Writers' Code of Ethics

This post, by J.A. Konrath, originally appeared on his A Newbie’s Guide to Publishing blog on 9/4/12. .

Lots of controversy on the internet concerning writers lately. It’s time for…

THE WRITERS’ CODE OF ETHICS

1. I will never pay people to write positive reviews of my books.

2. I will never use a false account (aka a sock puppet or anonymous account) to leave negative reviews of any of my peers.

3. I will never use a false account to review my own books.

4. I will never send reviewers copies of my books if they review in a periodical where my publisher buys advertising.

5. I will never ask friends, family, peers, or anyone who knows me to write reviews of my books, since they are biased toward me.

6. I will never ask fans to write reviews of my books, since they are biased toward me.

7. I will never pay a publicist to send out books of mine to be reviewed, since I am essentially paying someone for reviews.

8. I will never allow a publicist working for a publisher to send out books of mine to be reviewed, since they are being paid to do so.

9. I will never allow anyone to send out copies of my books to be reviewed, because if they were doing that they must know me, and if they know me it is impossible to get an unbiased review.

10. I will never allow any review from anyone I’ve ever met. Every review must be from someone who has never met me, heard of me, or read me before, and must come with a signed affidavit proclaiming such.

11. Every review must be from a professional reviewer who has true integrity. But this professional reviewer cannot accept money in any way, shape or form, because getting paid for reviewing could compromise their ethics.

12. I will personally interview every reviewer to make sure they are unbiased, and then ask them to remove their review because upon meeting them (The Konrath Uncertainty Principle) I may have affected their review, which renders it biased.

13. I will never blurb a book by an author I know.

14. I will never accept a blurb from an author I know.

15. I will never blurb a book from any author, because I may know them some day.

16. I will never review anything, or blurb anything, or allow any of my books to be reviewed of blurbed.

17. I will never allow anyone I have ever known, or ever might know, to blurb or review anything.

18. I will never use a sock puppet or post anonymously online about anything at all, because I should stand by my own words.

19. I will never post anything at all online, ever again, because it might impinge upon someone else’s ethical standards.

20. I will publicly chastise, denigrate, ridicule, mock, and lynch anyone who has breached any of the above.

21. I will tattoo this code of ethics permanently upon my back to show all how ethical and moral I am.

22. Those who don’t ask about my ethics will still be forced by me to memorize the tattoo on my back, in public, as many times as I demand.

23. All who do not comply will never be allowed to write again, and will broken on the wheel, their intestines forced down their own lying, cheating, dishonest, unethical throats while they beg for mercy, then they’ll burned at the stake, drawn and quartered, their charred, smoking, crispy body parts placed on spires for all to view. This punishment will be meted out to any person, living or dead, who has ever had contact with, or has heard of, the offending party.

Joe sez: If you haven’t figured it out yet, this isn’t about dishonesty. It’s about degrees of dishonesty. And everyone, to a degree, is dishonest. Glass houses and throwing stones, folks.

The only way to make the system pure is to never allow anyone to do anything, ever. But that’s impossible. So instead we have people pointing fingers and masturbating to their own smug sense of superiority because they haven’t been caught in the "ethical lapse du jour" yet.

 

Read the rest of the post on A Newbie’s Guide to Publishing.

The Types of Online Reviews That Drive Writers Totally Nuts

This post, by Robert Jackson Bennett, originally appeared on his site on 8/27/12.

The weekend has not brought joyous news in regards to online reviews.

For many writers, online reviews are the primary pulse they can apply their fingers to, because writers receive very little actual feedback regarding their books. So, they have to go online to feed their voracious doubts, like – is my book successful? Is it liked? Does anyone get it? 

As we’ve now learned, a lot of the feedback we see online is not trustworthy – some writers can, essentially, buy reviews and attention. This is kind of weird for me, because I treat online customer reviews with the same wariness as I do the comments on a news article – the odds of anything intelligent being said are very low, but the odds of reading strung-together swears and racial epithets are very, very high.

Yea, verily, the internet has become marvelously efficient at bringing frustration right into our homes and pockets. And online reviews are definitely a source of some frustration for writers. After a few years of watching them, trends emerge.

So let’s take a stroll, and discover the breeds of online reviews that slowly and steadily shave off numbers not only from a book’s ratings, but also from writers’ life expectations:

The Poor Packager

This book arrived quite damaged. There were water stains on the box, and some of the water got in the box, and it got on the book, and that’s bad, because I don’t want water on my books. Also, the mailman was very rude and I think he went to Auburn (boo Auburn).

Cannot wait to read the book.

0/5 stars 

 

Read the rest of the post, which includes 5 more types of most-hated online reviews, on Robert Jackson Bennett’s site.

A Warning To All Writers Who Need Help Indie Publishing

This post, by Kristine Kathryn Rusch, originally appeared on her The Business Rusch on 8/29/12.

From the beginning, I have warned readers of this blog away from services that promise to publish your e-books for a percentage of the royalties. I haven’t done so in a while, and I really need to again.

Here’s why:

These businesses will harm you and your career. Best case, they’re run by well-intentioned idiots who have no idea how a business works. Worst case, they’re scams.

Most of the ones I’ve seen are scams.

This particular topic came up this week in a strangely roundabout way.  I have my Facebook e-mail notifications shut off, but every now and then one slips through. On Thursday, I got one in which a friend of mine mentioned me and Dean in a comment on a bestselling writer’s post. I was rather stunned that my friend, also a bestselling writer, knew the bestselling writer in question. My friend’s a military sf guy, and she’s a romance author.  Neither reads each other’s genre. But, I figured as I clicked on the link, that shouldn’t get in the way of friendship.

His comment was rather strange. It said that he had self-published five e-books and he would never, ever pay anyone 15% of those royalties. Then he told the bestselling romance writer to look at my blog and Dean’s blog for his reasons why.

