Writing | CW Hawes

The Indie Writer’s Key to Success

Every day I’m in contact with indie authors (independent author-publishers) who are looking to make it big and are languishing in obscurity.

Back in 2014, when I started publishing, the indie world was changing. The old days were for all intents and purposes gone. The days of simply writing and putting your books up on Amazon, making the first book in your series free or 99¢, and collecting the money. Those days ended in 2014.

Unfortunately, all of the successful writers from whom I was getting my advice, didn’t see the newer, more difficult world coming.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

However, 5 years later, as I continue to look for monetary success, there remain three keys that all successful indie writers follow. These worked in the past and they work now. And while I do follow these three keys, I haven’t struck gold — yet. But that doesn’t mean others haven’t done so by following these keys — for they have.

So, my writer friends, and interested reader friends, lets take a look at these keys. But first,

The Base

Success always builds on a strong base. For writers that base is:

1. 1. Good writing. You have to know how to tell a story. The story your target audience wants to hear in the way they want to hear it. If you can’t tell a good story, you need to learn how before you do anything else.
  2. A good looking package. Your book needs to look appealing. That means appropriate cover art for the genre. Cover art that looks professional.
  3. A pleasant reading experience. The text needs to be well formatted and free of typos and textual issues as much as possible.

Now on to the keys!

Publish Often

Every successful indie author publishes often. “Often”, of course, is subject to debate. How often is often?

There is a well-known phenomenon on Amazon: the 30 day cliff. Publish a book and after 30 days, it drops off the charts. I’ve seen this with my own books. I’d get a few sales in the first 30 days, and after that nothing.

The best way to beat the 30 day cliff is by publishing often.

January through March of 2018 I published the first three Pierce Mostyn books. One each month. Sales didn’t start falling off until July. I published Van Dyne’s Vampires in October, but it was too late to revive dropping sales. The advantage I’d gained from the rapid release was gone.

The lesson I learned was — I can’t wait 7 months to release my next book.

At a minimum, I think indie authors need to publish a book every 3 months. Quarterly is the minimum publishing schedule to maintain some kind of momentum.

However, every other month would be even better.

And monthly is ideal.

Why?

It has has to do with the nature of the indie audience. The readers of indie authored books tend to be voracious readers. Reading several books a week. Or more.

I’m a rather slow reader. Yet I manage to read at least 2 books a month and usually more.

Indie writers need to publish often to feed the indie reader.

If you don’t publish often — you will be forgotten.

Remember, thousands of books are added to Amazon’s catalog every day.

Write Fast

The corollary to Publish Often is to write fast.

In the pulp era, fast writing meant food on the table and a roof over the writer’s head.

Hugh B Cave averaged 5 to 6 stories every week. That’s easily equivalent to 2 novels a month.

Erle Stanley Gardner, while working full time as a partner in his law firm, wrote 100,000 words a month. And in the beginning of his writing career he was experiencing a 90% rejection rate.

My hero, Anthony Trollope, while working full time at the post office, wrote 2,500 words per day.

If you want to make money, if you want readers, writing must be viewed as a job. A business. Set goals and keep them.

Trollope wrote what I think is a doable daily quota. He used writing sprints (he apparently invented them) to achieve his daily goal. He timed himself and aimed for 250 words every 15 minutes.

Using a 15 minute sprint, I’ve easily surpassed 250 words in that 15 minutes. So Trollope’s word count is achievable. And the nice thing about writing sprints is that you can scatter them throughout the day if you have to in order to achieve your word count.

A goal of 2,000 words/day, if met, will produce 730,000 words in a year. That’s a dozen 60,000 word novels. Does any writer actually need more than that?

Write in Series

The final key is that indie authors must write in series. Why? Because indie readers want to read series of books rather than standalone novels.

The readers of traditionally published books tend to read fewer books and are okay with the standalone novel. Not so, indie readers.

Indie readers also prefer novels to short stories. And novels to even novellas. Something to keep in mind.

Summary

Write fast, in series, and publish often. That is the baseline. If you aren’t doing those things, you are setting yourself a nearly impossible task if you want to gain readers and make money from your writing.

Advertising won’t do it. A mailing list won’t do it. A website or a closed Facebook group won’t do it. There are no substitutes.

Michael Anderle fast published his way to a half million a year income from writing. Advertising helped — but only after the series was selling. He knew he could pour money into advertising because the series was already selling on its own.

For me, I know publishing a book a month isn’t realistic. I don’t write fast enough. But I do think once a quarter is doable.

So there it is. Go forth my friends and write and publish and then write some more!

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy writing (and reading)!

Share This!

Good Villains

What makes the hero (or heroine) stand out, and show us what he (or she) is made of, is the villain. The hero’s nemesis.

