The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion
Authors / Self promotion
>
What this folder is for...
date
newest »
newest »
New Genre- Historical Science FictionMy name is J. Channing and I am releasing my second edition of Forever, a Nazi Science-Fiction thriller.
Please E-mail our publisher at Redteamink@gmail.com for a FREE galley copy that we would love for you to review, offer expires August 1st 2016.
www.redteamink.com
Quick question: Can you nominate your own book for a group read? If yes, and it matches the category/time period, then when and where does one place a nomination? I'm so busy writing that I always seem to miss a nomination thread and only really notice the polls. Thanks
Chris wrote: "Quick question: Can you nominate your own book for a group read? "Mods will answer more definitely, but I guess that unless you are the author that already influenced the SF (the group is chiefly interested in the evolution of the genre), then no.
Oleksandr wrote: "Chris wrote: "Quick question: Can you nominate your own book for a group read? "Mods will answer more definitely, but I guess that unless you are the author that already influenced the SF (the gr..."
Thanks, Oleksandr. Some groups let you nominate your own work, some don't. I'm just curious, really. Regardless, it's one of my favourite groups because I find work from authors I never knew existed.
We're discussing it. Right now the rules only allow authors to pitch their books in the Promotion folder & that's been working pretty well. If any group members have strong feelings about it, let us know. You can post here or PM either Jo or me. We'd like your input.
Jim wrote: "We're discussing it. Right now the rules only allow authors to pitch their books in the Promotion folder & that's been working pretty well. If any group members have strong feelings about it, let u..."Hi Jim, thanks for your input.
Now, how best to put this without coming across as radical or desperate? Hmmm. I'll do my best...
What I often witness in most groups, with a few exceptions, is that self-published authors' work rarely gets nominated because an author nominating his own work is seen as self-promotion, and rightly so (rules and rules and they need to be respected, which is why I enquired). But that then creates a common pattern where you see all the big names getting reads and rereads, whereas self-pub authors are only allowed to have a folder where they can self-promote, which is pushed to the bottom of the pile by other folders crawling on top of each other to get that percentage of a very short attention span. Something like that.
As the nature of the group is EVOLUTION of the genre from a chronological perspective, surely indie work would predominantly apply to books published from 2000 onward. If the theme is 1920's sci-fi, I doubt there's a self-pub author who will nominate his/her work - and if there is, I'd like to know what's their secret to their diet.
I can't really give any ideas on the matter, as I don't know the back end of a group, but that's my input. Apart from being an author, I'm also a reader, so I'm happy for things to stay as they are with this group.
Good points, Chris, & those are why we're discussing it. Still, I'd like to know how most of the group members feel about the idea. On the downside, there area a lot of indie authors & some have abused the system & caused a lot of hard feelings toward all indie authors. I guess it was about 5 years ago things were really bad here, but things are getting better. Would it be a good thing for this group, though?
A lot of people still feel that any self-published author doesn't rank the same as one published through a regular publishing house. They've skipped the gate keepers because they're just not as good. If they really were good, they'd go the regular route. While there are some notable exceptions, it quite often holds true - the writing isn't up to standards.
I get quite a few books by indie authors. Even after vetting them more carefully than normal, I only find 1 in a dozen worth reading. It's too obvious that the writing is hackneyed & completely unedited. Still, the ones that are good are a treat. There are several indie authors that I look forward to reading whenever they come out with a new book. A couple have been picked up by major publishers.
Anyway, we'd like to know how the rest of the group feels. I don't want a flock of indie authors descending on us, but it's easy enough to vote for something else on a poll. So far, no one else has let me know one way or the other, though.
I, personally, prefer to keep self-promotion to this folder, whether or not self-published or indie. If Ted Chiang or Emma Newman themselves were to come in and promote their books, I'd want them here.The Time-Travel group did have an interesting way to drum up interest in self-promoted books. In a certain folder, each month, an author would offer a copy of their book as a prize in a drawing... to be eligible for the drawing, one had to answer a few questions.
The questions were like Pre-reading Discussion questions, related to the ideas in the book. For example if the giveaway were for The Hobbit one of the questions might be 'how would you feel if you were living a comfortable peaceful life and then a wizard knocked on your door and sent you on a quest? Would you accept the mission?"
We could do something like that maybe.
I wouldn't mind one author trying to get his novel in the poll list and then members voting on what they want to read. But... If one can do it any author should be able to do it. And that can lead to a flood of nominations no one will want to vote for anyway. And since there isn't a screening process in this group for nominations (like someone seconding a nomination), I have to say I'm AGAINST authors nominating their work.
