Dan Brown

The publishing world has been abuzz since yesterday's announcement that Dan Brown, author of the 2003 mega-bestseller THE DA VINCI CODE, will publish his next book in September. Readers for years have been waiting for another book from Brown, a reclusive man, it all appears. Years ago the word on the street was that Brown's next project would be on the Freemasons.

DA VINCI was a runaway bestseller. It sold more than 80 million copies worldwide, was on the New York Times bestseller list for a staggering 144 weeks (which is nearly three years), including 54 weeks (more than a year) at No. 1. So it seems a little strange that the first printing of his new book, THE LOST SYMBOL, will have only five million copies.

From what I have been reading, the book, which will again have Robert Langdon as the protag, isn't about Freemasons but about something else entirely. But there is no telling. Certainly, at this moment, neither the publisher nor the author are saying.

I think DA VINCI was the best of the books Brown has written. It took me months and months to get through ANGELS AND DEMONS. And I read the others and found them boring.

Borders is offering a 40 percent discount on pre-orders. Everyone seems to have high expectations for the book and for what it can do for the publishing industry.

I am, of course, glad a new book is coming out. I just wish some of that good fortune would filter down to me. I don't have a thriller as riveting as DA VINCI, but it is interesting, fun and well-written. And I know now that Brown is coming out, publishers, editors and agents will be looking that much harder for the next blockbuster.

And there is no reason it can't be me. I just have to get my marketing together to find an agent. I feel I am stuck on Step 1 1/2. But I know I just have to keep at it.

Good luck, Dan. I look forward to reading your book.

As for the rest, thanks for reading me and don't give up on writing.

Computer woes, again

I have been having computer problems for the better part of five days and it still isn't resolved. But as soon as I have a reliable computer, I plan to post on writing a one-sentence pitch, using Angela's help in marketing, and not winning (another) contest.

But for now, thanks for reading and keep writing (if only, like me, it is in longhand).

ABNA, the semis

I saw today where my Internet friend Jarucia Jaycox Nirula advanced to the semi-final round of 100 in the 2009 Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award contest.

Three cheers for her.

She is a great writer and deserves some success. And I pledged to help her in any way I could.

I haven't been reading the forums because they have gotten very nasty. Jarucia says it may calm down a bit now.

I don't share that optimism but I hope she is right.

Congrats again to Jarucia. When one of us gets through, it helps us all.

Thanks for reading and keep writing.

#Agentfail

There's been a lot said and written in the last couple of weeks about #Agentfail and, as an extension, #Queryfail. But I want to direct my comments today on Agentfail.

I don't want to sound like a whiny-baby full of sour grapes. But I must be clear: I don't have an agent, although I have been looking for one for more than a year. That stretches over the completion of two novels.

There's more than enough room on both sides of the relationship for improvement. But since I'm not on the agent side, I am only going to address the concerns from the author side.

Some agents suck. The vast majority do not but some suck big time. Without naming names, the first agent I encountered was a dick-head. I sent an e-mail query because his guidelines matched up perfectly with what I had written. And he promised a reply in four to eight weeks.

I got a rejection in under 15 minute.

But in fairness (as I was to learn about agents), I did get a reply. And that is the No. 1 gripe authors who are querying agents have about agents. It's their "no-response-means-no" statements.

I loath that. I really do. I have sent out scores of queries and with roughly two-thirds I got no response. How unfair and uncivil.

(I was just reading the comments of a very good, popular and well-respected agent who said the "no-response-means-no" response is "rude and unprofessional, and a short-sighted business strategy." I'm going to write her to say I agree. But I will also mention I queried her last July 14 for "Death at the Jungle-bunny Journal" and I never got a response. Or more accurately,I got a "no-response-means-no" response.)

Agents can get hundreds of queries a week. That is truly a lot. So I know they are busy. But so am I. I took the time to write. As a human being I think I deserve at least the courtesy of a form letter reply, particularly since many agents apparently find a lot of time to Twitter.

My beautiful wife reminds me often that you can tell a person's priorities by the time they spend on something. If an agent spends a lot of time on Twitter complaining about authors -- some of which being undoubtedly legitimate -- and less time responding to queries, what does that say about what they think of authors. Not much, I venture. And if an agent doesn't care for authors, why be in the business?

It doesn't take much to set up a reply function on a computer to send a form letter reply. A reply would take less time than a Twitter. If agents did that, however, it would mean my record-setting 14-minute rejection would be broken, probably by as much as 10 minutes. I accept that. But at least it will be a reply.

I hate it when an agent says not to take a rejection personally. Excuse my language but that is bullshit. Writing, just like all art forms, is personal. And putting it out there is personal, whether to an agent, an editor, a publisher, a reviewer or the public. Art is nothing if not personal.

But I like something the late John Updike apparently said about writing and writers in a 2002 interview in the Writer's Digest.

"Don't be thin-skinned or easily discouraged because it's an odds-long proportion: all the arts are. Many are called, few are chosen, but it might be you," he said.

I hate it when agents contradict what their guidelines say. And I hate it when I'm on an agent's website and they talk about how busy they are. I personally don't give a damned how busy an agent is. I expect them to be busy. It's their job to be busy. They don't get paid unless they are busy.

But I am busy, too. It's just not an excuse to be uncivil, unprofessional and rude, which is truly the bottomline when it comes to both agents AND authors. Be professional.

Whenever I find an agent, I hope to have such a strong relationship with them that I would feel comfortable sending them an invitation to my youngest daughter's wedding, which, given that she is only 15, won't be for years. (She doesn't plan on getting married until she is 25.) But from beginning to end, the basis of the relationship will be professional. We may become friends but
we will always have a business partnership. I plan to treat them with respect and I expect the same in return.