Who can forget the Wicked Witch of the West? Or Inspector Javert?

A memorable villain will make a story a success, even more so then a memorable hero. Because the hero must triumph over the villain to win. The bigger the villain, the bigger the triumph.

Of course, an author can shake things up. Take Macbeth, for example. Where a hero becomes his own worst enemy, aided by his lovingly ambitious wife. The same can be said for Stevens in The Remains of the Day, where he is the villain to his own hero.

Generally, though, the villain and the hero are two separate persons. Both want something and are at cross purposes in the achieving.

A good villain can even save what might otherwise be a mediocre production. The TV show Colony, canceled after three seasons (which is a shame), in my opinion, was carried on the back of the villain Alan Snyder. The hero and heroine, Will and Katie Bowman, were lackluster characters (nor was the acting very good for their parts).

What made Colony a success, I think, was the complexity of the character of the bad guy. Alan Snyder was someone you justifiably hated, and yet empathized with because in many ways he is us. He personified the dilemma of survival.

There are many great villains in literature. A few of them are:

Augustus Melmotte in The Way We Live Now by Anthony Trollope

Count Dracula in Dracula by Bram Stoker

Captain Ahab in Moby Dick by Herman Melville

O’Brien in 1984 by George Orwell

Fagin in Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens

Mrs Danvers in Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier

Four of my favorites are:

Mrs Proudie in Barchester Towers by Anthony Trollope

Mrs De Ropp in “Sredni Vashtar” by Saki

She in She by H Rider Haggard

Cthulhu in “The Call of Cthulhu” by HP Lovecraft

Mrs Proudie, like Lady MacBeth, is driven by ambition. However, operating in Victorian society, Mrs Proudie must take a different approach than did Lady MacBeth in achieving the goals of her ambition.

Mrs Proudie whips her milk toast husband, the bishop, up the ladder of clerical success — and she steps on whoever gets in his way. Trollope makes it quite clear early on that it is indeed Mrs Proudie who wears the trousers in the Proudie household. The bishop’s attempt at taking over the reins of his life are quickly quashed.

Mrs Proudie is not a nice person. Unlike Lady MacBeth, she doesn’t have anyone do the dirty work for her, nor is she the least bit repentant.

Mrs De Ropp, for me, represents the evil of duty, and manners, and expectations — all hidden under a façade of do-goodism. Mrs De Ropp does what is proper and expected and in the process is killing Conradin. And she doesn’t seem to care.

She, or She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed, is the ultimate jealous bitch. She kills her lover in a jealous rage, then bathes in the magic fire so she can live forever until her true love is reborn and they can be reunited.

In the meantime, she enslaves a whole nation of African tribal folk to serve her. She takes a woman scorned to a whole new level of meaning.

By the way, her actual name was Ayesha, and she was an Arab. Her lover was Egyptian and she wanted to rule Egypt. Ambitious to boot.

The ultimate question about Cthulhu is this: is he truly evil, or just indifferent?

When it comes to, let’s say ants, are we evil or just indifferent? There are ants on the sidewalk. Do you step on them, or over them? Do you even notice them?

Given Lovecraft’s worldview, I’m inclined to say Cthulhu and his ilk are merely indifferent. On the other hand, an argument can be made for the evil of indifference.

Put yourself in the place of the ant. Now contemplate humans.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!

Share This!

Why I Write

Almost all of us, at least at one time or another, have the desire to live forever.

It’s why we procreate, and make things. It’s why we strive to make a difference: we want to be remembered. It’s why we believe in an afterlife, and why we’re fascinated with spirits and ghosts, vampires and werewolves.

It’s also why many, if not most, writers write. We have the hope that our books will give us a measure of immortality.

Of course, achieving immortality by means of the written word isn’t a whole lot different than one’s chances of becoming rich by winning the lottery. Just count how many perennial bestselling authors there are versus the number of new authors published each year, and the number of authors who never reach bestseller status but continue to write books. We’re talking thimbles to boxcars here.

And that doesn’t count the number of bestselling authors who pass into oblivion once they die. Their names are legion.

The number of writers who achieve immortality is indeed tiny.

One has a better chance of achieving immortality by becoming a mass murderer than by becoming an author — NOT that I recommend one should do so. Just sayin’.

When it comes to the desire to live forever, I’m like everyone else: bring it on! Or at least let me live for six, eight centuries. There are so many things I want to explore and do, and one lifetime hasn’t been enough.

Writing is a relatively easy avenue whereby one can hope to achieve immortality. After all, books last a very long time. Paper books, that is. Not sure how long these ebooks will last. Software and formats, tend to become obsolete. Remember floppy discs, Beta and VHS tapes, cassettes?

