Sci-Fi, fantasy and speculative Indie Authors Review discussion

Further to my plea in the Tech folder, I've been wondering why I prefer real books to ebooks (I'm no Luddite, it surely goes deeper). I did grow up in an era when such things were themselves still science fiction, and my own theory is that the look, feel, smell and sound of a real book reminds me of being a little kid: curl up in an armchair beside the fire with one and, for an hour or two, I'm back in the small, uncomplicated, safe little world of an eight-year-old.

Any better ideas out there?

I'm not sure. I hated the idea of ebooks and ereaders for a long time, but after getting an ipad, became a convert. I think my principle objection was the threat to bookshops, but the hegemony of Waterstones in the UK has cooled my enthusiasm for those establishments, which are much more 'one size fits all' than they used to be. At the same time, acquiring e-books is so easy and convenient. For reasons I can't quite fathom, I read more when I'm reading from an ereader. Perhaps the tipping point for me is slightly ironic - I like to keep books in mint condition, not sure why, I just do and always have, and reading them inevitably leads to some wear. You can't break the spine on a Mobi!

Otherwise, I am surprised at how analogous the experiences of reading a real book and an ereader actually are for me. I thought they would feel very different, but for some reason they don't for me.

As a reader I do prefer a "real" book. I like the feel of it, the smell, the rustle of the pages as I turn them, and the they look so good lined up on my shelves. I love seeing books on shelves when I go to other people's homes. I love being able to see instantly what people like and whether we have similar tastes. I like the classiness of hardbacks and the ease of reading with a paperback. And with a paperback I can read it in the bath. If I drop it it's easy enough to get it dried out. Not so easy with a Kindle.

I have a Kindle and I can see its plus points.

You can store a heck of a lot of books on it.
It is lightweight.
It is easy to download books onto it wherever you are.
If you have a lack of space in your home for any more books then it's great.
It might help save a few trees.
For those who like to read - ahem - naughty books (lol) it can be great. You can read them on the train and no one will suspect.
Unless you're reading a PDF you can resize the text for your convenience.

It has its minus points too though.

Any electronic device is subject to battery problems.
It can be affected by static and magnets.
You can't read it in the bath.
It can freeze, thus needing to be reset.
The screen can be hard on the eyes.

As a writer I am grateful for ebooks because I have more chance of getting my work out there for people to read.

I don't see me ever giving up "real" books though. If I have £8 on me to spare and a choice between spending that on a paperbook or an ebook the paperbook will win every time. Stephen King has a new book coming out in hardback in June and the chances are that I will be bobbing to Tesco to buy it for probably about £10. £10 worth of book actually in my hands just feels like a better deal than £10 worth of book on my Kindle. Diana Gabaldon also has a new hardback out this year but Tesco never seem to sell any of her books so it'll have to be Waterstones. The last Gabaldon book cost me about £17. That's more than I like to pay for a hardback but I just have to have the "real" book in my hand when it's by one of my favourite authors and I can't wait a year from the paperback, even though I prefer a paperback.

If I was insanely rich then I would buy the hardback, paperback and ebook version of every book I liked. The hardback for display, the paperback to read while having a nice long soak in the tub and the ebook to read on the bus or the train.

If people did stop creating physical books then I suppose I would adapt but it's always been my dream to one day own a library's worth of books and sit surrounded by them.

Let me start by saying I'm 50 years old and I've been a reader since before I started school.

So you could say I have a strong opinion on this.

I greatly prefer ebooks over print, and can't even read most paperbacks any more. I do still collect hardcovers, but when it comes to reading, for me it's electronic all the way.

I read on my iPhone, on my Kindle, and on my Tablet; and I read a lot.

I understand all the arguments about books as physical objects, and the idea of permanent value. However, for me it all comes down to one simple point: ebooks provide a better reading experience.

Eink screens are no harder on the eyes than the paper used in most paperbacks. Being able to adjust the font size is a godsend. Not having a gutter makes long books more readable because you don't lose part of the line.

