Konrants

Had a few thoughts over the past few days, none of which are worthy of a whole blog post. But I've strung a few together and I'm putting them out there as both personal observations and advice for authors and the publishing industry.

First, the legacy industry seems to be keen to keep reassuring itself that ebooks sales growth has slowed or plateaued.

Frankly, I don't care what the legacy industry believes. If it sleeps better at night thinking that paper sales will still be hearty in the year 2020, that's fine by me. Whatever gets you through the night. I gave up on trying to convince people to give up delusions when I had a long talk with my parish priest at the age of 18, asking him repeatedly how he could defend faith (faith based on a millenia-old book written by a bunch of nobodies with no historical gravitas and vetted multiple times through multiple translations by those seeking power) in the face of science. He chose to remain blind to what was happening around him, willfully ignorant of easily provable facts, and I gave up God for Lent, and every day since.

If the Big 5 think that ebook sales aren't continuing to eat away at paper sales, or that more and more authors are choosing to self-publish, or that Barnes & Noble will be around forever, or that they can relax because the tech revolution is over, they are whistling past the graveyard, and I don't give a shit.

What I do give a shit about is newbies buying into the continued nonsense that finding a publisher is the only way to succeed. The religion parallel applies here as well. There are a bunch of fat cats happy with the status quo, and they keep recruiting the naive, the hopeful, the uneducated, much like missionaries bringing bibles to the third world, getting the savages to kneel at the altar. Savages who wind up no better off (or even worse off) once they convert.

Legacy publishers NEED authors to feel that they're the only way to succeed. Because without authors, the Ponzi scheme of publishing (the few successful writers supporting the entire infrastructure, including authors who aren't successful) collapses.

So we have publishers continuing to act like they alone have the keys to heaven with their holy gatekeeping system. Many of them also offer dubious services to indie authors (David Gaughran has been crucifying Author Solutions for years now as just one example). So it doesn't matter if authors accept a shitty contract from the Big 5, or sign over their rights in some vanity deal, they get screwed either way.

Let me make this crystal clear:

AUTHORS DO NOT NEED PUBLISHERS.

It is 2014. All the forms of distribution open to legacy publishers are open to indies. We can reach as many ebook retail outlets as the biggest legacy publisher, and we can reach them faster and better. We can control our prices. We can control our titles, cover art, and content. We can also get into bookstores (Dean Wesley Smith has a great blog post about this.)

Now if we want to be able to get into Costco, or airports, or Wal-Mart, we still need publishers to do so. But even if you sign with a major publisher, the chance of you getting into Wal-Mart is very slim, and you'll be giving up a lot of royalties in order for that small chance.

PUBLISHERS ARE OPTIONAL. 

If you happen to be a huge bestseller, and legacy publishers come knocking, worry about signing with them when that happens. And find an agent first. And also try to find ANY author who went from indie to legacy and has nice things to say about the experience. If you do find any who says nice things in public, try to talk to them privately and witness the completely-warranted bitchfest that commences.

Publishers keep looking at indie success as a slush pile where they can scoop up the best. They'll keep doing that until indies learn better. But very few indies who sign with a legacy publisher and hate the experience will speak publicly about it, because their books are being held hostage and playing nice with their new corporate masters is essential if they want to continue to make money. Because legacy publishers do enough to unintentionally hurt book sales--making them angry so they intentionally hurt sales is not wise.

So you won't see many authors bashing their publishers. But how many who signed indie deals sing their publishers' praises? Isn't it odd we don't see a lot of that?

As for the meme that ebook growth is slowing or has plateaued, that's a gigantic fallacy.

1. Growth slowing sounds bad, but it's still growth. Let's use a bodybuilder analogy. When you start working out, you quickly drop fat and gain muscle. After a year of hard work, it might take longer to gain ten more pounds in muscle mass, but you're still a long way from reaching your limit.

2. The numbers quoted in relation to ebook growth slowing don't include indies. Sticking with the bodybuilder motif, if everyone at Gold's Gym is training, and collectively it is taking longer for the group to gain more mass, that result is hardly indicative of the rest of the world.

Maybe legacy ebook growth is slowing down. But that doesn't mean indie ebook growth is slowing down. It doesn't count all of those authors (some of who are former legacy authors) who continue to increase their unit sales and monetary take. Check out the latest Author Earnings, which showed that for the data tracked indie authors are out-earning Big 5 authors by 27%.

Now, what Hugh and Data Guy are doing--quite brilliantly I may add--is shedding light on something that legacy publishers would prefer everyone remain in the dark about: how authors don't need them.

Whenever I see an "us vs. them" debate I roll my eyes. I've repeatedly said, there is no "us vs. them". There are only authors trying to find readers. Some do it solo. Some use publishers. The story isn't "indie authors vs. legacy authors" or "indie publishing vs. legacy publishing". There is only "what's best for the author". And what's best is a personal decision, hopefully determined by careful analysis, experimentation, and goals specific to that individual author.

So the whole idea of labeling authors "indie" or "legacy" or "hybrid" is much more important to the publishing world than it is to us authors. While the concept of identity is probably essential, I don't care how I'm labeled as long as I can continue to reach readers with my words.

Over the weekend, thousands of authors--several of them good friends--attended the Romantic Times convention in New Orleans. Many I've corresponded with seemed to have had a lot of fun, though no one has been able to point out the business purpose for the convention.

I gave up on public appearances a few years ago, because of diminishing returns. They were indeed fun, but the cost and time away from writing wasn't worth it to me. When I had legacy publishers, I felt I had to connect with readers and peers and legacy professionals in order to keep a foot in the game and keep my name out there. In the past, I met editors I later sold to, met authors who I got blurbs from (or gave blurbs to), tracked down leads for anthology submissions, and sold books. Now I no longer feel a need to do any of that, and I don't see why so many authors feel so compelled to continue to go to conferences because they think it will further their careers.

Conferences are fun. You can meet people, and learn things, and even sell a few titles (though never enough to cover your expenses). But long gone are the days of needing to pitch to agents or editors, or join organizations (Writers Guild, MWA, HWA, SFWA, RWA), or do mass booksignings.

Now, I've done more booksignings than, well, anyone. Over 1200 of them. I recognized their value. Some were mass signings with huge crowds. Some were just popping into a store and signing a single book on the shelf. But I felt they were necessary in order to maintain relationships with booksellers and readers, and to keep my books in print.

I no longer feel that way. The vast majority of my sales are digital. Paper books are wasteful, take up space, cost too much, are a pain to track down, and from a personal standpoint I no longer get a kick out of meeting authors and getting their signature. But I do respect and understand readers and authors who dig it, and I understand why conferences, conventions, and book fairs remain popular.

That said, when I read posts like Hugh Howey's latest, about indie authors being treated differently than legacy authors at the RT booksigning, I have to wonder why indie authors continue to spend money and time, and to invest emotionally, in the grade-school notion of being accepted.

Newsflash:

We're adults. We're now allowed to label ourselves rather than live with the labels others assign us. 

And when others label us something we don't agree with, we can choose not to waste any more of our time, money, and emotion on them.

Have you been made to feel like a second class citizen for being an indie author? Non illegitimi carborundum.

Stop trying to be accepted by the cool kids (who are earning 27% less than you are), and you won't get your feelings hurt. We've all been disparaged. We've all been marginalized. We've all had bad booksignings. We've all felt like outsiders. We've all watched others succeed while we didn't. Welcome to authordom.

The only one who can make you feel bad about yourself is you. So get over yourself. One of life's greatest journeys is overcoming insecurity and learning to truly not give a shit.

We no longer need the approval of editors and agents, and we certainly don't need the approval of conferences or our peers.

If you feel marginalized at conferences because of your chosen career path, stop going to conferences. Or start your own conference. Or your own organization. Or your own awards.