Ebooks are in the same category as those acid-laden wood pulp magazines that are self-destructing because of the cheap paper they were printed on. As the pulp magazines crumble into dust, so too do media vehicles become useless junk. Something to think about.

Nevertheless, by means of stories, I can tell whoever will listen to me what I think about life, who I am as a person, what my dreams and hopes are (or were). And if my stories become popular enough, then they will make the transition to each new storage medium that comes along. After all, I can read Shakespeare and Euripides on my ereader.

My desire to live a very long life, if not forever, and to write lots of books crystalized in the wake of close encounters of the near death kind.

About a dozen years ago I came close to death due to misdiagnosed appendicitis and consequently a ruptured appendix. The doctor told me I was a lucky man. The rupture created quite a mess. Then a couple years later, I had a heart attack. The left anterior descending artery was blocked. Colloquially called “The Widowmaker” because of its high percentage of fatalities. Again, the doctor told me I was a lucky man.

Now I have been told I have kidney disease. For which there is no cure. The only treatment is to follow good health practices in an attempt to slow the progress.

Death is my friend. My mortality has been made very clear to me. It is why I write and why I have such a feeling of urgency about writing. If it weren’t for the Grim Reaper standing in the corner of my room, I’d probably get lazy and slack off.

Of course, we don’t live forever, at least in this life, and it is the only one I care about at the moment, and this life is short. Although I always keep in mind Seneca’s words, “Life is long enough if you know how to use it.” That last clause is of course the rub: we usually learn too late how to use it well. We squander the most precious and rare gift doing and pursuing what is ultimately not of much value.

Writing brings me great joy. It also helps me to become a better person. Through my characters I hone what is important in my own life and discard what is not.

Around 40 to 45 percent of us are kinesthetic/tactile learners. These folk learn by acting and playing and touching. Through my characters, I live many lives and face many dilemmas and learn many things about myself, because they are after all the people I have made in my image.

I know writing brings me great joy and that I do it mostly for the sake of writing, because I make darn little money at it. The pot of gold continues to elude me. Yet, maybe my heirs will hit on the right marketing strategy and my books will sell and I will achieve that immortality we all desire. After all, my books will be in copyright for 70 years after I pass on. That’s more or less another lifetime. That too is something to think about.

Life is long enough if we know how to use it. I may at last be getting the knack of it. We’ll see. I’ll keep you posted.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!

Share This!

The Real Mountains of Madness

I’ve had a love affair with Antarctica since I was around 11 or 12. Someone gave my mom a number of National Geographic magazines and one of them contained a map of Antarctica. I devoured the information on that map. And before that Shackleton had become something of a hero for me.

So it’s only natural that I found myself drawn to Lovecraft’s At The Mountains Of Madness. And recently reread the novel for background information as I researched my eighth Pierce Mostyn Paranormal Investigation, which takes Mostyn and friends to the bottom of the world.

Of course today we know there are no massive mountain ranges as Lovecraft described in his book, and there’s no sacred city of the Elder Things nestled in the foothills and valley of the smaller of those great ranges.

That is the stuff of fiction. When an unexplored continent provided plenty of room for the imagination to take flight.

However, one aspect of Lovecraft’s tale is at least partially true: there are indeed freshwater lakes beneath the Antarctic ice sheet. Whether or not they are inhabited by Elder Things and shoggoths remains to be seen.

Of interest, ironically so, the coordinates Lovecraft gave for the Mountains of Madness are not far off from the location of the great sub-glacial Gamburtsev Mountain range, also known as the Ghost Mountains.

The mountain range, however, is not visible. It is entirely below the surface of the ice. Exploration is being carried out by modern technology. What a wonderful world in which we live where we can go where no one has gone before without actually going there!

The Gamburtsev Mountains are the real Mountains of Madness. But will we find the caves and strange cube-like structures that Lovecraft described on the mountains? Will we find on the eastern side, nestled in the foothills, an enormous metropolis preserved by the ice as Pompeii and Herculaneum were preserved by Vesuvius? Will we find a tunnel leading to the sub-glacial lakes, occupied by those blasphemously hideous agglutinations of protoplasmic bubbles?

Who knows? Perhaps Lovecraft was right after all. Dr Rafe Bardon, Director of the Office of Unidentified Phenomena, has his own ideas, and the Russian drilling into and possible contamination of Lake Vostok might have greater consequences of dire import than we could ever imagine, or Lovecraft either, for that matter.

What I do know is that Pierce Mostyn… Wait a minute. Is that a knocking at my door I hear? Let me see who it is. I won’t be long.

As Mr Hawes hasn’t returned, I, his VA, will end the post as he usually does. Hopefully he’ll be back in time for next week’s post.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time (if there is a next time), happy reading!

