Blogging for Fun and Profit

[Steerpike]

Ankari:

She's a literary agent. The blog has been running for at least 7 or 8 years. I don't think she's selling a book or anything through it.

 

[BWFoster78]

When I was taking marketing in school, I did a report saying that Quiznos should emphasize their steak in all their ads even though it wasn't their best seller because people would associate their brand with the cravings and quality people associate with steaks. The team I was working with called it dumb and took it out. IRL, a few years later, Quiznos did it - well, they also introed the Prime Rib sandwich, which isn't any better than their Black Angus - and their sales boomed even with non-steak orders.

Why do I tell that story? Because I want you to hear me. I don't say this lightly, but I think you're making a mistake. I think that critiques that focus on language and prose look petty, and you should instead talk about your book and the elements of story construction. Be positive, be glowy, review books with a lens of what-could-be. Fairly or not, most people hate critics.

Interesting point. I will consider it.

 

[Ankari]

Ankari:

She's a literary agent. The blog has been running for at least 7 or 8 years. I don't think she's selling a book or anything through it.

I understand. I'm trying to bring this back to Devor's point of creating a blog that targets your ideal audience, where audience and customers can be interchanged (if applicable). I thought Query Shark was mentioned to show that critiquing can be beneficial in creating traffic flow. It can be, but why would an author want to attract other aspiring authors to their blog?

In the case of Query Shark, her audience/customer ARE authors. So to offer a critique for query letters brings in the right customers.

 

[Steerpike]

I understand. I'm trying to bring this back to Devor's point of creating a blog that targets your ideal audience, where audience and customers can be interchanged (if applicable). I thought Query Shark was mentioned to show that critiquing can be beneficial in creating traffic flow. It can be, but why would an author want to attract other aspiring authors to their blog?

In the case of Query Shark, her audience/customer ARE authors. So to offer a critique for query letters brings in the write customers.

Yes, I agree with what you are saying here. I suppose, getting back to BWFoster's idea, you are wondering whether there is value in attracting aspiring writers to the blog of whether it will be a time-consuming diversion? It's a fair question. Aspiring writers tend to be readers as well, however, so I think it is largely a subset of the target audience you want.

 

[Devor]

There's networking value to writing reviews and critiques. I didn't meant to speak so broadly.

But then I took a look at the actual blog, and unfortunately I don't think the critiques listed there have that positive value.

 

[JCFarnham]

Here's another angle. If a person critiqued likes what Brian did for their manuscript, he will go up in there opinion as (eventually) someone who is a master of language. So logically, when he has something to sell, people could be more inclined to read. They know it will, at the very least, be perfectly readable.

So. Fine line, yes, but I think it could work in the end

 

[BWFoster78]

Yes, I agree with what you are saying here. I suppose, getting back to BWFoster's idea, you are wondering whether there is value in attracting aspiring writers to the blog of whether it will be a time-consuming diversion? It's a fair question. Aspiring writers tend to be readers as well, however, so I think it is largely a subset of the target audience you want.

Aspiring writers also tend to blogs, and blogs have readers. It can't hurt to build up some goodwill and have those people spreading the word when my book come out.

 

[BWFoster78]

There's networking value to writing reviews and critiques. I didn't meant to speak so broadly.

But then I took a look at the actual blog, and unfortunately I don't think the critiques listed there have that positive value.

Any idea how to improve the critiques to add that positive value?

 

[BWFoster78]

Here's another angle. If a person critiqued likes what Brian did for their manuscript, he will go up in there opinion as (eventually) someone who is a master of language. So logically, when he has something to sell, people could be more inclined to read. They know it will, at the very least, be perfectly readable.

So. Fine line, yes, but I think it could work in the end

I've heard the establishing yourself as an expert is not a bad thing at all.

Also, going back to Devor's original comment about nobody liking a critic: Does that apply to critiques? The purpose of a critique to help improve someone's writing is a lot different than, say, a book review. The people whose work I'm commenting on are posting to say thanks. It's not like I'm doing this to trash them.

I'm also not sure how the comment applies to book reviews. There are a lot of well liked book review blogs out there. The line, I guess, is to not write them in a way in which you seem to delight in tearing the author a new one. I think helpful reviews that point out the book's positives and negatives don't cross the line.

Thoughts?

 

[Devor]

Any idea how to improve the critiques to add that positive value?

Sure. Talk less about prose and more about story elements. Don't mince over each phrase - which is unprofessional because most work needs much more attention than you could ever argue about - and just do a line edit. Quey Shark seems to be doing this pretty well, I reccomend studying her technique very closely.

 

[Devor]

Also, going back to Devor's original comment about nobody liking a critic: Does that apply to critiques? The purpose of a critique to help improve someone's writing is a lot different than, say, a book review. The people whose work I'm commenting on are posting to say thanks. It's not like I'm doing this to trash them.

There was some context to the people-hate-critics post. But if I post a lengthy thesis on the state of the world's publishing industry, and you respond that I've used "their" instead of "there," my honest reaction will either be "you're a jerk" or "you're trying to distract from the fact that you have no idea how to address anything I just said."

