It Came From The Cloud

First, many thanks to our five guest posters from last week! The activity in the comments section and on Twitter seem to indicate that all were fun, informative, and well-received, and I tip my digital hat to the five of you.

I'm still unpacking and settling in from my vacation, so today's post will be about you. Prithee, inform me, ladies and gents: how do you feel about Apple's iCloud?

Personally, I fear that Apple will use my information for iNiquity™, but that could just be my own paranoia talking. While I initially balked at the idea—Apple has made its name principally as a hardware, rather than software, manufacturer—I've since realized that this is a pretty smart move for the company. Most of the people I know who own Apple machines own multiple devices (laptop, desktop, iPhone, iPod, iPad, &c), and being able to link them together via the magic of the iNterwebz™ makes a lot of sense.

So, while I'm not sure I'll be partaking in Apple's newest venture—what about you?

Genre Sales 2: Science Fiction (Part 6 of 8)

In the not-too-distant future, an intrepid young sales commander voyages into the unknown realms of... GENRE WARS BREAKDOWNS

Yes, science fiction, mes auteurs. Whether it's gritty military sci-fi, space opera, futuristic cyber punkdom/crimery (I'm being a little inventive with the jargon here), or something a little loonier (think The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), science fiction asks The Big Questions™ in the politically distanced, freer, and generally, more technologically advanced arena of the future (or occasionally a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away). Fantastic things happen, dear readers, but unlike in fantasy, they're things that could maybe happen someday! It's no magic, all science, all the time.

Keeping all the usual caveats in mind, it seems to me (again, based on the data available to me and anecdotal evidence from the folks selling these titles) that science fiction is either flat or a little down compared to 2009. As usual, I have a couple of theories as to why.

The genre has been pretty quiet this year and last. Without any phenomenally huge blow-out titles, the sales numbers probably more or less accurately reflect the general state of midlist fiction in this country, which (sadly) appears to be down year-on-year.

Americans apparently find science, fictional or not, scary. Back when we were trying to build colossal ocean liners or kill Nazis or beat the Russians or conquer space, science was cool and science fiction served as a method of exploring humanity's potential. I can't help but wonder whether our current dismal attitude toward science (made no better by our overly administrative, under-funded, and overwhelmingly lukewarm space program) has contributed to the decline of the genre since the Golden Age of Science Fiction (which ended in the late '50s) and the later New Wave Science Fiction ('60s, '70s, and first couple years of the '80s).

Maybe the Large Hadron Collider will help. Dr. Higgs and the Boson of Doom, anyone?

A lot of the cool science fiction crossovers are getting poached by other genres. I can't tell you how many times I created a kit for what I thought was a sci-fi title, only to discover it was being sold in as (futuristic) romance. Or fantasy (fantasy, as we have seen, sells). Or mystery/thriller (something like Minority Report could very well be sold today to the thriller buyer at a book store). With less and less hardcore science fiction available and, apparently, a smaller market for it, it's no surprise the numbers are going down.

The bright spot is, mes auteurs, that writers and readers of science fiction were the first to adopt the e-book (in the late '90s, before it was cool), and thus Our Coming Electronic Overlords may be the best thing to happen to science fiction since Asimov. For the time being, anyway—e-books are already surprisingly mainstream, and once they reach parity with physical books in the market, I don't think the genre will retain much of an edge.

So in that time-honored format that has, in fact, returned from the distant future to save all bulletkind:

• Sci-fi sales seem to be down. Frak.

• This is probably due to Americans not being super amped about science. Now that I think of it, it's also possible—though to a lesser extent—that some of it is due to women making up the majority of book buyers, while making up a minority of sci-fi readers.

• E-book sales are, I think, good for now and potentially still on the up-and-up, but I expect this to level out over time.

That's all for today, Borg and Klingons. Next up: Women's fiction! Tomorrow!

Virtual Particles are the New Vampires

I've always considered myself something of a science buff, mes auteurs (although I find actually doing science, complete with statistics and differential equations, too taxing for my literary sensibilities), so I was surprised and delighted to read this article in the Telegraph about the recent rise in popularity of popular science books.

