Reading is my favorite form of entertainment. I enjoy reading over TV and movies. I enjoy it more than boardgames. Although I might actually enjoy eating more than I do reading. The waistline is difficult to ignore.
There is, though, one problem I have as a writer with reading. It takes over my mind. As a result, if I am writing a horror story, problems develop if I start reading mysteries, for example. Suddenly my brain leaves the monsters behind and I’m thinking whodunit. Something of a problem that!
Recently I received a three month Kindle Unlimited trial for 99¢. Unfortunately, it ran over the holidays so I didn’t get as much of an advantage out of it as I would have liked. Nevertheless I did read 7 novels/novellas, 7 short stories, and 1 short story collection. Which means I did get my money back with interest.
Most of the novels I read were mysteries, and therein lay the conflict with my novel writing.
I’m currently at work on Pierce Mostyn #7, but with all those mysteries passing before my eyes my horror novel started looking a little bit like a murder mystery. I’ll undoubtedly have some fixing up to do.
However, don’t take the above as complaining. I’m just saying. Because quite a bit of my KU reading was, in fact, horror related. The short stories were from the Occult Detective Quarterly, Issue #1 (Fall 2016). Six of the seven stories were excellent reads. So good in fact, I’ll probably buy all of the issues. The short story collection was The Abominations of the Nephren-ka and Three More Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos by Mark McLaughlin and Michael Sheehan, Jr. All four of the tales were quite serviceable reads with which to pass a couple of hours.
With the KU trial over (I didn’t renew), I’m now back on my own resources for reading, which includes the works of several indie authors of my acquaintance I wish to promote.
I think it is very important for indie writers to read the books of their fellows. Because we indies are all in the same boat pulling at the same oars. The least we can do to help each other is to buy, read, and review each other’s work.
Over the weekend, I read In Agony Again by Ernestine Marsh. Ms Marsh has to be in the running for the title of Queen of Comedy. She’s that funny.
With the writing of Pierce Mostyn being bent all out of shape due to my recent reading, I have to get it back on track.So for the rest of the month, I’ll be focusing on horror, the supernatural kind.
Aside from the KU reading, I’ve read this year “The Call of Cthulhu” and “The Nameless City” by Lovecraft, and The Horror from the Hills by Frank Belknap Long. Having thus far read only one Clark Ashton Smith Cthulhu Mythos tale, maybe I’ll spend some time with Mr Smith. “The Tale of Satampra Zeiros” may be a very good place to start.
Now to you. What book or books have been in your hand of late? I’d like to hear about them. Especially if the authors are indie writers such as myself.
With over 3000 new books appearing on Amazon each day, that’s a lot of books to sort through. And if we consider that four years ago there were 3 1/2 million ebooks in the Kindle store — that’s a heck of a lot of books to look through for some good ones.
So please share some of your good reads with me, and you can bet I’ll do the same back with you.
Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!
Sherlock Holmes-one of the most memorable characters in fiction.
The other day fellow author Jack Tyler posted on his blog advice to writers: it’s the characters.
Characters do indeed make the story. But much more accurately, characters are the story. Think about a novel. Any novel. What do you remember about it? Or a movie or TV series. Any movie or TV series. What do you remember? The plots? Or the characters? Unless it’s The Twilight Zone, it’s the characters you remember. Dorothy. Columbo. Proxy Snyder on Colony. Scarlett and Rhett. Nero Wolfe. Scrooge. Sherlock Holmes.
Generally speaking, we readers read a novel or short story for the characters. People we can relate to who are in a crisis. There is a certain vicarious experience we go through when we read a work of fiction and identify with the hero or heroine. Their struggle becomes our struggle. Their win, our win.
Even in that most well-worn of story forms, the Hero’s Quest, the calamities and the setting and the nature of the obstacles to be surmounted may change, but in the end what we read the story for is not the plot. We already know the plot. It’s the characters. The hero. We read the Hero’s Quest for the hero. His (or her) journey becomes our journey.
