Richard B. Knight's Blog
October 9, 2017
It's Okay To Think Blade Runner Sucks
Blade Runner is one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time. It's the "thinking man's" sci-fi film. Ridley Scott is a genius, and Harrison Ford has never been better.
Except none of that is true. At least not for me. Blade Runner is a boring, meandering, mess of a movie, and I hate it, even if you love it. Sure, everybody talks about it like Jesus Christ Himself was behind the camera when it was filmed, but there are many, many people out there who have seen it and said, "That's what everybody was talking about? That sucked!" Or at least, they would say that if they didn't think they would be made fun of or ridiculed by "smart people".
But good news! I'm here to tell you that it's liberating to admit that you don't like a movie that other people love. It's also freeing to admit that you love a movie that other people hate. Like mother! by Darren Aronofsky. Have you seen mother!? Don't answer that. Because if you have, you might have hated it, and I don't want you to feel compelled to lie and say that you liked it just because I liked it. Because the truth is, the saying, "You just didn't get it," doesn't really apply to anything but, say, a math problem, because art is totally subjective. If the artist is saying something deeper that you didn't manage to pick up on, the problem is not with you. And for the most part, it's not with the artist, either. The problem is mostly with the story and your preferences for how a story is told. Oh, and the pacing. Can't forget the pacing.
That said, even a slow paced film can be interesting if the characters and the story are engaging. There are a lot of "greatest films of all time" that don't really put much attention into the characters and instead put more focus on breaking the conventions of storytelling. This is why a lot of the "greatest movies of all time" are often dismissed by the general public as being pretentious or boring. Look no further than Sight and Sounds 50 Greatest Movies of All Time List. I guarantee that if you showed 10 people 8 1/2, or The Passion of Joan of Arc, probably seven of those people would fall asleep, two of those people would lie and said they liked it, and one person would genuinely think they're masterpieces. But are any of them wrong in their opinion? I'd like to say no. Their opinion is just not your opinion, and that's okay. Your upbringing and outlook on life will sway your feelings dramatically when it comes to art. As I said before, art is not as direct as a math problem. And it's not supposed to be. Art is personal. And that is why it's so beautiful.
So if you hate Blade Runner and love Transformers, that's okay. Not only is it okay, it's great! And never let anybody ever tell you otherwise.
Except none of that is true. At least not for me. Blade Runner is a boring, meandering, mess of a movie, and I hate it, even if you love it. Sure, everybody talks about it like Jesus Christ Himself was behind the camera when it was filmed, but there are many, many people out there who have seen it and said, "That's what everybody was talking about? That sucked!" Or at least, they would say that if they didn't think they would be made fun of or ridiculed by "smart people".
But good news! I'm here to tell you that it's liberating to admit that you don't like a movie that other people love. It's also freeing to admit that you love a movie that other people hate. Like mother! by Darren Aronofsky. Have you seen mother!? Don't answer that. Because if you have, you might have hated it, and I don't want you to feel compelled to lie and say that you liked it just because I liked it. Because the truth is, the saying, "You just didn't get it," doesn't really apply to anything but, say, a math problem, because art is totally subjective. If the artist is saying something deeper that you didn't manage to pick up on, the problem is not with you. And for the most part, it's not with the artist, either. The problem is mostly with the story and your preferences for how a story is told. Oh, and the pacing. Can't forget the pacing.
That said, even a slow paced film can be interesting if the characters and the story are engaging. There are a lot of "greatest films of all time" that don't really put much attention into the characters and instead put more focus on breaking the conventions of storytelling. This is why a lot of the "greatest movies of all time" are often dismissed by the general public as being pretentious or boring. Look no further than Sight and Sounds 50 Greatest Movies of All Time List. I guarantee that if you showed 10 people 8 1/2, or The Passion of Joan of Arc, probably seven of those people would fall asleep, two of those people would lie and said they liked it, and one person would genuinely think they're masterpieces. But are any of them wrong in their opinion? I'd like to say no. Their opinion is just not your opinion, and that's okay. Your upbringing and outlook on life will sway your feelings dramatically when it comes to art. As I said before, art is not as direct as a math problem. And it's not supposed to be. Art is personal. And that is why it's so beautiful.
So if you hate Blade Runner and love Transformers, that's okay. Not only is it okay, it's great! And never let anybody ever tell you otherwise.
April 21, 2017
To Be or Not to Be a Writer in 2017
What does it mean to be a writer in 2017? I know what you’re probably saying. Are you seriously starting off an essay with a question? That’s grade level stuff, man. The kind of stuff they teach you in school when you’re writing a persuasive essay. I should know since I teach seventh graders and tell them that starting off with a question is just one of many great ways to hook a reader. They’re a great way to start since they demand an answer. And the answer to my question is this: To be a writer in the year 2017 means you have to change your definition of what it means to be a writer altogether.
