In this exciting post, I will argue why I think the term “bestseller” no longer has any meaning.
Long ago, in a much simpler publishing world, describing a book as a bestseller actually meant something. Specifically, it implied that the book had been listed as one of the top-selling books by a respected publication, such as The New York Times. The ranking was typically based on sales for a one-week period, and there were only a small number of very broad categories, e.g. “fiction”. These books were often featured prominently in bookstores. Actually, they still might be, but who goes to a bookstore these days?
Now consider the following: An author writes a novel and self-publishes it as an ebook on Amazon (or some other similar site). The author runs a promotion in which the book is free for a few days, and they advertise the living hell out of it. Lots and lots of people “buy” the book, and for a brief period it ranks in the top ten of its incredibly narrow and highly-specific category, for example “coming of age, zombie techno-westerns”. (Okay, I just made that up.) From then on, the author proudly brags to anyone that will listen that their novel is a bestseller, and even adds that claim to the cover. Woohoo!
I wish that the previous paragraph was fiction, but sadly it’s not. There are an incredible number of people that no one has ever heard of now claiming to be “bestselling authors”. They’re everywhere. There are even businesses that guarantee to make your book a bestseller, and measure their success as described above. It’s actually rather sad if you think about it. It would be far better to write a book that actually sells well based on its merits.
In conclusion, the term “bestseller” has now been abused to the point that it’s practically meaningless.
Stay tuned for a future post in which I explain why an award your book received from a six-month old website run by your cousin out of his parents’ basement should not be plastered all over the cover and included in the blurb. 🙂
I am currently making another pass through my book, Audrey of Farmerton, preparatory to offering a paperback version. Despite the best efforts of both myself and my beta readers, I am still finding typos and minor mistakes. It appears that no amount of copyediting will ever find all of the mistakes. The good news is that when I am done, I can update the ebook version, and the new version will be automatically pushed out. You can’t do that with printed books.
It is my contention that there simply aren’t that many decent editors left out there. These days, even books by popular authors are published with obvious typos and grammar errors. Last year, I read a science fiction novel that had won major awards despite having significant plot holes and the author not really understanding how to use commas. The editor was either incompetent, or was too rushed to do a good job.
The advent of easy self-publishing is probably to blame for the current situation. The publishing industry in general has dealt poorly with emerging technologies. That has led to cutbacks, including editorial staff. And when cutting staff, it is invariably the most experienced (and best paid) people that are let go.
What makes a good editor? They obviously need to have a good knowledge of the English language (or whatever language they are editing). This includes both spelling and grammar. But they also need to understand composition. They need to be able to judge if sentences are properly grouped into paragraphs, paragraphs into scenes, and scenes into chapters. They also need to understand what they are reading, otherwise they will be unable to spot larger issues such as plotting and pacing. To be perfectly honest, a good editor first needs to be a good writer. But a good writer isn’t likely to be interested in editing the works of someone else unless they’re a close friend or relative. A good writer would rather be writing.
I can’t offer any magical solution. For now, I’ll just rely on my own editing skills, resigned to the fact that the things I write will never be perfect.
I want to discuss how I ended up with this particular cover, but first I wish to inform you that Audrey of Farmerton is free as a Kindle ebook through Sunday January 8.
I decided to go with a professional artist for my cover because I’ve heard that it’s important both to have a good cover, and to have one that looks good even when reduced to a thumbnail. My cover was done by Brandi McCann, who is very experienced at creating book covers. She works primarily be compositing existing pictures, which has both advantages and disadvantages. Despite this limitation, she gave me a cover that I’m very happy with.
The cover depicts an actual scene in the book, with Audrey in the foreground, and Saxloc farther back. The artist quickly found an excellent background, as well as wolves and a man in chainmail that was easily modified to portray Saxloc. The real issue was Audrey. Finding an appropriate picture was a challenge. After several false starts, I finally realized that a traditional karate uniform had the kind of look I wanted, similar to peasant clothing. In the original picture, the woman is wearing an all-white uniform with a karate belt. The artist was able to make the top look more like a shirt, alter the belt, and change the cloth colors. She also had to add the boots, because people in karate uniforms are nearly always barefoot.