As noted in the article, if people were buying popular science books five or ten years ago, they were largely about evolutionary biology (and all the "religion versus science"-type arguments those books seem to entail). Recently, however—and, in my opinion, due in large part to physics projects like the Large Hadron Collider—popular science books about astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and parallel universes have seen unparalleled demand (pun totally intended). Books about evolution, biochemistry, and other scientific disciplines are selling, too, but it's the physics behind the structure, origin, and fate of the universe that seem to be intriguing The Reading Public these days.

I've been into popular physics since at least the late '90s, reading and re-reading Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time, The Universe in a Nutshell, A Briefer History of Time), Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot, The Demon-Haunted World, Billions and Billions), and Brian Greene (The Elegant Universe, The Fabric of the Cosmos), so while this trend may be new to a lot of people, it isn't for me (although I am, again, surprised and delighted). I will say I'm glad that more people are reading Asimov and Hawking, even if it doesn't balance out the number of people reading Stephenie Meyer and The Situation.

What I'm interested to know is: is this new and/or surprising to you, bros and she-bros? Do you regularly read popular science, and, if not, do you think you'll start doing so? Will you pick up a copy of The Grand Design or Why Evolution is True in the coming weeks or months? If so, why? If not, why not?

Bonus question: if a train leaves Boston at 5:00 pm traveling in a straight line toward Tallahassee at 90 MPH, and another train leaves Tallahassee at 7:00 pm traveling in a straight line toward Boston at 120 MPH, how long will it be before I fall asleep?

O Dear: Odyssey Editions

In an interesting move, Andrew Wylie has made a deal with the d... uh, Amazon to exclusively publish 20 of his titles as part of a new e-venture dubbed Odyssey Editions. Needless to say, the publishing world will not be pleased.

There's probably very little love lost on Andrew Wylie in the industry as it is. The man's a genius and tremendously well-respected, but he's unafraid to play hardball and his brashness is legendary (he apparently would have graduated summa cum laude from Harvard had he not belittled his own advisor in his thesis). Insiders are predisposed to regard Wylie's decisions warily (or sometimes with a mix of paranoia and disdain), so I imagine there's going to be quite a buzz over "the Amazon Affair" over the next few days and weeks.

That said: I wholeheartedly applaud the creation of an electronically native imprint, and I do think it's the way of the future. What concerns me (and probably everyone else besides Amazon), however, is the exclusive deal that 1.) renders the title only available for sale through Amazon, and 2.) circumvents the publishing house entirely.

While proprietary editions of titles have been around for decades, it's another thing entirely to sell a title exclusively to one vendor (especially a vendor well-known for its severe and relentless downward pressure on book pricing) without even offering it elsewhere. It's decidedly Wal*Mart-esque and I don't think it bodes well for the market, regardless of how many BlackBerry or iPad or Android devices are bought and used to consume Kindle material.

Is this the way of the future? Potentially. I do think publishing houses are going to get a lot smaller and may, in fact, merge with agencies into a Wylie-type model (acquisition, editing, art, and formatting being done by one agency/house, with a small marketing, publicity, and sales staff to handle sales to vendors). But as long as physical books are still being produced, current printing, warehousing, and shipping infrastructures used and maintained by publishing houses will ensure the houses' continued existence.

Now, does my job depend on my not understanding Wylie's cut-out-the-middle-man tactics? In a sense, yes. Am I an idiot? No. Sure, there are some people in this industry so entrenched in the way things are that they'll end up losing sales and going out of business as the industry moves on without them. But those of us that embrace digital sales and are good at projecting and securing them will have a place in the industry five, ten, or even twenty years from now. And so, dear authors, will you.

The Year in Review: Part 5

The! World! of! Tomorrow!

Once again exhibiting his uncanny ability to read my mind (or simply read the same news sources), Nathan posted yesterday about Mike Shatzkin's post on the future of book stores. I largely agree with Shatzkin (his original article can be found here), and Nathan's assessment (though bleak) is pretty spot-on. To quote:

These last few years have been incredibly tumultuous for the industry. The recession and the Great Digital Transition combined forces to wallop the industry, and the effects are everywhere: shrinking lists, closing imprints, shuttering indie stores, a vanishing mid-list, and belt-tightening across the board.

However, whereas Shatzkin seems to have relatively little hope that publishers will be able to adapt to the massive transformation entailed by the "Great Digital Transition," I think Nathan and I are in the same, slightly more optimistic boat. People will still buy (possibly even more) books. The paper side won't disappear completely. A lot of things (writers writing, agents agenting, editors editing) will remain the same.