Let me explain. Being “a writer” essentially means the same thing it meant back in 600 B.C., i.e. that writing a language is the act of making words visible. That will never change. But the concept of being “a writer” has surely been altered over the years. For example, is a blogger a writer, or is a blogger a blogger? Is a poet a writer, or is a poet a poet? Surely the intent of how you write is equally as important as what you write. But in an era when news can be gathered in 120 characters or less, you have to wonder, has our beloved art form become less…sophisticated? Here’s a good one: Is a tweeter a writer? Is “Tweeter” even a word? (I looked it up. It is.)
I’m certain most “serious” writers will wonder if I’m mad to even pose such a question. Tweeting is not writing, silly. Tweeting is…whatever. A monkey could tweet. But am I really so crazy? Writing has always been one of the most malleable art forms out there. Look no further (Or look a lot further, if you like) than writers such as James Joyce, Hunter S, Thompson, and Ernest Hemingway. Hell, do you want somebody a little bit more current? Look at Mark Z. Danielewski, author of House of Leaves. All of these writers, and many, many more, have forever changed the idea of what “good” writing actually is. As a father and teacher who writes articles and ebooks in my spare time (shameless plug: Find my books on Amazon), I’ve had to reevaluate what the modern reader wants when they take time out of their busy schedule to actually sit down and “read.” And no, I didn’t make a mistake when I put quotation marks around the word “read,” since the concept of reading has changed over the years, too. But more on that later.
When I write today in 2017, I always wonder, how do my readers want their stories presented to them? Do they want them in audio form? Comics? Facebook videos? Instagram pictures? And do they want them to be lengthy, or short? Also, if I make them short, how short should they be? One hundred words? Fifty? Ten? A single image?
These are questions that writers weren’t asking themselves a hundred years ago, or even ten, for that matter. Sure, writers have always been asking themselves what the audience wants. But as videos and social media become more prevalent forms of getting stories and information out there, the way we distribute our writing is something we have to seriously consider. It’s gotten to the point where we really do need to ask ourselves, am I compromising my art for an audience that seems to want more bite-sized (and visual) renditions of my greatest hits? And, is it really a compromise at all, or is it an evolution? How has “reading” changed? As a teacher, I can tell you that it has changed substantially. My students are now sometimes tasked with answering questions after watching a video. The videos themselves are now considered a form of “reading.” In other words, the game has changed.
One thing that will never change though is that we need to be engaging. I recently wrote a short story that I’ve been shopping around about a future where there are no longer any human writers, except one. Almost all stories are written by highly advanced computers that are spit out through algorithms. This might seem crazy, but it isn’t if you’ve been following recent headlines. Computers have already started writing sports and business articles, and it’s impossible to tell the difference between them and human beings. Writing has often been thought to be one of the few areas where computers can’t infringe on the creative spirit, but that looks to be a thing of the past. Computers have already beaten people in Chess, Jeopardy, and now the Japanese strategy game, Go. So why couldn’t they write the next great American novel? Really, what I’m asking is this: how do we prevent ourselves from becoming expendable?
The answer is to be limber and to adapt to change. Here’s a question I often ask a lot of my reader friends. If you listen to an audiobook, are you reading? Some say yes, and some say no. I can tell you that it’s usually the stuffier people who rigidly claim that listening to a book is not the same thing as “reading” a book. But to millions of people out there, there really is no difference. Are they getting the same story that you’re getting but through their ears rather than through their eyes? Yes. In a sense, some might even say they’re getting a truer version of the story if the actual author is reading to them. So, what I’m saying is this: If writers want to continue to exist, we need to pull our heads out of our butts and follow the trends. One could say that the audience for “traditional” reading is shrinking. But it really all depends on what you consider modern reading to be in the first place. If you consider it as the consumption of ideas, then one might say it’s bigger than it’s ever been in its entire history.
The most important thing to remember is that “readers” don’t care what “writers” want. They don’t even care whether their writers are human or not. Unlike self-driving cars, readers don’t tend to fear a future where robots are in control. In many ways, a reader will always be a reader, but a writer is not necessarily just a writer anymore. A writer is a blogger, a vlogger, a tweeter, a shapchatter, a podcaster, or whatever else the reader demands them (us) to be. And we as “writers” need to take note of that, since the most important aspect of being a writer is being “listened to.”
Whatever that even means.
Let me explain. Being “a writer” essentially means the same thing it meant back in 600 B.C., i.e. that writing a language is the act of making words visible. That will never change. But the concept of being “a writer” has surely been altered over the years. For example, is a blogger a writer, or is a blogger a blogger? Is a poet a writer, or is a poet a poet? Surely the intent of how you write is equally as important as what you write. But in an era when news can be gathered in 120 characters or less, you have to wonder, has our beloved art form become less…sophisticated? Here’s a good one: Is a tweeter a writer? Is “Tweeter” even a word? (I looked it up. It is.)