I have no problem with an author nominating his/her book for the Group Read as long as the book nominated fits the category called for. Calls for best 1920s and 1930s work not yet nominated is something our live author's work can't qualify for. Nominate a cyberpunk short story collection, well, maybe. I also have no problem with an author saying on the nominating page why a work, even if it's his/hers, should win the vote. If the author can do this without getting too wordy, or unduly irritating the members, maybe his/her story deserves to be read.I really don't expect this to become much of an issue for our group. Most of the categories we nominate for, a living GoodReads author's work can't qualify in the category. Even if it does, and even if it's nominated, it's an uphill battle for it to be selected. Most often, it's the better known, not necessarily the better written work that ends up winning. In short, I'll be amazed even if we open up nominations for an author to nominate his own work, if we actually end up reading it.
I'd also be more willing to read it. I mean, how often do you have such direct access as we would have to the author?
I'm not against an author nominating his/her book for the Group Read if it fit other requirements (this usually limits such nominations to about 2 times per year, when the newest SF is read). However, IIRC polls in GR are limited by 5 (?) options, so if a lot of works willl be promoted, a multi-stage voting is required.I liked a method described by Cheryl
Jim wrote: "Good points, Chris, & those are why we're discussing it. Still, I'd like to know how most of the group members feel about the idea. On the downside, there area a lot of indie authors & some have ..."
On your note about indie authors, we share the same feelings, more or less. There are those who ruin it for everybody else, both authors, who spend lots of time and money on their work, and readers who invest time and money reading their favourite genres. Lack of editing, keyword stuffing of their books on Amazon (example: BEST SPACE OPERA ACTION ADVENTURE THRILLER POST-APOCALYPTIC DYSTOPIAN ... {12 words later} ... MILITARY SCIFI SCIENCE FICTION BOOK), plugging wherever and whenever possible... It's no wonder why there's a misconception.
I disagree that an author not traditionally published is inferior to one who is. A book is conceived in the same manner before the author goes down the traditional or self-published path, which is either a choice or a result of consequence. An agent might turn his nose up on a book that doesn't fit the mainstream that dictates buyer behavior, and that book, which could be revolutionary, won't see the light of day. Some authors haven't even thought of the traditional route, or haven't had the time to even begin the lengthy process of acquiring an agent, or they just want to experiment as indies for a while to explore all options. Hugh Howey did it, and he became my motivation to self-publish. Who knows. maybe someday I'll try going traditional.
Anyway, I don't want to divert this thread with my yammering. To bring it back on course: I think I like Cheryl's idea. I also like what Dan said.
Oleksandr wrote: "I'm not against an author nominating his/her book for the Group Read if it fit other requirements (this usually limits such nominations to about 2 times per year, when the newest SF is read). Howev..."Cheryl's idea has some merit, but then Jo or I would have to spend more time dealing with it & the author can do it themselves in their own promotion topics, so I'd rather not.
I don't understand what you mean about the 4 or 5 options. I think you mean the number of books that can be voted on in a poll. I don't know what the limit is, but it's more like 99 or something. We generally break it out over 8 books, but that's a somewhat arbitrary number that we decided on to create a clear winner & keep the conversation going.
Jim wrote: ". I think you mean the number of books that can be voted on in a poll. "Yes. I never have made a poll on GR but on another group a mod said that two-tier selection of month reads is due to the limit in the number of options
This is a can of worms. Long post, but please read to the bottom & let me know if you can live with my proposal.As I see it, we have 2 separate questions & 1 big fear.
1) Can authors nominate their own books?
2) What constitutes an indy author?
Big Fear: We get spammed.
1) Can authors nominate their own books? If the author was a big name, I'd say yes. I loved reading a book with Modesitt or Morrell taking an active part in the discussion. I don't want to decide who is a big name & who isn't.
2) What constitutes an indy author? I don't know & as one of the people that will have to make the decision, I need it defined. Any author can create a name that looks like a publishing company & hook it up to a free email account. There are a lot of vanity presses, too. Michael Sullivan created his own publishing company. I don't think that ever published a book by another author & then he got picked up by Orbit.
On the flip side, big name authors like Konrath & Eisler ditched their big name publishers & are now self-published. If either of them wrote an SF novel (like John Sandford did) & wanted to promote it here, I'd be all for it.