Thus, in the one, the only, Bullet-o-Vision™:

· In my opinion, e-books will comprise 50% of the market by 2015. I wouldn't be surprised if it were more (up to 70%).

· In my experience, e-book consumers are never "between books"; that is, unlike with physical books, they don't finish a book and take any sort of break. Even if they take a month to read the next one, they generally start it as soon as the previous book is finished. I think this behavior, along with the lower cost and greater convenience of e-books, is behind the booming sales numbers we're seeing.

· As the cost of e-readers decreases (read: falls to around the $100 mark across the board), e-book sales will sharply increase.

· The vast majority of e-book readers also buy physical books (and more of those who are "physical books only" are making the transition every day), so I think publishers would be wise to bundle the two products together at a discounted rate, at least for now.

· I don't think the transition to e-books will democratize publishing any more than Gutenberg's press did 560 years ago.


What do you think, mes auteurs?

Guest Post: The Literature on Literature

Full public disclaimer: I am a lightweight in the world of scientific reading. Science can be fun, though—the Periodic Table and the Krebs Cycle notwithstanding. And I especially like science when it reinforces what I want to believe anyway (see disclaimer above).

For example—I have a co-worker who posts all the scientific studies showing the health benefits of coffee, just above the coffee maker at work. While I stand there waiting for my cuppa to brew, I read about how I am keeping Parkinson's disease at bay (here, from JAMA), reducing my chances of developing diabetes (here from The Lancet), and generally waking up (you don't need a medical reference on this).

So as a lifelong fiction lover, it is not surprising that I am also interested in the neuroscience that continues to grow around reading—why it feels good and why it’s good for you. Below are the highlights, based on my science-lite review of the literature.

Reading literature makes you smarter.

Here's one thing those wild and crazy scientists did: They took a group of unsuspecting people and had them read Kafka’s “The Country Doctor”—“a disturbing and surreal tale in which a doctor travels by 'unearthly horses' to an ill patient, only to climb into bed naked with him and then escape through the window ‘naked, exposed to the frost of this most unhappy of ages.'" They took another similarly innocent group and gave them “The Country Doctor” rewritten in a way such that the plot made more sense. THEN they made both groups take a test to assess their pattern recognition. Guess who did better?

“People who read the nonsensical story checked off more letter strings—clearly they were motivated to find structure," said Travis Proulx, a postdoctoral researcher at UCSB and co-author of the research. "But what's more important is that they were actually more accurate than those who read the more normal version of the story. They really did learn the pattern better than the other participants did.

Proulx said that the thinking behind the research was that when we are exposed to something which "fundamentally does not make sense," our brains will respond by "looking for some other kind of structure" within our environment."

Reading literature makes you more socially savvy.

Okay, next experiment. Readers were randomly assigned either a fiction story OR a non-fiction article from The New Yorker. Both groups were then given an analytical reasoning task in a multiple choice format (derived from a law school entrance exam) and a social reasoning test in the same format, with questions focused on the emotions, beliefs and intentions of characters in social scenarios. The result: The two sets of readers did just as well on the general reasoning questions, but the short-story readers showed a stronger understanding of social situations than the essay readers.

Why? Here’s the opinion of Keith Oatley, a professor at the University of Toronto who has done a lot of work in this field:

“My colleagues and I think it’s a matter of expertise. Fiction is principally about the difficulties of selves navigating the social world. Non-fiction is about, well, whatever it is about: selfish genes, or how to make Mediterranean food, or whether climate changes will harm our planet. So with fiction we tend to become more expert at empathizing and socializing.”

Reading gets your kids into college.

I’m not dumping on Stanley Kaplan or Saturday lessons with Dmitri, the Russian math genius, but independent reading seems to be the best way to boost those SAT scores. Here's what the American Library Association says (not that they have a dog in this fight or anything): “The amount of free reading done outside of school has consistently been found to relate to growth in vocabulary, reading comprehension, verbal fluency, and general information. Students who read independently become better readers, score higher on achievement tests in all subject areas, and have greater content knowledge than those who do not.”

Reading Relaxes.