I’m certain most “serious” writers will wonder if I’m mad to even pose such a question. Tweeting is not writing, silly. Tweeting is…whatever. A monkey could tweet. But am I really so crazy? Writing has always been one of the most malleable art forms out there. Look no further (Or look a lot further, if you like) than writers such as James Joyce, Hunter S, Thompson, and Ernest Hemingway. Hell, do you want somebody a little bit more current? Look at Mark Z. Danielewski, author of House of Leaves. All of these writers, and many, many more, have forever changed the idea of what “good” writing actually is. As a father and teacher who writes articles and ebooks in my spare time (shameless plug: Find my books on Amazon), I’ve had to reevaluate what the modern reader wants when they take time out of their busy schedule to actually sit down and “read.” And no, I didn’t make a mistake when I put quotation marks around the word “read,” since the concept of reading has changed over the years, too. But more on that later.
When I write today in 2017, I always wonder, how do my readers want their stories presented to them? Do they want them in audio form? Comics? Facebook videos? Instagram pictures? And do they want them to be lengthy, or short? Also, if I make them short, how short should they be? One hundred words? Fifty? Ten? A single image?
These are questions that writers weren’t asking themselves a hundred years ago, or even ten, for that matter. Sure, writers have always been asking themselves what the audience wants. But as videos and social media become more prevalent forms of getting stories and information out there, the way we distribute our writing is something we have to seriously consider. It’s gotten to the point where we really do need to ask ourselves, am I compromising my art for an audience that seems to want more bite-sized (and visual) renditions of my greatest hits? And, is it really a compromise at all, or is it an evolution? How has “reading” changed? As a teacher, I can tell you that it has changed substantially. My students are now sometimes tasked with answering questions after watching a video. The videos themselves are now considered a form of “reading.” In other words, the game has changed.
One thing that will never change though is that we need to be engaging. I recently wrote a short story that I’ve been shopping around about a future where there are no longer any human writers, except one. Almost all stories are written by highly advanced computers that are spit out through algorithms. This might seem crazy, but it isn’t if you’ve been following recent headlines. Computers have already started writing sports and business articles, and it’s impossible to tell the difference between them and human beings. Writing has often been thought to be one of the few areas where computers can’t infringe on the creative spirit, but that looks to be a thing of the past. Computers have already beaten people in Chess, Jeopardy, and now the Japanese strategy game, Go. So why couldn’t they write the next great American novel? Really, what I’m asking is this: how do we prevent ourselves from becoming expendable?
The answer is to be limber and to adapt to change. Here’s a question I often ask a lot of my reader friends. If you listen to an audiobook, are you reading? Some say yes, and some say no. I can tell you that it’s usually the stuffier people who rigidly claim that listening to a book is not the same thing as “reading” a book. But to millions of people out there, there really is no difference. Are they getting the same story that you’re getting but through their ears rather than through their eyes? Yes. In a sense, some might even say they’re getting a truer version of the story if the actual author is reading to them. So, what I’m saying is this: If writers want to continue to exist, we need to pull our heads out of our butts and follow the trends. One could say that the audience for “traditional” reading is shrinking. But it really all depends on what you consider modern reading to be in the first place. If you consider it as the consumption of ideas, then one might say it’s bigger than it’s ever been in its entire history.
The most important thing to remember is that “readers” don’t care what “writers” want. They don’t even care whether their writers are human or not. Unlike self-driving cars, readers don’t tend to fear a future where robots are in control. In many ways, a reader will always be a reader, but a writer is not necessarily just a writer anymore. A writer is a blogger, a vlogger, a tweeter, a shapchatter, a podcaster, or whatever else the reader demands them (us) to be. And we as “writers” need to take note of that, since the most important aspect of being a writer is being “listened to.”
Whatever that even means.
July 29, 2016
What Makes a Book a Classic? And Are Critics Wrong?
Just recently, I finished reading Under the Volcano, which the Modern Library calls the 11th best novel out of 100. But here's the thing. When I say "reading," I'm taking huge liberties with the word since I really just finished skimming the book. That's not to say that I didn't give it an earnest effort. I sat and really tried to pick apart the book and take my time for the first 100 pages. But after that, when I realized that not much was going on at all (on the surface) and that the plot could really be summed up in a single sentence--A drunkard drinks a lot, finds a dead body, and then, bad stuff happens--I kind of found myself skimming whole chapters and then looking up on wikipedia to make sure that I got all the key details from each chapter, which I had.
So, why is this a classic? Well, most would say that it's the prose itself that makes the book so noteworthy, or that it has all these crazy references to other classic books that makes it such an enjoyable read (It's like the Paul's Boutique of novels).
But whatever the reason, I just couldn't get into it. There are whole chapters that are just inner monologues that really felt like they were going nowhere, and it just wasn't an enjoyable book in any way. The same goes for Lolita, which is number 4 on their list.
While I made a real effort to finish Under the Volcano, I honestly couldn't get even remotely close to finishing Lolita, which was just too boring for words. (I'm not too big on the Kubrick movie, either, so maybe I just don't dig the story). But that's what makes the list so weird. You have books like those, which are undoubtedly the stick your nose in the air kind of titles, and then you have genuinely interesting, plot-driven books like Slaughterhouse-Five, The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, and Brave New World (Which is actually quite high at number five). So what's going on here?
