to the author as to how we experience or see this antagonist. But we must see it and feel it again, and more than once. Pinch points are, very simply, when the antagonist comes to center stage, in context to what it/they want to achieve and how it opposes and threatens the hero and her/his quest. In a story about cancer, the cancer would rear its ugly head at the pinch points in a way that reminds us what’s at stake, what’s at risk and what the hero must conquer. The optimal locations are the 3/8th and 5/8ths points in the story, at a minimum, but more can be better, too. Because those moments often occur frequently, we can easily miss them as pinch points. But that doesn’t change the power of them when they are inserted in the right place, even if they are in nearly every scene otherwise.

Randy:  Talk to us about “voice.”  Editors and agents often say they’re looking for writers with a great voice.  What is voice and how do you develop one if you don’t think you have one?

Larry: Voice is literally how you write. What you write in a narrative, stylistic sense. Your sentences. Your paragraphs. Your word and phrasing choices. Your wit, your irony, your poetry. Or your purple prose.  A professional writer announces that skill within the first sentence. Thing is, you don’t have to be a poet to deliver a great voice. This is the least daunting of the six core competencies, and yet, non-negotiable: you must write professionally, rather than stylistically (the latter being the bane of many rejected manuscripts).  You simply need to write compellingly. To be entertaining. Have a light touch, wield subtlety, have great timing. And most of all, never be over the top or too heavy-handed. John Grisham is a great example — he’s not going down in history as the best writer of sentences ever, but he is clear and clean, his narrative is an efficient and pleasant — and occasionally powerful — vehicle for his stories. Writers need to be clear: a solid voice is the ante-in, it’ll never be what gets you published. It’s all about your story. It’s like athleticism in pro sports — you’ll get cut on the day if you don’t have it. But from there, because everybody in camp has it, your success depends on higher, more elusive skills, moves, sensibilities and instincts. In writing, “talent” isn’t about sentences, it’s about storytelling.

Voice is like scent in the air — sometimes it’s pleasant, sometimes not. But that’s always a judgment call. Clear fresh air is always best, and safest. Sometimes brisk, sometimes lightly scented. But never something from a paper mill. You think that you’re clever and witty, but the editor might find you glib and pretentious. It’s always a risk to take your voice too far.

Less is more, unless more is called for. That’s the art of it. It’s hard to teach, hard to evolve, and invaluable once you do.

Randy: Thanks for joining us today, Larry!

Randy sez: Now, once again, if you want to check out Larry’s book, here’s a handy link to STORY ENGINEERING on Amazon. (Please note that this link carries my pesky Amazon affiliate code.)

Check out Larry’s web site and blog here: www.StoryFix.com. I subscribe to Larry’s blog and highly recommend it.