Personally, I think we'd all be better off spending more time writing. Treat conferences like vacations you can write off on taxes, don't take any of it seriously, and stop worrying if the world accepts you or not.

This brings me to my last rant, which is for my wife, who always gets a kick out of me going off on some pinhead.

An anonymous tool commented on my previous blog post about piracy, and I wanted to show my generosity by giving them the attention they are so desperately, obviously craving.

"When you write posts such as this one, it throws every opinion you've ever expressed into the 'probably nuts' bucket. Well, I stop by here every year or two, just to be sure you're still ranting happily, and irrationally, along. Congrats! You're doing fine."

Congrats right back at you, Anon! I'm proud that someone as apparently developmentally disabled as you are was able to figure out how to use the Internet. Mommy and Daddy much be very proud.

Welcome to the world of blogging, and allow me to give you some pointers.

1. When you disagree with something someone says, the correct thing to do is to point out what you disagree with, and then counter it with logic and facts. Simply stating an opinion, with no evidence to back it up, makes you look like a pinhead. It isn't deductive reasoning. It isn't debate. It isn't persuasive. It's just stupid.

Looking stupid is bad, especially on my blog, because I do not suffer fools kindly.

You brought a sackful of nothing to the discussion, and while it may have given you a fleeting masturbatory thrill to express your opinions about me and my post, I suggest you take a long, hard look in the mirror and try to come up with something you like about yourself to keep from eating a gun, because it isn't your sharp mind or keen wit.

2. Thanks for stopping by every year or two, but we both know it is more frequently than that. When I get bored with some pinhead, I quit. I don't check back later. Ever. The fact that you keep checking back is obsessive, and unhealthy. The crush you have on me isn't reciprocated, especially since you aren't engaging on a single point I've made. When I disagree with someone, I fisk them. Why don't you try fisking me? You made the minimal effort to post, why not actually take it a step further and try to say something, anything, substantive?

3. I allow anonymous comments on my blog so celebrities, professionals, and those who wish to spout controversial or contrary views may do so without any fear of repercussion. But I frown on chickenshit morons who think they're clever but don't say anything worth reading. This hurts society in the long run. We need anonymity for important free speech. Trolling and flaming and typing one-handed is not what our forefathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution, and it only serves to irritate those who actually come here to learn, share, and engage in meaningful conversation.

As a result of your post, my readers and are are left with the unavoidable impression that you are a pinhead, a coward, and a waste of carbon who self-loathes for cathecting me, but can't resist it.

See what I did there? I took what you said, and showed how you shouldn't be allowed in public because you're contributing to the overall dumbing-down of Internet interactions. I pointed out how you avoided debate in favor of ad hominem fallacy, how you can't get me out of your head, and how you lack the balls to sign your name to your post.

Try attacking the argument and keeping the sarcasm relevant. That's how discourse works, both on this blog and in real-life adult situations.

And I apologize for calling you developmentally disabled, as there are millions of developmentally disabled individuals who are smarter, have more courage, and are more considerate than you are.

On the other hand, if you are a dog or monkey and you somehow learned to read and use a computer, I take it all back. Kudos to you.

Time to Reform Copyright

In 1787 the Philadelphia Convention took place between May and September, to address problems in the newly formed USA. The result was the Consitituion, which included Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

From this clause came US copyright law. 

Almost 100 years later, in 1886, the Berne Convention required its signatories to accept copyright or works from other signatory countries. The USA didn't sign it because Berne stated that an inventor or writer automatically owned the rights to their creation, whereas US law said the work must be registered to be protected, via copyright or patent. The US also wasn't in agreement with Berne on moral rights.

Then came the Buenos Aires Convention, which was an alternative to Berne that the USA did sign, and then the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952, which expanded on the Buenos Aires Convention.

The US finally become a  Berne signatory in 1989 with the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988.

The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights came in 1994. The US signed in 1995. It included this:

National exceptions to copyright (such as "fair use" in the United States) are constrained by the Berne three-step test.

The first two steps of the three-step test are:

Right of Reproduction: (1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form. (2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

Next came the WIPO Copyright Treaty in 1996 which was implemented in US law by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Besides protecting the copyright holder from unauthorized reporduction of their work, it also criminalzed production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works.

Now, before I get into my feelings about what all of this means, I want to say that I did most of the above research on Wikipedia, and even cribbed most of my final sentence verbatim from the Wikipedia DMCA page. It could be argued that my blantant plagiarism is fair use, but happily I don't need to argue that, because Wikipedia has a Creative Commons License. I don't violate any copyright by copying Wikipedia enteries because they allow it.

Got all that?

So, according to US law, if I write something original, I own that work and own the rights to reproduce and exploit that work.

I cannot copy the works of others unless I get their permission.

I cannot sell the works of others unless I get their permission.

I cannot jailbreak the devices I own (or write programs that allow people to jailbreak their devices).

I cannot plagiarise. 

I cannot strip DRM from works I legally obained.

I can own an online service provider where users can violate the Berne Act and DMCA.

Hmm. Things seem to be getting sort of confusing. So I can buy a paper book, let all of my friends borrow it, then resell it on eBay, and that's perfectly legal according to the first sale doctrine. But I can't lend my ebooks to my friends or my mom without getting the author's permission, and I can't jailbreak my phone or PS3, and I can't strip DRM from ebooks I paid for.

Can I post images I find on the Internet on this blog, like the one above?

Not without permsission. (In the case of the above image of the copyright page, I downloaded it from www.morguefile.com which allows people to copy their free images.)

Can I make copies of songs I own? Yes, I'm allowed to make back-ups, but only if I retain the hard copy of the original. If I ever sell a CD I ripped, the mp3s I own are illegal. Ditto with DVDs. But I can record movies off of TV and put them on DVD for personal use, and I can record songs off the radio legally.

Is it me, or are things becoming sort of cloudy, if not convolted? 

Don't think so? Think this is a simple black and white issue?

Answer these questions:

Have you ever recorded a TV show? That's legal.
Have you ever downloaded a TV show from a filesharing sight that aired last night because you missed it and forgot to record it? That's illegal.

Have you ever found an image on the Internet and put it on your blog without permission? That's illegal.

Have you ever borrowed a book from the library? That's legal.

Have you ever burned a friend's CD? That's illegal.

Have you ever bought a used video game? That's legal.

Have you ever downloaded a videogame without permission from the copyright holder? That's illegal, even if the game is out of print and unavailable for sale.

Do you allow people to lend your ebooks via the Kindle Book Lending feature? That's legal.

Do you use DRM on your ebook titles? That's legal.

Have you ever stripped DRM from an ebook title? That's illegal.

Have you ever jailbroken a device? That's illegal.

Have you ever heard a parody song? That's legal.

Have you written fan fiction? That could be illegal.

Have you every watched a cable TV show at a friend's house? That's legal.

Can you sell ebooks and mp3 songs you don't want anymore? That's illegal.

Have you ever listened to a live band that played cover songs? That's legal.
Have you ever brought a recording device into a concert? That's illegal.

Lot's of gray there, huh?

Here's what I perceive the primary problem with current aspects of US copyright law is: it punishes the consumer and has no proven advantage for the copyright holder.

The world is changing. With the advent of digital media, ebooks can be reproduced indefinitely for zero cost, and destributed for near zero cost.

People are consistenly and routinely breaking copyright laws with no measurable impact on the artist.

People want to be able to do whatever they want with the stuff they buy. They don't want restrictions.

People increasingly treat information and entertainment as attainable for cheap or free.

Stealing something digital does not equate a lost sale.

The problem isn't piracy. It's discoverablilty.

Suing people for filesharing is ineffective. 

Closing filesharing websites is ineffective.

Restricting digital media is impossible. 

Rights holders who don't make their IPs easily available, via fair cost and convenience, are asking to be pirated.

Open source always beats closed source in the long run, even with current copyright law.

DRM gets broken all the time.

Billions of files are shared daily.