One might say, well, duh, books are beloved for different reasons, and I get that. But how do you have such artsy-fartsy books like Under the Volcano and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and then have a book like Slaughterhouse-Five, which has a subplot involving a man's beliefs in a planet called Tralfamadore? More importantly, do the critics really know or have a say in what can even be considered one of the "best books" in modern literature?
And what's really interesting to note is that if you look at what everyday readers consider the best modern novels, they have a whole bunch of wacky L. Ron Hubbard books, as well as that nut, Ayn Rand, and her objectivism. Atlas Shrugged, it should be noted, isn't even ON the top 100 list of the modern library. Neither is anything by sci-fi writers, even though many would consider Foundation by Asimov a classic. Or does genre writing not count at all when considering the "best" modern books?
That's why I believe that it isn't really much to put stock in either the critics or what general readers would consider great literature. Personally, my favorite book is A Confederacy of Dunces. I don't think it's great because of the writing, which I actually thought was kind of so-so. It's because I honestly couldn't stop laughing at certain moments, and I just really loved the characters. Especially Ignatius, who is my favorite character that I've ever read (Oscar Wao is a close second). I like it because I think really fat, obnoxious people are funny, and I can understand if others don't enjoy a story that could follow such a ridiculous human being, but then again, I'm not calling it the "best" book, which I think is too grandiose a word when considering what a book sets out to be in the first place. But then again, people like to point out how intelligent they are, so books like Ulysses, or movies like Citizen Kane, act as the sort of cornerstone for pedantic people. I don't know. Either way, don't read Under the Volcano if you're looking for an enjoyable book. It may be considered one of the best modern novels, but man is it boring. But that's just one ardent reader's opinion.
July 25, 2016
Book Introductions: Do they need to spoil the plot to get their points across?
I'm reading Under the Volcano right now (And not liking it so far) and have had a great portion of the book spoiled. Do you want to know why? It's not because somebody told me about the book and recklessly told me key plot points. It's because I read the introduction, which in itself revealed major plot points to discuss overarching themes and to make comparisons to other work. But why? This is not the first time this has happened to me. In fact, it happens all the time. Whenever a scholarly dissertation is made on a famous story, one thing that usually happens is that the scholar will say, this happens because of this, and this represents, yada, yada, yada, but why is this put at the beginning of the book? I could understand if you've already read the book. But if you haven't, you're basically getting an unasked for Cliffnotes version of the story that you were actually excited to read. Why the hell would they do this?!
I mean, if this content was put in the afterword, then that would make a lot more sense. I mean, NOW you could tell me why this character did this or that since I just finished the book. But by putting all that information in the introduction, it totally destroys any reason to even read the book, other than to understand what the introduction is connecting to the overall content. But that seems so backwards! Why do that?
And I already know what you're saying. You're saying, hey, numbnuts, if you know this is a problem, then why do you read the introduction in the first place? Well, first off, don't call me numbnuts, and secondly, not all introductions are like this. I feel that there are many instances that in order to even understand the book, especially if it's old and has details that wouldn't be understood by a modern audience, then the introduction is necessary. The book It Can't Happen Here, by Sinclair Lewis comes to mind.
In that book, Lewis referenced several political and media figures of that time that I would have no idea about if I didn't read the introduction. Did the writer of that piece spoil some of the key details of the story? Yeah, he did. But I feel that the book would have been incomprehensible, at least from an historical viewpoint, without that insight. So for those kinds of introductions, I don't get TOO upset. But when your introduction mostly reveals plot points of MULTIPLE books to compare it to the book you haven't even read yet (as does the intro for Under the Volcano), well, then you've pissed me off on multiple fronts! Don't do that!
But what are your thoughts on the issue? Do you skip introductions altogether, go back to them once you've finished the book, or read them before the content like I do? I'd like to hear your thoughts, fellow readers. Please leave them in the comments below.
September 7, 2015
On releasing free books on Amazon
Well, I've released my third free story of the summer. This one is a doozy. It's a full novel and it's called, The Interdimensional Subwoofer: A dimension hopping, time traveling, science fiction novelThe Interdimensional Subwoofer. Why release it for free? Especially when it took two years of my life to write? Well, it's to find an audience, which is something that has eluded me ever since I started pumping books out. I read a short book called, Reader Magnets (Also free), which talks about all the benefits of putting out free books, mainly in getting people to sign up to your mailing list.
So far, it hasn't worked. I put out two short stories, Clean Hands, and Q: Are We Not Human? A: We Are Corpses!, which have been downloaded thousands of times but have only gotten me 20 subscribers, and haven't gotten many reviews. But this is an actual novel, and hopefully will show up on more people's recommended screen. In the end, I guess I'm just saying the same thing that any struggling artist says these days: The struggle is real.