Share This!

Plagiarism and Ghostwriting

This past week I got two emails from writers referencing the Brazilian romance writer who employed ghostwriters to produce books for him or her. (I don’t know the writer’s gender.) Apparently, the writer was trying to feed reader demand. In the process, it seems the ghostwriters plagiarized the works of some 20 authors.

I feel sorry for the Brazilian. He or she was trying to meet reader demand and make a buck and got burned.

In the wake of this scandal, writers, it seems, have been impugning the age old practice of ghostwriting. One of the writers who sent me an email even went so far as to call ghostwriting dishonest when it comes to fiction. But not nonfiction. That logical disconnect I don’t understand.

Whether we’re speaking of ghostwriting fiction or nonfiction, the so called author is claiming the work is his or her own creation, when in fact it isn’t. Or is to only a minimal degree. Logically, if ghostwriting is immoral for fiction it should also be immoral for nonfiction. Either the practice is immoral or it isn’t.

Plagiarism

Personally, I think plagiarism is wrong. Just like I think reproducing a Chippendale and then trying to pass it off as the woodworker’s original work, or even as an original Chippendale, is also wrong. Plagiarism = Forgery.

In Western culture, at least modern Western culture, we respect the original work of the artist and seek to preserve the creator’s right to earn money from that work if he or she so chooses.

However, I do think this attitude is peculiar to contemporary Western culture. It wasn’t always that way in our past. And other cultures don’t necessarily share our view. But that is a discussion for another post.

But where does plagiarism stop? Is it plagiarism if one sentence gets copied? I suppose it can legally be called plagiarism, even though the copier didn’t steal the entire work of the other author and pass it off as his or her own. And the “stealing” of one sentence hardly threatens the creator’s livelihood.

Nevertheless, we don’t look kindly on that sort of thing. We want creators to be 100% original. Which, of course, is impossible. There is nothing new under the sun, the Preacher reminds us.

It is interesting how attitudes change. In the Baroque period, copying another musician’s work, with the intent to improve upon it, was common practice.

Bach copied (or transcribed, if one prefers) numerous concerti of Vivaldi and other composers. The Bach transcriptions were for organ and harpsichord. The originals were for string instruments. To my ear, the Bach transcriptions didn’t improve much, if any, on Vivaldi’s original work. Was Bach in fact a plagiarist? Probably by our standards. He would have been hounded out of today’s music industry. His work banned. Hm. Something to think about.

But in those days, thoughts on creativity were different. Composers even borrowed from themselves! Because they were often under tremendous pressure to produce. They were after all employees, for the most part.

In the Baroque period ideas were free for all to improve upon. By today’s standard, however, almost all of the composers in that era would be guilty of plagiarism.

Back then, copying each other’s work was how new musical forms were shared and musical styles spread. This sharing, in an attempt to always improve, wasn’t considered plagiarism. And thanks to Bach’s “plagiarism” we rediscovered Vivaldi and his massive body of wonderful music.

Very interesting how times have changed. Isn’t it?

Ghostwriting

Hiring someone to create a work of art is a time honored practice. A ghostwriter is simply a writer who is willing to write something for you for a fee. It is a form of work for hire. The ghostwriter gets paid, and the one doing the hiring gets his or her name on the work as the author.

To suggest that there is something morally evil about ghostwriting fiction is to announce to the world one’s lack of understanding what a work for hire is.

Alexandre Dumas used many assistants and collaborators — none of which, to my knowledge, got their names on the covers of his books. Does that bother any of us today when we read a novel by Dumas? I hardly think so. It certainly didn’t bother the readers then, who couldn’t wait for his next novel to appear.

HP Lovecraft ghosted short stories for Hazel Heald and Zealia Bishop. Were those women immoral for asking Lovecraft to do so? Was Lovecraft immoral for accepting the jobs? I think all three were satisfied with the arrangements that were made. The women got their stories, and Lovecraft got money that he badly needed.

Or what about Kipling and Haggard? Those two fast friends often spent the day writing together. If one got stuck, the other helped his friend out. So how much of Kipling is Kipling and how much of Haggard is Haggard? I suppose we’ll never know.

There is nothing wrong with ghostwriting or with claiming a ghostwritten novel is yours. It’s the very nature of work that is contracted for hire.

For the ghosts, our friendly Caspers, it’s often a good deal. A ghost can earn up to $25,000 (or even more) per book — which is far more money than most writers ever make on a book. The person for whom the ghost wrote the book will probably never get his or her money back. If anything, hiring a ghost is probably closer to financial stupidity than immorality.

Derek Murphy has a very good blogpost on this subject. It’s well worth your time to read.