Maybe you think you need a masseuse and a steam room, or a martini and a sunset, but it turns out that the key to relaxation is RIGHT THERE ON YOUR BEDSTAND! Yet another group of cash-hungry underemployed individuals was recruited. These unfortunate people were deliberately stressed—forced to fill out 1040s in iambic pentameter or had their iPhones extracted and buried in an undisclosed location or... something. (If you're a mouse, they drop you in a pail of water and make you swim, because it turns out mice hate to swim.) THEN, having thoroughly stressed everyone out, the researchers randomized the subjects to some form of relatively relaxing activity. Like sipping a cup of tea. Or going for a walk. Or listening to music. Or reading a book.

And which activity worked the best and fastest according to those super-smart cognitive neuropsychologists? Reading.

It works better and faster than other methods to calm frazzled nerves such as listening to music, going for a walk or settling down with a cup of tea...

Psychologists believe this is because the human mind has to concentrate on reading and the distraction of being taken into a literary world eases the tensions in muscles and the heart.

Their stress levels and heart rate were increased through a range of tests and exercises before they were then tested with a variety of traditional methods of relaxation.

Reading worked best, reducing stress levels by 68 per cent, said cognitive neuropsychologist Dr David Lewis.

Subjects only needed to read, silently, for six minutes to slow down the heart rate and ease tension in the muscles, he found. In fact it got subjects to stress levels lower than before they started.

Listening to music reduced the levels by 61 per cent, having a cup of tea or coffee lowered them by 54 per cent and taking a walk by 42 per cent.

Playing video games brought them down by 21 per cent from their highest level but still left the volunteers with heart rates above their starting point.

Dr Lewis, who conducted the test, said: "Losing yourself in a book is the ultimate relaxation."

So, grab yourself a book. And a cup of coffee. And some chocolate. (Did we talk about the chocolate literature yet?)


Kathy Crowley's short stories have appeared in a handful of (VERY discriminating) literary magazines and even an anthology or two. She practices medicine on the side and has just completed her first novel. She is a member of the writing blog Beyond the Margins (BeyondtheMargins.com).

The Future Will Be Better Tomorrow

Last week, the inimitable Nathan Bransford wrote a post about the future of publishing in which he envisions a switch from the current "top-down" model (i.e., books are funneled through publishers to separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff) to a "bottom-up" model (i.e., everyone and his mom who wants to publish a book will publish that book—electronically—and consumer demand will do the separating for which publishers are currently responsible). In case you missed it, we had a #blogduel over the issue on Twitter. I'm calling it a draw. For now.

First, I agree with Nathan that as e-books come to comprise more and more of the market, electronic self-publication will become more popular. I also agree that this "sudden deluge" is, in fact, already here, and that it's not going to substantially impact anyone's reading or book selection habits. At least, not yet.

I disagree with Nathan on the point that these extra books will continue to float around in the ether forever without impacting your reading experience (much as all those physical books you never think or care about do). Without an organizing force or infrastructure behind them, I don't think the e-book market will self-regulate any more than than Internet discussions or chat rooms do. The e-book market needs the equivalent of threads and moderators, otherwise I think the loudest (not necessarily the best) voices will win out and the consumer will have a difficult time finding material that, for lack of a more tactful turn of phrase, doesn't suck.

To be fair, there is sort of an organizing force already at work in the book world (p- and e- alike), and that's the consumer review/word-of-mouth. I do think that consumers, by reviewing e-books and participating in a system that rewards well-received books and does not reward garbage—or at least, material considered unsalable by the majority of people—will be able to give a semblance of order to the electronic market. To be honest, though, that's only part of the equation.

A recommender system relies on participation from members, and while I'm certain there is no shortage of people with opinions on the Internet, there are some genres and topics that are more likely to draw reviews than others. Additionally, the more niche the topic of the book, the smaller the audience and the fewer reviews, meaning a bad review or two by an unhinged reviewer could sink an otherwise promising title.

As in the physical book stores of today (rapidly becoming the physical book stores of yore), I think there's going to have to be an organizing force on the part of the larger publishers; that is, a system by which they use their extensive marketing budgets to ensure that their titles are given prominent placement in electronic venues operated by companies like Amazon, Apple, and Google. A system that is already in place in the physical book store and beginning to grow in the analogous electronic environment. That is to say: co-op.