The Big Fear of getting spammed is a real one, but I don't think it will happen. We'll be vigilant & will shut them down quickly, if we have to. I don't think we'll have to if we take proper precautions.
The Action & Adventure group has about 1400 members (We have about 950.) & they started allowing member author reads about a year ago. They have a couple of folders devoted to member-authors. You can take a look at it here:
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
There are very few nominations & very little participation even when the books are really good. Lance Charnes has 4 books out (2 standalones & a series). I've read all 4 & they're really good. The guy is a pro, yet only a few of us read his book. It was disheartening. I agree with Dan that half the time books seem to win on name recognition alone & then few read them again or really discuss them.
I don't expect this group to host the next Hugh Howey, Andy Weir, or Michael Sullivan, but it would be cool. It would also be awful if we banned them here. The book world is evolving, SF with it, & I think we need to do so as well.
I think we should limit authors to their own promotion topic as usual, except they are allowed to nominate their own book with 1 post when appropriate. (They can also answer direct questions succinctly, but chatter should be limited to their promotion topic.) They're allowed to nominate their book up to 3 times or the book wins.
I doubt any will win even if they give away some copies of their books, which we should allow. They should have a good hunk of the book available for preview. That might seem like an unfair advantage, but at least one member wrote to me that they wouldn't read it unless it was free. I suspect most won't vote for it or even read it then, but it does give them a better chance.
Marc-André's point is well taken. I don't want to encourage sock puppets or friend floods so I further suggest that we limit self-nominations to authors who have been members for a few months (3). Ditto with members voting on the polls. I've seen authors get a bunch of friends & descend on a group to nominate & push through a book. It's very disruptive & it causes a lot of hard feelings. It's also a PITA for the mods. If it looks like it is happening, we'll have to go through every voter & look up how long they've been here. Yuck.
If we have a bunch of indy authors nominating their books, we may well break their books off to a separate poll or not. It depends. Right now we break up more than 8 nominations into 2 polls at our own discretion. No one has complained or even mentioned it that I recall.
Keep in mind that Jo & I are volunteers who just want a good, interesting, happy group. We don't want to spend all our time shepherding the group. We want to be fair, but keep solutions simple & quick.
Can you live with my proposal? Comments? Criticisms? Changes?
Sounds good. It can aléas change later if problems arise.
The Time-Travel group's feature doesn't actually create more work for the mods, it just gives the author's promotions the support of them by being a special folder. Seconding nominations also works very well in other groups to make the polls more manageable.
But certainly your proposal is fine. As many, including you, have noted, most of the time living authors' works would not even be eligible, so it's certainly worth a try.
May I suggest two further rules?
Authors and their friends must not only have been a member for three months, but have posted at least one comment, probably in the welcome thread. That would make it easier for mods and members to check to see if they're here just for the promotion.
And when authors do nominate their own book, they should disclose fully and justify. I'm a mod in a different group and I'm often investigating... is this book being suggested for this theme because it was written by the author? It sometimes takes real time to dig out nom de plumes or vanity presses, and always takes some clicking.
So something like "I'm Andy Weir, and I'm nominating my book The Martian because it's an exciting survival story with lots of science and technology, much like some of the classics of the early days by Verne and Clarke."
Which reminds me. Are we focusing on books that have been influential in some way? Or are we now reading random stuff from the past because we've already read so many of the classics? Or what? Because I don't think an author who is doing her own promotions qualifies for Influencing the Evolution of SF....
Cheryl wrote: "The Time-Travel group's feature doesn't actually create more work for the mods, it just gives the author's promotions the support of them by being a special folder...."OK. I guess I misunderstood that. We've discussed seconds for nominations before & I don't think there was a lot of support for it. Adding it into the mix just complicates the question even more for me. I was trying to keep this simple so I could sort out my feelings on the matter & hopefully help others to do the same. I'm quite conflicted about this having lived through several waves of pigeon authors over the years.
Cheryl wrote: "Which reminds me. Are we focusing on books that have been influential in some way? Or are we now reading random stuff from the past because we've already read so many of the classics? Or what? Beca..."
Oy! You're trying to make me head hurt, aren't you?
:)
I don't know. I don't think it's worth arguing about since I'm sure we'll never come to a consensus or conclusion. It's up to the group via the polls. That said, any newer books may not have much influence immediately, although a big hit will spawn a lot of copy cats. Whether we read the original or its spawn is fine with me. I can learn a lot from both.