When I clicked on the link, his comment was gone. There were 30-some other comments, but none from him, and none negative.

The post he was responding to was also strange. It purported to be from the bestselling romance author. She listed a service—which shall go nameless here—that was now e-publishing her backlist. She recommended everyone use it because “e-publishing isn’t as easy as everyone makes it out to be.”

Okay, fine. I know that for some people the learning curve is high and it frightens them. I know that others simply don’t have the time to spend on indie publishing. I figured she was one of those.

But as I scrolled through the comments, I noticed something else strange. She responded to every five comments by linking to that e-publishing service’s website. The language of her posts was odd as well. It was riddled with typos and other mistakes that she didn’t make anywhere else on her Facebook page.

And the posts didn’t sound like her.

I never did find my sf friend’s comment. Someone had deleted it. If anyone had responded to it by agreeing with my friend (and I have no idea if anyone did), then that comment was gone as well.

It wasn’t until I dug into that e-publishing service’s Terms of Use that I figured out what was going on. The bestselling romance writer didn’t write that post on her Facebook page. The e-service did. They handled all social media related to books for the author.

 

Read the rest of the post on The Business Rusch.

How To Work On More Than One Book At A Time

When I was writing my first novel, I couldn’t ever see a point at which I would work on multiple books at the same time.

I couldn’t imagine juggling all the worlds or the amount of research I do for each book. But then I met professional writers like CJ Lyons (who is writing 4 books in 2012) and realized that it sometimes has to be done.

So although I swore I would never do this, I am currently working on several books at the same time, and to be honest, my head is exploding!

 

These are the books I am currently working on:

  • Pentecost,to be rebranded as ARKANE. I’m working on edits for my agent before we pitch to publishers in Sept/Oct, so this is the most urgent. It’s a fascinating process as the book went through several editors before publication and I also updated it after the first few months. Now I am reading it again and finding lots of things I want to improve as well as new scenes, adding depth to characters and more. Plus I know the future story development now so I can make sure the first book has some open questions for those subsequent books.
     
  • Exodus, ARKANE #3 is in second draft. It needs new scenes, reworking and deepening. My problem with getting this finished is that I may sell the ARKANE series and then this book won’t see the light of day for several years. I did have a deadline for self-publishing it by October, but that disappeared when I got an agent. But I need to get it to the point where I would be happy to publish it, take it through my editor and maybe even beta readers before resting it until we see what happens with publishers.
     
  • Hunterian (working title). This is a stand-alone or the start of a new series. It’s in research and first draft phase and I’ve only written ~2500 words but I obsessively think about it. The book will be a London based thriller/crime novel and would be under JFPenn: Ancient Mystery, Modern Thrill. I love the way this book is shaping up and I really want to work on it exclusively but it has to be sporadic until I can clear some head time.
     
  • Escapist (working title). This is a stand-alone or the first of two. ~16,000 words of first draft done. This is something a bit different and wouldn’t be under JFPenn because it’s probably categorized as contemporary women’s fiction. I’d have to use another name. I had a bit of a manic writing session the other week and the ideas took hold. I shouldn’t have indulged it but it feels like a little bit of fun writing that is turning into a book.

Alan Baxter Warrior ScribeI’m not the only one going through this process either. I was listening to the funThrillerPodcast the other day and discovered that my kickass, fight scene specialist friend Alan Baxter had this to say:

“I’m currently working on two novels – one is the sequel to a finished book that is currently looking for a publisher. The other is a project that is very much in my mind at the moment and won’t wait its turn! The first is about 42k words done and the second is only a couple of thousand words written, but I’ve been making extensive notes and plans. As the 42k project is the sequel to something currently before publishers, I’m making that my priority, and trying not to be too distracted by the other one. But when ideas won’t leave you alone, you have to at least make notes and rough outlines of scenes. So I would say that I’m working properly on one novel, while working part-time on the other!” Alan Baxter, dark fantasy author.

How do you work on multiple books at the same time?

So my head was exploding with all the different projects and it was hard to keep them all clear, or make progress on anything. So I asked for some comments on twitter and here’s some of the responses:

 

Are you sure there’s not a useful connection between them? Combine to make ONE GREAT NOVEL? @ThreeKingsBooks

Write them all. I have two I’m working on now. I’ve had as many as 4 at a time in my head. You have to let the ideas out.@lynnleite

Make an idea book where you can take a little time to put down info about the ideas you aren’t ready to work on. @druchunas

How about making a note of ideas for other two books, but concentrating on finishing the priority one first.@MJHolleyWriter

Plot them all, write chapter-by-chapter summaries and then go back to writing just one. That or work 24/7 til they’re done. @graywave

Keep feeding all 3 until 1 takes the lead (attention, energy). Then focus on that one, get to others afterwards. Good luck!@MsMartha_writer

Red Bull. @misterwakefield

Give into brain, ideas will sort themselves out @reebee01

Put your focus and talent into one at a time, scattering yourself won’t do any good! but keep the ideas noted for later!! @kiiyha

Keep going! Buy a dictaphone; hire an assistant. Better to juggle than be empty-handed @BookRambler

Can u capture ideas for two projects in outline form while only “writing” one at a time? @JenGresham

Hear ya. Done this many times. In the end I prioritised and focus on the one thing that would be done the quickest. @ColinFBarnes

That happened to me. But my creativity trigger is my playlists, so I only let myself listen to one set of songs. @LeighAnnKopans

Just write one trilogy? ;) @tomsbiketrip

Caffeine wins for me for every time. P.S Well done. I am struggling to finish the first!@iwanttowriteit

What I always do in that situation is write down key events, maybe write a full scene, so you can go back to it later. @NatashaMcNeely

Work on one in the AM and the other in the PM and vary it with the third. @LindaAdamsVA

How am I actually managing it?

Those were all great ideas, but we all have our own ways of working, right! Here’s how I am managing it.

So that’s me. I need to get my focus back and, in the words of the great Seth Godin, ‘ship’ some work!