The Hobbit is Bilbo’s story. Sure it’s an adventure tale. And we like adventure tales. But what makes The Hobbit unique is Bilbo Baggins. Not the world in which Bilbo lives. That is window dressing. Bilbo makes The Hobbit what it is. Not the orcs, not Gandalf, not the elves, not Middle Earth.
We don’t read the Hero’s Quest for the story. We know the story. We read the Hero’s Quest for the Hero (or Heroine). Is he someone we can relate to? Is the hero us? If he is, we read. If he isn’t, we put the book aside and pick up another. And this applies to any other book or story that we find memorable.
Anthony Trollope, a master at creating believable characters, told future writers what he believed to be the secret of successful fiction. Here is his advice (from his Autobiography):
“A novel should give a picture of common life enlivened by humour and sweetened by pathos. To make that picture worthy of attention, the canvas should be crowded with real portraits, not of individuals known to the world or to the author, but of created personages impregnated with traits of character which are known. To my thinking, the plot is but the vehicle for all this; and when you have the vehicle without the passengers, a story of mystery in which the agents never spring to life, you have but a wooden show.”
As Trollope advised: “…when you have the vehicle without the passengers…you have but a wooden show.”
And sad to say, there are a lot of wooden shows out there. Part of the reason we readers must endure these wooden shows is due to writers who write commercial fiction and don’t have the ability to rise above their formulas. These writers, hoping to earn enough with their keyboards to quit the day job, quite often have no idea how to tell a story. They simply follow the plot beats on the chart. If they didn’t have that chart they wouldn’t have a clue as to what comes next in the story.
As a reader, one of the reasons I steer clear of today’s most popular genres (at least for the most part) is because those genres are filled with the works of hacks who provide nothing but a wooden show. Many of these writers are only interested in the dollar. They are in a gold rush, looking to get rich quick.
Of course one hopes they will learn the craft sufficiently to rise above the wooden show. But to do so, they need to write. Not write to make a buck. Just write. And by writing, learn.
Now I’m not averse to money. I think virtually all writers would like to earn a significant chunk of change from their writing. Me included. Shoot, even Shakespeare wrote for money. But there is a difference between simply writing for money and writing because you just have to tell a story.
Lawrence Block wrote over a hundred trash novels in the ‘50s and into the ‘60s. They were what he cut his writing teeth on. Many of them are being republished now.
I remember him writing somewhere that maybe he stayed too long writing those trash novels. But when he stopped and started writing “the good stuff”, he knocked the ball out of the park. Evan Tanner. Bernie Rhodenbarr. Matt Scudder. Ehrengraff. Just a few of the many memorable characters he created. Block cut his writing teeth by writing. Not by hiring beta readers, or editors, or submitting his work to creative writing workshops. He wrote and improved his craft.
Too many writers today want instant glory. They are mostly young, and grew up being pampered in school. Everyone’s a winner. Hogwash. The real world says otherwise.
One young woman in a closed Facebook group said she uses editors because she doesn’t want to risk losing readers. What? How is an editor going to make something unreadable readable? He/She can’t unless he or she becomes a co-author.
These writers are afraid of failure, so they are doing whatever they can to avert it. Failure, however, is part of life. Letting one’s readers tell you your book is crap, is a tremendous learning experience. In the days before Kindle, editors did that at magazines and publishing houses. Today, for indie authors, the reader takes the place of the editor. Most of today’s young writers don’t understand that.
If you writers want to write for a living, write. Write lots. Publish whatever you can. Let your readers tell you what works and doesn’t work. After all, they are the ones you are writing for. They are the ones who will buy your books.
Of course we readers share in the blame when it comes to mediocre formulaic writing, peopled with lackluster and wooden characters. We share in the blame because we tolerate such writing. We do so because we are either ignorant of quality writing, or we simply don’t care.
If we readers don’t care, then writers won’t either. They’ll shovel whatever crap or swill they can our way — just as long as we buy it and help them quit the day job.