Other factors like synchronization across multiple platforms are nice.

As for reading in the bath, I have no problem using a Kindle. It's lighter than a paperback, and if I'm really nervous I can put it in a ziploc bag and still turn pages.

Oh and just an aside: I have problems with the use of the term "real" to refer to physical books as opposed to digital ones.

They're both real, ebook authors have to spend just as much time, effort, and skull-sweat pounding out their stories as those whose books end up in print.

Both kinds have advantages, and most importantly they have different advantages, so it's more likely they'll coexist for a long time.

I am also an avid reader and am not a youngster either, I prefer ereaders now for so many reasons. One which is a great factor for me is holding it - with nerve damage in wrists I can't actually hold a large book now, it hurts. Kindles brought joy back to my reading instead of pain.Plus I don't need to go anywhere to get them, just log on and download. I am not alone in that. I publish my work as ebooks and paperbacks but by far it's the ebooks that far outsell paperbacks. I mostly use my kindle to read but do read on my iphone while waiting at the docs etc and sometimes use my ipad.
I would also point out that ebooks are just as real as other physical books too.

Good points all (including the one about the phrase "real books"; I've spent my two hours in the Naughty Corner with no dinner).

For me the mystery has deepened a bit though. Last November in the Guardian newspaper they reported on a survey of 18- to 24-year-olds about exactly this subject, physical v digital. With all other media (music, films, newspapers and mags, video games) they preferred digital over physical (in most cases hands down); the single exception was books - and the main reason given was that they liked the feel, weight and even smell of a re-...er, of a paper book. Which knocks my theory on the head I think because, while it may explain my own preference, it surely doesn't explain theirs.

One thing you have to consider is that books differ from music, games, and other media in one very fundamental way: They're complete in themselves.

You can't pick up a CD and listen to it, nor can you pick up a DVD and watch the movie. You have to put them in a player, first. It may be physical, but it's not human readable on its own.

Books are different. You don't have to put one in a device to read it.

The proper comparison for books would be between buying ebooks as direct download vs. going to the store and buying them on a memory card. Obviously, the latter is a bit ridiculous, which is why it never took off.

Where I see ebooks taking off is by exploiting the fact the US mass market is broken. The strip cover return system involves so much wastage that publishers are going to drive the shift from mass market paperbacks to ebooks for purely economic reasons.

Ok, gonna refute that article (after all it's a PAPER that's saying it and all stats can be made to put over what you want) just look around, everywhere you go look around, how many folks do you see with a paper book in their hand and how many do you see with an iphone, iPad, Kindle, Nook or various other devices? I know I haven't seen a paper book for ages, even on holiday everyone had a device that they were reading on instead of a paper book. So the survey - sorry I'll take that with a pinch of salt - a very large pinch of salt.

Oh I hope you managed to grab some supper seeing as you didn't get dinner lol!

The Supermarket Books Theory:

I'm calling all the above the Real Books Theory, but before I trudge back to the Naughty Corner here's another. First, humour varies from continent to continent, countries don't all find the same things funny; and second, formerly this didn't matter much to most writers because the book market was far more localised and, apart from those of the top authors, books were on sale only in their own country.

These days via Amazon even the novice indie author has, potentially, a global audience. But, might writing a funny book reduce your chances of success? So why risk it? And if that's true of humour, what about other, even riskier, material: politics, history, religion, bad language and obscenity - anything, in fact, which might offend half a continent? So is this increasing globalisation of writing going to produce (perhaps it already is?) ever blander books, the literary equivalent of supermarket food, an average trying to please everyone?

And what, finally (and it's this that really worries me), of originality - the riskiest stuff of all?

Interesting idea Richard.
Some books and some writers don't seem to travel. I sell very few books in the US. Why? I genuinely don't know, perhaps my humour (they're not meant to be funny) is a bit dry, or doesn't appeal. Yet I know other British writers who sell a far higher proportion of books into the US than the relative population size of the two countries would indicate.
So perhaps writing will become blander.