Have you tried to work on multiple projects at the same time and how do you manage it? Or what do you recommend? Please leave a comment below.

  • I have shelved Escapist for now. I may do NaNoWriMo this year (November) and use that month to indulge this little project but for now it is parked. It doesn’t fit my brand and I need to finish the projects I have started.
     
  • I am primarily working on the edits of Pentecost (to be pitched as ARKANE) for my agent as that now has a deadline of mid September.
     
  • In late September I will get back to Exodus and finish that before October, so it will be the next primary project
     
  • Hunterian research is my weekend fun project, so I am doing field trips and reading books, but just note-taking and not even attempting to get into first draft writing anymore. 

 

This is a reprint from Joanna Penn‘s The Creative Penn.

 

 

 

Things To Think About As The Digital Book Revolution Gains Global Steam

This post, by Mike Shatzkin, originally appeared on The Shatzkin Files on 8/27/12.

The switchover from reading print to reading on screens, with the companion effect that increasingly the purchase of books is done online rather than in stores, is far advanced in the English-speaking world and especially so in the United States. In the past 12 months, the UK has begun to resemble the US market in this way. 

With all due respect to everbody else, the primary driver of this change has been the efforts of Amazon.com. They made the online selling of print books work in the US and then provided the critical catalyst — the Kindle — to make ebooks happen. Other players — Barnes & Noble and Kobo with their devices and the publishers with their sales policies — have crafted their strategies primarily in response to Amazon. They are participants building out a market that Amazon first proved existed.

The impact of digital change in the US and UK markets has been both profound and severe. Bookstore shelf space has been lost at a rapid pace. (This has long struck me as the key metric to watch to predict industry change.) I have seen no estimates to quantify this, but with Borders gone and Barnes & Noble devoting much less space to books than it once did and the disappearance of many independents, it seems apparent that half of the bookstore shelves that were available in the US in 2007 are gone by now. The book trade in Britain is moving in a similar direction.

The publishers are well aware that their ecosystem has changed and that they have to change too. Many have changed their workflows so that ebooks and print books can be outputs from the same development process. They are all seeking new ways to interact directly with readers, which no general trade publisher would have considered doing ten years ago. They are learning about how to deliver their digital products with better metadata. They are learning to optimize that metadata for search. They’re trying to build vertical communities — or at least develop vertical audience reach — and developing new services and products to sell to the customers that they attract with their books. They’re recognizing that digital distribution newly empowers authors and responding by trying to make the experience of working with them more author-friendly.

And they’re recognizing that the world is getting smaller: that their outputs can reach readers outside their home market much more readily than ever before. That recognition is particularly useful to American and British publishers because English is the world’s leading second language, with potential customers for English language books in every country in the world.

Change has come much more slowly in non-English markets. There are many reasons for that. One is that the US and Britain have exceptional — if not unique — marketplace rules that encourage retailers to compete for book sales using pricing as a tool (or, if you prefer, as a weapon). Amazon used deep discounting to solidify its position in the late 1990s when it was building its print-selling hegemony and then again to create locked-in ebook customers for the Kindle when it launched in 2007.

 

 

Read the rest of the post on The Shatzkin Files.

When You Can't Hack It As An Author

This post, by Michelle Davidson Argyle, originally appeared on her The Innocent Flower blog on 8/31/12.

So this morning when I sat up in bed, I pulled a muscle between my shoulder blades. I probably slept wrong, or something, but this has happened to me before. I was literally in pain for four solid weeks. This time, it doesn’t feel as bad, but it’s still painful. I can’t move my head much. Bending over hurts. Even just sitting still hurts. I know from experience that nothing will help except time and rest. But, crap, I have things I have to get done! 

Oh, well. Pain or no pain, I’ll be writing today. I’m procrastinating at the moment, however, and just spent the last hour and a half browsing through blog links and reading things that make me feel like a terrible marketer, author, and person. You may be asking why, and I’ll tell you it’s because of noise. Constant noise on what we should be doing and not doing.

Elana Johnson wrote a really great post today about focusing on what you do well and letting yourself work productively because of it. After Elana’s post, I browsed around some other posts. There was one about how to write an effective blog post. There was one on how to use Twitter hashtags better. There was one on how often you should blog. The list goes on and on. Every post was effective and helpful, but after awhile, I started to panic.

I’M NOT DOING ANYTHING RIGHT!!!!!!

And this is why I don’t blog much anymore, why I avoid Twitter like the plague, and why I keep posting pictures on Facebook instead of actual status updates. I get into this spot where I feel like I’m doing everything wrong, people are judging me, or they’re annoyed I’m just trying to sell them something, or they think I’m full of myself, and on and on and on. And honestly, I think it’s because of all the posts out there telling me how to do things the right way. They all end up sounding like noise. If I don’t follow certain rules, my career will crumble before my eyes.

#1 – It’s a tough balance writing and selling a product so intimately tied with who you are. 

 

Read the rest of the post on The Innocent Flower.

Is Social Media Making Us All Too Vanilla?

 by L.J. Sellers, author of provocative mysteries & thrillers

Several recent blogs made me think about the writer’s role and how social media has made us all so likable and homogenous. 

First there was Sandra Parshall’s great piece on Poe’s Deadly Daughters in which she asked the question: Should writers keep their opinions to themselves online so they don’t offend readers? She mentioned instances in which readers said they would never read so-and-so’s work again because of something they had posted on Facebook or Twitter. I’m guessing it was something political, and the readers were of the other persuasion. 

This has weighed on my mind because I have succumbed to self-censorship. Every day, I make a choice to not post links to liberal commentaries I enjoyed. When others post political statements I agree with, I’ll click the Like button but typically won’t comment. My thinking is that conservatives buy novels too, so why offend them? But it also makes me cringe. Until this point in my life—when I became a very public person—I’ve always spoken freely and said what I thought. Maybe too much so, I hear my husband say in my head. 