Now, it's less true with fiction writing because we have it in our heads that prose and grammar are a part of the art. And they are. Exactly as much as they are with most non-fiction writing. The styles are different, it's true, but the value of strong prose is not. If my thesis is that Publishing will die a wicked horrible death because a lazy generation will demand ten-minute podcasts, I still need to show the evidence, and not just tell you that it's true.

If my prose is bad, tell me. But tell me more about the story that carries the blunt of the efforts and less about the things that are so easy to fix once you see them that they're hardly worth discussing.

I've worked with editors a few editors now for non-fiction, and with one for fiction. They're not much different. They tell you, "Rework it to emphasize these two points," and then they do a line edit. And if it's the first time you've submitted work to them, they make changes to almost every sentence on the page. And they're right to do so.

But if I submitted something to an editor, and he broke it up sentence-by-sentence with an explanation of what's right or wrong, I would never want to work with him again. I sent a piece once to a friend in college, and he did that (admittedly, he also did line edits). But he spent a lot of time addressing sentences that, as I was looking over his changes, obviously just needed to be cut.

If the sentence reads, Jack and Jill ran up the hill, you could either: 1) Argue that the rhyme is a distraction from the content, or 2) Address the actual content questions of whether running up a hill is an important element for the story and where would be the appropriate place to put such an endeavor. Wouldn't it be more interesting, after all, if Jill first broke her crown, and then Jack ran to fetch her water? As an afterthought, that would take care of that rhyming issue, too.

 

[BWFoster78]

Sure. Talk less about prose and more about story elements. Don't mince over each phrase - which is unprofessional because most work needs much more attention than you could ever argue about - and just do a line edit. Quey Shark seems to be doing this pretty well, I reccomend studying her technique very closely.

I tend to focus on techniques because they're easy to fix and can quickly improve writing dramatically.

I agree that there's usually more wrong than I could ever hope to fix without dozens of iterations.

I'll read the site you suggested.

Thanks.

 

[BWFoster78]

There was some context to the people-hate-critics post.

True.

To make sure I get the context: you seem to be saying that it's okay to criticize the story but not the technique? I'm not so sure that I agree.

If my prose is bad, tell me. But tell me more about the story that carries the blunt of the efforts and less about the things that are so easy to fix once you see them that they're hardly worth discussing.

But the people who are submitting for critique have these horrible, easy-to-correct errors in their writing. After a couple of go arounds, I can help them go from "I can't even understand what he's trying to say" to "Okay, I at least got the concept." I truly think that the people writing in need to know this stuff.

The first step in being able to tell a story is learning how to present the material in a clear manner. If people can't understand what you're trying to say, how are they ever going to get immersed in your tale?

But if I submitted something to an editor, and he broke it up sentence-by-sentence with an explanation of what's right or wrong, I would never want to work with him again.

If I were a professional editor, that's how I would approach it as well.

I think that, in my blog, I'm taking on more the role of a writing coach, not an editor. My function is to help the beginning writer understand how to write. If I offer no explanation, how does that help? If I focus on: you need to develop more tension, how does it help if their grammar is so atrocious that they're never going to get anyone to read it?

1) Argue that the rhyme is a distraction from the content, or 2) Address the actual content questions of whether running up a hill is an important element for the story and where would be the appropriate place to put such an endeavor.

I think I'm getting your viewpoint and seeing where our fundamental conflict is coming from.

I'm not trying to be their editor. I could easily point out all the flaws in their story. Frankly, I don't care a whit about their story. I realize that their "novel" is probably never going to come to fruition, or if it does, it will be so radically different than what they've sent me that it will essentially be another book. I want to teach them how to write better stories. There is value in telling them how to fix prose that eventually will be cut because they learn from the process of revising it.

So, maybe I need to be more clear on the coaching aspect, which, in turn, fixes the "critic" angle.

I'll think about that. Thanks for the input!

 

[Devor]

To make sure I get the context: you seem to be saying that it's okay to criticize the story but not the technique? I'm not so sure that I agree.

I just want to be clear because that's not what I was trying to say.

When talking about prose, I only think it would be more professional and more instructive for people to focus on writing patterns instead of isolating each line separately, and to show them how to fix things by giving one section a brief line edit rather than telling them directly about each line.

But generally speaking, I think that only or mostly talking about a work's prose is a problem because a good novelist would presumably be expected to talk about storytelling elements. If I was looking for the website of a good novelist, that's what I would be looking for.

I'm not trying to be their editor. I could easily point out all the flaws in their story. Frankly, I don't care a whit about their story. I realize that their "novel" is probably never going to come to fruition, or if it does, it will be so radically different than what they've sent me that it will essentially be another book. I want to teach them how to write better stories. There is value in telling them how to fix prose that eventually will be cut because they learn from the process of revising it.

There's value to fixing stories that will eventually be cut, too.

 

[BWFoster78]

But generally speaking, I think that only or mostly talking about a work's prose is a problem because a good novelist would presumably be expected to talk about storytelling elements. If I was looking for the website of a good novelist, that's what I would be looking for.