Jailbreaking, modding, homebrewing, sampling, remixing, and fan fiction (among other activities) are always going to happen because that's what human beings do.

We're a species that uploads Vines and Harlem Shake videos to YouTube. We make mix tapes. We install Linux on our PCs. We post anonymous stories where Spock nails Harry Potter. We tweet links and pics. We mod Donkey Kong so Mario is naked. We have the majesty that is Beatallica. We share our digital information and entertainment. And I think all of that is good.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a judge. But I see a problem in the Berne three-step test. To reiterate:

Right of Reproduction: (1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form. (2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

I'm reading a conflict between steps 1 and 2. Because I don't think the free reproduction and distribution of my work conflicts with my ability to exploit my work. Anyone can get my ebooks for free, yet I still sell well. My legitimate interests are protected, even with abundant piracy.

Here's what I think the extent of copyright law should be:

Authors of literary and artistic works shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form, for the purpose of financial exploitation, for the term of the author's lifetime.

If anyone wants to copy it, or share it, they're free to as long as they aren't doing it to make money. Only the artist (or those the artist assigns rights to) can monetaily benefit from an IP. 

Some might argue that such a thing would seriously impair an artist's ability to make money. If every ebook on Amazon.com for $$$ was available on a mirrorite PirateAmazon.com for free, wouldn't everyone use PirateAmazon.com?

I don't think so. Some readers only get free ebooks on Amazon.com, and never pay for anything. Others go to libraries. Others buy used books. And just about every ebook available on Amazon.com is already available on filesharing sites. Yet many writers, me included, still manage to make decent money, even though all of my books are freely available, both legally and illegally.

The fear of piracy is an irrational fear. I don't know of any reputable study that shows piracy hurts sales.

Trying to restrict and control information and entertainment is short-sighted. Eventually everything can be gotten for free. No one can stop that from happening. As soon as you create something and post it on the World Wide Web, the genie is out of the bottle and not ever going back in. And as much as you stamp your feet and say, "That's not fair! I'm the copyright holder!" it's not going to stop it. The DMCA isn't going to stop it. DRM isn't going to stop it. Stronger copyright laws won't stop it. 

Irritating fans is going to hurt you, not help you. And worrying about people stealing your IP is time better spent worrying about something you have more control over, like the weather.

It's human nature to share. Because we share we have wonderful things like YouTube and Wikipedia. We have Bittersweet Symphony. We have My Sweet Lord. Like it or not, we have Fifty Shades of Grey. What if Monet had been able to copyright the Impressionist Movement so no one else could try it? What if Hume required a license before anyone could teach Empiricism? What if Faraday had patented his homopolar motor and dynamo instead of allowing others to use them freely, resulting in electric motors and generators?

I'm a thriller writer today because I was influenced by thriller writers I read for free at the library, or bought used because I was poor. I don't believe Ed McBain or Robert B. Parker ever made a dime off of me, but they shaped the way I write and what I write about.

Hopefully, somewhere, my books are influencing some new writer. And I don't care if she got them off of Demonoid. 

I believe one of the most authentic and meaningful political movements in the last hundred years is the Pirate Party. Their logo is on the left. I didn't ask for permission to use it, but I'm guessing they'll be okay with that.

The Pirate Party supports civil rights, direct democracy and participation in government, open content, information privacy, transparency, freedom of information, and net neutrality. They oppose censorship and warrantless surveillance. 

All good things, right?

They also support the reform of copyright and patent laws. And I believe they are just as right about that as they are about everything else I just listed.

You can't police the Internet without trampling on rights and restricting freedoms. No one should even be trying to.

Q: But Joe, that's insane! How will authors make money if everything is free?

A: I just incorporated a business that will do just that: pay the artist while the content is free. More soon.

Q: But the Pirate Party believes copyright should only last five years! That's too little!

A: How do you know that's too little unless we try it and see what happens? Personally, I'd prefer a longer copyright. I propose the lifetime of the author. But I wouldn't say no to 30 years. Walk Disney is long dead. Why should his heirs and company continue to make money off of Mickey Mouse? What did they do to earn it? What if we still had to pay Shakespeare's estate to perform his plays? Would he still be the most popular writer in history?

Q: If you're so gung-ho about free, why don't you make everything you write free?

A: At one point or another everything I write has been free, using Amazon promotions. I'm also widely pirated. If someone wants to find my work for free, they can Google it easily.

Q: But are't you losing money when you get pirated?

A: I don't see how. When I was looking for an image to use on this blog, I looked for free images. I wasn't in the market to buy an image (like I do for my book covers). No photographer, anywhere, was going to get any money out of me for a copyright page picture. I was going to keep looking until I found something free.

That's what many pirates do. They download things they wouldn't have ever bought. Or things they are unable to buy because they are too expensive, out of print, or unavailable.

I used to download TV shows like Through the Wormhole via bit torrent, because if I missed an episode there was no way to watch it otherwise. Now I just download them for $1.99 an episode on Amazon. It's easier and faster, and the price is right.

If all copyright holders allowed for fast, easy, cheap downloads, I bet they'd make more money. But what the hell do I know? I'm just a guy who made his backlist downloads fast, easy, and cheap...

Q: Why are you even blogging about this?

A: Because in the past week I was spammed twice by services advertising "help" for authors removing their ebooks from pirate websites, and I also got a copyright registration in the mail for one of my Amazon published books and thought, "Why the hell do I need this? What a waste of time, money, and common sense."

It's 2014. Establishing authorship is as easy as Googling. And the only entities who benefit from DRM and anti-piracy services are those selling DRM and anti-piracy services.

Paranoia is ugly. Get over it.

Q: Wasn't your last blog about keeping old titles visible? Isn't that the opposite of saying people can steal them?

A: If my ebooks became the most pirated ebooks on the Internet, I bet my income would go way up. I should be so lucky.

Q: I think you're just being intentionally provactive for link bait.

A: I don't need link bait, because I don't think fans read this blog. This blog is for writers. And I believe writers would be doing themselves a big favor if they stopped worrying about piracy.

You hear that. Roxana Robinson? When Scott Turow was president of the Authors Guild, he wasted a lot of time, money, and hot air ineffectively trying to combat piracy. Now that you're president, how about you do something worthwhile? Like affordable health insurance for members? Or having members boycott publishers who refuse to raise ebook royalties?

Piracy can't be stopped. And I don't believe it should be stopped. This belief is growing, and will continue to grow until laws are changed. And they will be.

You can't win when it runs contrary to what most people want.

And for the record, even though I shouldn't need to say this, anyone is welcome to repost this entire blog entry--and my entire blog for that matter--for free anywhere they'd like. 

Tend Your Garden

Your ebooks function much like a garden. 

One rare occassions, a plant will thrive with little help from you.

Others may whither and die no matter how much help you give them.

But the majority need to be constantly tended. Planted, watered, fertilized, weeded, pruned, mulched, replanted, harvested. In other words, lots of work.

Ebooks aren't a Mr. Popeill invention where you can set it and forget it. Quite the opposite. You need to pay attention, and keep active, or your garden won't thrive.

Everyone experiences slow downs in sales. It's inevitable, and it seems to be cyclical, but not in any sort of way I've been able to prodect. Sales seem to rise and fall for reasons unknown.

But if you're doing what you can to make your books discoverable, you have a better shot at sales than those authors who self-publish then self-ignore. 

Here are some tricks to tend to your garden.

1. Change prices. As an indie, this is one of the biggest advantages you have over the legacy industry. You decide what the customer pays, and this is powerful. Don't be afraid to weild that power by experimenting with prices, both lower and higher.

2. Newsletter. There is no excuse why you don't have a newsletter. People who sign up are actively looking for your titles. Make them aware a new title exists.

3. Sales. Unlike a change in price, a sale only lasts for a short time. KDP Countdown is what I'm currently using, because it offers 70% royalties when I drop the price. I've been pleased with my results.