I even moved The Sex Club—my bestseller and a book readers loved—out of my Jackson series and into the standalone thriller list, because the book is political and I didn’t want to lose readers before they even gave the series a chance. But now Amazon wants to market it as part of the series, and I said yes. I’m a little worried about the backlash, but I’m also happy to take ownership of my politics again. 

The other interesting post that dovetailed into this discussion was in Slate magazine and subtitled The Epidemic of Niceness in Online Book Culture. The author made the point that when writers friend, support, and Like! everyone, it becomes nearly impossible to give an honest critique of their work. How can you say something even mildly critical about a novel if the author just gave you an online hug? 

In my experience, most writers are by nature really nice people. We’re typically very supportive. We want to help each other, and post great reviews on Amazon, and retweet book links. And l love it. I’m part of that culture. But is it honest? If I were a professional book reviewer who didn’t know some these authors personally, would I have a different assessment of their work? In that scenario, my loyalty would be to readers, to give them a full honest appraisal of the book. 

If I post on Twitter than I’m reading a particular book and someone asks me if I like it—and by then I’ve stopped reading it—what do I say? If I post that it was too slow for me, I risk offending several people and maybe that reader will decide we must like different books so they won’t bother to try mine. 

This is why I don’t read much fiction or talk about what I read—unless I love it. And I turn down almost all requests to review novels. My nature is to be supportive—often to an extreme—but I also have a loyalty to my readers, and I shouldn’t steer them toward books just because those writers are my friends whom I have great affection for. 

I love social media and connecting with people and I’ll keep doing what I can to cultivate friends and encourage people to like me. But some days, the self-censorship makes me not like myself. 

What do you think? Is the online writer community too nice? Do you ever wish you could cut loose and say something critical or political—without losing readers or friends?

 

This is a reprint from the Crime Fiction Collective blog, and is reprinted here in its entirety with that site’s permission.

Your Guide to 11 Kinds of WordPress Blog Pages

The idea of an author blog is pretty simple, really. As most authors understand it, they write articles around the same topics that are central to their books, market their blogs to people who are interested in those topics, and slowly build an audience, a readership and, hopefully, their writing career.

All this activity arises from the basic unit of blogging—the blog post.

As you blog, each post is stamped with the date it was published, and takes its place in reverse chronological order in your stack of posts.

Your posts might also be available through category or tag searches, or in response to specific searches typed into a search box.

It Isn’t All About Blog Posts

But this is only half the story. WordPress, the popular free and open source blogging software being used by millions of bloggers, makes it just as easy to create pages as to create posts.

What’s the difference between a blog page and a blog post?

Pages are static locations within the hierarchy of your blog. Your pages can have the same kind of branching hierarchy that a static website has, with parent pages and children pages.

Pages stay where they are, while blog posts reside inside the content managment system—the big database—that holds all your articles.

When requested, they are displayed on a single post page that acts as a container within which the article or blog post is shown.

But when it comes to pages, there are quite a few types that can be useful to an author blogger. Many bloggers don’t realize these pages are not difficult to create, and can help with highlighting your books and other offers you make to readers.

What’s important here is that you don’t have to settle for every page—no matter what its function—looking exactly the same. So take a look at some of these different pages and what they are used for.

11 Kinds of Blog Pages

  1. Home page—You don’t have to create this, WordPress does it for you. Your home page is special because you can choose whether to have a static page or your most recent articles shown here by making selections within WordPress’s options. And there are many ways to customize your home page with <a href=" www.thebookdesigner.com="" target="_blank">Home page—You don’t have to create this, WordPress does it for you. Your home page is special because you can choose whether to have a static page or your most recent articles shown here by making selections within WordPress’s options. And there are many ways to customize your home page with plugins and custom-written code.
  2.  

  3. Single-post page—Also generated for you by WordPress to display any one blog post at a time. Like all other automatically-generated pages on your blog, it will have the same header, footer and sidebars you’ve created for the blog.
     
  4. General information pages—I’d put all the other normal pages you create, like your About page, pages about services you offer, guidelines for guest bloggerscompetitions, regular blog features like blog carnival pages and so on. Each looks just like the other pages on your blog but the content is fixed.
     
  5. Category pages—When your blog has hundreds of articles, it can be a real advantage for readers to be able to find your posts by category. This makes it very efficient to find articles because you can use your browser’s search function to scan the headlines. Here’s an example of a category page about Book Design.
     
  6. Gallery pages—If you have a lot of paintings, photos, maps or any other graphics to display on your blog, WordPress provides pages that will display them in lots of ways like grids, animated fans, and other formats.
     
  7. Forms pages—These pages exist solely to present a form for readers to fill out, and the most common type is the Contact page. But you can use these for lots of reasons, like taking entries in a contest or submissions to a directory.
     
  8. Landing page—In a sense every page on your blog is a landing page because browsers can arrive there by following a link. But here I’m talking about pages set up to greet people for a specific purpose. An example would be the content landing pages in the Start Here categories in the left sidebar of the blog or the content landing pages on Copyblogger. These are great for helping newcomers find content that’s relevant to their needs, and they are a powerful way to make your content marketing more effective.
     
  9. Squeeze page—Here we come to a special type of blog page, one designed to present an either/or choice to the reader. Squeeze pages typically do away with the sidebars and menu system that’s found on the rest of your blog. Why? To make the binary choice obvious. For instance, I use a squeeze page here to offer my free PDF 10 Things You Need to Know About Self-Publishing in exchange for an email address. You don’t want the reader to have a lot of choices: either put in your email address or click away, that’s the squeeze.
     
  10. Sales pages—This is a variety of the landing page and it’s designed to sell something. Like squeeze pages, it’s really most effective to get rid of distractions on this page because you want readers to concentrate on your sales copy and, if they find it useful, to click your “Buy Now” or “Add to Cart” button. By presenting no distractions, you encourage them to make a choice one way or the other.
     