I guess it would depend on the genre - humour definitely there is a divide - you only have to look at UK comedies that have gone to the US and see the difference in them. Romance, Fantasy, Para, Erotica - prob not, but again would depend on the settings etc. As a reader I sincerely hope things don't become blander.

I'm with you on that one :-)
we don't need bland

Nope I use my reading as a place to escape to - what a let down if everything was bland - I would scream!

Blimey, Richard. Is this the sort of thing you think about in the wee small hours? I thought I was bad just imaging end of world type scenarios! It is a worrying thought that books might become blander BUT since authors can now directly publish, they need not edit out originality to please masses unless they choose to. The only real pressure is sales - admittedly a big one. On the other hand unless you're looking to make a fortune it is theoretically possible to make a comfortable living wage from writing without selling your soul or your craft. The one thing that reassures me, is that readers as the ultimate gatekeepers, are not all the same. There will always be some people who want what you're selling and while it can take a while to reach your target audience, you've got a greater chance of doing that now than when traditional publishing was the sole means of distribution, I think.

I will not be writing bland. I'd go mad even trying!

Agree Jules x

Ah but how many folks buy a film from Sky/Virgin to watch? Lots - and sometimes it's nearly as expensive as going to the cinema to watch and once watched they don't have anything to hold plus it's over quicker than a good book lol.

Good points, tho I used to use the library a lot - I would've been bankrupt otherwise!

yeah lol, that's what I loved when the kindle came out - you could get books a lot cheaper than their paperback or hardback in the shops and I started to buy much more. Got out of hand for a while though lol as kept buying and had tons on and think I'm pretty sure still working through them, then I'll see another I fancy and get that too - as I've just done!

But it bugs me that an e-book is apparently worth less than a coffee.
I know people who would spend more on the chocolate they eat reading the book than they would spend on the book :-(

I have to agree Jim, most ebooks now are indeed cheaper than a cappuccino but I'm not sure if we can change that.

Richard wrote: "The Supermarket Books Theory:

I'm calling all the above the Real Books Theory, but before I trudge back to the Naughty Corner here's another. First, humour varies from continent to continent, cou..."

I don't think blandness is really an issue.

One of the biggest advantages the current ebook ecosystem provides is its size. There are so many people that we can pretty much be assured that there is an audience for anything that's at least competently written.

The key to success is then based on the intersection of the size of that audience, and your ability to make them aware of your book Best of all, there's often a correlation between how narrow your niche is and how much those few who are interested in the product are willing to pay.

The other thing to consider is that the numbers involved are so huge that your really don't have to tap into that great a market to do so.

Do u have a magic formula Dave lol, if so please share, I'm useless at all that kinda stuff.

Part the first: Write a good book :)

Then pick your keywords carefully. You want at least one keyword that fits one of the existing Amazon subcategories for your genre.

For example: SF & Fantasy => SF => Space Opera

That's important because it has a bestseller list that people looking for those kinds of books can browse to.

Then promote your book so you can get into the top 100 list for an existing subcategory. Now you're in a situation where people can find your book by browsing rather than just searching.

That's important because searchers need to have already heard of your book before they can find it: browsers don't. They're just looking for a book like yours.

That's where I'm useless the keyword thingmabob, my books are Paranormal Romance/Urban Fantasy and I use the usual Vamp, Wolf, Witches etc but pretty sure I could use better ones, just don't know what they are lol.

Part of it is just look at the kindle bestseller lists and see which keywords are already there. You're not so much making them up as picking.

(It doesn't hurt that I'm in a much smaller market than you are)

Okay I'm must be really dumb - I've got the bestsellers up for paranormal romance - where do you see the keywords?

When you click on Romance => Paranormal you see a series of subcategories

Angels
Demons & Devils
Ghosts
Psychics
Vampires
Werewolves & Shifters
Witches & Wizards

Using keywords from those subcategories is what worked for me.

