We know you like Scrivener, but is that the only thing you use to write? Ever do stuff longhand in a notebook, or in Word, or Notepad, or anything like that?
Nope, never longhand. But you're right in guessing that Scrivener isn't the only app I use for composition. You actually got me into poetry -- and for poetry, I use Byword. It's a free app in its Basic form, so if you like to do poetry or unstructured writing, I highly recommend Byword.
OK, here's my question. What is your publication history that sufficiently qualifies you to pass yourself off as an authority on writing? Or have I misinterpreted the offer in the opening post incorrectly? To my knowledge all you have published is an ebook on vaping products. Anyone can self publish an ebook on Amazon, can they not?
What's the point of asking one if I don't know whether or not the person I am asking is in a position to offer advice? If you hire, say, an accountant to do your taxes, do you not expect him to be qualified and/or experienced?
If you're unsure, then don't ask. No one's put a gun to your head and forced you to engage with this thread. Either ask a sincere question, or quit shitting up this thread. Bye, now.
Well, it's a shame you don't want to verify your credibility, but okay, we'll play it your way. When others read your work, what is the best way to deal with criticism, constructive or otherwise?
This. To put it another way, if I had questions for an attorney but had doubts about his credentials, I'd just move on to another one instead of trying to antagonize him.
Why should he be antagonised? It's a perfectly reasonable question...and Castle is holding himself out to us, not me going to him. As I've mentioned on here before, I've written a book, but one which I retain as private. If Castle's going to be dishing out advice, why shouldn't we see what he experience is first?
If we were all strangers here, your question might be appropriate. But we aren't, which is why it's not. You know what my independent publishing curriculum vitae are. Take it or leave it, and at this point, based on your current approach, my advice is for you to leave it. You're not here to ask constructive questions, obviously, so beat it.
I understand where you're coming from, but given the history between the two of you, that kind of questioning can quickly degenerate into the kind of stuff that belongs in the Red Room, not here.
If it's constructive, I act on it, as you may have seen in the "46th & Mercury Excerpt 2" thread. Packard and Lanzman both gave very good and very constructive feedback in that thread, and I have, in fact, acted on both their suggestions. On the other hand, criticism which is not constructive gets relegated to the bin.
What is you benchmark for determining what is constructive criticism and what you simply may not want to hear? For instance, say you were on your second novel of a series. The first one comes out. Those who have bought it review it but there is a consistent consensus about a character or plotline. You don't want it to go, but there is majority opinion among the readership that it doesn't work. Do you let it go or stick to your artistic choice at the risk of disappointing the readership?
My benchmark for constructive criticism is just as it sounds. Criticism that attempts to construct, rather than to merely destroy. If you say, for example, "Ohhh, this is shit, ohhhh, it's rubbish, ohhhhh, it's horrible..." that's not constructive, is it? That's not trying to make the work better in any way, is it? If you say, "Well, it could be better if you tried this, or this, or this..." Well, then that's constructive, innit. It's saying, "Okay, the work could be better if... That's constructive.
What about my second question? That's actually the more constructive question of the two in terms of advice.
If I feel, personally, that the character or plotline in question is organic to the story as a whole, I keep it. If I'm shaky on it and it's not working for the readers, I let it go.
Except in this thread, you are offering advice, so I guess it is reasonable to provide some background. Some of us do know what you've done recently -- I'm aware of a couple of electronic publications from you, even have one on my kindle. But I am not familiar with earlier experiences. Before platforms like the kindle became available, what Indie-publishing resources were available to you? Did you find any to worked, or has electronic publishing changed the game? If so, how?
Electronic publishing totally changed the game. When it comes to my creative output, I'm a control freak. I demand -- and electronic publishing enables me to have -- total control over my output. I wouldn't give that up for a six figure advance.
So prior to electronic publishing, you werked with a traditional publishing house? Or was there something else in the evolution of indie-publishing?
So does this mean that if the impulse is great enough then the constructive criticism is to be ignored? What if that harms a second or later effort and publishers consider your to be a financial risk? How would you recover from that rejection while retaining belief in your artistic choices? How would you bounce back to reaffirm your credibility with both literary agents and your readership (some of whom would presumably remain loyal, but others who may have left)?
What if nothing sells that way? Wouldn't a literary agent and publishing house expose you to far more of the market? Or is writing an entirely artistic pursuit for you? Or, indeed, should it be primarily for any author?
I write, first and foremost, to create the stories I want to read, because no one else has already produced them. Provided my stories satisfy me, they've done their job. When it comes to marketing them, yes, I take that seriously, but I also understand that the stories I write simply are not going to be for everybody. That's fine. I don't write them for 'everybody', I write them for me.
Plenty sells that way. This isn't the 18th century anymore. Independent digital publishing is the way the industry is going, and I'm going with it. Look at garamet's answer to that in the relevant thread.traditional publishing is demanding, more and more, the same marketing effort from writers that indie publishing does, while traditional publishers offer skimpier and skimpier advance payments. There's simply less and less reason to prefer traditional publishers over indie publishing, other than as a status symbol. And status symbols are for the insecure.
Well, this is connected to the other question I just posed I guess, namely whether or not you view it as a purely creative pursuits or an income based profession? So, I have a book I have written as I have said. It's personal, because it's autobiographical. It's based on experiences in my career and personal life, mainly with other cultures. That's all I'll say about it as, like I say, I consider it private. But what if I chose to try and get it published and was successful, but then decided to quite my career and become a full time writer. I then have a stinker of a followup. How would I win literary agents and publishers back on my side? Or would I have to contemplate not going further with such a career?
But surely if you have that status symbol then it makes online publishing a lot easier as you already have a readership? If advances are going down and publishers are demanding more, doesn't that suggest that competition in traditional publishing is greater rather than less?
I view it as both, and I'm mystified by those who insist on viewing it as exclusively one or the other. That's entirely up to you, and it depends entirely on your dedication to writing, which is a thing I can't gauge.
It might, sure. Is that a requirement? Absolutely not. No, it suggests that traditional publishing is dying at the hands of digital indie publishing, and that, therefore, the smart author is going to focus on the new and dominant medium rather than the old, dying one.