4. Advertising. Bookbub and Booksends are the ones I use regularly. If you've had success with another company, list it in the comments.

5. Change cover art. The original cover you loved might not be that good. When all else fails, can't hurt to try something new. You can also try tweaking/adding to your description. 

6. Web presence. You should have a Facebook page, a Twitter account, and a website, and keep them updated. Don't spam people. Do what I do on this blog--I offer information and entertainment. You aren't trying to find people to sell books to. You're trying to reach people who are looking for books, and you do this by giving them information and entertainment, not a sales pitch. 

7. Multiple platforms. There is more out there than just Amazon. It can't hurt to see what's happening on Smashwords, Kobo, iTunes, and B&N.

8. Stop worrying about how other authors are doing. Their failure or success has no bearing on you, even if you are intentionally trying to ride coattails. You need to be concerned about your writing and your sales, not anyone else's. 

9. Experiment. Try things that seems silly or counter-productive. Take risks. Look at your own buying habits, and try to figure out what makes you spend your money. 

10. Share. Tell each other what's working and what isn't. The Internet is a hive mind, and we can all benefit from each other.

Ebooks are forever. What you write today can potentially earn money for your heirs in 2095. But only if readers know those books exist. This involves never-ending vigilance. 

Ultimately, you can't make readers find your books, or buy them. But you can make it as easy as possible for readers to discover them, and once they're seen you can make it easier for them feel strongly enough to make a purchase.

Which brings us to the last tip:

11. Stop complaining. Writing and self-publishing is your choice. No one is forcing you to do this. If you went into this business thinking it would be easy, you were wrong. It would be awesome if every ebook written became a huge bestseller, but only a small fraction will. You should be thinking about the long game--amassing a backlist ten years from now, and cultivating that backlist so it constantly has new eyeballs discovering it.

No one said it would be fair. Or easy. Or fun. No one owes you a living. No one cares about your art. If you want to be a writer in 2014, you have to learn a lot more skills than just how to write, and there are no guarantees. 

Keep your expectations low. Celebrate successes and learn from failures. Keep writing. Keep trying. 

If your writing good books, there is an audience out there, looking for you. Your next job is to help them find you.

Ug and Zug's One Stop Wheel Shop

In the year 3330BC...

After painstakingly hand-carving a wheel out of redwood--a process that took three months--longtime employee KOR rolls it over to his corporate masters, UG and ZUG, to show off his work.

KOR: Here it is, bosses! My best wheel yet! I've got blisters on my hands that are so big they look like strawberries, and I lost two fingernails. I also smashed my thumb with a mallet so hard the bones popped out of my skin. But it's worth it, don't you think?

ZUG: Nice work, Kor. It's a beautiful wheel. You can roll it over to the Finishing Department, and they'll give you some detailed notes on how you can make it even better. Should only take you a few more weeks.

UG: In the meantime, get those blisters looked at. They seem to be infected.

KOR: I will. Thank you for nurturing me. I do have... um... a question, though.

ZUG: Yes, Kor? You know we're here for you.

UG: We truly do value the work you do for us. You've created many wheels for Ug and Zug's One Stop Wheel Shop, and we've sold every last one.

KOR: Yeah, you have. That's the thing. You see, I just spent ninety moons working on this wheel. Working hard. It doesn't seem fair to me that when you sell it, I only get 25% of the wholesale price. That only comes out to 12% or so of the selling price.

ZUG: But that's what we've always given you, Kor.

KOR: I know. It's just... well... I see some other wheelmakers, indepentdent wheelmakers, who are selling wheels on their own. And they earn 70% of the selling price.

ZUG and UG frown.

UG: I'm afraid we can't pay you more, Kor. The margins are too slim.

KOR: But I've heard you bragging about how you keep breaking sales records, year after year. Your profits are larger than ever.

ZUG: That may be so, but the wheel business has plateaued.

KOR: What do you mean?

UG: He means the tremendous growth we've seen in our market over the past few years is slowing down.

KOR: But it's still growing, isn't it?

ZUG: Yes. But not as quickly.

KOR: I don't believe that. More people are buying wheels than ever before. Just look.

KOR spreads out his hands, indicating the valley below. A valley heavily populated with indiginous peoples, all using wheels.

KOR: They all have wheels. Carts, wagons, baby buggies--that guy has a Humvee with wooden rims. And at least half of those wheels aren't Ug and Zug wheels. Those wheels were sold by the indie wheelmakers, not by middlemen.

ZUG: Where? I don't see anything.

UG: Me, neither.

KOR: But it's right in front of your eyes! Wheel sales aren't leveling off across the board. They're just leveling off for you.

UG: Sales are leveling off because the market has reached its saturation point.

KOR: I think the market is growing, but you're just getting a smaller piece of it because more and more customers are buying wheels from the wheelmakers. You're in denial.

ZUG: Unheard of.

UG: Outrageous.

ZUG: We've had record profits the last five years. How can we be in denial?

KOR: Why don't you share some of those profits with your wheelmakers?

UG: Saturation point. Remember?

KOR: Look, I make the wheels. Not you. I see many of your former employees selling wheels on their own, without you, and making more money than they ever did working for you.

ZUG: But who nurtures them?

UG: Exactly! Didn't I tell you to get your hands looked at because they're probably infected? That's what you get from working your fingers to the bone.

KOR: But I do it to make a living.

UG: Living, schmiving. You're an artist, Kor. Artists aren't supposed to make a living from their art. They're supposed to struggle and suffer. Besides, you artsy types don't understand the business end of things like we do. Let us handle the dollars and cents. You just worry about making those nice wheels.

KOR: Can either of you explain to me why I should continue to work for you?

ZUG: Easy. The prestige. All of the wheels you create have Ug & Zug carved on them.

KOR: I don't think wheel buyers notice that. Or care.

ZUG: We provide you with your hammer and chisel.

KOR: I can buy those for myself.

UG: What about all the benfits we give you?

KOR: You don't provide any benefits at all. And you only pay me twice a year.

ZUG: We have better distribution than you do.

KOR: Actually, I can reach as many customers with my wheels as you do with yours. See?

KOR takes the wheel he just made and rolls it down the hill.

KOR: And I can get them to market faster, control the price myself, and make much more money per unit sold.

ZUG: So go ahead and leave. There are a thousand wheelmakers willing to take your place.

KOR: Maybe. But for how long? It worked in the past, because you had a monopoly. You don't anymore. There is an entire generation of wheelmakers who won't ever consider working for you because they see no upside.

UG: Look, we know what we're doing. Not only that, there are experts out there who have analyzed our situation and agree with us.

KOR: Who pays those experts?

UG: Excuse me?

KOR: Do you pay them for their analysis and advice?

ZUG: Of course. All experts get paid for their advice.

KOR: A lot of independent wheelmakers have blogs. They don't charge for their advice.

UG: There's a reason for that. They're full of shit and have hidden agendas.

KOR: What hidden agendas?

UG: Impossible to say. Because they're hidden.

KOR: They're sharing their wheelmaking experience with others. Sharing numbers and analysing data.

ZUG: Outliers. Or just plain old liars.

UG: We prefer to hear from the professional experts. The ones who get paid. Who tell us they're experts.

KOR: You don't think that skews the results a little? That perhaps you're paying for what you want to hear? Couldn't the expert be spinning things of sugar-coating them because he relies on you for his livelihood?

UG: Impossible. Our experts have years--hell generations--of publishing experience.

KOR: And what if these experts told you you're going to go out of business unless you immediately triple what you pay your wheelmakers?

ZUG: Then we'd act immediately.

UG: Agreed. By the end of the business day, we'd have found a new expert.

KOR: Look, I've just shown you that reaching customers on my own is as simple as rolling a wheel down a hill. I don't need you. But you need me. And I'm not going to make wheels for you anyore because I can do better on my own. Goodbye.