  11. Automatic pages—These are pages used in the completion of an automatic process of some kind, like sign ups for an email list or an event like a webinar. They might include the confirmation page your email provider sends people to so they know to check their email and confirm their subscription. Or it might be a Thank You page buyers are sent to at the completion of a transaction, and might also include a Download page for delivery of a digital product. In all these cases the pages are used by a process and won’t be seen by anyone else. Here’s an example of a confirmation page with a download included.
     
  12. Module pages—Created by some specialized WordPress themes—special software that modifies how your blog behaves. These automatically create parent/child relationships and a menu hierarchy so you can deliver online training courses or other material that lends itself to being organized into sections or modules. Many membership sites use these, like the Self-Publishing Roadmap.

This list is undoubtedly incomplete, as you can probably create lots of other kinds of pages in WordPress that I haven’t seen.

But as your experience as a blogger grows, you’re going to find more and more things you want to do with your blog, and these specialized pages will be the way you can get things done.

Do you want to sign people up to an email list, run a contest, ask for feedback, organize your content or some other project or goal you have in mind?

reprint from Joel Friedlander‘s The Book Designer.

Victorian San Francisco in 1880: Social Structure and Character Development

Publetariat Editor’s Note: In this post, historical fiction writer M. Louisa Locke shares some of her research findings about Victorian-era San Francisco. This is an informative post for any author who writes historical fiction, as it reflects the level of detail to which such an author must go to create realism in her work.

I have embarked upon writing Bloody Lessons, the third book in my Victorian San Francisco Mystery series that features Annie Fuller and Nate Dawson, which means I am creating a whole new raft of secondary characters. And, as I have done in previous books, I am carefully considering the specific social make-up of San Francisco as I do so.

What follows is a brief summary of the social structure of San Francisco in 1880 (primarily from my dissertation, Like a Machine or an Animal) and how this has influenced some of the choices I have made in developing my characters in Maids of Misfortune and Uneasy Spirits, the first two books in my mystery series.

Brief Summary:

“In 1880 San Francisco, with a population of 233,959 residents, was the ninth largest city in the United States. Located at the end of the peninsula that separates the Bay of San Francisco from the Pacific Ocean, this city of hills, sand dunes, fogs, and mild temperatures had been only a small village called Yerba Buena less than forty years earlier. This small village was one of the chief beneficiaries of the incredible influx of    people into the region after the discovery of gold to the north in the winter of 1847-48. In the early years of the Gold Rush, the town grew by over 1000 percent. Even in the 1860s San Francisco still grew at a rate of over 160 percent, but into the next decade the rate of growth slowed considerably to 57 percent, and the city would continue to grow at ever slower rates throughout the century.

“High sex ratios (more males than females) have traditionally accompanied high rates of growth, and this was particularly true in the Far West where so much of the initial growth in population was due to the in-migration of young single men searching for gold. San Francisco followed this rule, although it consistently had a more balanced ratio than did the state as a whole. Nevertheless, by 1880, as the city increasingly became the destination of families or as the earlier settlers either married or sent for their wives and children to join them, much of the imbalance in the sexes had disappeared. Most of the remaining imbalance reflected the large number of Chinese in the city, since most of the Chinese who immigrated to America at this time were males. In fact, among some groups in the city, the Irish for example, women now outnumbered men.

“As the number of women in the city grew, the proportion of families and children did as well. The percentage of adult males who lived in family households rose from fifteen percent in the 1850s to forty percent in 1880, and the average number of children per family rose as well. In addition, the city’s residents were now more likely to have been born in the Far West, and by 1880 over sixty percent of the city’s native-born population had been born in California.

“A significant number of the parents of these California born city residents were immigrants who had traveled to the Far West. In fact, from the beginning of San Francisco’s development, immigrants were more likely than the native-born migrants to be married or to bring their families with them when they moved to the city. In 1880 nearly 45 percent of San Francisco’s population was foreign-born, and if those native-born persons with foreign parents are considered, the proportion of residents with foreign parentage rises to over 74 percent.

“Reflecting national patterns of immigration, the foreign-born population of San Francisco consisted primarily of immigrants from Ireland (29.5%) the German Empire (19.1%) and Great Britain (9.6%). People from these three areas comprised over half of all the immigrants living in the city in 1880. However, the ethnic composition of San Francisco at this date did deviate from the ethnic composition of cities elsewhere in the nation in one substantial way. Chinese made up the second largest number (20.3%) of the foreign-born in the city; this was a proportion that was vastly greater than could be found anywhere outside of the Far West. In addition to the Chinese, Irish, German, and British immigrants that comprised the bulk of San Francisco’s foreign-born population, smaller numbers of French, Canadian, Scandinavian, and Mexican immigrants gave San Francisco an exceptionally cosmopolitan flavor. One Eastern visitor in 1880 felt that the city appeared even more cosmopolitan than New York City, commenting that when she asked a question on a San Francisco Street, it was ‘answered in a dozen different tongues.’ (Dall, My First Holiday 1881)

“The inhabitants of San Francisco did not share equally in the economic opportunities of the period. A foreign birthplace or a specific ethnic heritage clearly influenced entry into certain jobs and the possibilities of advancement. As a result, different groups clustered on different rungs of the city’s social ladder. Native-born residents of both sexes were much more likely than immigrants to hold white-collar jobs, while they were much less likely to work as semi-skilled or unskilled laborers. Native-born males in the city showed a greater degree of upward mobility as well.

“On the other hand, within the foreign-born population of San Francisco the occupational patterns of specific ethnic groups differed significantly, and some groups had better success at achieving or maintaining a higher occupational status than others. For example, among both males and females, the tendency of German immigrants to fill jobs within the lower white-collar ranks, particularly as petty merchants, meant that the occupational pattern of Germs did not deviate substantially from the pattern of native-born workers.