August 4, 2015
My short story, Clean Hands, is now Free until...Forever
My short story, Clean Hands, which is a prequel to The Darkness of the Womb, is now free forever. Currently, it's sitting pretty at number one in Catholicism on Amazon(?), as well as number one in Science Fiction and Fantasy (Now that's more like it). If you would like a copy for review, please just click on one of the links above and transfer it right to your kindle. Thanks a bunch!
August 3, 2015
The Do's and Don'ts of self-publishing from a mostly loser, sometimes winner
Being an indie author ain’t easy. With new indie books being released every day, it’s pretty hard to get noticed. So hard, in fact, that one might think, what’s the point at all? Well, the point is that you love writing and you want to continue doing it. But how are you going to get the attention you so rightly deserve? Well, I haven’t totally figured that out yet, but I’ve found a few strategies that have and haven’t worked. So, let’s get right to them!
DON’T: Go to Pitching Events
Writer’s Conferences are a great place to meet fellow authors and learn what other stories are out there. But attached to many of these conferences are pitch slams, where agents sit behind tables and listen to your pitch. Some people like to think these are the most important parts about the conference, but they’re mistaken, since they’re more likely to be struck by lightning than to have their book picked up at these events. Sure, the agent might request to see some of your pages, and sure, they’re very nice about listening to your jumbled words. But in the end, they’re more than likely not going to do anything with your book, and you just wasted your time memorizing your synopsis. You’ll have better a chance in the slush pile.
DO: Have a Goodreads giveaway
Are you on Goodreads? If not, then that’s a problem, since readers LOVE goodreads. If you
are on it (Good for you), there’s a feature called Goodreads giveaways where you can put copies of your books up for people to try and win. When I put one of my books up, I always make sure to thank the participants and give them another chance to win the book on my blog. You wouldn’t believe how many people come to try and win. I’ll tell you what, It’s a hell of a lot more people than who normally visit my blog, that’s for sure.
DON’T: Even bother releasing books on Nook, Kobo, or iTunes
I know it might feel like a missed opportunity, but you will likely not sell a single book on Nook, Kobo, or iTunes unless you’re Brad Thor, Stephen King, or Harper Lee. That’s mainly because people have to actually search for your book to find you, and why would they do that if they don’t even know who you are? Instead, just put your book on Amazon and enroll in the KDP program (https://kdp.amazon.com/). Amazon is a search engine at its heart, and people might stumble upon your book by accident by searching for random things. You have a much better shot on Amazon, so just use that. It’s the best decision.
DO: Put a call-to-action in your books
Remember what I just said about Amazon? Well, unless you have a lot of good reviews, you’re going to get buried on their site. So why not put a call-to-action in your book at the end that asks people to review your book if they enjoyed it? You have no idea how many more reviews you’ll get just by asking nicely for people to put them.
DON’T: Use Facebook Advertising
Facebook might seem like a great place to find new readers, but it’s not. This is mostly because not all of your posts go to your friends and followers. You might think, well, why not try advertising on it then, but there are better ways to attract new readers that are actually free, namely what I’m going to mention next.
DO: Start a mailing list
Mailing lists are free if you use a service like Mail Chimp. Remember what I said about using a call-to-action? Well, set up a website like this (http://richardbknightbooks.com/) that gives readers something free for signing up, and then place the link in your book at the beginning and at the end. Shout out to fellow author, Nick Stephenson (http://nickstephensonbooks.com/),for coming up with this brilliant idea.
DON’T: Do giveaway sales on Kindle without pairing them up with promotions
When you use the KDP program on Amazon, you can have certain days where you put your book up for sale to entice people to download it. But here’s the thing. If you just release your book for free or 99 cents, some people will find it, but you are limiting your potential. When you do these sales, find a site like Bookgorilla (http://www.bookgorilla.com/) , Read Free.ly (http://www.readfree.ly/) or the crème de la crème, Bookbub (https://www.bookbub.com/ebook-deals/r...) (Good luck getting picked) when you do your sales to maximize your profits. Try to do multiple promotions at once to get mega clicks.
DO: Get your name in the local paper
Local papers love writing about local authors. They’re the kind of fluff pieces that fill space. Well, given that all you pretty much have to do is email the editor and tell them that you write books in the area, why not do so? It’s easy. Here’s mine (http://www.northjersey.com/arts-and-e...). Bingo, bango. Your name now has more prominence on Google. How about that?
DON’T: Try to shove your book down people’s throats
It may seem like a good idea to constantly mention that your book is on sale, or that people will love your story, but it’s not. People don’t want to hear “buy my book, buy my book” over and over again from a megaphone. Instead, do some of the steps above. They’re a lot less annoying.
DO: Focus on doing book signings
Once you get your name in the paper, you can take it to all the local shops and show that you have a presence in the community. Once you get in the habit of doing book signings, you meet more people and sell more books, even if it’s just a few here or there.
So there you have it. I’m still not rolling in the dough, but I’m getting there. Try these out and see how they work for you!