This reader, however, as Popeye said, Can’t Stands No More!
I’ve been so disappointed with the current crop of writers who are award winners and New York Times, USA Today, and Amazon bestsellers — that I no longer even look at the book if it has one of those tags on it. We readers have let the mediocre rise to the top.
What I do instead, is search history’s dustbin for those forgotten treasures from the past. Many are free because they are no longer under copyright, or can be found very cheap on the used market.
I’ve also started looking for the hidden gems on Amazon. Those books that have never found their way into the top million. Yes, that is million. I’ve found fabulous, character-rich reads in many of those books. I’m doing my best to get the word out on those hidden treasures. Aargh, matey! There be buried treasure here!
Every week I post a Book of the Week on my Facebook page. Do make a point to check it out. However, because money hungry Zuckerberg has monetized pages, not all of my 105 followers see my posts. At most 25 do. If I want them all to see the posts, I have to give the Z man $5 to boost the post. So do make a point to check out the Book of the Week each Monday. Good reads are there to be found.
This week’s Book of the Week is Tales of Horror by Bryan C Laesch. A superb trio of monster stories. Give it a read. You won’t be sorry.
Past Book of the Week authors are Dusty Sharp, Zara Altair, Simon Osborne, Jacquie Rogers, and Andy Graham. Writers guaranteed to bring you a respite from your day, or just plain give you a good time.
Characters are fiction. If, my dear fellow readers, you’ve been caught up in the thriller hype. You know, the pages-turn-themselves kind of crap, where the writer simply piles on more and more problems — usually paying little attention to character development. If you’ve been sucked into the fast is better mentality, take some time to experience character-driven fiction.
While character-driven fiction may be slower than the hyperdrive thriller, it doesn’t have to be and often isn’t. Tom Clancy’s novels don’t lack for character — or action.
The plot-driven stuff is fine if you just want a snack. If, however, you want the full-meal deal, you need books with fabulous characters. Because they are like Tootsie Rolls: they last a long time.
Comments are always welcome. And until next time, happy reading!
Men are from Mars and women are from Venus, so it’s said. Mark Gungor’s “Tale of Two Brains” humorously describes this difference.
Last week, I began taking a look at these differences and how they affect fiction writers. I concluded with the idea that men who read fiction are the collateral damage of the contemporary fiction scene.
This week, I want to look deeper into the notion men don’t read fiction. Before I do, I’d like you to read two articles. They are excellent and describe the problem eloquently. The first is by Jason Pinter and the second is by Porter Anderson.
Okay, now that you’ve gotten the background material, let’s look at what those two men have to say about men and fiction and what the ramifications are for indies.
Big corporate publishers believe the maxim “Men Don’t Read”. Consequently they don’t publish for men or market towards men. As Pinter points out, when there aren’t many books on the market for men to read, they’re going to do something else with their time.
While Pinter excoriates Big Publishing concerning men and reading in general, Anderson focuses on fiction. Where the bias is even greater. In fact, Anderson’s statements regarding his own and men’s attitudes in general are supported by Kate Summers in her study. (Here’s a pdf version where the tables are visible.)
As Mark Gungor would say, men have a drawer labelled “fiction”. As writers, I think we need to fill it.
Since men prefer men authors (prefer is the operative word here), it seems only logical men should write for men; at least some of the time. But do they?
Hugh Howey’s protagonist in Wool is female.
Felix Savage’s protagonist in the first three books of his Sol System Renegades series is female, and a lesbian to boot.
Michael Anderle’s protagonist is female.
TS Paul’s protagonists are female.
The list can go on and on. If men readers say they prefer men writers and men main characters (as Summers notes in her article), why aren’t we men indie writers writing for them? That is the question we need to be asking ourselves.
Mark Dawson’s survey of his mailing list (some 60,000 persons at present), revealed that readers of his John Milton series are evenly split amongst men and women. Proving Summers’s survey to be spot on: while men favor men, women are much more eclectic in their reading preferences. As Mark Gungor notes: men are not as flexible as women; it has to do with how our brains work. And we all know men are lousy at multi-tasking.