KOR walks down into the vallet as UG and ZUG watch.

UG: Did something just happen?

ZUG: No. I didn't notice anything.

UG: Me, neither.

ZUG: Want to go count our profits for this quarter?

UG: Sure. Then let's give ourselves bonuses.

ZUG: Now that's innovative thinking! Should we check with some industry experts first?

UG: Why? Wheelmakers Weekly said sales have leveled off. What other confirmation do we need?

ZUG: Good point. Lunch is on me.

UG: That's generous of you.

ZUG: Expense account. We'll charge it to the company. What else are we supposed to do with all this extra money we're making?

UG and ZUG stroll down into the valley, completely oblivious to all of the wheels around them that they had no part in selling.

The End

COMING VERY SOON: Ug and Zug Post Their Resumes on Monster.com

Suffering Fools

Are you a writer?

Do you leave comments on forums, blogs, and/or social networks?

If either or both apply to you, you've probably encountered pinheads before.

Perhaps they left you a snotty book review. Maybe they attacked you instead of your book. Maybe they didn't even read the book.

Perhaps they trolled your blog, or tried to engage you in a flame war in a forum, or misquoted you or lied about you.

If so, welcome to the Internet, where people write things they'd never say to your face, and anonymity makes the weakest coward brave and full of themself.

There is a simple, yet effective, way to deal with pinheads:

Ignore them.

You shouldn't Google yourself, or read your reviews, or seek out what others are saying about you, good or bad. None of it matters. The only people that matter are those in your inner circle. The rest of the world has no power over you unless you allow it.

Don't allow it. There will always be negative people. There will always be trolls. There will always be pinheads. It isn't your job to deal with them. They aren't worth your time.

Ignore them.

If you don't have people who disagree with you, dislike you, and want you to fail, you aren't living up to your potential.

Q: But Joe, someone just gave me a one star review for no reason at all.

A: Ignore them.

Q: But I only have a few reviews, and that blew my four star average.

A: If it is against the site's rules, report the review. But you'd be better off not reading your reviews in the first place. Readers aren't stupid. They can sniff out hateful one-star reviews the same way they can sniff out phony five-star reviews.

Q: What if the review misrepresents the book? Should I reply?

A: In 99.99% of circumstances, you shouldn't reply to a review. On a very rare occassion (like this one) you can add a comment. But always be gracious, and keep your tone respectful.

Q: But what if someone really hurt my feelings? What should I do?

A: Have a beer and talk to your best friend. But don't respond to the pinhead.

Q: Don't you respond to pinheads on your blog?

A: I control my blog, and I don't mind being trolled. But if things get out of hand, I kick people out and delete their comments. The only place you'll have similar power is on your own blog. Everywhere else on the Internet, you should ignore them.

Q: You said to ignore them, but you just admitted that sometimes you don't ignore them.

A: There aren't many absolutes in life. There will usually be exceptions. But overall your best bet is to leave the tools in the toolbox. Don't engage. Don't respond. Ignore them.

Q: But this pinhead/review/comment is hurting my sales. How can I ignore that?

A: If you're writing good books, one person/review/comment won't hurt your sales. A hundred people/reviews/comments won't hurt your sales.

Q: But I'm being systematically targeted by a cadre of haters who stalk me 24/7.

A: In very, very, very rare cases, you can involve the authorities. But my guess is you're just being overly touchy. The baddest of the bad people on the Internet thrive on provoking responses. If you don't respond, you take away their power.

Q: What if other people see those lies about me? Shouldn't I reply?

A: No. And give people some credit. Do you ever Google someone, find something negative someone said about them, and assume that's all there is to know? Or do you research further?

EVERY celebrity has haters. EVERY author has one star reviews. You aren't being persecuted. Don't take it personally, because you're not that special. You're just one of billions of Internet users who have been trolled. Welcome to the human race.

Q: But what about intelligent discourse? Do I need to avoid all debate?

A: Debate those who debate respectfully. Ignore those who don't.

Q: Why are there so many pinheads on the Internet?

A: Human beings have a desire for control. It's genetic. For some, the need for control extends beyond self. Some people with certain personality disorders (sociopaths, grandiose narcissists, those with low self-esteem and/or small penises) need to control others in order to feel good about themselves. One way to control someone is to tweak their emotional response.

That's why you shouldn't engage. If you don't like what someone says, the greatest gift you can give that pinhead is to react.

Ignore them. Write that on a Post-It note if you have to and stick it to your monitor.

No one else cares if people are saying shit about you. The only one who cares is you. You need to pay more attention to your writing, and no attention to the pinheads.

Now turn off Google Alerts and get back to work.

Letter from a Literary Agent

I found this in my inbox yesterday:

Joe,

First off, thank you. I've been struggling with a lot of aspects of working "inside" the publishing industry lately. I found your blog following a link trail one day last week. I sat down and promptly started reading from 2009 (when you dove into self-publishing) until present. You make a ton of sense.

Unfortunately, you didn't do anything to make me feel better about my current position (although, that's not your job). I've been struggling with my role as an advocate for authors. I have been working on one contract now for almost four months. I keep going back to fight for my client and each round feels like I'm getting both closer and farther away from an agreement that will make either one of us any money. I work mainly with small presses that offer better terms that the large houses, but even those terms feel unfair to my clients.

The challenge comes in continuing to seek out contracts for my clients when I keep doubting that it is the best path for them. At the same time, I know many of my clients have no desire to self-publish. They don't want to mess with the back-end aspects, even if that costs them money in the long term. Will they change their minds after a few contracts have run their course? Maybe, but only time will tell.

I love your estribution model, but I don't think it's feasible for me. Neither I nor my agency have the kind of liquid capital to invest heavily in multiple clients when it comes to things such as editing, cover art, etc. I want to help my clients, but I don't personally have the money to invest in their careers. What I do have is time, skills and a deep desire to give my clients the best chance at success.

You have so many great ideas about publishing and I admire the way you innovate. I'm wondering if you have thought of any other models, similar to estribution, that would allow me to help a client who is hesitant to self-publish without tying up money I don't have. I want to do what's right by my clients, but right now any path feels like a loss when I know they don't want to self-pub, but are unlikely to be happy in the years to come with most traditional deals.

I know you get a metric ton of email, so I understand if you can't answer this. If you decide to address this topic on your blog, I just ask that you keep me anonymous. I do plan to discuss this with the owner of my agency, but don't want to blindside her. I appreciate your understanding.

Joe sez: I've said before that no one owes you a living. That goes for agents as well as authors.

In the past, agents filled an essential role in the legacy publishing industry. If you convinced a good literary agent to represent you, it improved your odds at getting your book read by a publisher, and consequently improved your odds at getting published.

I couldn't have gotten pubbed without my agent. And besides helping me land my legacy contracts, she has also fought to improve their terms, and sold dozens of subsidiary rights (audio, foreign, movie).

Since I began to self-pub, my agent has helped me in an estributor capacity, especially when it comes to my collaborations. I find the percentage she recieves is well worth the work and monetary investment she puts in.

But how about agents, like the one who sent me the above email, who want to work with authors but can't invest money in cover art and formatting?

I have some advice. And the advice is the same as it is for authors who don't want to self-publish:

Find another line of work.

I'm not trying to be flippant, or harsh. I'm being entirely realistic. Allow me to use some analogies.

"I want to be a mechanic, but don't want to learn how to work on engines."

I suppose you could limit yourself to just brakes, or transmissions, but you won't be able to find work as easily, and you're missing out on a big part of what the title mechanic means.

"I want my art to hang in museums, but don't know how to get it in there."

Before you create a key, study the lock. Working on something and expecting the world to embrace it doesn't happen too often.

"I want to be a surgeon, but am afraid of the sight of blood."

Maybe you can become a tree surgeon.

"I want to play poker for a living, but not with my money."