“Many of the young men who came to America from German in the nineteenth century first set up as peddlers on the east coast and then moved to the Far West to take advantage of the boom engendered by the Gold Rush. There they often worked first in the interior mining of farm towns until they could get enough capital to relocate in San Francisco as retail or wholesale merchants or manufacturers.

“By 1880 these Germans represented 34 percent of the merchant population of the city, comprising a much higher fraction of the merchant class than they did of the total city population. These German merchants concentrated in clothing and dry goods, and in the cigar trades, and they had a high degree of persistence in the city. Because Germans, including German Jews, played such an important role in the city’s merchant community, this group occupied a unique and favored position in the social hierarchy of San Francisco. While ethnic and religious prejudice against the Germans did exist in the city, and although Germans were not totally integrated into the ranks of the native-born elite, German Jews seemed to experience much less discrimination in San Francisco than they did within any comparable city in the nation in this period.

“While the backgrounds and eventual occupational success of the Germans and English permitted these two groups entrance into the social elite of the city, the Irish faced much greater obstacles. Their backgrounds of rural poverty and inadequate education constituted a handicap in employment, even though many of the Irish had settled on the east coast before traveling west. As a result, the Irish in San Francisco were under-represented in the white-collar or merchant occupations of the city, and as many as a third of them worked as common laborers in 1880.  However, the Irish in San Francisco were upwardly mobile, for not only were Irish males increasingly more likely to work in white-collar jobs between 1850 and 1880, but their native-born children gained in occupational status.

“Native-born children of the Irish found that their greater experience with urban life and their greater access to education offered many of them a chance to escape from the ranks of unskilled labor into skilled, semi-skilled and white-collar jobs.

“Although proportionally fewer Irish climbed to the top of the business elite in San Francisco, this group was certainly not excluded from the bastions of power within San Francisco. As Burchell has pointed out, ‘The Irish in San Francisco fought their way up the political ladder in the usual fashion and met with the normal nativist response. But their success was more complete by 1880, even by 1870, than that of their group in other major cities.’ (Burchell The San Francisco Irish 1979) Partly because of their sheer numbers and partly because of the unusual degree of fluidity within early San Francisco, the Irish found relatively greater political and economic success in this city.

Social Structure and my character choices

The main protagonists in my mystery novels, Annie Fuller, a widowed boarding house owner, and Nate Dawson, a lawyer, represent the dominant group among the middle and upper classes of San Francisco residents living in the city 1880 because they are of native birth and parentage. Annie was born in the city, and Nate moved to California with his family as a young boy. While both live in boarding houses, (San Francisco was famous for hotel and boarding house living for all classes) Annie’s boarding house, containing a mother and child, a married couple, two unmarried sisters, a single woman, and two single men, reflects a city that was no longer the boom town of only young single men it had been thirty years earlier.

The servants working in Annie’s boarding house, Beatrice O’Rourke and Kathleen Hennessey, are of Irish heritage, (as is Nellie, the Voss parlor maid in Maids of Misfortune,and Biddy, Kathleen’s friend and a servant in the Frampton house in Uneasy Spirits) because the Irish not only made up the largest percentage of working class residents of any ethnic group in the city, but domestic service was the occupation held by a majority of women of Irish birth.

At the same time, as mentioned above, the Irish were extraordinarily successful in achieving political power in San Francisco, one result being the large number of Irish found in city employment, including the police force. Hence my decision to make Beatrice O’Rourke’s deceased husband and her nephew, Patrick McGee, be Irish police officers.

However, when I was looking for a non-Irish immigrant to hold the job of cook in the Frampton household, it was easy to decide that the uncommunicative cook, Mrs. Schmitt, should be German since German immigrant women were almost as likely to hold domestic service jobs as were the Irish.

On the other hand, while Irish and German servants would have been common in any middle class household in any American city outside of the South during this time period, Chinese males servants like Wong, who worked in the Voss home in Maids of Misfortune, would have been rarely found in any city outside the Far West. In later posts I will elaborate about the unique pattern of Chinese migration to San Francisco.

Finally, while I haven’t been explicit about the ethnic heritage of Annie Fuller’s prize boarders, Herman and Esther Stein, their names represent their German heritage. I chose this background for them because I wanted to provide an example of that interesting group of San Francisco residents, wealthy German merchants, bankers, and manufacturers.

In the book I am working on, Bloody Lessons, a good proportion of the minor characters are going to be teachers. I will need to keep in mind that the majority of teachers in San Francisco, as was true for the nation, were females, and that the men who did teach dominated the higher grades and administrative positions. I will also need to keep in mind the unusually important role of immigrants and their offspring in San Francisco.

The ethnic composition of San Francisco teachers reflected the fact that nearly two-thirds of San Francisco’s residents were either immigrants or the children of immigrants. As a result, 60 percent of the young women who taught in San Francisco in 1880 were native-born with immigrant parents, and another 12% were foreign-born. The percentage of female teachers in San Francisco who were of foreign birth or heritage was actually double that of the percentage found in either Portland or Los Angeles in that year.

These are just some of the ways I try to ground my mysteries in an accurate portrayal of the past, and I hope you found it added to your enjoyment of the series.

For those of you who haven’t yet read either Maids of Misfortune or Uneasy Spirits, you might check out the promotional offerings below.

Maids of Misfortune will be FREE on KINDLE Monday-Tuesday August 20-21 and

Uneasy Spirits will be FREE ON KINDLE Tuesday-Wednesday August 21-22.

AUDIOBOOK Maids of Misfortune

 

This is a reprint from M. Louisa Locke‘s blog.

17 School Writing Rules You Need to Unlearn in the Real World

 This post originally appeared on onlinecollege.org.

We have some good news for English class haters: some of the rules your teachers drilled into your brain are absolute hooey in the real world. Who really says “an historic”? And personally, we love starting sentences with “but,” “and,” and “or.” Read on as we explore these and 15 other school writing rules that really don’t have a place in modern writing. English teachers, you have our apologies.