DON’T: Go to Pitching Events
Writer’s Conferences are a great place to meet fellow authors and learn what other stories are out there. But attached to many of these conferences are pitch slams, where agents sit behind tables and listen to your pitch. Some people like to think these are the most important parts about the conference, but they’re mistaken, since they’re more likely to be struck by lightning than to have their book picked up at these events. Sure, the agent might request to see some of your pages, and sure, they’re very nice about listening to your jumbled words. But in the end, they’re more than likely not going to do anything with your book, and you just wasted your time memorizing your synopsis. You’ll have better a chance in the slush pile.
DO: Have a Goodreads giveaway
Are you on Goodreads? If not, then that’s a problem, since readers LOVE goodreads. If you
are on it (Good for you), there’s a feature called Goodreads giveaways where you can put copies of your books up for people to try and win. When I put one of my books up, I always make sure to thank the participants and give them another chance to win the book on my blog. You wouldn’t believe how many people come to try and win. I’ll tell you what, It’s a hell of a lot more people than who normally visit my blog, that’s for sure.
DON’T: Even bother releasing books on Nook, Kobo, or iTunes
I know it might feel like a missed opportunity, but you will likely not sell a single book on Nook, Kobo, or iTunes unless you’re Brad Thor, Stephen King, or Harper Lee. That’s mainly because people have to actually search for your book to find you, and why would they do that if they don’t even know who you are? Instead, just put your book on Amazon and enroll in the KDP program (https://kdp.amazon.com/). Amazon is a search engine at its heart, and people might stumble upon your book by accident by searching for random things. You have a much better shot on Amazon, so just use that. It’s the best decision.
DO: Put a call-to-action in your books
Remember what I just said about Amazon? Well, unless you have a lot of good reviews, you’re going to get buried on their site. So why not put a call-to-action in your book at the end that asks people to review your book if they enjoyed it? You have no idea how many more reviews you’ll get just by asking nicely for people to put them.
DON’T: Use Facebook Advertising
Facebook might seem like a great place to find new readers, but it’s not. This is mostly because not all of your posts go to your friends and followers. You might think, well, why not try advertising on it then, but there are better ways to attract new readers that are actually free, namely what I’m going to mention next.
DO: Start a mailing list
Mailing lists are free if you use a service like Mail Chimp. Remember what I said about using a call-to-action? Well, set up a website like this (http://richardbknightbooks.com/) that gives readers something free for signing up, and then place the link in your book at the beginning and at the end. Shout out to fellow author, Nick Stephenson (http://nickstephensonbooks.com/),for coming up with this brilliant idea.
DON’T: Do giveaway sales on Kindle without pairing them up with promotions
When you use the KDP program on Amazon, you can have certain days where you put your book up for sale to entice people to download it. But here’s the thing. If you just release your book for free or 99 cents, some people will find it, but you are limiting your potential. When you do these sales, find a site like Bookgorilla (http://www.bookgorilla.com/) , Read Free.ly (http://www.readfree.ly/) or the crème de la crème, Bookbub (https://www.bookbub.com/ebook-deals/r...) (Good luck getting picked) when you do your sales to maximize your profits. Try to do multiple promotions at once to get mega clicks.
DO: Get your name in the local paper
Local papers love writing about local authors. They’re the kind of fluff pieces that fill space. Well, given that all you pretty much have to do is email the editor and tell them that you write books in the area, why not do so? It’s easy. Here’s mine (http://www.northjersey.com/arts-and-e...). Bingo, bango. Your name now has more prominence on Google. How about that?
DON’T: Try to shove your book down people’s throats
It may seem like a good idea to constantly mention that your book is on sale, or that people will love your story, but it’s not. People don’t want to hear “buy my book, buy my book” over and over again from a megaphone. Instead, do some of the steps above. They’re a lot less annoying.
DO: Focus on doing book signings
Once you get your name in the paper, you can take it to all the local shops and show that you have a presence in the community. Once you get in the habit of doing book signings, you meet more people and sell more books, even if it’s just a few here or there.
So there you have it. I’m still not rolling in the dough, but I’m getting there. Try these out and see how they work for you!
July 30, 2015
Writing Short Stories to Extend the World of Your Novel
Recently, I wrote the short story, Clean Hands as an extension of my novel, The Darkness of the Womb. I actually got the idea from a recent Writer's Digest article on the subject of short stories. In the piece, it talked about how short stories are making a huge comeback on Amazon and how they can, in a way, expand your audience if you write enough of them.
Well, I'm trying my own hand at it with Clean Hands, which is a prequel to The Darkness of the Womb. What's great about writing short stories that connect to a novel is that you can expand the world and also potentially get people excited for the book that inspired it in the first place. And at 31 pages, it is short enough to read in a single sitting, which also makes it quite appealing. I will let you know if it works or not, but in the meantime, if you would like a copy of Clean Hands for review, please message me. I'd be happy to send you a one (even though it's only 99 cents) for an honest review. Stay excellent.