No one is going to stake you until you prove yourself. And once you prove yourself, you probably won't need anyone to stake you.

"I want to manufacture wagon wheels, but there isn't a market for them anymore."

You can still make all the wagon wheels you want to. Just don't expect to sell any.

"I want to be a contract lawyer, but my contracts are never accepted by either negotiating party."

Sounds like you won't get a lot of business.

My point is that the roles of writers, and agents, have changed. The industry has changed. Expectations have changed. What was once the norm is now the exception. 

Writers, and agents, if they want to thrive (or even survive) have to develop new skills, take on new responsibilities, and take different chances.

This means learning about the current state of the industry, doing things outside your comfort zone, and ponying up a few bucks.

I expect contract negotiations with publishers to get even harder as more and more publishers become aware that they aren't needed. Since there continue to be writers who insist on going the legacy route, publishers will make those writers pay. 

Consider the taxi cab. There are many alternatives to getting around town, and all of them are cheaper. Yet cabs can command a premium, because they provide a service for those who want it. Just like publishers.

You can't negotiate with a cab driver for a lower fare.

Consider textbooks. As a student, you're forced to pay $200 for a single book. The publishers know this, and they price accordingly. The school bookstores also know this, and they make used books almost as expensive as new books. They gouge. It's human nature. If you can get more for something, you will.

Publishing, as of April 2014, is a market still controlled by publishers. They can set the terms, because there are still plenty of eager authors willing to give up 70% royalties and rights forever. When more authors catch on that signing a legacy deal isn't in their best interests, publishers will begin to leverage everything they can from those who remain.

One might think the opposite will happen: that publishers will try to lure authors to them with better terms.

I don't see that happening. Profit margins are already too thin, and while the Big 5 keep posting record sales figures thanks to ebooks, the trend won't last forever. As paper sales dwindle and their monopoly on distribution ends, and more and more authors leave legacy to self-pub, publishers will squeeze the suppliers (authors) they still have. Right now advances are shrinking, some acquisitions aren't even getting paper releases, and print runs are down. When belts begin to tighten, the last thing publishers will do is offer authors more of the pie. Like starving dogs, the Big 5 will viciously fight over the scraps that remain.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe publishers will start treating authors fairly, and become more open to negotiation with agents. And then Satan and I will go ice-skating in hell.

There are only two essential groups in the reader/writer relationship: readers and writers. Everyone else is a middleman who has to prove their value.

Some writers don't want to self-publish, so there will be some agents and some publishers who can assist them for a piece of the pie. But as more and more writers learn how easy it is to reach readers, I see those who pursue careers as agents, or those who work in the publishing industry, becoming a niche.

Unless publishers and agents offer authors something they really want, at a cost authors are willing to pay, we're going to see their numbers dwindle.

If you are an author who doesn't want to get your hands dirty by self-publishing, your choices are going to be limited. If you are an agent who can't assist writers by becoming an estributor, your choices are going to be limited. 

It doesn't have anything to do with what's fair. Or how things used to be. Or what authors and agents want.

It has everything to do with how readers are finding books to read.

If you want to be a part of the reader/writer business transaction, there is no magic bullet or formula or business model that I'm aware of which doesn't involve either legacy publishing or estribution. If you want to work with authors, you have to give authors something they want.

It would be great if we could shape the world into what we want it to be, but mostly we have to figure out how to work with how things are.

Latham Conger and Kickstarter

I met Latham Conger in fourth grade. We were plucked out of our respective classes to attend a two year program in another school called Special Opportunities. 

And no, it wasn't because we were disfunctional. It was a gifted program for supposedly smart kids, and we were taught by two teachers for two years in the same classroom. No grades, just written report cards. We were encouraged to explore our minds, both academically and creatively. Sort of a Montessori set-up, within the public school system.

Being with the same group of kids for two years was interesting. I made two lifelong friends during that time (Latham and my friend Jim), and have stronger memories of 5th and 6th grade than I do of any other school year.

Both Latham and I wound up going to the same junior high, high school, and college. We both wanted to be filmmakers.

I went to Hollywood after graduation with a few terrible spec scripts and tried to find an agent. I couldn't. When I came back home, I was pretty disheartened, and turned my attention to fiction writing. Over the next ten years I wrote ten novels, got hundreds of rejections, and finally sold my Jack Daniels series. 

Latham did some video projects on the side while working in fields he didn't like, same as I did while trying to get published.

Life marched on with all its spoils and tragedies. Births and marriages, firings and hirings, children and buying houses. We stayed friends, saw each other when we could, he shot my wedding on video, I shot his, and two years ago when I had the ridiculous idea to go on a beer diet, I hired Latham to film me for 30 days around the clock. 

One day we'll cut that movie together, and it'll be entertaining. Some YouTube vids are in the sidebar of this blog.

After the beer diet ended, Latham decided it was time to make the movie he always wanted to make. He wrote a damn good script, got the talent together, and for the past two years has been neck-deep in fulfilling his potential. Now he's in the final stage, doing the edit and sound mix, and he needs a few more hundred dollars to be able to finish.

So he began a Kickstarter campaign. You can hear Latham talk about his movie, and donate some money to support his cause, here.

Joe: Hi, Latham. Good to finally talk to you about your film project. How's it going?

Lay: Thanks, Joe. It's a lot of work, but going well. I never dreamed this would expand into the project it has, but it's going to end up being really unique when it's finished.

Joe: Tell us about your film, The Gordian Knot. How did the project get started?

Lay: The Gordian Knot is my first independent film. I began writing the screenplay in March of 2012, finishing it that summer. We cast the film in August of 2012, and began shooting it in and around the Palatine area in September. What was supposed to be a two and a half month shoot ended up taking much longer. Since the movie takes place primarily in the fall, we needed to finish the outdoor shots before the snow came. That didn't happen! We waitied until spring of 2013 to continue, and then finished primary shooting in June of that year. Or so we thought! Reshoots were necessary in the fall of 2013 again, and then we finally finished principal photography in October.

Joe: And now you are in post-production?

Lay: Yes. I began editing in November and have been at it ever since. We just finished the visual rough cut a few weeks ago, and are now getting ready to mix in all the sound and music. My co-editor is fantastic, and has really upped the ante with the film, as he is able to do things I never would have figured out. Aside from that, there's all kind of promotional things we are preparing, as our Kickstarter campaign attests to.

Joe: I've always wanted to make an independent movie, but watching you for the past two years, it seems like a great deal of work.

Lay: It is. The reason it is taking longer than expected is because of my three producers. They're very easy to work with... because they all quit over a year ago. I've had to handle nearly every aspect of the production myself, and it has been exhausting. Rewarding, but exhausting.

Joe: Tell us about the story. I know there's some unique aspects I haven't seen portrayed in any recent films, including a popular hobby that I know a lot of others are interested in.

Lay: The Gordian Knot is about "The Game". The Game is a contest that moves around the United States, popping up in a different location every few months, offering a ten thousand dollar prize to the winner each time. The Game's popularity has grown on the internet, but it's still hasn't reached a high level of popularity.

Fifteen people are picked to play in "The Game" by the powers that run it. You can apply online, but it's a mystery what criteria they use to pick anyone to be in it.

Joe: How does one play "The Game" ?

Lay: The game involves two aspects: The first is the hobby known as geocaching, where you use a global positioning unit to find hidden objects on planet Earth. During the time the game is played, each participant is required to search for these "caches" after solving certain puzzles provided by the game masters. The more geocache points you find, the further you can move along in the game. That's just the first part of what you do to play, though.

The second part of the game involves stalking and "eliminating" other players you are competing against. When the game begins, everyone receives a device that signifies they are playing the game, a bracelet which attaches to the wrist. If the bracelet ever comes off once the game has begun, you are eliminated from the competition. Of course, there are certain "factors" that must be in place for you to eliminate anybody, and you learn about those early in the film.

Joe: It sounds like The Hunger Games, but without the death.