1. WRITING ENDLESSLY TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS:

As school progresses, we go from small paragraphs to 50-page papers in college, but more doesn’t necessarily mean better. In fact, in the real world, it’s much better to get your point across in a concise way.

2. SENTENCES CAN BEGIN WITH AND, BUT, OR OR:

This classic English class rule has become obsolete, as people have ignored it so much that hardly anyone observes it anymore. It may not be completely professional, but it’s widely accepted and a great way to get your point across.

3. WAITING FOR A PROMPT:

In school, you’re handed assignment after assignment that spells out exactly how you should approach your writing, but in the real world, rarely do such prompts exist. Learn how to figure out what to write and find the confidence to decide what you want to put into it.

4. LONG PARAGRAPHS:

Chances are, you were taught to construct paragraphs with topic sentences, supporting evidence, and small conclusions, but that’s just too long for the real world. You can better keep the attention of your audience by limiting paragraphs to three sentences at the most.

5. EDITING HAPPENS ALL AT ONCE, AT THE END:

No one’s saying you can’t give your work a once-over before sending it along, but if you’ve got a lot of ground to cover, it might make sense for you to edit as you go, rather than all at once. Fixing problems and having clean copy to work from can make it easier to move on and write the rest of your work.

6. NOT ENDING SENTENCES WITH A PREPOSITION:

Sometimes, you just have to end your sentence in a preposition. A good rule to remember is if you can remove a preposition and the sentence still makes sense, you need to cut it out. If not, keep it. For example: “What did you step in?” needs “in”, but “Where is it at?” could stand to lose the “at.”

7. AVOIDING INCOMPLETE SENTENCES:

Sentences do not have to be complete. They don’t even always have to have a subject, verb, and object. Quick, punchy sentences can help add drama and make a point when used sparingly. Journalists violate this one all the time.

 

Read the rest of the post, which includes 10 more writing rules that may not apply outside of school, on onlinecollege.org.

 

 

Catch 22 of Great Reviews: Thanks, John Locke!

This week we learned that John Locke—one of the first indie authors to sell a million books—paid for hundreds of reviews at a now-defunct paid-review site that didn’t require its reviewers to read the books, just to crank out the stars. Because the story made the NY Times, one expert estimates that a third of all Amazon reviews are fake.

This pisses me off, breaks my heart, and makes me—and the other terrific and honest indie authors on this site—look bad. That is, if we have too many great reviews.

GalleyCat weighed in on this issue with this blog post, listing several bestsellers that each have more than 150 one-star reviews. The point of the short piece is that real bestsellers have lots of bad reviews as well as many good ones. The unspoken point is that books with too many good reviews and few bad ones must not be a real bestsellers, that those reviews must have been paid for or written by marketers or friends.

I resent this! Without good reviews, you’re treated like a hack and can’t sell books. Too many good reviews and not enough dogs, and you look like a phony. Obviously some authors—and publishers—resort to these tactics. But many of the books on Amazon’s bestselling and top-rated lists come by their reviews honestly.

I know I did. Dying for Justice is the top-rated novel on two of Amazon’s lists—police procedurals and mystery series—with 54 five-star reviews, 8 four-stars, and 1 one-star (idiot). Not one was paid for or written by a marketer. My sister claims she wrote a review, but she loves my work. And I can’t find it, if she did. And I have many great reviews in print magazines—Mystery Scene, Crimespree, Spinetingler, and RT Reviews—to support those online "amateur" reviews.

Yes, I gave away the book on Goodreads, with the idea that readers would post reviews, but I took my chances that they would be in my favor. And yes, I asked readers in a blog to post reviews for the book—but always with the caveat “if you read and enjoyed the story.” I don’t want or need fake support.

Here’s a question for GalleyCat: If a book with a lot of fake five-star ratings wasn’t good, wouldn’t a lot of honest readers start to give it bad reviews? You can’t fool everybody forever. No author has that many loyal friends or fake online IDs—except maybe Stephen Leather, another example of how some big-name indie authors are making the rest of us look bad.

And I have to throw in one more issue. The site that Locke used was clearly corrupt. Reviewers were directly paid to crank out good blurbs without even reading the books. But what about sites like Book Rooster? For a $60 admin fee, the site lists your e-book internally, then their unpaid reviewers sign up to receive and read books of their choosing. In exchange for free books, they write honest reviews.

This process seems fine to me, and I used the site for The Suicide Effect, my least-read book, just to get some reviews. But there was no guarantee of how many reviews or what they would be. It was just an opportunity for exposure, and I got lucky, mostly. But now I’m wondering if that was a mistake, just because the exchange of money (for the administrative fee) might make people lump the service into a paid-review category—even though no money goes to the reviewers.

What do you think? Have you read John Locke’s work? Does he deserve his success? Are you skeptical of any books with almost entirely good reviews? Do you think Book Rooster is a legitimate service? Should Amazon take Locke’s work down to show it’s serious about the trust factor for customer reviews?

This is a cross-posting from the Crime Fiction Collective blog, and is reprinted here in its entirety with that site’s permission. Read more about the author, LJ Sellers, here

The Business Rusch: The End of the Unprofessional Writer

This post, by Kristine Kathryn Rusch, originally appeared on her site, The Business Rusch, on 8/22/12.

On July 24, 2012, Canada’s The Globe and Mail published an article titled, “There Will Be No More Professional Writers in The Future.”  The article cites a number of writers, from the ubiquitous Scott Turow to Ewan Morrison who, The Globe and Mail thoughtfully tells me, is “an established British writer.”

Morrison says that the advances he’s received from traditional publishers have been slashed to the bone. He says traditional publishing has started to use “ominously feudal economics” to maintain its empire. He then goes on to denounce the digital revolution, saying it will destroy “vital institutions that have supported ‘the highest achievements in culture in the past 60 years.’”

