Monthly Archives: April 2011

Trying to Get Established with the E-book Markets

Books, Business, Social Networking, Writing, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’ve been spending a great deal of time lately exploring the whole e-reader market. My reasons for doing so are probably obvious, as I’ve pretty much given up on ever getting sustainable establishment from the main publishing markets, as everyone seems to be a writer these days and trying to get an agent to even read a manuscript is like trying to get Charlie Sheen to act responsibly.

Anyway, so some months ago, I put up one of my previously published books onto Amazon for the Kindle, and it has had a few sales, but mostly, it’s a lot like standing on a corner and trying to get people to read printout copies of a manuscript. People just don’t seem interested. And I don’t think it’s that their not interested in me or my writing; they’re just not interested in purchasing books from someone they’ve never heard of. It’s the same dilemma writers have always had, except there’s a lot more of us these days, and practically the only way to establish a career as a writer is to be famous for doing something else. So, if you can cook and have a cooking show, you might make it as a writer. If you’re a reality show star and have gratuitous sex with people who live in your reality show house, you might have a career as a writer. If you were a famous baseball star who took performance enhancing steroids, football star who beat up your girlfriend, musician girlfriend who got beat up your musician boyfriend, washed up movie star who seems to get arrested for practically everything written on police blotters, or some older guy who lived through abuse by your evil stepmom, well, you might have a career as a writer. But if you’re actually a writer who writes novels, and that’s all you really have to share with the rest of the world, your chances of making it as a writer are about as good as you making it as a millionaire by winning the lottery. Okay, maybe a little less.

So, what is a writer to do, if he’s not interested in starting a gunfight with the local police department in hopes that he might live long enough to write about it while in prison, well, the answer seems to be “write an e-book and get famous that way.”

The funny part of that solution is that making it as an e-book star is just as ludicrous as making it as a professonal blogger. Unless you have a gimmick, or you get seriously lucky, your chances aren’t that good. Even if you’re a great writer, it appears that everyone seems to be a great writer these days, so you really have to have something else working in your favor.

So, in actually trying to get established as an e-reader writer, I started with Kindle, and like I said, so far I’ve sold a few books and seem to be as popular as Pee Wee Herman at a stripper’s convention. Okay, I’m wrong on that one. He’d probably be a bit more popular than I am right now.

But what I have been doing is reading everything I can find on how others have actually made it. And what I’ve discovered is that everyone talks about how e-readers and e-books are the solution to the current glut in writers out there, and how it is the solution to getting past the impossible gatekeepers of publishing (even going around the publishing industry itself), but what no one really seems to do is point out exactly how that success is supposed to happen. I’m constantly reminded of the Southpark episode with the underwear gnomes, when the kids ask the underwear gnomes why they’re stealing underwear, and they point out their master plan, which reads a lot like:

1. Steal all of the underwear

2. ????

3. Profit

Yep, that seems to be the consensus of everyone who talks about success as a writer in the e-book market. Somehow, you are supposed to go the same way:

1. Write a novel and e-publish it.

2. ????

3. Profit!

Yeah, I don’t see any logic behind it either. What seems to be missing is how do you actually market yourself as an e-book writer? How do you get traffic to your blog so that people pay attention to you? Whenever I read a book on marketing your blog, it says to first create interesting content and then moves onto capitalizing on that traffic that will then come. Now, I’ve talked to a lot of people who do read my blog, and they tend to agree that I create interesting content, but at the same time, the masses aren’t showing up to read it. A few people do, and a shitload of spam also seems to be paying attention, but that’s about it. Somehow, I’m missing a step here, and I can’t seem to figure out what it is.

It is that same step I believe I’m missing that somehow makes it possible for e-books to actually be attractive to people and sell the mass load that everyone seems to think will happen “naturally”. Well, I’m still working on that one, and I haven’t come up with a solution yet.

So, if real people actually seem to be following this blog, PLEASE COMMENT ON THE BLOG at my actual blog, and I’d love to hear from you. But right now, I get nothing but spam comments (do keep in mind my blog gets imported to Facebook and Open Salon, so if you’re commenting that you actually read it, I’m not talking about those places; I’m talking about my actual blog…the one linked here). It’s really frustrating. I mean, REALLY frustrating.

The Logic of People Escapes Me Sometimes

Politics, Religion, , , , , , ,

I just read that in Afghanistan, a bunch of people rioted and attacked the Friday UN because a Florida pastor burned the Koran in a protest last month. Doing so, the rioters killed 12 people. Part of me is left shaking my head in astonished amazement at the outright stupidity of people (both the pastor and the morons who attacked the UN). I mean, honestly, attacking their local UN is like me slapping the girl who works at the Hot Dog on a Stick shop because my girlfriend broke up with me a month ago. In other words, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The UN had nothing to do with some moron in Forida who basically thinks he’s superior to the rest of the human race. Yet, for some reason, stupid people felt it was important to back up the stupid actions of a stupid person by doing something massively stupid.