Lay: It definitely owes a lot to the "Ten Little Indians" suspense device, where you are introduced to a bunch of different characters and are left to figure out which one is going to remain in the end, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. The Game itself is the framework for the story, but it goes much deeper than that.

Joe: Can you tell us more without revealing too many spoilers?

Lay: Just a little! Our main character, one of the players in this particular game in Palatine, has come to town for a completely different reason. He's looking for something, and he has a very good reason why he won't quit until he finds it. While the game unfolds, we learn about what he is trying to do, and why. It's a slow reveal, and creates the main suspense arc of the film. From there things get...strange.

Joe: When you say strange...

Lay: The movie moves in a unique direction once the game approaches its climax. Something else that needs to be resolved becomes as important as who's going to win the game. And then there's the ending, which will make you think and wonder like very few films have done before.

Joe: When you first told me about it, we had a discussion about films needing to be complete and have all of the story elements and characxter arcs wrapped up by the ending, but you disagreed.

Lay: Yeah, I didn't agree. The Empire Strikes Back is universally accepted as the best Star Wars movie, but it literally has no ending. Slice-of-life films sometimes end with the main character just continuing on, perhaps changing, but not finding a particular resolution that the audience was hoping for. Some other movies never make sense, even when the director's is asked to explain them later!

The Gordian Knot is unique in that it has a challenging ending, but there are clues left throughout the film for astute film watchers to figure out what exactly happened. There is a real solution, and a true explanation.

Joe: You make it sound like the movie is a game itself? Is that what you're going for here?

Lay: That's exactly what I'm going for. I wanted to make the ultimate "puzzle movie". I wanted to make a film that needed to be "solved", and to be explored multiple times. There are many things hidden in the movie itself, in lots of different and unique ways, and it's up to the viewer to find them and piece them together. I don't want to reveal any of them yet, but plenty of these secrets are visually right in front of you as you watch The Gordian Knot.

Joe: What made you want to make a film like this? Did something inspire you?

Lay: David Lynch is one of my favorite directors. His influence is a healthy part of The Gordian Knot, but I've always had one beef with him. He makes these strange movies whose stories are hard to follow. They draw me and really interest me. In the end, though, there's no payoff. Film discussion groups will try and figure out what he was trying to say, but no one can fully agree. A lot of filmmakers like it that way: they want their vision to be interpreted in multiple ways, and some of the greatest films of all time work better that way.

I wanted to make a film like that, but I wanted it to have a real solution. An answer. Something that you can read about later and check to make sure it follows with the story on screen. I wanted to make people think and wonder what the hell happened, and then reward them later by explaining exactly what did.

As far as other influences, I'd list two: Lars Von Trier is another director whose work I admire, and I like the way he splits his movies between gorgeous cinematic vistas and personal handheld characters. The Gordian Knot plays like one of his films, especially visually. The other unique influence for this film is GAMES magazine, which I've been reading since the late seventies. I'm a big fan of puzzles in general, and some of the things hidden in the movie are inspired by ones I've solved in that magazine.

Joe: What's going on with your Kickstarter campaign?

Lay: The movie is almost finished, and we are trying to raise funds to pay for the final editing, colorizing, recording of music and dialogue, and resources to distribute the film. We are really close to our goal, but only have a few days left to hit it. If things go well and we attain the goal on Kickstarter, we're looking at finishing the movie by late May or sometime in June.

Joe: Do you have a link we can put up if people are interested in donating to the film?

Lay: Sure:  https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/976689001/the-gordian-knot

We also have a Facebook page for the film: https://www.facebook.com/gordianknotmovie?ref=hl

Joe: Anything else you want to add?

Lay: Only that I'm so excited to finish this project and let everyone see it. It's grown in length and scope since we started, and I'm really proud of the complicated story and how it all fits together.

There's a science-fiction film called Primer that came out in 2004. It's one of my favorite films of all-time, and one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made. It's 75 minutes long. It's utterly minimalistic in its approach, but it tells a whopper of a story. When it ends, you immediately want to watch it again and "figure it out".

The Gordian Knot is similar to Primer, but longer and more involved. When it ends, if I've reeled you in correctly, you're going to want to go back and search for a lot of things to solve the puzzle. Or should I say...puzzles.

Joe: This sounds, if I may say so, like a breath of fresh air in a time where movies are all about superheroes and teen vampires.

Lay: Get ready to inhale!

Joe sez: Help support a fellow artist and donate a few bucks to the campaign. I did. You should too. 

Guest Post by Dale T. Phillips and Vlad V.

Giving Our Way to Success- by Dale T. Phillips and Vlad V.

Giving comes back around. Tess Gerritsen sparked the giving circle with so much of her time, energy, and money to aid Alzheimer's research – so it's nice that I got to thank her in person at Bouchercon, the world mystery conference.

On this site, Joe upped the ante with his guest post offer, raising even more funds – while helping writers at the same time – so we’d like to say “thank you” for this opportunity. We've been reading this blog and others like it for years, and a big part of our going Indie is due to pioneers like Joe – many of which you'll see mentioned on this blog from time to time. People like Dean Wesley Smith, Kristine Kathryn Rusch, David Gaughran, Laura Resnick, Bob Mayer, Joanna Penn, Vincent Zandri, Jude Hardin and Russell Blake have shared their journeys and experiences, and it's helped us to find our own paths in the new world of publishing. These folks and others, like Jane Friedman and The Passive Guy, offer incredibly useful advice to Indies for free. It's a lovely cooperative world.

Vlad V. and I are serious about our long-term writing careers, and we’ve found outstanding value in cooperation. For us, giving is the new way to achieve success.

As writers, we all give our stories to the world. We have to – without the sharing, we're nothing. Sure, we hope for some sort of return, some acknowledgment that what we present has value to others, and though we aspire to take care of our families while writing full-time, many of us would keep telling and sharing stories if we never saw another dime from it.

But the Indie writing life can be isolating and sometimes depressing, especially when you’re struggling with sales, or when your manuscript just isn’t turning out the way you’d like it to. Collaborating can be the solution to keeping your Indie fire stoked and white-hot. By working together for mutual advantage, we’ve made more traction in the last two years than we did in all the time of going solo and through traditional avenues. We had heard time and again about the value of collaboration, but it wasn’t until a few of us began our own informal group that the advantages really started to emerge.

Sharing With Others Can Save You Money

Indies should be frugal, and many (like us) are striving for success on shoestring budgets. Collaborating can help you avoid financial mistakes, such as overpaying for cover design. One author at a show was brandishing his “great” book cover that he'd paid “only” $2000 for (think Barry Eisler’s infamous “Green Garage Door” cover). Had he used one of our cover artists, he'd have got his cover – or a better one – at a quarter of the price.

Another big expense is editing. Working with other writers allows us to reduce the number of for-pay editing rounds we go through before a manuscript is publication-ready. While we still use professional editors in the final stages, we weed out many of the weaknesses in our early drafts, and thus minimize our financial outlay later on.

There are caveats here, however. First, be willing to give. When a collaborator sends you a manuscript, do your absolute best to find ways to improve it, because when another writer sees how much you care about theirsuccess, they care more about your success. It’s a two-way street.

Second, work with writers who are equal or more advanced than you are in some aspect(s) of the craft, because that’s how you get better. For example, Vlad is great at writing dialogue, while Dale’s pacing is meteoric, and we’ve both learned from one another in a variety of other ways. Your local writing group might be a good place to start, but only if they're up to par. That’s a subjective decision you’ll have to make for yourself – but you can always start your own group and be picky about who you choose to work with. Maybe only the cream of the crop in your local (or online) writer’s group would be interested in joining a more serious collaborative. There is often a correlation between a writer’s knowledge of the craft and how seriously you should take their opinion, so surround yourself with the best writers you can find who want it just as badly as you do, and who are passionate about their work. Their skills are likely to rub off on you, and vice-versa.