Well, I'm trying my own hand at it with Clean Hands, which is a prequel to The Darkness of the Womb. What's great about writing short stories that connect to a novel is that you can expand the world and also potentially get people excited for the book that inspired it in the first place. And at 31 pages, it is short enough to read in a single sitting, which also makes it quite appealing. I will let you know if it works or not, but in the meantime, if you would like a copy of Clean Hands for review, please message me. I'd be happy to send you a one (even though it's only 99 cents) for an honest review. Stay excellent.
July 7, 2015
On Finishing A Book-What Next?
The Interdimensional Subwoofer
The Interdimensional Subwoofer is the third novel I've written, and I think, my very best yet. I've sent it to my editor and I'm just waiting to get it back so I can make the corrections and then send it off to agents. So I guess I should get started on my fourth book, right?
Well...I don't know about that.
Here's the thing. As an indie author who hasn't really gotten as much love for my first two titles as I would have liked, I still have that nagging feeling that I need to go back and rectify that. Now, I know, I should move forward, not backward. Those two books didn't sell for a reason, right? Well, I'm not so sure about that. A part of the problem of being an indie author is the fact that you are competing with so many other indie authors who all believe the same thing--there's just too much competition out there. With that belief, we constantly believe that it's not the writing or the cover that's the problem, but rather, the fact that it's too difficult to get your story known when hundreds of other trying to do the same thing every day. Whether it's true or not (That the writing isn't the issue), is up in the air, but the fact that we try so hard to promote ourselves is a constant issue that I think I've found a solution to, and it's in the form of "DLC".
What's DLC, you ask? (And if you ask it, then you're obviously not a gamer). DLC stands for Downloadable Content, and I'm going to implement it for my two previous books, The Darkness of the Womb, and A Boy and His Corpse. What they will be is short (Very short, 25 pages) stories that connect the books, but are also standalone titles. The first short story, "Clean Hands," will be about events prior to The Darkness of the Womb, but will have no true connection to it, so you wouldn't have had to read the book to know what's going on. It will be free and introduce the world to people who have never read my first book (Which seems to be the entire world itself).
My second short story, also 25 pages, will be about events AFTER A Boy and His Corpse. It will be titled, "Q: Are We Not Human? A: We Are Corpses!" which is a send-up of one of the most famous Devo albums. This title will only be free if you sign up for my mailing list, which is something I've (stupidly) neglected to set up for a long time.
So, you might be wondering why I'm doing this. Wouldn't it be wiser of me to invest in marketing campaigns and other things that other authors are already doing? Well, probably, but I think this is a way to get readers who otherwise wouldn't pick up my previous work to perhaps give it a gander if they like "Clean Hands" or "Are We Not Human?" Maybe then, if I get at least some kind of audience, I can move on with my life. But until then, I'll just keep pushing to get my first two books noticed. It's an uphill battle and one that I'll continue endlessly to climb. Whatever it takes.
The Interdimensional Subwoofer is the third novel I've written, and I think, my very best yet. I've sent it to my editor and I'm just waiting to get it back so I can make the corrections and then send it off to agents. So I guess I should get started on my fourth book, right?
Well...I don't know about that.
Here's the thing. As an indie author who hasn't really gotten as much love for my first two titles as I would have liked, I still have that nagging feeling that I need to go back and rectify that. Now, I know, I should move forward, not backward. Those two books didn't sell for a reason, right? Well, I'm not so sure about that. A part of the problem of being an indie author is the fact that you are competing with so many other indie authors who all believe the same thing--there's just too much competition out there. With that belief, we constantly believe that it's not the writing or the cover that's the problem, but rather, the fact that it's too difficult to get your story known when hundreds of other trying to do the same thing every day. Whether it's true or not (That the writing isn't the issue), is up in the air, but the fact that we try so hard to promote ourselves is a constant issue that I think I've found a solution to, and it's in the form of "DLC".
What's DLC, you ask? (And if you ask it, then you're obviously not a gamer). DLC stands for Downloadable Content, and I'm going to implement it for my two previous books, The Darkness of the Womb, and A Boy and His Corpse. What they will be is short (Very short, 25 pages) stories that connect the books, but are also standalone titles. The first short story, "Clean Hands," will be about events prior to The Darkness of the Womb, but will have no true connection to it, so you wouldn't have had to read the book to know what's going on. It will be free and introduce the world to people who have never read my first book (Which seems to be the entire world itself).
My second short story, also 25 pages, will be about events AFTER A Boy and His Corpse. It will be titled, "Q: Are We Not Human? A: We Are Corpses!" which is a send-up of one of the most famous Devo albums. This title will only be free if you sign up for my mailing list, which is something I've (stupidly) neglected to set up for a long time.
So, you might be wondering why I'm doing this. Wouldn't it be wiser of me to invest in marketing campaigns and other things that other authors are already doing? Well, probably, but I think this is a way to get readers who otherwise wouldn't pick up my previous work to perhaps give it a gander if they like "Clean Hands" or "Are We Not Human?" Maybe then, if I get at least some kind of audience, I can move on with my life. But until then, I'll just keep pushing to get my first two books noticed. It's an uphill battle and one that I'll continue endlessly to climb. Whatever it takes.