I'm wondering what we're going to do for a poll early on in 2020 when we start a new folder "2020 - 2039". When I type that & look at it, it looks like SF, but it isn't that far away - only 16 months. Wow.
Oh, I like the idea of posting a comment & a proper intro for the book nomination.
Y'know, I'm pretty darn happy with this group. I'm sure whatever you ultimately decide will be fine.
Cheryl wrote: "Y'know, I'm pretty darn happy with this group. I'm sure whatever you ultimately decide will be fine."I second that :P
I'm against authors nominating their own works, period. Most groups have that rule because of abuses that have occurred in the past. We just had a sock puppet incident (allegedly) in this very group just a few months ago so this is obviously a very real concern. In addition, why would an author need to nominate their own work? If the book is that good, wouldn't someone else nominate it?
But if we decided to do it, here's a couple ideas to keep it from being abusive.
1) We can have a second nomination during our read of the 2000-2020s for author nominations. Then anyone who wants to read author nominated books can do so without it disrupting our usual reads.
2) Or, if an author nominates their own book, a moderator would be required to approve the nomination to make sure that the book is something that meets the basic purpose of our group (which is to read the "important" works of SF in chronological order).
Like I said before, I'm against author-nominated books completely but if we decide to allow it I think we need to put some safeguards in place.
Randy wrote: "I'm against authors nominating their own works, period. Most groups have that rule because of abuses that have occurred in the past. We just had a sock puppet incident (allegedly) in this very grou..."You make good points & we'll need to address those when we make the rules, if we decide to go ahead with this. I think we've already addressed most, though.
It's important to note that several things have changed since the bad old days when new authors made our lives miserable. Group moderators had to follow rules way back when & be nice to members. Now, each group is pretty much a benevolent dictatorship. Also, GR has cracked down on authors & made a set of rules for proper behavior. They frown on intrusive self-promotion.
Jo & I already vet every nomination. Haven't you noticed?
The possible sock puppet incident you mention was never proven out & GR has gotten a LOT better about cracking down on them. It's also the only one I remember in my 5 years in this group, so I don't think it is a problem. I take it very seriously. In the decade I've been on GR, I've only banned 1 person from a group & it was for that reason. I won't hesitate to do so again.
That's why I suggested the author or anyone voting for their book has to have been a member for 3 months & Cheryl added the 1 comment & intro. I think those will help.
New authors rarely have the base to get anyone to nominate their books. I'd rather have them nominate it than to have them PM people in the group trying to drum up support.
I don't agree with seconding for self-nominations because of the point I made earlier about how I would feel if a major author nominated their own book. If we don't do it for all, we shouldn't do it at all. I've never felt that seconding was all that great nor did the group, IIRC when we discussed it before.
At worst, I would hope self-nominations would be a minor annoyance, a bit of static twice a year even to those who really detest new, self-published authors. If it becomes more of a hassle than that, we can always stop it, right?
At best, I'm hoping we'll find the new Hugh Howey.
Jim wrote: "I don't agree with seconding for self-nominations..."I didn't mean seconding nominations. I mean a separate group read for author nominations in addition to the usual group read. I have no interest in reading a book that is nominated by the author and I suspect many others feel the same way. Sorry, no offense to the budding Hugh Howeys.
Mod
You can nominate your own book, but it isn't likely to be chosen. The category 2000-2020 is already pretty broad and there are many, many works to choose from. A well-known book is more likely to win.
I know nothing about marketing. But I'd suggest that participating in discussions about books that have inspired you, or which you find interesting, might spur at least a few people to look at your profile and find out that you've written something that they might want to read. Still a long-shot because there are just so many darn books in the world.
Ed wrote: "I know nothing about marketing. But I'd suggest that participating in discussions about books that have inspired you, or which you find interesting, might spur at least a few people to look at your profile and find out that you've written something that they might want to read."I wondered about this myself. Then I realized, maybe it's because they're too busy writing their next book to do this.
That brings up the question, why, when given the opportunity, do self-publishers like to spam innocent victims so much? Do their publishers put them up to it, or are they all such poor judges of character that they think we really care to read their poorly written, poorly edited, derivative piece of crap just because they inform us it exists and their three best friends and two favorite family members told them they were God's gift to writing?
Cheryl wrote: "Y'know, I'm pretty darn happy with this group. I'm sure whatever you ultimately decide will be fine."Thank you to both you & Chris. We try hard!
:)
I meant to write this earlier but I was at work & actually had to do some.