Today’s cozy mystery field is, like romance, dominated by women. Women writers and women protagonists, with the requisite love story.
However, once upon a time men wrote cozies and with men as the protagonists. A few examples:
David Crossman with his Winston Crisp series.
William L DeAndrea’s Matt Cobb series.
Edmund Crispin and his Gervase Fen mysteries.
And there are others. Today, however, men have abandoned the field to women. Or perhaps the big corporate giants pushed the men out and indies followed suit.
Mark Coker’s Smashwords is heavily biased towards romance. From his own survey, half of his catalog consists of romance novels and 73% of the top 200 bestsellers on Smashwords are romance. It is well-known that Coker is cozy with romance writer organizations. Why? Perhaps he, too, believes men don’t read fiction. And wants to go where he thinks the money is.
It’s my desire to see us indies get out from under the publishing bias of the corporate giants and start catering to both sexes. After all, if half your potential market is men and the other half women, why not write for both? I mean, seriously, who wants just half a pie?
One way to do that is to have a man and woman as a dual protagonist. Men will go for the combo and so will women. Certainly a win-win to my thinking.
For cozy mysteries, the female amateur sleuth can hook up with a guy in the first book. And then in subsequent books, the two solve the crimes together. That would satisfy the romance part and would provide a strong draw for men readers.
The problem this attitude of everything for females in the fiction world causes for young men and boys is that they are turned off to reading. “It’s for girls.” “It’s for sissies.” And the drawer marked “Reading” remains closed. And perhaps never opens.
As Anderson points out in his article, ebooks just might be the best thing that could happen to men. We can read anonymously. Which is really what most of us men want. Yet, indie authors, who primarily publish ebooks, seem to be mainly writing for women. ‘Tis a pity.
Or perhaps indie men authors genuinely think men want to read about kick-ass hot women main characters. There might be some truth to that.
The pulp market of the 20s, 30s, and 40s certainly understood the power of a scantily-clad heroine being rescued by the hero. However, today’s writers seem to forget the hero. Adolescent boys and young men are into wish fulfillment. As Kate Summers notes, almost half of the men surveyed need to identify with the main character. If there is only the heroine, where is the wish fulfillment? If there isn’t any, the guys go elsewhere. Once again, reading is for the female of the species.
Independent authors are independent. We are the ones to buck the corporate giants and their preconceived notions. Unfortunately, the “get rich quick” crowd has flooded the indie field and lost somewhere in the quagmire is the male reader. Because we all know men don’t read fiction. BULL.
I have a friend who says he prefers non-fiction. Then he’ll go on and list novel after novel he’s read and asks if I’ve read it. He prefers non-fiction. Yeah, right.
The male reading public awaits. From grade school readers to us old guys. Give us books men can relate to.
One more example. Of the nine cozy mysteries I’ve recently read, all of the protagonists were women and three of the four writers were women. I enjoyed most of the books. They were light entertainment. Disposable reading.
I recently read a short story with a male protagonist, “01134” by Crispian Thurlborn. The story was profound. It was profound because mano a mano I saw something of myself in the main character and Thurlborn’s powerful writing made the experience alive. The story was “entertainment” in a philosophical, thought-provoking, and emotional manner. Definitely not disposable reading.
Indie writers, please don’t forget us men who love to read fiction. And there are a lot more of us than you think.
Comments are always welcome. Until next time, happy reading!
Quite honestly, I don’t know if women are from Venus and men, Mars. What I do know is that men and women look at the world differently. We can argue why this is until and even after the car is in the garage. The fact remains, the sexes see life from different perspectives. And in the end, that’s all that matters.
As a reader, as a male reader, I find I tend to gravitate towards certain types of books. And I am not just referring to genres here. I’m talking about characteristics. Such things as pacing, the amount of action, humor, violence, and sex.