And as if matters can’t get worse, he predicts, “There will be no more professional writers in the future.”

Here’s the thing: Viewed from a certain perspective, Morrison is absolutely right. A decade or two down the road, the model that we once called “professional” for writers will disappear.

That model depended on writers writing on spec until they sell something. Those writers need a day job to support themselves. Those writers once they sell something then hire an employee with no legal training who negotiates their contract. Then that same employee, who usually has no literary training, vets all of the writer’s future works.

For this single sale, the writers will get an interest-free loan that they do not have to pay back if their book fails to sell well. If the book does sell well, then that interest-free loan will be paid off and the writer will receive a percentage of the book’s cover price (in theory) for each copy sold. Of course, cover price might be subject to discounting (at which case the percentage paid to the writer goes down) and the definition of sold might include free copies given away in hopes of goosing remaining sales, but hey, who is counting?

Wait. The answer to that is no one. Because accounting programs at most traditional publishers are so behind the times that they can’t handle e-book royalties in any sane way. In fact, an intellectual property attorney tells me that in a recent contract negotiation with a traditional publisher, the publisher’s attorney removed a phrase the lawyer added. That phrase? That the publishing house was to provide “true and accurate” royalty statements. “True and accurate” is a legal phrase generally put in other business contracts in which one party fills out an accounting for the other party. But traditional publishers…well, apparently, they don’t want to do what other businesses do.

But I digress.

Morrison is right when he calls traditional publishing a feudal economic system. What he fails to see is that it has always been one. And that the economics are simply getting  more rigid as time goes on. The writers are getting less of the pie than they did before, and seem to have no way to combat that.

 

Read the rest of the post on The Kristine Kathryn Rusch’s site, The Business Rusch.

10 Grammar Mistakes that Can Keep Your Content from Spreading

This post, by Alexis Grant, originally appeared on Copyblogger.

Ever read a blog post and think, “This writer seems to have some good ideas, but the grammatical errors are driving me crazy”?

(Pro tip: If you don’t ever think this, some of your readers probably do.)

Grammatical glitches make your writing harder to read, and they turn readers off.

Content may be king, but you’ll gain a lot more respect and credibility if your writing is just as brilliant as the ideas you convey.

And by brilliant, I mean clean.

When your writing is clean, readers understand where you’re coming from. And the more your readers understand and respect where you’re coming from, the more likely they are to share your content.

As editor of Brazen Careerist’s blog, Brazen Life, I often see the same errors in submissions for our site. If our smart contributors make these mistakes, chances are you make them sometimes, too.

So next time you write a blog post, whether it’s a guest post or for your own site, check it over for these errors:

1. Using that when you should use who

Whenever you write about people, refer to them using who, not that.

John is the guy who always forgets his shoes, not the guy that always forgets his shoes.

It’s easy to make this mistake because that has become acceptable in everyday conversations. But it’s more noticeable when it’s written down — or maybe it only jumps out to us grammar geeks?

2. Including the word currently in your bio

The word currently is virtually always redundant. (Can you tell this is one of my pet peeves?) But let’s focus on your bio, because that’s where most writers fail on this one.

Don’t write: “Tom Jones is currently a communications director.” If Tom Jones is anything, he’s that at that moment; you don’t need “currently” to clarify.

Just get rid of it.

3. Starting a sentence with There is or There are

This isn’t an actual error, but it’s often a symptom of lazy writing.

There are lots of better, more interesting ways to start sentences.

Ooops. See how easy it is to make this mistake?

Instead of starting a sentence with There is, try turning the phrase around to include a verb or start with you. For example, replace the sentence above with Start your sentences in a more interesting way.

If your copy includes a lot of phrases that begin with there is or there are, put some time into rewriting most of them.

 

Read the rest of the post, which includes 7 additional grammar errors to avoid, on Copyblogger.

The Publishing Process, In GIF Form

This post, from Nathan Bransford, originally appeared on his site on 8/27/12.

In which literary agent-turned-author Nathan Bransford posts a ‘show, don’t tell’ blog all about what it’s like to go from being a hopeful to a published author.

At first you’re thinking of writing a novel and you’re all…

 

 

But then you have an idea!

 

 

And you go…

 

 

But then you hit page 50 and you’re all….

 

 

And then you hit page 75 and you’re all…

 

 

But you power through!!

 

 

Read—or in this case, view—the rest of the post on Nathan Bransford’s site.

Amazon Should Do What’s Best for Indie Writers & Readers

This post, by K.W. Jeter, originally appeared on SteamWords on 8/27/12.

Here’s the background: Indie e-publishing phenom John Locke, famous for being the first indie writer to sell a million ebooks on Amazon.com, has been outed in the New York Times for having bought a large number, if not most, of the positive reviews that propelled his success:

The Best Reviews Money Can Buy

If this were just a scandale that concerned John Locke alone, I wouldn’t care about it, and I doubt if very many other people in the indie e-publishing scene would, either. But the problem is that it casts indie ebooks in general, along with their writers, in a bad light.

You only have to scroll through the comments to the New York Times article to find a lot of people piling on, saying that incidents such as this demonstrate that indie ebooks are crap, that authors have to pay people to say nice things about, and that’s why they don’t buy them. But not just there; Salon.com chimed in with a painfully accurate assessment:

“…employing a service that dishonest and cynical demonstrates a bizarre contempt for the reader. It casts the writer as a producer of widgets and the reader as a sucker who probably won’t complain if the product doesn’t live up to the hype, because hey, at least it was cheap. Books, in this scenario, become flea market trash…”

And how’s the Twitterverse discussing the matter? Here’s a couple of typical comments:

John Locke paid for positive reviews, according to NY Times article. Now, my question is: How many other authors pay?

and

John Locke, self publishing success, paid for over 300 reviews. I have no doubts many huge self pubs use this service.

 

Read the rest of the post on SteamWords.