I think the final cover turned out remarkably well. She even added paw prints in the snow and shadows. I also like the fonts she picked. I will definitely being employing her services for the sequel, The Witch’s City.
People from different backgrounds, or different places, speak in different manners. This can take the form of a different accent, altered vocabulary, or variation in how a sentence is constructed. Accents are difficult to convey in writing, and when attempted are often annoying to the reader. For example, I have relatives that pronounce the word chair with two syllables (chay-are). I know of no way to put that in writing that isn’t both awkward and confusing. So it’s best to focus on the other two methods and simply mention when someone has an accent.
Consider the following sentences:
- Dontcha worry, Audrey.
- Don’t you worry, Audrey.
- Don’t worry, Audrey.
- Do not worry, Audrey.
- Be not concerned, Mistress Audrey.
The first example uses English slang, which is a way to make someone sound informal (and less educated). The second example sounds more folksy than the third because of the added (and unnecessary) you. The fourth differs from the third simply by dropping the contraction, and it is a simple way to make a character sound more formal. The final example is designed to sound extremely formal, pretentious even.
Simple word choice can help to differentiate characters. Where one person might say “okay”, another might say “all right”. Something might happen “a lot”, “often”, or “frequently”, depending on who is speaking about it.
Deciding on just how a character should speak is a challenge, and the way they speak might change over time or even depending on who they are speaking with. (Think about how most adults simplify their language when talking to small children.) But it is definitely something that a writer needs to keep in mind.
I started writing my fantasy novel, Audrey of Farmerton, in the third person and the present tense. Because the story is told from a single viewpoint, I could have written it in the first person, but I decided against it. That was partly because the planned sequel would have multiple viewpoint characters, and partly because I wasn’t comfortable writing as though I were a teenage girl.
Why did I change from writing in the present tense to the past tense? That’s complicated. First let me give some examples.
Present tense: He is writing a blog post.
Past tense: He wrote a blog post.
Past perfect tense: He had written a blog post.
The present tense provides more of a sense of immediacy–“She opens the door and leaves in a huff.” as opposed to “She opened the door and left in a huff.” Present tense can work well, especially when there is a great deal of action. It also has the advantage that referring to earlier events can be accomplished by simply employing the past tense. On the other hand, the majority of fiction is written in the past tense. That is what is traditional, and that is what I decided I should employ.
The past tense is easy to write in, with one major exception. Referring to earlier events (outside of dialog) requires the use of the past perfect tense. This involves a great deal of “had” and “been”, and maybe even the dreaded “had had”. This is something that I am still coming to terms with. One way to reduce this nuisance is to use past perfect in the first sentence of a paragraph and then switch to past tense, possibly returning to the past perfect at the end of the paragraph to make things clear to the reader. Writing every single sentence in past perfect may be grammatically correct, but it can be tedious to read.
One advantage of the written word is the ability to reveal a character’s feelings and emotions, or even their actual thoughts. This helps make up for the fact that we can’t actually see the person, as we would in visual media. There, the viewer can see facial expressions, read body language, and hear the emotion in a voice.
There are different ways to reveal a character’s thoughts. Below are two examples. The first is indirect, and the second uses italics to indicate actual thoughts (a common practice).
- He told her that his train had run late. She wondered if that was really true.
- He told her that his train had run late. I wonder if that’s really true?
Which of these techniques to use is really a matter of preference in my opinion. The first form is almost universally used. Some authors make heavy use of the second form, while others use it sparingly. There are even some who adamantly claim that actual thoughts should never be shown, but I have found their attempts to prove that it is never necessary to be unconvincing. Sometimes the second form is the only really choice.
When writing, I use whichever form seems most appropriate. And it varies depending on whose viewpoint I am writing from. The second form is particularly useful for characters that are sarcastic, smart alecks, or simply lie frequently. For example:
He nodded, saying, “Yes, I’ll give your proposal serious consideration.” That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard! How stupid does he think I am?
For me, deciding how often to show actual thoughts is simply part of developing a character, and it’s something I’m still working to refine.
When writing a fictional story the author needs to decide how the story is to be related to the reader. Will it be told from the viewpoint of a single character or multiple characters? It could even be told from no particular viewpoint, simply an impersonal relation of events. Most authors opt for at least one viewpoint character because that allows the feelings and thoughts of the character to be revealed to the reader. This one of the key advantages that writing has over visual media.