Well, my equivalent for SF

okey doke, will put some time down for checking my keywords and what I can improve, thanks Dave, much appreciated

Dave wrote: "When you click on Romance => Paranormal you see a series of subcategories

Angels
Demons & Devils
Ghosts
Psychics
Vampires
Werewolves & Shifters
Witches & Wizards

Using keywords from those subcate..."

This is gold! Thanks so much.

So far I've only published eBooks...and yet I've never read an eBook other than my own.

I really don't have any problem with the eBook concept. I can totally understand why people like them.

Part of my problem is that the only devices I own for reading eBooks are a Netbook and a couple iPads. Books look great on the iPad, but I find carrying one around just to read is cumbersome. On the Netbook I'd be using the Kindle for PC app, which I find rather clunky. The Nook's was even worse.

But my real issue with eBooks is that every time I try to read one...I find myself slipping into editing mode, not reader mode. I do all my writing in Word. I do all my initial editing in Word and then make several passes at editing after formatting the eBook by reading it on an iPad and highlighting any issues.

So when I pull up someone else's book, I find myself analyzing sentences, tutting to myself and going "Oh, that could have been put better...how would I write that sentence? Yeah, that bit up front instead of at the back, cut that out, change that phrase to this...Yep, that's better."

I end up having no genuinely fun reading experience.

When I'm reading a physical book, I still notice the typos and sometimes clunky writing, but only when they really stand out. Otherwis, I can tune out the world and just read.

So...it's a personal thing w/me, not really a fundamental problem with the technology.

Hi Micah
I'm glad it's not just me. I see an electronic document and I edit it :-(
When I got my first paperback copy from the publisher I sat and read it, and it was an utterly different experience to reading an ebook version. (I have to read them on a desk top machine which doesn't help)
But with the paperback I just read it and didn't try to edit at all

Yeh, I get that about the editing. I start highlighting and making adjustments to other people's books even! Although most of them are my mates and are grateful to know about any typos.

Cheers

MTM

I think that's a subconscious reaction: with a hardback or paperback you know you can't alter it - the ink is dry so to speak, the book is physically glued together with actual, real, glue! On the other hand (particularly if you habitually write thousands of words) you're used to thinking of anything on a screen as malleable. Speaking personally, all physical books look finished, even when containing typos; and all ebooks still look unfinished, even when word-perfect.

Actually, I've been thinking quite a bit more about all this in the interim, still trying to get at the subject properly. My own book is in print as a hardback, a paperback and, more recently, now also as an ebook - and the hardback looks (by some distance) the best; the cover in particular is drop-dead gorgeous on the hardback. The paperback looks okay, not bad. The ebook, well...the first time I saw it I just put my head down on the keyboard, not sure whether to laugh or cry...

I've been trying to imagine how paperbacks must have looked when those were first introduced: I don't know, but I'd hazard a guess that, to readers used only to hardbacks until then, the paperbacks must have looked cheap, trashy, throwaway by comparison (which of course they are). Well, to me ebooks are just another step in the same direction: even lower quality than paperbacks. In fact, maybe that's it right there: ever-lower quality, is that (finally, at last!) what I dislike about them, a whole trend which they represent? (Robert Pirsig, discuss!)

Mr. Pirsig would say that the format (i.e., ebook, paperback, hardback) is the Static Quality of the package--novel and format--and isn't really the novel itself. The Static Quality of anything can be reduced to its molecules by the forces of Nature. The idea, the thoughts that you put on paper or in digital format, is the Dynamic Quality of the novel. The Dynamic Quality of the novel, the idea itself, can exist without any of the formats (i.e., the Static Quality), and can never be destroyed. Look at how the Dynamic Quality of Shakespeare's plays has survived intact into today, while the Static Quality--the format he used in writing them--has deteriorated to the point at which it is unusable in a practical sense. Therefore, the quality of the book cannot be judged by its format, past, present, or future, but by how sustainable is the Dynamic Quality of its idea. Ergo, write the best book you can, damn the slings and arrows, and full speed ahead.