I can see this. I don't intend to ignore storytelling elements; it's just that the submissions I've gotten so far need so much technique work that I can't see the story beyond the errors.

 

[Steerpike]

It might be useful to determine whether your editorial comments will accommodate a wide variety of styles or be directed at a specific style. For example, there are a number of things that you might consider good technique that I might consider to be bad, or at least not always good, and vice versa. This is true of any editor, though in my view the best editors seek to preserve the style and voice of the work they are editing.

If you go with the former, you have a wider range of people who will find it useful, and I think it can be something that sets the blog apart given that so many reviewers of writing are idiosyncratic.

If you choose the latter, you can frame it as a niche approach, where you have the style that you feel is correct and approach it that way.

The risk of not deciding this up front is that it simply becomes apparent to the readers over time that certain styles or approaches are being routinely panned, regardless of their validity, and I could see that generating negative feedback. By establishing it ahead of time, you set expectations.

That's how I'd approach it, I think. The general idea of providing that kind of feedback is a good one, in my view.

 

[BWFoster78]

It might be useful to determine whether your editorial comments will accommodate a wide variety of styles or be directed at a specific style. For example, there are a number of things that you might consider good technique that I might consider to be bad, or at least not always good, and vice versa. This is true of any editor, though in my view the best editors seek to preserve the style and voice of the work they are editing.

I think I actually behave much differently when editing than my posts here on the forum might indicate. If a rank beginner posts, I'm going to just tell him pretty much how I think it should be. If, however, the poster is someone like you who obviously knows what you are doing, I'll put comments more in the form of "some say that you should do it this way." If you resist that stylistic change, however, I'll drop it after the first comment.

So, while I definitely advocate a particular style, I tend to recognize that following "rules" is a matter of opinion and respect the author's choice. I will point out something more strongly if it really bugs me, but, overall, I think I can still offer useful comments even if I don't like the style.

That's how I'd approach it, I think. The general idea of providing that kind of feedback is a good one, in my view.

Thanks! I've gotten lots of thanks from the people whose work I've commented on. They seem to think it helped. The latest guy even said, essentially, that "everyone always tells him that his work is okay but that he needs to work on his grammar." He then thanked me for taking the time to actually point out his grammatical mistakes.

 

[BWFoster78]

I've taken a look at your blog.

I like the colour scheme.

I think you should consider adding some images and artwork (if you have any ready). A photo of yourself for example on the home page, and a different one on your biog page, and preferably professionally taken ones. Perhaps even, cover images of the books you have reviewed. And images relating to your articles.

Okay, how do I add the cover of a book I'm reviewing to my blog? I've figured out how to add a picture file, but, when I try to do a save as from Amazon or Goodreads, the cover comes out either blank or as an html file. Any ideas?

 

[TWErvin2]

I've found some moderate success in attracting readers and followers to my blog. It gets about 1500 visits a month and slowly climbing (on average), which is okay, but certainly falls short of several blogs I follow.

Observations I've made about blogging over the past couple of years:

It takes time, time away from writing. It's more important to finish that novel than to try to keep fresh content on a blog, if you're hoping to develop a writing career. If you have adequate time for both, that's great, but the novel/short stories, I think, could come first. Once you have something published, then more focus on a blog may be a better payoff for the time and effort, simply because there are thousands of blogs of aspiring writers out there.

Different types of blogs, interviews, articles, commentary, regular life/humor stuff, updates of my writing/releases/signings, etc. all seem to attract different readers, although there is a core of them that seem to read/comment on all of them.

Attracting readers takes time. Activity apparent by people commenting (and me responding/replying) tents to increase activity/views. How you subject a blog can make a difference in google/yahoo searches. My review/commentary on The Five People You Meet in Heaven and a blog or two on the Tasmanian Wolf/Thylacine have garnered thousands of visits over time, and continue to attract viewers, at least for that blog.

Pictures/visuals are important. Blogs that are too long deter readers. If the blog looks too cluttered or the color scheme and such is unattractive, it can deter readers.

Visiting and commenting (thoughtful commenting) sometimes brings readers over when they click to find out more about you. Not often, but it does happen over time.

A few opinions as a blog reader:
Posting samples/chapters from works that are not finished, or won't be published anytime soon, don't interest me. I won't remember six or nine months down the road.

Blogs that have too many gadgets and such that make it slow to load and such, I tend to stop visiting.

Blogs that are mainly advertisements for the blogger's works, once I've been pitched to several times in a row without any other real content in between, why go back and visit/read. There is a limited amount of time I have and too many blogs I'd like to read and/or discover.

Think about your audience. The content you write will influence the readership a blog has. One that focuses on writing and getting published, for example, will likely draw a similar audience. I tend to visit such blogs less often than I used to, although if the subject is of interest, I go check it out.

Advertisements that are annoying or dominate/distract deter me from visiting a blog.

I am more likely to visit a blog recommended by someone who I trust (similar to how I might be willing to try a new author based on a recommendation).

Like I indicated above, I am no expert on the subject so definitely take that into account.

 

[BWFoster78]

Terry,

Fantastic post! Thank you for replying. This is exactly what I was looking for.

Brian