So there you have it -- my take on #agentfail.

Now to get back to finding an agent . . .

Thanks for reading and don't give up on writing.

Not feeling the love. What are the options?

It's early in the year and I have already met some of my writing goals for the year. But this past month has had a lot of ups and downs, mostly downs.


On the up side:


My short story, THE MISSING CD, which was written for Sisters in Crime's racing anthology to be published next year, was edited and didn't need a lot of extra work by me.


THE DEATH OF ART is coming along nicely, although a little slower than I would like. If I keepmy head down and work hard, I could still finish in May.


I attended two mini-conferences and got a lot out of both.


I had my first pitch session with an editor and it went quite well, although she didn't request a mss. She liked the idea and my execution for as much as she could see from the synopsis. (And I learned how to spell synopsis. I don't have to look up the word anymore.) She just wasn't in the market for murder mysteries but she did take the synopsis (See! What'd I tell you?) back to New York with her and sent it to another editor who might be interested. Plus she passed along the name of another editor at Little, Brown and suggested I contact her. (There is a down side to this. See below.)


On the down side:


ABNA didn't go nearly as well as I had hoped and planned. I knew it was a crap shoot but I put a lot of emotional energy into it and I wasn't prepared for how badly I would feel for failing to make the quarterfinals.


I got three rejection letters and in another week or so I will conclude that another dozen unanswered queries -- those sent two months ago -- are also rejections.


I didn't get a writing fellowship for a two-day spring workshop. I was really hoping for that one.


Though she liked what she saw, the New York editor didn't take the mss and I haven't heard anything from anyone else at her company.




I got an e-mail this morning from a good friend in Virginia and it included a link to an article today on CNN. The article was on on-demanding publishing. And for the first time, I have seriously given thought to self-publishing. Or more specifically, going the print-on-demand route.


That presents several dilemmas.


Everyone in the publishing industry says a lot of good books by very good authors never make it to market through the traditional publishing route for a variety of reasons, and many of those reasons are outside the authors control. Many of those authors end up self-publishing. Thus, a self-published book isn't necessarily a poorly written book.


That having been said, there is still a stigma to self-publishing. You hear it, sense it, feel it inside the publishing industry and, to a lesser degree, in the reading public. Since anyone can write a book and get it published that way, industry insiders seem to contradict themselves and say that if a book were good enough to be published the traditional way, it would have been.


Another dilemma is the cost. The author bears most of the upfront costs. And while on-demand publishing is probably cheaper that self-publishing the old fashion way, it still isn't cheap and the costs come out of your own pockets.


But cost and stigma are not my major problem with going it alone. If I had the money, cost wouldn't be a problem and stigma can be overcome by writing a great book.


My problem, therefore, is one I would face whether I self-publish or go the traditional publishing route. The problem is marketing, promotions and publicity.

Books don't sell themselves. People, authors generally, sell them. And while I'm not very comfortable with self-promotion, I'd be willing to do it for the sake of the book. That has always been the case. Making calls to get publicity, working on a website, going on tour -- I would do all of that and more since that is what it would take.

If I go the traditional route, I would have some marketing help and probably some marketing money, if only a little. But with on-demand publishing, developing a marketing plan and implementing it would fall on me and I don't have the slightest idea where to start.

So that's what I am thinking about. I plan to discuss it with my wife, as well as with friends and a couple of fellow authors. But for now, it is an option and will remain only an option.

Thanks for reading and keep writing.

The right voice

First, I have to admit that I love Lorelei King, and I have for some time. I first noticed her in one of my favorite movies, NOTTING HILL. It was a small role -- she was Anna Scott's publicist -- but I enjoyed every minute she was on the screen. She has a fantastic voice, clear and unrushed. It is a believeable voice, a reassuring voice.

And, sometimes, it is the wrong voice.

My birthday was last week and as a present my wife and daughters bought me an audio version of Janet Evanovich's FEARLESS FOURTEEN, which, I think, is the latest book in her Stephanie Plum series. And, as I have said numerous times, I love the series.

I first discovered Janet Evanovich a year ago while we were on Spring Break vacation with the children. During our 10-hour drive to Philadelphia, we listened to the audio version of the fifth book, which was read by Debi Mazar, another fine actress. I haven't heard but three or four Plum books and they were read by Mazar or Lori Petty, with those read by Mazar being the best. She sounds like she has been to New Jersey, let alone Trenton, where the Plum series originates.

Which brings me back to King. She has, as I have said, a great voice but it is all wrong for Stephanie Plum. King sounds like she is from somewhere Connecticut, not from a working class area of Trenton. (The Internet Movie Database says she was born in Pennsylvania and I think she has worked a lot in Britain.) I have been to Trenton numerous times and have some feeling for the place. King's voice doesn't put me in that place.

The publisher's (or whoever's) choice of King caught my attention and got me thinking a lot about how important it is to have the right voice reading your book. I am a long way from that ever being a question, of course, but I don't think it is too early to put the thought in the back of my head.

I have a cousin named Eric who has worked for years in radio. It is so funny hearing him on the radio and then talking to him on the phone or in person. But he has a very professional voice and it is the sort of voice I'm pick to read my novel for an audio tape.

To me, his is the right voice. There is an ethnic quality to his voice without beating you over the head with it. It is strong, forceful and commanding without being overpowering, all qualities I try to show in my writing in both A MURDEROUS DISPATCH and THE DEATH OF ART.

I have not mentioned any of this to Eric yet. But if I ever have the opportunity to have an audio book, he is the first person I will call, if only for some advice and direction. Because after listening to a couple of hours of the wonderful Lorelei King reading as Stephanie Plum, I am more convinced than ever of the importance of finding the right voice.

Thanks for reading and keep writing.