In short: I think Nathan is generally right about the future of publishing, but I think any kind of democratization implied in the "infinite book store" is illusory (though it's totally possible I inferred a kind of democracy in Nathan's vision that isn't there, and if so, I apologize for having misunderstood). Yes, the electronic book stores of the today/the future are/will be orders of magnitude larger than the stores of today, and yes, they will be full of a lot of great books and a lot of crap. I think that future depends on better methods of differentiating the two and communicating that information to the reading public.

Prithee, Inform Me: Query Theory

I've oft wondered, meine Autoren, what your tips, tricks, and techniques are for writing query letters. Do you personalize every one? Do you mention a book or two from the agent's list you particularly enjoyed? Do you start your queries with rhetorical questions or pleas for leniency?

Whatever works (or hasn't worked!) for you, please share in the comments!

The E-pocalypse Draws Ever Nearer

As Ms. Ombreviations is unavailable this fine morning, I'll be taking care of today's post. Laura will no doubt be back next Friday with some witty rejoinder and a basketful of strange and hilarious links.

Onward!

I mentioned the other day that Barnes & Noble, via PubIt!, is getting in on the self-publishing act. It now appears that Apple is doing the same thing; all you need is an isbn, a US tax ID, and an iTunes account. Oh, yeah, and a new(ish) Mac: the Intel chip variety, running OS 10.5.

Because Apple's model places a relatively large number of restrictions on would-be self-publishers, I don't necessarily see the company as the proverbial "go-to guy" for most authors looking to self-publish their e-books. It's much easier to upload an e-book to the Kindle store via Amazon's Digital Text Platform, and the Kindle app on the iPad would automatically make those books available on Apple's device.

Amazon also grants you substantially more flexibility with format, the option of using their DRM (it seems to be automatically encoded into any books sold through the iBookstore), just as many (if not more) options regarding rights territories, and the benefit of knowing what you're getting into (royalty-wise) ahead of time. As far as I know, the details of Apple's royalty structure for self-published material still haven't been hammered out.

Again, I'm not encouraging you to self-publish because, frankly, I think it's still to your disadvantage. (I think it will be to your disadvantage for the foreseeable future, but there are many who disagree with me on that.) Think of it this way: if you're recommended to an agent, you have an implicit seal of approval that means you're going to get that agent's full attention much faster than if you were to appear in the endless query sea through which (s)he slogs so dutifully each day. Likewise, if you are published traditionally by a publishing house, you are going to get the attention of the reading public much more easily than if you self-publish your novel and throw it out into the infinitely larger sea of written material available for sale on the Internet.

I believe that the theory that e-books will utterly democratize publishing is a myth, as is the theory that agents and editors will be out of jobs once the market share for electronic books reaches a certain level. I'm not saying this out of some misguided sense of self-preservation, either; I mean, Christ, I'm in sales. If you can sell books in America today, you can sell anything. If publishing were to finally die tomorrow, I'd find a job selling something else.

In brief: I don't think you should self-publish, but if you're totally committed to the idea, make sure you do your research. Find a good product/platform, do as much as you possibly can with it, and sell yourself and your book as much as humanly possible. Without an agent, editor, marketing team, publicist, or sales rep, no one else is going to do it for you.

It Ain't Over 'Til the Fat Lady Sings

Well, it's been nice, writers and writeresses, but I'm afraid I've run out of things to say here at PMN. I'll of course leave the blog up as a shrine to the indispensable knowledge I've... well, dispensed to you over the past several months, and I thank you (as always) for reading. Adieu, and may our paths cross again someday!


















April Fool's!

Man, I hope at least one person fell for that.

In reality, mes amis, today is a wonderful (or at least not terrible) day in the land of brick-and-mortar book sales. Borders has repaid its loan to Pershing Square, increased its net profits, and financed a brand-new line of credit, giving the tried-and-true number two a new lease on life. It's not all sunshine and lollipops—Borders' Q4 sales are still down and they'll need more than loans and credit to continue fighting their uphill battle against the Kindle and the Nook—but I think it's now safe to say they'll be around for awhile longer. (Hopefully this isn't some sick April Fool's Day joke, like the one I just played.)

