For Aspiring Authors - Rogue Waves

Perhaps the most common question I get from people is along the lines of "What does it take to write a book?" I follow that question with another one, "Do you want to do this for a living?"

As a writer, I am constantly amazed at the quality of books that are available - amazing stories and amazing writing. It pains me to see a wonderful book get published and not go anywhere (not just my own). There are people who will tell me how terrible the Twilight Series is and how wonderful Harry Potter is. They tell me that book X is much better than these books. So, why hasn't book X taken off?

Each published book begins as a ripple that is competing with other ripples to become the next rogue wave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave

Do books compete? Yes. If a reader buys your book, then you are most likely on a stack of other books that the reader has on his/her nightstand (literally or figuratively in ebook). How do authors get their book to be a rogue wave? There are three approaches.

The first comes with the BAM! debut novel - the one that everyone has to read. This is the one that everyone has to read now. DIVERGENT is a great example of this. With so many other YA dystopians out there, how did this one make it to the top? It's a great book; there are many other great books. It has high ratings on Amazon and Goodreads; there are many debut novels with high ratings. It's by a Big 5 publisher; there are lots of Big 5 books that are great, highly rated, but don't take off. I'm not sure if anyone knows exactly how these books make it big while others do not.

The second comes with writing a bunch of stuff (and I use 'stuff' to cover the gamut of writing novels, fan fiction, short stories, etc.), building a fan base, and finally releasing that mega-best-seller. Hugh Howey and Jennifer Armentrout are great examples of writers who can churn out a ton of great stories/great writing in a short amount of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Howey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Armentrout

Looking at the dates of their respective publications makes my head spin. They are gifted in that they can write great material and, in effect, build ripples that are so close to each other that they make a rogue wave. Honestly, even if I didn't have to have a day job, I would find it very difficult (okay, impossible) to keep such an output. In my opinion, this is the most reliable way to create the rogue wave - albeit very tasking.

The third approach is very similar to the second approach except the fan base is built slowly over time. Suzanne Collins is a great example of this. Most don't know that she wrote a five-book series before The Hunger Games. The approach here is to steadily build up a large enough base of fans that once your new book comes out that they all buy it, read it, and tell their friends about it at the same time.

There are those who don't fit in the above categories (e.g., E.L. James) but the point is that there isn't a magic formula for creating your own rogue wave. As the name implies, the wave is unexpected and surprising. If you want to be a writer, don't count on the rogue wave. You can increase your chances by putting a lot of work into it but manage your expectations.

Create Your Own Butterfly Effect

Spend less time day-dreaming and more time day-doing. It sounds like a motivational pitch from a motivational speaker, but let's suppose that this is truth. Let's consider two people - one who has good will in mind and the other who doesn't.

The one with good will spends his/her days dreaming about the virtues and goodness that will come with his/her ideas. The one with bad will spends one hour thinking about the hell on earth he/she can bring and then spends the rest of his/her time actually doing it. Which person will the butterfly effect be most profound?

It's always easier to dream; it's like watching a custom movie in your head and - the best part - you're the hero. Taking action requires time, effort, and (possibly) money; however, the largest road block for most people is the fear of failure. Doing nothing means that you won't fail, but it also means that you won't be successful.

Back to the person with bad will: He/She fails 99 times out of 100. He/She is successful once and you (the assumed good guy) has never been successful, although has never failed either. 99 times is a lot of failure, a lot of time, a lot of <insert negativity here>. One of the biggest regrets that people have on their death bed was that they felt they didn't do enough with their lives. Granted, not everyone is in a situation suited to help carry out their dreams. Are you? Can a dream be scaled back a little bit so it has a chance to take off?

You will have friends that won't support you. You will have friends that will mock you behind your back. Keep in mind that misery loves company - these people don't want you to succeed because it validates their stance that doing nothing is okay (because that's what they're doing: nothing). If you do nothing then they won't feel any pressure to do anything. As an aside, this also tells you who your true friends are.

Make your own butterfly effect. Make it on your terms. Spend 5% dreaming and 95% doing. Remember that there are motivated people out there that are up to no good. Do something.

When Bad Luck is Good Luck

“Las Vegas exists because of a bunch of people who get overly excited about bad math.”

-          Penn Gillette

Through my day job I’ve had to fly into Las Vegas several times – much of what I do (without getting into specifics) deals with remote work. In this case, I was headed to a small spec in the middle of the desert and Las Vegas was the closest airport – and it was still another 3+ hour drive.

I ran into some friends during an overnight layover once and we decided to hit the town; our definition of “hitting the town” didn’t involve any gambling for me as I adhere to Penn Gillette’s take. 

One of my friends has some of the most astounding luck – both good and bad – that I’ve ever seen. He doesn’t require Las Vegas to show it – it just follows him there. It’s always fun to see what luck is in store for him wherever we went.