June 24, 2015
The Top Five Worst Pixar Movies
Inside Out is probably Pixar's best film yet. In fact, it's pretty hard to pick out many stinkers from the company that Lasseter built. But there are some stinkers, and I don't think many people would disagree with (most of) my choices below. Honestly, I would put Wall-E on this list, since I hate that film, but I know that's more of my own personal taste. Deep down, I know it's a good picture. I just can't muster the energy to care about.
5. Brave
This Oscar-winning picture isn't really bad per se, as much as it's disappointing. With a kickass heroine who can take care of herself and decide her own future, it's kind of shitty that the second act involves her mother turning into a bear. There's a lot to like in this film, such as the theme and setting, but I just can't get over how stupid that second half is. A bear? Really?
4. Cars
The concept for Cars alone is pretty stupid. Cars with lights for windshields have problems and do things. Sure, Paul Newman is in the movie, and sure, Larry the Cable Guy's jokes aren't THAT bad, but overall, there is little, if anything, to like about this picture. If there was ever a Pixar movie that was made to sell toys, it's this one.
3. Monsters Inc.
A lot of people might put Monsters U. on this list, but I actually liked the sequel much more than the original, as it had more personality and spunk. For all its cuteness and creativity, though, the original picture is quite stale and doesn't hold up well. The jokes, even with Billy Crystal, don't usually land, and besides the tremendous final act with the legion of doors, the overall storyline is just missing something. A controversial pick to be sure, but it's one I'm sticking with. Monsters Inc. is not a great film, and worse all the more so since it had so much potential (Which Monsters U. ran with).
2. A Bug's Life
A Bug's Life is a terrible, terrible movie that both feels too long, and yet, too short at the same time, which is weird. The protagonist is annoying to the point of being unlikeable, and the antagonist, played by the brilliant Kevin Spacey, doesn't feel menacing enough. Overall, it just feels like a third-rate Disney movie that's not even good enough to go straight-to-DVD. There's a reason why the Monsters Inc. poster above says "From the creators of Toy Story" and doesn't even mention this clunker. It was only Pixar's second film, but it really brought you down from the high that was the first Toy Story.
1. Cars 2
Oh, man. The grand turkey of them all. If you thought Cars was bad, then you ain't seen nothing. Cars 2 is such an abomination, that within 45 minutes of the picture, I turned to my wife and told her to please wake me up when it was over. Larry the Cable Guy, who is ok in moderation, stars in this spy caper that ends up being so insufferably terrible that longtime fans of Pixar were convinced that the company had lost all of its magic. Inside Out is of course proof that that's not true, but Lawdy, this film gave us some doubts. Please never make another sequel to this franchise.
5. Brave
This Oscar-winning picture isn't really bad per se, as much as it's disappointing. With a kickass heroine who can take care of herself and decide her own future, it's kind of shitty that the second act involves her mother turning into a bear. There's a lot to like in this film, such as the theme and setting, but I just can't get over how stupid that second half is. A bear? Really?
4. Cars
The concept for Cars alone is pretty stupid. Cars with lights for windshields have problems and do things. Sure, Paul Newman is in the movie, and sure, Larry the Cable Guy's jokes aren't THAT bad, but overall, there is little, if anything, to like about this picture. If there was ever a Pixar movie that was made to sell toys, it's this one.
3. Monsters Inc.
A lot of people might put Monsters U. on this list, but I actually liked the sequel much more than the original, as it had more personality and spunk. For all its cuteness and creativity, though, the original picture is quite stale and doesn't hold up well. The jokes, even with Billy Crystal, don't usually land, and besides the tremendous final act with the legion of doors, the overall storyline is just missing something. A controversial pick to be sure, but it's one I'm sticking with. Monsters Inc. is not a great film, and worse all the more so since it had so much potential (Which Monsters U. ran with).
2. A Bug's Life
A Bug's Life is a terrible, terrible movie that both feels too long, and yet, too short at the same time, which is weird. The protagonist is annoying to the point of being unlikeable, and the antagonist, played by the brilliant Kevin Spacey, doesn't feel menacing enough. Overall, it just feels like a third-rate Disney movie that's not even good enough to go straight-to-DVD. There's a reason why the Monsters Inc. poster above says "From the creators of Toy Story" and doesn't even mention this clunker. It was only Pixar's second film, but it really brought you down from the high that was the first Toy Story.
1. Cars 2
Oh, man. The grand turkey of them all. If you thought Cars was bad, then you ain't seen nothing. Cars 2 is such an abomination, that within 45 minutes of the picture, I turned to my wife and told her to please wake me up when it was over. Larry the Cable Guy, who is ok in moderation, stars in this spy caper that ends up being so insufferably terrible that longtime fans of Pixar were convinced that the company had lost all of its magic. Inside Out is of course proof that that's not true, but Lawdy, this film gave us some doubts. Please never make another sequel to this franchise.