This whole business concerning Borders' financial health, however, has me wondering yet again about the long-term success of the company. I suppose what I'm asking is: what does the typical Borders shopper look like? Do most people who prefer Borders to Barnes & Noble take part in the Borders Rewards program? Does Borders' aggressive e-couponing system work? &c, &c.

Prithee, inform me, Borders acolytes (or sworn enemies!): what is it about the company that keeps you coming back (/makes you catch on fire whenever you get within a fifty-foot radius)?

iPad, YouPad... WePad?

It's not that I haven't previously heard of this supposed savior of the European book scene, it's that I'm really questioning the wisdom behind the name. I mean, come on. "WePad"? Is that really what you want to call your iPad competitor when the name of the original has already been likened to both a maxi pad and an adult diaper?

Regardless, said WePad has recently been adopted by Germany's largest publisher, Gruner & Jahr. While the WePad (no, I will not stop saying it) does seem to have some advantages over the iPad—for example, Adobe Flash—its brand recognition (particularly outside of Europe) and full specs are still iffy, and likely will remain so until the official press release on April 12th.

It's interesting to note, however, that not only has Gruner & Jahr's involvement already been made known well ahead of the official announcement, but G&J is owned by (dun dun dun!) Bertelsmann (they hold a 74.9% stake in the company). You may recall from Friday's post that Bertelsmann is the parent company of Random House, currently the only one of the big six publishers that has not signed on with the Apple iPad. Curious, no?

Whether or not there's a significant connection here is anyone's guess, but I do wonder whether a potential WePad/iPad controversy may be part of the reason Random House has resisted jumping on the Apple bandwagon too soon. I'm not insinuating that either company would insist that Random House/G&J/Bertelsmann not do business with the other, or that translation issues would be a disaster down the road, but I do wonder how the politics of electronic publishing are going to play out as companies like Apple, Amazon, Google, and perhaps even Neofonie (the company that produces the WePad) begin playing larger and larger roles in the industry.

Thoughts?

It's A Popularity Contest

Remember all those times you heard "it's not a popularity contest" with regards to things that clearly are popularity contests, such as American Idol, presidential elections, and... uh... popularity contests?

Well—to a certain extent—it's true of the publishing biz, as well. According to Mobclix, a mobile ad company that tracks this sort of thing, books are now more popular than games in the Apple iTunes store. Although I have been heralding the rapidly approaching e-pocalypse for some time now, even I'm surprised by this. Granted, e-books only comprise about 3-5% of the current book market (see John Grisham, below), but at this rate, how long will it be before they reach double-digits? (On a related note, e-book insider Michael Serbinis predicts a $99 e-reader will hit the market in 2010. Pray tell, dear readers: if this comes to pass, will any of you change your tune?)

Some well-established authors are also getting in on the e-book act; John Grisham's publisher announced today that all 23 of his books are now available electronically. I can't imagine it will be long before any other megabestselling e-book holdouts follow suit, which means I'm officially moving my e-pocalypse date from 2029 to 2020. (Consumption of egregiously low-end fortified wine optional.) That's right: I think it will only be ten years before e-books become not only a major player in terms of sales figures, but quite possibly the major player.

Think about it: when was the last time you bought a CD? (I can't remember, either.) Yet the glory of the iTunes music store is only seven years old this April. With e-readers, e-books, and even e-book stores rapidly entering the market—coupled with the prospect of faster, cheaper, full-color technology looming just over the horizon—I just don't see how electronic formats won't rewrite the book on publishing in the years to come.

Having What It Takes

As I've mentioned before, I'm something of a writer myself. Due to this (and due to my habitually sharing my opinions regardless of whether they've been solicited), I occasionally pontificate on what I think it takes to succeed in this industry, or at the very least, what's necessary for setting oneself up for success. Luckily for you, I can only think of four things.

1. Discipline. You can be the most talented writer in the world and still utterly fail as a professional author if you don't maintain a writing schedule and treat your writing like a business as well as an art form. It's important to set aside time to write each day, even if it's only fifteen minutes. Consistent progress is also key; if you write for a half hour here and there and never commit to a formal schedule, you'll probably never finish your novel.

2. A desire to learn and improve. If you aren't reading, you aren't learning how to write. And, as much as I want you to buy books and keep me employed, it bears repeating that you do not need to spend money to improve your craft. Borrow books from your local library, join a critique group, attend free lectures and readings in your area, and practice, practice, practice. If you ever reach a point in your career at which you're convinced you can no longer improve, it's time to retire.