Pressure to Produce

Sometime ago a writer was publicly complaining he’d like to take a break. He was tired. I urged him to do so. He replied he couldn’t because he needed the money and his fans wouldn’t let him.

He sounds like a candidate for burnout if I ever heard one.

But the pressure to produce, especially for those writers who are selling their work in sufficient quantity to pay the rent and put food on the table, is considerable. Even to the detriment of one’s health.

It is true the indie mantra is to write fast, write lots, and publish often. If you want a chance at making money.

Why? Because the world of indie writers and readers is the 21st-century version of the pulp fiction era. Success came to the pulp writers of the ‘20s, ‘30s, and ‘40s by following the above formula.

For example, Erle Stanley Gardner wrote 100,000 words a month, month after month while holding down a full-time job as a partner in a law firm. He assigned himself that grueling word count because he wanted to ditch the law job. Which he eventually did.

William Wallace Cook produced many hundreds of works of fiction, drama, and poetry for over 20 years to put food on his table and a roof over his head. Writing was his only source of income. He’d quit his job when one month the payments for his stories were greater than his paycheck. He tells his story (under a pen name) in his book The Fiction Factory.

H. Bedford-Jones was called King of the Pulps (until he passed the title to Gardner) due to his prolificity.

Edgar Wallace, who was dictating complete novels in 3 days back before World War I, was at one point said to have penned a quarter of the novels published in Britain.

Before them there was Anthony Trollope, the Victorian Writing Machine. While working full time for the post office, Trollope wrote 2,500 words in 2 1/2 hours every day. That’s 912,500 words/year. Trollope felt that was enough for any writer. And even when Trollope quit the post office, he never wrote for more than 2 1/2 hours each day.

Also keep in mind, one secret of Trollope’s prolificity was that he didn’t revise. He wrote finished text. When the final word of the novel was penned, he simply sent it to the publisher.

And Lawrence Block, for an example from the post-pulp era, wrote over a hundred novels under pen names during the ‘50s and ‘60s before he started to make it to the big time. Under his own name, he has produced dozens of books to put a roof over his head and food on his table. Writing has been his only job for his entire adult life.

In today’s pop fiction world, demand for books seems insatiable. Some writers write fast enough to keep up with demand. Others cannot.

If a writer has a great idea for a novel, but realizes he or she may not get around to writing it, and gives that idea to a ghost — what is wrong with the practice? The writer is happy, the ghost is happy, and the reader is happy.

How is ghosting any different than when a big-name writer, who has an idea for a book or a series, asks someone to write it for him or her? And then shares the authorship — thereby promoting the less well known writer? The big name writer probably had little input into the work, but that doesn’t stop us from reading.

What is wrong with either scenario? It seems to me this is a win-win situation.

In a very real sense, it is readers who are driving writers to produce faster and faster. Because readers want books!

Where I’m At

I think plagiarizing entire books or sizable chunks of a book is wrong. When it gets down to words and sentences, I think things start to get very gray. But best to play it safe and not copy.

Plagiarizing ideas is an even trickier area. After all, there is nothing new under the sun.

Many authors copied the Cthulhu mythos and added to it. Were they plagiarizing? I don’t know. Lovecraft, himself, was okay with it. He didn’t seem to think it was plagiarizing. On the other hand, if he had, then the Cthulhu mythos probably would have died with him.

Still, to be on the safe side, it’s undoubtedly best not to copy an idea as elucidated by a particular writer without the writer’s permission. Unless the writer who’s copying is going to personalize it to the degree that the idea becomes “new”. Or at least unrecognizable as to its origin.

Concerning ghostwriting, I don’t think it’s wrong. Would I use a ghost? No. Why? Because I love the process of writing. Hiring a ghost would deny me what I enjoy most.

I’m interested in your thoughts. Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!

Share This!

What Book is in Your Hand?

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!

Share This!

Van Dyne’s Vampires

A writer is a little bit like a god. Gods in all religions are creators. They are responsible for the world as we know it, and for the world we cannot see.

Writers create worlds, both seen and unseen, every day, along with myriads of people. Like gods, writers are creators.

The act of creating is, for me, exhilarating. It is the most exciting part of writing. Someday I hope to have enough money so I can hire someone to do all the other aspects of the writing business so I can just write.

The first audience of a writer is himself. If the story doesn’t interest him, it won’t see the light of day. And it might not even see completion. After all, writers basically write about what they know and they write a story they find interesting. That’s what keeps them going. I suppose the same can be said of deities: they do what pleases them.