I chose a single viewpoint character for Audrey of Farmerton because I wanted to gradually unveil my fantasy world. That worked well, allowing the reader to learn more as Audrey did, and it also simplified a number of things. But for the sequel (tentatively titled The Witch’s City), I am switching to multiple viewpoints in order to better utilize the other characters that appeared in the first book. I am, however, only using a single viewpoint character in each scene. There is a style of writing known as third person omniscient in which the reader is privy to the thoughts of many characters at the same time, but I decided against trying to use it.
Writing from multiple viewpoints is proving to be a mixed blessing. It’s nice to be able to relate things that occur in locations apart from the main protagonist and which she may never learn about, but it also complicates matters and requires more planning. And when a scene contains multiple viewpoint characters, I now have to decide just whose viewpoint to use. I’m finding it challenging, but that’s just another part of trying to become a writer.
Another issue with multiple viewpoints is making them fit the character. Some characters basically say what they think, while others might frequently say one thing while thinking another. Personally, I find the later type to be the most fun to write. I like showing the actual thoughts, especially when they’re sarcastic or snarky. And how to properly show these thoughts will be a topic for a future blog post.
When I first began to write Audrey of Farmerton, it was a single giant text document. It was divided into individual scenes, but not chapters. I hadn’t divided it up because I really wasn’t sure how to go about it.
Scenes in books aren’t much different than scenes in movies or TV shows. They mark a change of location, a change of viewpoint, or an abrupt passage of time. In a book, they are often delineated by a line containing one or more symbols, as shown below this paragraph. Some books simply place an extra blank line to mark the end of a scene, but that is a bad practice because blank lines are hard to spot at the top or bottom of a page.
* * *
The beginning of a chapter is the beginning of a scene, and its end the end of a scene, but a chapter can contain multiple scenes. It might, for example, flip between the viewpoints of two people as they speak. It is also worth noting that some authors only put one scene in each chapter.
A chapter is supposed to be somewhat self-contained, but that rule isn’t always adhered to. The lengths of the chapters in a book are also supposed to vary by no more than a factor of two, but that rule is also routinely ignored. It seems to be more a question of personal preference and style.
I began to divide my book into chapters, finding that it was sometimes easy, and sometimes a challenge. In several instances I ended up moving scenes around to create chapters with more of a theme. And sometimes I wrote additional scenes to flesh out short chapters. I ended up with forty-some chapters in the range of 2500 to 5000 words (or so).
Many books have only chapter numbers (and some have scene numbers within the chapter). I started with only numbers, but then began adding one-word names just to make it easier to navigate the book. My beta readers liked them, and so they ended up staying in. Now coming up with a chapter title is simply part of my writing process.
Yesterday morning I uploaded Audrey of Farmerton to Amazon so that it could be published via Kindle Desktop Publishing (KDP). The uploading process was simple. Approval was supposed to take up to 48 hours, but just a few hours later my book was live on Amazon here. Today I created an author page on Amazon and linked it to this blog.
Amazon will publish nearly anything as a Kindle ebook providing it meets their format and content guidelines. The formatting was straightforward because I was using software (Scrivener) that supports the Kindle format.
I opted for KDP Select as an additional option. This allows people with Kindle Unlimited subscriptions to read my book for free. Amazon Prime members can also borrow it for free. In exchange, I am guaranteeing Amazon exclusivity, which means I can’t sell copies myself or through any other retailer.
There is one book that anyone seeking to write in English should read. It is The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White. It may be nearly a century old, but much of the advice it contains is still applicable today. And it has been revised several times over the years as the English language and technology have changed.
Strunk and White, as it is usually called, is packed full of valuable advice about punctuation, grammar, and writing style. If you are an author (or an aspiring author) you should definitely purchase a copy and read it cover-to-cover. And then read it again. It is the kind of book you can read multiple times and still manage to learn new things.
If you want more in-depth advice on punctuation and grammar, as well as information on formatting publications, then you may wish to purchase The Chicago Manual of Style. It is a much larger (and more expensive) book, and the formatting information it contains is probably of little interest to someone simply planning to publish an ebook. It is designed as a reference for authors, editors, and publishers.