Third, be honest. Many writing groups are too soft, and mere flattery doesn’t help a professionally-oriented writer. This is a tough business that requires a thick skin, so don’t be afraid to take off the gloves, provided your insights are constructive and will improve the work. In our group, we tend to give short summations of what we like about a piece in 2-3 sentences, followed by an in-depth analysis of its weaknesses, which may go on for many pages. Blunt honesty is abundant, and while it might be hard to accept, we try not to take it too personally, because the feedback invariably improves the work.

Diversification helps, too, so collaborate with a variety of writers. Don’t limit your group to one genre. Vlad has a pair of horror publications out, and his latest, The Button, is Science Fiction. Later this year, he'll release his books for kids. Dale has a mystery series, a horror thriller, and story collections in a number of different genres. Exposure to other genres expands the skill sets and techniques available to you as an artist. For example, can your Action-Thriller featuring John Q. Mightystrong be given more depth with an intricate backstory, not unlike what you found in My Lesbian Breasts, Jane’s character-based women’s novel about two lovers suffocated by the social stigmas of the Deep South in the 1820s? Perhaps John Q. Mightystrong will be strengthened as a character.

Hemingway once said, “We are all apprentices in a craft where no one ever becomes a master,” so it behooves all writers to expose themselves to as many skill sets as they can, as often as they can.

Cross-promotion

We’ve found that cross-promotion can help build more buzz for author events. Are readers going to flock to a local bookstore to meet a single author they might not have heard of? Probably not, but they may come for half a dozen or more. Collaboration can extend your reach to readers and other industry players that you might not have had access to when you’re doing all this solo.

When we find a new opportunity, we let the others know about it, too. Many have scored new interviews, bookstore appearances, reviewers, and signing opportunities we may not have heard about otherwise.

Want to work with groups of people who will help get the word out about your works? Use libraries, who are having a tough time in the modern book world. Joe's developing a program to get quality self-pub and Indie e-books into more libraries, a great thing. Dale connected with librarians while signing books at the Boston Book Fair, and was told how big publishers are screwing libraries with higher fees and more restrictions. So he offered his e-books to them for free, and 8 of his releases are now in a statewide pilot program, available in over 50 libraries. That's over 400 more chances for someone to find his work! And because of a comment on this blog, Dale contacted the Douglas County Library System, part of Joe's program, and has been accepted there as well. And where he gets in, he helps others of quality to do the same…

A great way to cross-promote is to write for charity. Dale gave a story to Nightfalls, a charity anthology edited by Katherine Tomlinson, which got him more connections and exposure. Using that idea, we're working with a local charity to produce a book of stories from a handful of local writers, of which all proceeds will benefit the charity. They'll promote us through a mailing list of 10,000+, as well as through their website and at live fundraising events, and we'll get people checking out our work, while supporting a great cause. Win-win, through collaboration!

We'll try anything to see if it helps. Giveaway bags are something we've done at a couple of big signings. Instead of simple flyers and business cards that end up in the recycling bin, we up the ante. Interested readers who stop by and chat get a bag of various goodies: candy, a free book or two, an inexpensive booklight, whatever. Hey, they do it at trade shows. We've had a number of delighted recipients, who tell others, and since our marketing info is built right in, it’s led to repeat readers. Get a few writers each tossing in a treat, and you can get folks at a big show buzzing about your table. Not something you'll want to do every time, but a fun way of getting people to know your name and check you out.

Big publishers pay a lot of money to distribute ARCs in the hope of reviews, but as Indies, we do giveaways of e-books. The small press that published Dale's first mystery novel put it up as a giveaway e-book for a few months, long after its debut. With almost no promotion, over 3400 new people downloaded it, and even though many are Kindle-stuffing, he’s bound to get some new readers from those, who will go on to buy his other works... But imagine the horror from a big publisher if you were to give away thousands of copies!

Even print can cost so little now for short works that it can be used for giveaways as well. By combining efforts with other authors, you can extend your promotional reach to a wider variety of readers.

Cross-selling

We’ve also found that cross-promotion naturally leads to cross-selling, which has been a boon for us at live events. When a reader approaches us, and we don’t have what they’re looking for, we send them on to someone who does. We’ve seen more than one author push their book on a customer based on what the customer said they liked … even though that book had nothing to do with the customer's preference. It makes us cringe, because at the end of the day, it’s better to give readers what they want, rather than deceiving them into a sale. At best, they’ll never come back to your brand, and at worst, they’ll bad-mouth your work to others.

Our host Joe does few public events anymore, but we’ve found that these live events have been more productive for us than online ventures, at least so far, because our fan base is still growing. We prefer the personal connections and have enjoyed the book shows and signings, where we can talk to new readers and get more people interested in our work. We’ve been building our fan base and list of email contacts one person at a time.

Forced Improvement

There are few things as satisfying to a writer as seeing his or her book in print after working so hard to bring a story from idea to publication, and the urge to hit the ‘publish’ button can be overwhelming. Collaboration can keep you from pulling the trigger too early.

After you’ve found your circle of collaborators and have begun to trust their judgment, hear them out. Both A Shadow on the Wall by Dale and The Button by Vlad were delayed by several months, because they needed concentrated work to make them much more than just good enough. But try telling a major publishing house you're not delivering on schedule, because you've got to kick the quality up a few more notches. They'd rather have the next-quarter profits, not the long-term book quality.

Baby Steps

Self-publishing isn’t a sprint, or even a marathon. It’s a long, lonely, cross-country journey (think Lord of the Rings) with fifty pounds of gear on your back, and perils all around. Collaboration makes the highs and lows of such a long journey bearable, and yes, even enjoyable. Writing is, after all, a manic endeavor, so when you can see the mountaintop, but all you’re able to do is go another few feet up the slope, know that it's okay, because you’re making progress.

Collaboration helps us understand what works and what doesn’t work for other writers, so we can refine our own methods. Some writers can write 2,000 words a day, every day, 365 days a year. The rest of us have busy lives with day jobs, family, school, and whatever else might pop up. There’s a ton of writing advice out there, the Do’s and Don'ts from the greats, right down to your dear Aunt Betty. Writing every day is a big one. Can you write every day? Maybe not, but what you can do is further your career right now by taking baby steps that will help you eventually reach the mountaintop. Instead of berating yourself for missing a deadline, or feeling overwhelmed because you’re falling behind on your blog, focus on what you can do to further your career at this very moment.

Reading, keeping tabs on the industry, writing, tweeting your brand, scribbling notes, editing – they are all necessary to get you where you want to go. Yes, by all means, familiarize yourself with the “rules” of writing, but don’t be afraid to tailor them to your lifestyle, and discard the ones that are impractical for you.

Wrapup and Pitch

We're the pilots, not the passengers, in this new world of publishing, and we get to say where the plane is going. By continuing to write, publish and collaborate, someday we'll move up to Abundant Airlines. Joe has talked about mastering your fate in his collaboration with Barry Eisler, Be the Monkey. We're following their lead. Work with others, folks. Big publishing is about competition, but self-publishing is about cooperation and collaboration.

So you want to know what we're offering to share with you, right?

Check out Dale's horror thriller, Shadow of the Wendigo,

or the story collections listed on his website: www.daletphillips.com.

Drop him an email (daletphillips@comcast.net), tell him which book you want, and he'll send you a code for a free copy on any e-book platform (via Smashwords.com).

Or if you'd rather have a good action mystery, try his first one, A Memory of Grief, dropped to 1.99 on Kindle.

Vlad is offering The Button, his brand-new Sci-fi/Thriller, free to readers here for the entire month of April on any e-book platform.

Visit this Smashwords page: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/425039

and purchase The Button using coupon code: GS83H

Thank you for reading!

Sincerely,

Dale T. Phillips – www.daletphillips.com

Vlad V. - www.TheVlad.net