Yesterday was supposed to be the official launch day of Van Dyne’s Vampires (Pierce Mostyn Paranormal Investigations, Book 4). However, Amazon is having hiccups in their KDP processing. Consequently, Van Dyne isn’t showing up on the Pierce Mostyn series page and the price (as of this writing) is still listed at 99 cents, which is what I offer as a special deal to my reading list folks. However, since the book is still 99 cents — grab a copy before the Zon finally gets its act together and raises the price to $2.99.

The Pierce Mostyn stories have been a joy to write. More and more I’m growing to truly love Mostyn and company. I’m anticipating a long relationship with him and his world.

Van Dyne’s Vampires is a bit of a departure from the previous three stories, where I riffed on a story by HP Lovecraft. Van Dyne is my own creation. Although characters of his ilk abound. Van Dyne is the Moriarity, the Zeck, the Fu Manchu of Pierce Mostyn’s world. The human evil genius. Never mind that Mostyn also has Cthulhu and his buddies to contend with.

Cthulhu and friends, however, don’t care about us. We are to them as ants on a sidewalk are to us. That is the horror of the Mythos: in the vastness of the universe, we don’t matter. We are nothing. Whether human beings and our little world continue to exist doesn’t even register in the minds of entities greater than ourselves.

The true horror of our quest to meet other intelligent life is that they will be superior to us and not care if we live or die. And maybe for them, things would be better off if we were dead. Be careful what you wish for.

However, for some, the fear of the Mythos might be a bit remote. So I created someone we all can relate to: namely, the bully; the person who uses others to satisfy his or her own needs. Valdis Damien van Dyne is that bully on a mega-scale. He is that egotist who thinks nothing of others — other than how they can best serve his needs.

We’ve all been bullied. We’ve all dealt with users. And when that bully or user has power over us, there is fear we feel deep in our gut. It is far more visceral than the fear of being nothing.

And just as we hope someone will come to our rescue, there is Pierce Mostyn and the OUP. A little bit of the cavalry coming over the hill just in the nick of time. And we like that.

You can get Van Dyne’s Vampires at Amazon, or read it for free if you are a KU member. Enjoy!

Comments are always welcome; and, until next time, happy reading!

Share This!

More on Writing’s Purpose

Two weeks ago we took a look at Stephen King’s statement regarding why writers write. We concluded that while it sounded noble, it wasn’t overly accurate.

Most writers write to make money. If they happen to enrich people’s lives along the way, that’s a nice bonus.

This week I’d like to look at Edgar Rice Burroughs’s far more realistic assessment.

In August of 1931, Forrest J Ackerman, then 14, got into an argument with his teacher over the literary merits of Tarzan. Ackerman then wrote a letter to Burroughs telling him about it.

Burroughs sent a letter back to Ackerman. Here is the reply:

Thanks for your letter. Tell your teacher that, though she may be right about my stories, there are some fifty million people in the world who will not agree with her, which is fortunate for me, since even writers of garbage-can literature must eat.

My stories will do you no harm. If they have helped to inculcate in you a love of books, they have done you much good. No fiction is worth reading except for entertainment. If it entertains and is clean, it is good literature, or its kind. If it forms the habit of reading, in people who might not read otherwise, it is the best literature.

Last year I followed the English course prescribed for my two sons, who are in college. The required reading seemed to have been selected for the sole purpose of turning the hearts of young people against books. That, however, seems to be a universal pedagogical complex: to make the acquiring of knowledge a punishment, rather than a pleasure.

I want to emphasize two points out of this excellent statement.

Love of Books

“If [my stories] have helped to inculcate in you a love of books, they have done much good.”

To my mind, reading fiction should be a pleasure. It should instill in the reader a love of books.

Like many of you, I acquired that love very early. I doubt I was even in kindergarten. Books such as Seuss’s Scrambled Eggs Super and Syd Hoff’s Danny and the Dinosaur I still fondly remember. And I’ve loved reading and books ever since.

That love I helped to instill in my daughter. And I now encourage reading whenever I can. For a love of books is far more beneficial than a love of TV, or movies, or video games. Reading has so many additional benefits than video entertainment. It is a skill that is critical to the survival of civilization.

As Burroughs himself points out in his letter: teaching seems to universally have as its goal to make acquiring knowledge a punishment, rather than a pleasure.

This especially affects boys. Is it any wonder girls now go to college in greater numbers than do boys? When reading is a “girl thing”, it only follows that studying is also for “girls” — and what young boy in his right mind wants to like a girl? None when I was growing up, and I don’t think boys have changed all that much in the years since.

Therefore we should encourage authors to write books with good male role models. Because boys don’t identify with female leads. Reading about hot babes and kickass heroines comes in after puberty — if they read at all by that time.

Entertainment

“No fiction is worth reading except for entertainment.”