Ken wrote: "The Dynamic Quality of the novel, the idea itself, can exist without any of the formats (i.e., the Static Quality), and can never be destroyed."

Dynamic Quality can be destroyed, though. All it takes is for every copy of the Static Quality to be destroyed and the memory of the Dynamic Quality to be forgotten.

For example:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-cu...

And who knows what treasures were lost with the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, or the fires and subsequent destruction by Crusaders of the Imperial Library of Constantinople.

That is quite a list! To which I'll add:

Atlantis: A History (manuscript water-damaged beyond recall); God (lost, most likely during the nineteenth century); The Universe (ninety per cent missing and the remainder, frankly, still pretty indecipherable); and The Bermuda Triangle Guide Book (believed lost en route to the publisher).

Any more?

Micah wrote: "Ken wrote: "The Dynamic Quality of the novel, the idea itself, can exist without any of the formats (i.e., the Static Quality), and can never be destroyed."

Dynamic Quality can be destroyed, thoug..."

Richard wrote: "That is quite a list! To which I'll add:

Atlantis: A History (manuscript water-damaged beyond recall); God (lost, most likely during the nineteenth century); The Universe (ninety per cent missing ..."

I'm afraid you'll both have to take that up with Mr. Pirsig. I think he might say that you're looking at the small picture, the exceptions that prove the rule.

The Character-Dump Theory:

Time for another theory I think (a conspiracy theory this time). Now, this is going to sound like someone standing up in a roomful of people and admitting they're an alcoholic, but...well...(sound of a chair scraping backwards)...Hello everybody, my name is Richard, and I like info-dumps.

What is wrong with info-dumps? Why are info-dumps a hanging offence while character-dumps are (apparently) okay? By 'character-dumps' I mean those little potted descriptions ('...hair blonde, jaw firm, piercing blue eyes beneath a steely brow...' etc, etc) you get every time a new character appears - how I detest those! To someone who reads more for ideas than characters (we've discussed this before here and I know I'm probably in a minority of one on that) these endless descriptions of clothes, hair, piercing eyes, firm jaws, etc, ETC, look suspiciously like padding.

So where did the idea that info-dumps are 'wrong' come from? My theory is that it started as a conspiracy: a secret cabal of authors (authors without a single original idea between them, but who could at least do characters) first put this idea about to ensure only their own kind of fiction gets published - and everyone else has just followed like sheep ever since.

The only remaining question is of whether this evil Illuminati are ruthless enough to actually bump off infodump-tolerant people like me (I'll be watching my back from now on!).

Well, 'info dumps' are another one of those things that seemed to be OK not so very long ago but are now a mortal sin (see also shifting POV within a scene and opening a chapter with dialogue). Most of Arthur C Clarke's novels have a fairly significant info dump in there somewhere, and even the ultra literary genre fiction exponent JG Ballard puts one into most of his SF novels - usually so he can get all that awkward science stuff out the way in one go so he can move on with the important business of navigating the tortured channels of the human mind as it regresses toward some form of prehistoric lizard state when in enviromental extremis.

Oh yes, so the question of where it came from that infodumps are wrong. I have a theory that many of the rules imposed on authors these days have come from the massive rise in self and indie published authors. With writers who are less experienced and trained, critiquing services and creative writing courses may have begun to introduce guidelines of things to avoid before the writer has the skill to do them well. These have filtered into publishers' and readers' consciousness as things that are just plain wrong and now if you do them at all it's evidence that you're a bad writer

In my opinion, you can get away with info-dumps as long as it's done in an entertaining way, or when the reader would actually have become curious about the info you're dumping and wants to know about it. I suspect that many indie authors don't have the skills to integrate the info successfully within their stories, and so it becomes tedious when they do. Also, they may not know how to limit it--or, how much is enough.

Are you talking about infodumps in the books themselves? Or like some books I've seen that have an index listing characters and place descriptions and sometimes even made up language in the book(and I know ALL language is made up.)