Look, I understand the Koran is a holy book to a lot of people. And I understand that people might be understandably pissed off when someone disrespects it. This isn’t even about religion to me. I totally understand that some people completely believe their physical book is more important than their own well-being. But what I don’t, and won’t, understand is how anything got accomplished by attacking the office of an institution that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the people who committed the offense in the first place. The people injured in the UN office in Afghanistan weren’t even Americans! So, if they wanted to try to make that kind of causality argument, they didn’t even get that right. The people killed were UN workers from completely different countries that have no ties to the US AT ALL. Five of the murdered, and yes, they were murdered, were Nepalese UN guards.

What really bothers me about this is that nothing will be learned, and nothing will really be said. Instead, we’ll go back to putting our heads back in the sand, and somewhere down the lines another ridiculous incident will happen, and no one will bother to hold ANYONE responsible.

What is wrong with this world where people randomly kill other people because they’re upset over an action that happened which had no connection to what they did whatsoever? If we want to make this world a better place, THIS is the kind of crap we need to work on. And as long as it continues happening, we’re never going to have peace, friendship or understanding amongst any people.

Now excuse me while I go beat up a Best Buy employee because Chevron raised the price of gas again.

What is the Future of Government in a Twitter/Facebook World?

Economics, Politics, Social Networking, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

We keep hearing stories of how governments are being toppled by people armed with Twitter and Facebook accounts. While these accounts keep forgetting to point out that you need more than Twitter or Facebook to topple an oppressive government, what we should take from these examples (like Egypt, Tunisia, currently Libya and possibly a future Iran) is that revolutionary movements have been assisted by these social networking technologies. And that’s no small deal.

What doesn’t get addressed is something I find even scarier, but seems to be completely off the radar (or gps) of everyone involving this issue. What these technologies definitely do is provide immediate access to higher up entities than have ever been experienced before. What do I mean? In the olden days, a king communicated with his people by throwing up broadsheets that people would read by wandering out into the village square where they were posted. If they were lucky, a town crier would yell out the messages to people as well, which mainly assisted a population that was generally illiterate. As education has emerged and moved from the upper class to the middle class and now finally to all of the classes, people are capable of reading their own messages, so that town cryer is no longer necessary. And because technology has emerged alongside this development, people are now able to receive instanteous communication from higher-ups. This was the paradigm that brought us up and through the 19th and 20th centuries

But Facebook and Twitter also do something else that 19th and 20th century technology did not allow. Instead of just reading messages from leaders, we now have the innate ability to communicate BACK to our leaders. Add email to the mix, and our ability to actually speak to a previously untouchable leader has completely evolved into something kings and queens never imagined (and certainly never wanted). Today, we are moving from a receptive community to a community that is able to push rather than just receive.

What are the implications of this? Well, for one, it means that our need to rely on government is quickly diminishing. In the old days, we had government developed for us because basically we weren’t smart enough to maintain affairs on our own. That’s not the case today. In an enlightened society, or one that may soon be one, the need for government is minimized, which means that those people who have gained access to the halls of power are now seen as oppressive entities rather than those who serve the public good. Right now, we have a debate going on between Congress and the President of the United States as to whether or not government is even necessary (they’re thinking of shutting it down because they can’t pay their bills). What no one is addressing is the reason why this is happening. Those who advocate big government are pretty much behind the idea of needing government to take care of every need and desire, and I’d argue they’re not wrong in that a lot of people DO need government, but there is another segment of society that is slowly divorcing itself from the constraints of government, and unknown to a lot of average people, a whole bunch of them were actually elected to national office. We call them the “Tea Party”, and even though progressives use them as the butts of their jokes. a real movement is taking place right now in this country that should be seen as very dangerous to the natural order. If you want to understand why a lot of Republicans believe that government should be shut down, perhaps people should actually listen to the Tea Party instead of just making up jokes about them and figure no one takes them seriously.

Personally, I think the message that is being put out by the Tea Party is premature, in that I don’t believe the country has moved to that level of sophistication yet. Yes, believe it or not, I actually see their arguments as highly sophisticated; unfortunately, the ones receiving the majority of attention are the most unsophisticated ones imaginable, which is ironic just on that level alone. Only about 70 of them are in power right now, and that’s nowhere near enough of them to make the impact they want to make, so all they’re capable of doing right now is disrupting government, rather than shutting it down.

But what should be seen is the longer term implications from ideas that they do espouse. Our Twitter and Facebook technologies have actually developed movements that coincide with this attitude of the people believing themselves to be superior to government. Granted, another irony is present as well, as most of the Tea Party thinkers are usually way behind the learning curve when it comes to emerging technology, but that’s really for criticism and derision more than an argument. What we should be focused on is that that these types of movements (the usage of technology in its ability to supplant government rather than supplement it) tend to grow, not go away.

My more important question is the one that fronts this entire essay: What is the future of government in a Twitter/Facebook world? In other words, if we finally reach a point where people feel they are on the same level as government, rather than recipients of messages from government only, do we present a new paradigm for the future? Essentially, does this equal status present a situation where people can finally rise above government, believing themselves to be superior, and thus, believe government should be eliminated, or at least changed drastically to reflect the submission of government to the people, as was originally intended by the Founding Fathers? Or do we end up becoming the enemy of government, which will hold onto its last grip of power until finally removed by those who have deemed it no longer worthy?

Personally, I don’t think anyone is thinking this way yet. That’s okay. Rome wasn’t built in a day. Although it was destroyed in one.