In my opinion, this is where it is at. Say what one will, the ultimate purpose of a story is to entertain. It may do other things as well — but if it doesn’t entertain, it does nothing beneficial. And it may even go so far as to destroy the impetus to read.

Burroughs noted that if a story entertains and is clean, it is good literature. And the best literature is that which forms the habit of reading in people who might not otherwise read. That is the best form of enrichment. The enrichment of lives. The lives of those who weren’t previously readers.

Comic books are entertainment and are often put down by parents. However, my first exposure to Jules Verne was a comic book version of From Earth to the Moon. It didn’t hurt me. I’m still an avid reader. And I even read “good literature”.

Writing’s Purpose

The purpose of writing fiction is the same as the ancient art of telling a story around the fire: to entertain. The story may also teach a lesson, or moral, or a bit of philosophy. But if the story doesn’t entertain, then it has failed in its main purpose and also in any secondary purpose. And may even turn off the reader. A lifetime of potential pleasure gone in a moment.

I also want to mention Burroughs’s comment “…even writers of garbage-can literature must eat.” Burroughs wrote to entertain and make money. And he made a lot of money.

What I especially like is that Burroughs was honest. He wasn’t afraid to say he wrote for money.

I wonder: if Mr King says one shouldn’t write for money, then why hasn’t he given away all of his earnings from writing? Seems to me the proof is in the pudding.

Comments are always welcome. And until next time, happy reading!

Share This!

Writing’s Purpose

Writing isn’t about making money, getting famous, getting dates, getting laid, or making friends. In the end, it’s about enriching the lives of those who read your work, and enriching your own life as well. It’s about getting up, getting well, and getting over. Getting happy, okay? Getting happy.

(Stephen King, in On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft)

One of my favorite inspirational books is Letters to a Young Poet by Rainer Maria Rilke.

However, as with anything written by the human hand, it is not perfect. Because people aren’t perfect.

In the first letter, Rilke tells the young poet

Perhaps you…are called to be an artist. Then take that destiny upon yourself, and bear it, its burden and its greatness, without ever asking yourself what reward might come from outside.

Rilke is saying essentially the same thing as King in the quote with which I began this post.

In a discussion I had with the late Jane Reichhold (who was a premier American writer and translator of haiku), I mentioned that it seemed to me the flaw in Rilke’s advice to the young poet was that Rilke himself was published and famous — and that he was telling the young unpublished poet to not worry about getting published or famous.

Jane’s answer was simply, “And there you have it.”

In other words, it’s easy for the famous and those who are wealthy to tell the rest of us — Don’t worry or concern yourself about fame or wealth.

To my mind, that touches a bit on hypocrisy.

For the record, Jane Reichhold encouraged me to pursue publishing and fame, if I could get it. And there you have it.

Mind you, I don’t disagree with Rilke or King. But I don’t wholly agree with them either. After all, Rilke is one of the most famous Twentieth century poets and King is a multi-millionaire (and he made all his money writing).

Writing is very much about enriching the lives of others. Writing is very much about getting happy. It is also a calling, and if we’re called to it I believe we must follow that calling and not look back.

But for Mr King to write, “Writing isn’t about making money” — when, I repeat, he’s a multi-millionaire — is just a wee bit hypocritical. Keep in mind, he didn’t self-publish his books and give them away. He got a contract with a publisher and made a lot of money.

Nor do I think King is in the majority among those who currently practice, or have in the past practiced, the craft of writing fiction.

I doubt Shakespeare would have agreed with him. Bill wrote for money. I don’t think Nathaniel Hawthorne, or Louisa May Alcott would agree. They wrote for money, especially Alcott — and she made no apologies for doing so.

Anthony Trollope boldly declared his whole purpose in writing was to make money.

Edgar Wallace (he created King Kong) was in the same camp. So was Rex Stout, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Murray Leinster, Ray Bradbury, Robert Heinlein, and my late friend Jack Koblas.

Robert E Howard wanted to be a writer, he told HP Lovecraft, because it gave him freedom. What he didn’t tell Lovecraft was that a large part of that freedom was not having to work 9 to 5 to make money. Because Howard very clearly wrote for a paycheck.

Salinger didn’t like the publicity success brought, but he didn’t turn down the money. He ultimately became a recluse. Writing didn’t make him happy, apparently.

I think King is on the money about enriching lives. The books and stories I remember most are those that in some manner enriched me, usually by bringing me joy. As a reader, I want my books to bring me some manner of joy and happiness. To enrich my life.

As a writer, I want to enrich the lives of others, as well as my own. Very much so.

But I also want money, and I wouldn’t mind a little bit of fame to go along with that money. I want people to read my books and I want them to smile when they see or hear my name. Like I’m an old friend who always brings them a gift.