A few months ago I referenced an article by Kate Summers, “Adult Reading Habits And Preferences In Relation To Gender Differences”. The article is informative and I think for the most part right on.
So I thought I’d revisit Ms Summer’s article and answer the questions she gave her survey participants. I dropped one of her questions and replaced it with one of my own. Here are the results (my answers are italicized):
1. How many books do you read in a year?
About two dozen or more.
2. Do you generally prefer fiction or nonfiction?
Fiction.
3. What nonfiction topics interest you?
Airships, history, philosophy, cooking, ships.
4. Do you have any favorite genres you like to read?
5. Do you read series books or do you prefer standalone books?
Series.
6. What are a few of your favorite books?
An Artist Of The Floating World, The Remains Of The Day, Seneca’s Letters, Earth Abides, Day Of The Triffids, On The Beach, Wingman.
7. Do you have any favorite magazines?
No.
8. Who are a few of your favorite authors?
Kazuo Ishiguro, Daniel Pinkwater, Robert E. Howard, H.P. Lovecraft, H. Rider Haggard.
9. Do you typically prefer male authors or female authors?
Male authors.
10. Do you typically read books that feature male protagonists or female protagonists?
Male.
11. Were you encouraged to read when growing up?
Yes.
12. How do you choose books to read?
Subject, word of mouth, reviews.
13. Do you belong to a bookclub?
No.
14. Do you discuss books with your friends?
Not usually.
15. Are you an active member of any book related social networking sites?
No.
16. Do you own an ereader?
Yes.
17. In what format do you prefer to read, print or digital?
Doesn’t matter.
18. What kind of reading do you do online?
Nonfiction and research.
19. Do you become interested in reading a particular book if it is adapted into a movie or a TV series?
Not especially.
What I discovered is that my answers more or less fit in with those of fiction reading men. Good to know I’m normal, at least as far as reading is concerned.
In Kate Summers’s survey, women overwhelmingly preferred fiction to nonfiction. This may account for the perception amongst males that fiction reading is for “sissies”. And most males would rather die than be accused of being a sissy. Which may also account for men publicly declaring a preference for nonfiction.
I grew up in a family where reading was encouraged and my father read fiction. Consequently, fiction has always been part of my life and was nothing I was ashamed of. And I’m very glad for that.
Summers’s survey revealed women tend to be eclectic readers, having no preference overall for male or female protagonists or authors. On the other hand, a strong majority of men prefer male authors and male protagonists. This preference may be due to males more than females needing to identify with the characters. This was clearly seen in a survey of 11th grade boys and girls, where 43% of the boys compared to 35% of the girls cited needed to identify with the characters in a book.
Reading habits of men and women are important to writers — if the writer desires to write to a target audience.
Males tend to prefer action and humor. I discovered I’m a bit of an oddball in this regard as I don’t care for unrelenting and fast-paced action. I like action, but keep it to a few action scenes. I prefer plenty of non-action or little action and a whole lot of character development. Slowburn fiction is more my speed.
Females, on the other hand, tend to like romance and realistic fiction dealing with relationships.
As a writer, I find these preferences very interesting. It seems men tend to prefer plot-driven stories, with women preferring character-driven stories. Maybe that’s why men, for example, prefer thrillers (lots of action), whereas women prefer mysteries (especially cozies) where relationships and the characters’s personalities play a much larger role.
Every individual is, of course, unique. But generally speaking, it seems men and women form two different reader groups. What I see going on today amongst writers, both indie and traditionally published, is a catering to women readers at the expense of men. And this is taking place among both men and women writers.
The key to success, so we writers are told, no matter the genre or target audience (such as YA), is to have a kick-ass heroine. I think the underlying reason for this is the notion that in general men don’t read fiction. Which is, of course, not true. Men do read fiction. But men tend not to be social about their reading habits and therefore their reading choices generally don’t show up in surveys.
But we’ll save this part for next week, where we will examine the bias against men.
And if you are a man reading this post, please consider answering the questionnaire above that I took and put your answers in the comments.