;)
Randy wrote: "I didn't mean seconding nominations. I mean a separate group read for author nominations in addition to the usual group read. I ha..."Ah! OK. I think Ed handled what I would have said. It's probably not going to be a problem. If we get enough self-published authors to make a separate poll, we'll be sure to do that, though. OK?
Dan wrote: "That brings up the question, why, when given the opportunity, do self-publishers like to spam innocent victims so much? Do their publishers put them up to it, or..."IMO, many self-published authors are like young, new parents who can't wait to tell everyone about their baby. Most fiction authors aren't well suited to marketing & they don't bother learning anything about it. They're writers who should be writing, but they can't even afford a decent editing team much less the big bucks a good marketing team commands. Even Michael Sullivan, who was in marketing before he became an author, wasn't very good with the day to day stuff in selling his book. Telling him something was wrong with his baby was touchy. His wife, Robin, did most of the actual selling.
Unfortunately, even the big publishers are pushing more selling on to their authors. One author who came up with George R.R. Martin told me that the publishers seem to push 90% of their advertising behind a few names & the rest get squat. They have to do signings, cons, & all sorts of other stuff petty much on their own.
Not all self-published authors write crap. There are some really good ones like Charnes, Konrath, Eisler, & Howey. It's a tough pile to go through since everyone with any aspiration at all can publish now. I've found it worthwhile to take a few minutes to weed through the offers, but it's a lot like reading through resumes. I have kind of a list of things to look for & ticking any of the boxes means no. Misspellings in the offer is one. Pretty harsh, but a big time saver.
I've read some indie authors that just weren't worth reading, the primary problem being lack of proofreading.However, if an indie author wanted to nominate his book, it almost certainly would be only in the current time category, and it likely wouldn't win the vote. That might not be so bad, as long as we didn't get swamped with SF author wannabes. Wouldn't it be nice if there were an easy way to vet these self-published books?
I mostly read library books (My spouse, on the other hand, singlehandedly makes Amazon profitable). Whether or not I can obtain a book, ebook, or audiobook from my library is a factor in whether or not I'll vote for it in a poll. I expect that my library won't have a new self-published book so if the author doesn't offer a freebie, it likely wouldn't get my vote.
Dan wrote: "That brings up the question, why, when given the opportunity, do self-publishers like to spam innocent victims so much? Do their publishers put them up to it, or..."Self-published authors don't have publishers, so no one puts them up to it. That said, some self-pub authors who take their writing seriously are heavily affected by those who want to grab a quick buck - in the end, writing and publishing a book doesn't make you an author when all you care about is making money. No one despises self-pub authors more than self-pub authors; believe me. Those who take it seriously are those who will spend thousands on a good editor, a thorough proofread, a website, and a computer and paraphernalia to support their aspiration to be seen as serious authors. And time is always an issue, no matter how badly you want to do your own marketing, which costs, roughly, about £7,000-10,000 a year, and that's not even premium (for those wondering why some self-pub authors don't do their own marketing).
Reading some comments of this thread, it hurts seeing how despised self-pub authors are as a whole, and as a whole we're put under categories tagged as "spammers", "author wannabes" and who-knows-what-else. Here are a few pointers on how you can discern these spammers:
1) Check their Amazon page. Is it swarming with keywords? A title like BEST-SELLING EPIC SCI-FI SPACE OPERA MILITARY SCI-FI POST-APOCALYPTIC DYSTOPIAN ACTION ADVENTURE BOOK is an indicator that just screams desperation, decadence and deception.
2) Are they on Kindle Unlimited? The majority of spammers post on Kindle Unlimited, filling up their work with blank pages, copy-pasted text, redundant appendices, not to mention god-awful writing.
3) Do you get friend requests and then a PM that asks for reviews and what not?
4) What are the Goodreads reviews like? Also check Amazon. Can you see 50 5-star reviews in July 2018 when the book was published the same month?
5) What is their activity as readers, or group members? Do they vote on polls, interact with fellow readers/authors?
6) What are their social media channels like?
7) The obvious one: check inside the book on a retailer's page. If it's swarming with mistakes, you know what to do.
Maybe if an author wants to self-nominate, he/she can offer an excerpt from a chapter? I mean, how often is an author gonna be given the chance to nominate their book if it's not related to the poll?
Anyway, like I've said before, this is a nice group just the way it is. I almost regret asking the question that triggered all this, but it has opened my eyes as to how people truly feel towards self-published authors, which might just be the eye-opener I needed to get me to end my experiment of self-publishing and pursue the agent-publisher avenue.