And I don’t think there’s anything wrong in wanting that either.

Would Shakespeare have written all those plays and enriched generations — if he hadn’t made money? We’ll never know. But he did make money and he kept on writing. That we do know.

Louisa May Alcott’s father, Bronson Alcott, was a thinker and totally inept at providing for his family. Louisa wrote because the family needed to eat and pay the rent. But millions have been enriched by Little Women.

I could go on naming author after author who has enriched our lives. And virtually all of them wrote for money. And I’m glad they did.

In the end, writing is about enriching lives. I’ve enriched a few lives with my poetry. It’s a good feeling. There’s no money in poetry. But there is fame. The poets who are the most successful enrichers, the ones who have the largest readership — are also the ones who are famous to one degree or another. If you can’t be rich, you can at least be famous.

Mr King’s statement is very noble sounding. But it’s as much a fiction as are his books.

As a reader, I want writers to make money. Making money means people are buying their books. Which most likely means they will keep on writing.

Ask yourself, you readers, how many books do you read by writers who don’t sell anything?

I asked myself that question. It started me on a crusade to champion the underdog. Those writers who aren’t getting the readers they deserve.

Today I pretty much eschew bestsellers. Those authors don’t need me. Or you, for that matter. But many excellent writers, whose books aren’t selling, do need you. They need your and my support so they will keep writing and can enrich many, many lives.

Every Monday on Facebook I post the Book of the Week. Singing the praise of an undiscovered gem. Take a look at my Facebook page and discover some very good and even excellent books and authors. Let’s help some writers make money.

Comments are always welcome. And until next time, happy reading!

Share This!

The Joy of Creativity

There is nothing more satisfying than being a Creator, or being around Creators. There’s an indescribable electricity when Creatives are together. The experience is exhilarating.

Last week, my wife and I were on Madeline Island. She was enrolled in a plein air oil painting workshop. I tagged along to be pack horse, and encourager, and to do some writing.

If you don’t know, Madeline Island is the largest island in the Apostle Islands chain, off the coast of Wisconsin, in Lake Superior. The island is beautifully wooded and possesses some fabulous views of the largest of the Great Lakes.

Aside from the plein air workshop, there was a workshop for mixed media and another one for quilters.

To be with so many Creatives all in one setting was supremely stimulating. I had a blast interacting with the artists and the tag along spouses.

I got in some extensive walking, worked on a novel (part of a new series I intend to launch next year), sketched out 3 story ideas (which were provided by some of the artists) and wrote a haiku.

The advice is legendary: if you feel stuck in your writing (or any other creative endeavor), go on a trip. The change of scenery stimulates the creative juices. With last week in mind, I’d add: go on a trip with other Creatives who are not in your field of interest.

Seeing the way oil painters view and interpret the world provided me with new insights.

Those new insights ramped up my own creative energy. Those new insights took me back to the time when I experimented with haiga, a Japanese art form that links a picture and a poem together to form a whole creative expression. Hence the haiku, the traditional poetic form used in haiga.

In addition, those new insights and the conversations I had with the artists gave me some new fiction ideas.

I came home from the island with my Creativity supercharged.

Writing is, for me, like breathing. I can’t live without it. Shoot, I love writing the grocery list! Part of the excitement is the tactile experience. Holding the pencil. The feel of the soft lead as it glides across the paper. The texture of the paper. Or the feel of the fountain pen or dip pen holder. The movement of the pen point across the paper. Watching the ink or graphite form my thoughts into words, words into sentences, sentences into paragraphs. It’s an experience that’s better than magic.

Creatives are relatively rare, which is why I think so many people want to be a Creative. Creatives, though, are gifted. They are a breed apart. They cannot ever not create.

In every culture, the deities that are worshipped are Creators. Which is an indication to me that Creators are held in high regard by all cultures. They are special. Divine, as it were.

People may emulate Creators. They may even master a creative medium. But if they are not Creators, heart and soul, they will ultimately lose interest.

Rainer Maria Rilke, in the first letter of Letters to a Young Poet, advised that the one who wants to create must first look deep within and ask the question, “Must I write, paint, sculpt, throw pots, blow glass, etc, etc.”

If the answer is yes, then Rilke says you must structure your entire life so that you can create. If the answer comes back, no, this is not a must — then go and do something else. There is no shame in this. We must all do what we were meant to do. Don’t become frustrated trying to do what was not meant for you to do.

I love writing. I loved it before going to Madeline Island, and I love it even more for having been there.

Many, many thanks to the Madeline Island School of the Arts (MISA) and the beautiful people at the workshop (my wife included!) who reconfirmed what I’ve always wanted to do with my life.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy creating!

Share This!