We’d scheduled to see a comedian that night. We had great tickets – front row, dead center. To kill some time my friend entered a poker tournament that had a $200 buy-in. I watched him from the peanut gallery. Early on, he went all-in (betting all of his chips) based on the two cards he had on his hand – and nothing else. For those of you not familiar with poker – Texas Hold ‘Em in particular – you begin with these two cards and there are subsequent cards that come out, each giving remaining players opportunities to raise the pot of chips. One person called him and they both showed their cards. My friend had two kings – the second highest possible hand you can begin with. The other guy showed his cards – a kind and six – and merely commented, “Oh, I guess I shouldn’t have done that.” My friend had a 94%+ chance of winning the hand by the time all subsequent cards would show; however, his opponent got two sixes and bucked the odds. My friend was done. He got up and left the table in a pretty foul mood. Admittedly, I would, too. The sourness is a combination of someone winning when they clearly made the wrong decision – and then cheering that luck is one their side. In poker, pretty much anything can happen… it’s just when it does luck appears to be a cruel mistress.

Now here’s the insult to injury…

Later that night we went to see the comedian. My friend was looking forward to some laughs to shake off the bad beat he took earlier. The headlining comedian had an opening act: It was the same guy that beat my friend at poker. For the next 20 minutes, my friend sat there clinching his fists. You see, not only did luck want my friend to lose at poker, but luck also wanted my friend to be forced to sit listening to him for 20 minutes. Needlessly to say, the night didn’t improve. My friend wanted to gamble roughly $2,000 that night but wasn’t in the mood.

That $2,000 would have surely ended up in the coffers of Las Vegas. Losing $200 and the forced watching of the guy who beat him made me wonder if something else was set up for my friend – to keep his money. It’s not statistically impossible for these events to happen, but these are things that are usually reserved for the impossibilities found in movies.

The next time you get a “bad beat” with luck, consider that it was actually good luck saving you from something far worse.

"Correlative Causes"

Sugar intake in our diets has increased by nearly 50% over the past 50 years or so. At the same time, our life expectancy has increased with it. Thus, eating sugar makes you live longer.

<end asinine assertion>

All too often we fall prey to studies and news reports that try to portray causes because of correlation: If A happened when B happened then somehow A and B have a dependency. We as a populous react on these assertions - usually without much thought. After all, we aren't all scientists. We don't have access to the data, but it sounds right... right?

There are many complexities that are out there and these "correlative causes" are designed to simplify understanding - they intend well, but they sometimes over-extend themselves. For example, not too many people would disagree that smoking greatly increases your chances of health problems.

It doesn't take one too long to scour the Internet to find some pretty interesting assertions through "correlative causes". Pets make us live longer. A glass of wine a day will make you live longer. Omega-3 fatty acids will make you live longer. If there ever was a correlation to be found from any of these things it would be that they're all focused on allowing you to live longer.

Without getting too deep into politics - we've seen enough "correlative causes" from politicians, "A happened because B was happening."

If you took away the promise of living longer and the antics that come along with politics, how many "correlative causes" would actually appear? Probably very few.

If you were to look into the unfathomable chain of events that guides your life, you would find a near-infinite number of "correlative causes" that will cause you to meet your doom and prove that you've been voting incorrectly.

In summary, do your best to separate what is truly a cause and not just a correlation - the world isn't so doom and gloom after all.

The Curious Thing About Curious George - A Child's Insight

Chances are that if you're on Facebook - or even email - you've seen a regular feed of kids being ruthlessly cute through honesty. Kids will ask people why they're fat, why they're ugly, and why <insert insult here>. Kids will also come up with funny names for things - a child once called highway rest areas 'Pee Pee Stores'. Kids will also cry for no apparent reason... or so it seems.

If you've been around children regularly, you will see that they may cower quickly at things they don't understand, things that may scare them. They will seek shelter through an adult they trust. Kids will do this during movies at parts that aren't scary at all for adults. You will find that kids will instantly warm up to complete strangers when, most of the time, they're hopelessly shy. They are born with being highly sensitive to things they don't understand - in other words, they don't use logic at all; they simply react.

Because they do surprise parents by, for example, warming up to a select few strangers it makes one wonder if children are operating wholly on their intuition. As adults we use our intuition in situations that we don't fully understand. We let our gut tell us what to do - in part or in whole. Children are no different except they don't understand MANY situations. It would be easy to say that children are born being scared but if you've been around children you will see that they are not scared 100% of the time. Something is telling them not to be scared.

I was recently spending time with some children. We were watching Curious George (the newer series produced by Ron Howard). A three-year-old asked me if Curious George was a monkey. I said he was because everyone on the show calls him one and he looks like one. The child retorted, "But monkeys have tails. Curious George doesn't have a tail." And how about that? Curious George doesn't have a tail and monkeys, by definition, have tails. A three-year-old was able to put the pieces together that me, an adult, didn't notice.

The next time a child cowers, take note - there could be more to his/her reasoning than just being scared.

(for the record apes do not have tails and if you really want to split hairs one can point to macaques as being monkeys without tails... George doesn't resemble a macaque)

Blog Schedule Changes

Due to recent demands for the sequel to POLARITY, I will only have one entry per week - mostly on Wednesdays.

Goodreads.com - The Social Medium that's Here to Stay

Today's entry is found here:

https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/5848723-why-goodreads-is-a-social-medium-that-won-t-go-away

This is a little off-topic for this blog, but I felt it necessary to point all readers (and chances are that you're a reader if you read blogs) to Goodreads.com.