3. Skill. I do believe there is an element of skill involved in writing, but as in most endeavors, discipline and a deep desire to learn and improve can often make up for a lack of innate talent. Some people are naturally excellent writers; some people are not. If you fall into the latter category, you're going to have to work extra hard to raise your manuscript to publishable quality.

4. Luck. Unlike skill, which (though largely uncontrollable) can be made less crucial through hard work and dedication, luck is a factor in your career as a writer that you generally won't be able to affect or account for. It's often a very large factor, but there are a few things you can do to minimize bad outcomes and increase the likelihood of good ones:

· Network. The more people in the industry you know (from fellow authors to agents to editors), the better. Attend conferences if you can. Even if none of them directly lead to the sale of your manuscript, someone may think of you and refer you to an agent/editor who may be perfect for you and your work.

· Earn yourself a good reputation. This sort of ties into the above, but you don't want any factor apart from your work itself to give an agent or editor a reason to say no. Having a reputation as a likable author who's easy to work with won't get you representation by itself, but having the opposite reputation may make it hard for you to find an agent.

· Follow agent guidelines. Simple. Don't get your novel thrown in the proverbial circular file because you couldn't follow directions.

· Don't give up. Remember Jacob Appel? Yeah. 'Nuff said.

e(=mc^2)books

I was thinking a lot about the math behind the sales of e- versus p-books this weekend, mes auteurs, and it just so happens this very timely New York Times article does a much better job explaining the situation than I would.

In short: while it's true that it's less expensive to produce an e-book than a physical book, there's still substantial overhead on the publisher side (read: everything from author royalties to marketing). The combination of the agency model (including the retailer's 30% commission) and the overall lower price point of e-books renders electronic formats only slightly more profitable; in the article, a $26 print book would generate $4.05 for the publisher (note that this is contribution, not net operating profit) whereas a $12.99 e-version of the same title would earn the publisher between $4.56 and $5.54.

Yes, this is a 12.6-36.8% increase in profit, and these numbers would be substantial if sales of e-books were a sizable portion of the market. Since they currently only constitute 3-5% of all book sales, however, their higher profit margin isn't enough to make a real impact on the large trade book publishers entering into agency model deals with Apple. As e-reader technology improves, though, and the prices of the devices themselves come down, it's inevitable that electronic books will begin to assume greater and greater market share. Whether e-books will eventually strike a natural equilibrium with print books (or displace them entirely) remains to be seen.

What do you think, friends & bros? (I like to believe I don't have any actual "foes.") Do you think the current price point for e-books is sustainable? Do you think we may be doomed to a (not so distant) future... without print books?

Website Wednesday

I was thinking the other night about what elements are absolutely necessary to a writer's on-line presence, and I have determined that it boils down to one thing: a website.

I must admit, as a reader, it's nice to have a Twitter account to follow should I want to read 140-character missives from my literary heroes at 3:00 AM, and I do like the idea of being pretend bros with my favorite authors on Facebook. When I've read a book I really enjoy, however, and I want to read more work by that author or learn more about him/her, I generally throw their name into Google in the hopes of finding an author website.

Websites are more crucial than social networking sites (or even author blogs, although many an author website sports a blog as a component) in that they provide a relatively self-contained, centralized point on the web at which readers can learn about upcoming author readings, other books by the author, reviews, the author's biography, and so on.

A few rules of thumb, in the oft-used and ne'er-gone-wrong Bullet-O-Vision™:

· Give your website a modern feel. No 1996-style frames, animated .gifs, tiled backgrounds of your dog, rainbow page breaks, &c. Hire a professional (or your teenage son) if need be.

· Less is more. You don't need to record every single award you've won or article you've written since middle school; stick to the basics.

· Choose a good domain name. Hint: "http://www.newjohnsmith1-2-3today.info/" is not a good domain name.

· If you've got an agent and/or publisher, make sure they link to your site. Also, if you do decide to rock the Facebook/Twitter frontiers, make sure those accounts link back to your site, as well.

· Use Google Analytics (or a similar service) to track the number of visits, page views, &c your site receives on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. You'll be glad you did.