Buck wrote: "I've read some indie authors that just weren't worth reading, the primary problem being lack of proofreading...."Perhaps we could add a further filter & have them send the book to someone else who would read a few pages to see if it is OK. Anyone want to volunteer? I'm not the best proofreader, but could do that much if no one else wants to.
Also, we could say they have to provide free copies in pdf, epub, & mobi format to anyone in the group that wants to read it if it wins. Perhaps there should be a limit of a dozen sent to those who voted for it first & then on a first come, first serve basis. If they want to be considered, they'll need to pay for our attention.
How does that sound to everyone?
I've had quite a few PMs about this & have been tallying the sides. So far, there are a few "absolutely nots", but most are OK with this or neutral so long as we don't get swamped with spam. IMO, self-publishing is becoming more common & better. Books are evolving & we need to evolve with it. Unless we get several other PMs or messages against, we'll probably allow it with some strict rules & the understanding that we'll stop it if it becomes intrusive.
Here are the rules so far:
Authors can nominate their own book for a group read up to 3 times if it meets the group read criteria AND
- They & anyone voting for their book must have been a member of this group for 3 months & made at least 1 comment.
- The nomination must disclose that they are the author, self-nominating, & why they think we should read it.
- They must provide a copy to the designated reader at least 2 weeks prior to make sure it will qualify before nominating their book publicly.
- All author promotions are limited to the Promotion folder except for the nomination post. The author may answer direct questions, but keep them short. Refer to their topic in the promotion folder if it looks as if an off-topic conversation is starting.
- If the book wins, they must provide those who voted for it with a free copy in all major formats (pdf, epub, mobi), up to a dozen copies on a first come, first serve basis to others in the group.
As always, the moderators reserve the right to break up polls to foster group reads. We may break out self-published authors into a separate poll if enough apply.
We will also stop this at any time without prior notice if we feel that it is disturbing the group too much.
How do those rules look to everyone? I wrote them quickly, so I'm sure they could use some touching up. Please do so.
I think they're weighted heavily enough against the author to make sure only those who are serious will apply & judging by the remarks here, I don't think they'll stand much chance of giving away more than the first free copy.
I'm so sorry, Chris. I have caused offense because I used too broad a brush. As most posters to this thread have pointed out, and I agree, some self-publishers are worthy authors. I did say at the start I favored opening to self-nominations and I do now even more than before as a result of this conversation. I'm glad to see we are reaching a rough consensus to do that. Boy, Jim, you sure put a lot of thought into those rules. I don't see why they wouldn't work well for us. As you and others point out, they can always be modified if any flaw is later found or something has been overlooked.
Thanks, Dan. I cribbed the rules from the thread. Noticed a few comments I'd missed, too. This thread has been too busy.Chris' post #33 brings up some great points, mostly my ignorance of the publishing process & what is out there including how to spot scammers. I also think he's put up with a lot reading these comments. Thanks, Chris. I think this has been illuminating in a lot of ways. It makes me even more certain that the landscape in publishing is changing.
Dan wrote: "I'm so sorry, Chris. I have caused offense because I used too broad a brush. As most posters to this thread have pointed out, and I agree, some self-publishers are worthy authors. I did say at the ..."No offense taken, Dan. I simply saw it as an opportunity to point out that there are always exceptions in a group of people. I thought it was worth mentioning that there are exceptions in the self-pub sect, like authors who are in it simply because they want to have their voice heard (or read) and their ideas to inspire, if not to entertain.
“Writing isn't about making money, getting famous, getting dates, getting laid, or making friends. In the end, it's about enriching the lives of those who will read your work, and enriching your own life, as well. It's about getting up, getting well, and getting over. Getting happy, okay? Getting happy.”
--Stephen King
I don't think I'm the next Hugh Howey, but I do like to think I'm the next Chris G. Wright *winks*
Jim, the suggested rules look really good.Thanks to everyone for an interesting, respectful, and enlightening discussion.
I think the rules look good Jim. Thanks for spending the time to put something together that will work for everyone. Chris, you seem like a reasonable guy and I appreciate that it must be frustrating for you to be lumped in with some bad players that have caused problems in the past. I wish you the best of luck in your writing career regardless of which publishing route you choose.
Randy wrote: "I think the rules look good Jim. Thanks for spending the time to put something together that will work for everyone. Chris, you seem like a reasonable guy and I appreciate that it must be frustra..."
Thank you, Randy. I really appreciate your kind words
If posting here please be open to discussions from members of the group.