Amanda wrote: "Are you talking about infodumps in the books themselves? Or like some books I've seen that have an index listing characters and place descriptions and sometimes even made up language in the book(an..."

Info dumps are paragraphs of narrated info within the story itself, not as an appendix.

I just wanted clarification. I am usually against infodumps then, especially if it is in a series. Why don't people jut read them in order and then they shouldn't need all that reinfo(not a word, I know).

I meant great chunks and wodges of info actually embedded in the narrative itself - although I like all those addenda they often put at the end of a book just as much. I particularly remember Dune which I read as a teenager and had a map, glossary and - the thing I really liked - a sort of separate essay on the ecology of the planet.

Just a thought, but is there any chance that we could all start putting those little potted descriptions of characters at the back as well, where I can ignore them?

When I went to Gary Gibson's SF master class at York last year, one of the things we covered was info dumping. The received wisdom ATM with regard to all SFF is that a certain amount of info dumping is allowed because you need to world build on a larger scale than a contemporary set novel. The same could be said for historical fiction. The trick, Mr Gibson said, was to make the description do the narrating. What he meant was that the description or info dump should be integral to that part of the story. One good way of doing this is to describe the unusual world building elements of a scene through your lead character's eyes in a way that they would relate to them.

In her book Mugging the Muse, Holly Lisle explains this in more detail. Worth a look.

As for why it became a no-no? Well books in the 1700-1920s were designed to be read aloud ( no TV) so lots of description and information was de rigor. If you read a bit of a nineteenth century novel aloud you can see that words were chosen not for how they communicate from page to eye but from page to ear - the skill was in selecting words that have the story a natural rythym. While I love the 19th century novel even I am brought up short by Melville stopping the hunt of the white whale for four chapters to give us a detailed life of the sperm whale.

It's possible that now we've swung too far the other way...

I like additional bits and appendices in books as long as I like the book. I especially like a good family tree if it crosses several generations and has loads of characters :)

Yes, a certain amount of info is integral to the story but it shouldn't interrupt the flow of the book, like in Moby Dick, to the point where you just want to skip to the actual story.

I really like it when they make maps either in the front or the back of the places in the book, especially if they made them up.

Maybe I am in the minority, but I prefer a long info dump to maps and appendices. When I am reading fiction, the last thing I want to do is flip to a different page for more information. It's not an encyclopedia, it's a story. Tell me whatever I should know about the setting in the context of what is happening. Just don't Anne-Rice a whole chapter about the trees beside the flagstone walkway. There is a happy medium in there that i think authors need to shoot for.

I agree with Jules, there are better and worse ways for conveying the information in rerspect of the narrative. I actually don't mind diverging from the story to hear about the history, but then I enjoy reading history, so I'm quite possibly in a minority there. These days, it seems, story is king to such an extent that nothing must hamper it. I feel for the modern day Melvilles and Victor Hugos, who can no longer put 15 chapters about the Battle of Waterloo just for the sake of one tiny reveal at the end of them.

I'm sure I read somewhere that on average 20,000 words extra is allocated on Sci-fi/fantasy books because of the need to effectively 'info dump' in order to create alternate words. So the average novel is expected on average to be 80,000 (any more than 90,000 and the publishers start worrying about its viability in the market), whereas it is not unusual for sci-fi novels of 110,000 to be thought of as perfectly on target and market viable. At any rate, I do get that chunks and chunks of narrative embedded within novels can be too much and yeah, there's no need to info dump on past narrative events in other books within a series: just read the damn things in order!

I can dig a well-crafted map. (or even a shoddy one, I guess) That's something that you can check out at a glance.

Oh man, but the appendices... no way. I can't be bothered to read any ordered lists. (George R. R. Martin is a major offender, but then again I'm sure he needs the lists himself to keep track of all those lineages.)

Anyway, I never read them, and if I get to the point in the story where I don't know a name I was supposed to get from the list...well, I just pretend I'm a man in the fantasy world that doesn't follow politics. I shrug and move on.