Structuralism seeks to critique and change the inequality and exploitation of the working class that capitalist and liberal viewpoints produce. Karl Marx tried to understand the nature of this inequality. He believed the bourgeoisie, who owned all the capital and means of production, sought to exploit the proletariat, or the working class. ?Critical for Marx is the fundamental imbalance of power between the classes? (74). While a liberal believes the bourgeoisie and proletariat are capable of forming a mutually advantageous relationship, Marx believed ?the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are trapped in a decidedly one-sided relationship, with an 'unemployed army' of workers frustrating the ability of the labor force to organize itself?giving the capitalists the upper hand in all negotiations? (74). Even though ?Marx believes that capitalism is fundamentally flawed? (75), he still believed that it was a necessary stage toward socialism because it builds wealth, technology, and raises living standards. To understand why the capitalist and liberal viewpoints produce exploitation of the laboring class, we must analyze ?the market economy as a system, rather than piece by piece? (76).
Structuralists focus ?on the production structure inherent in capitalism? (77). This structure leads to classes, leading to class struggles that create crises. These crises lead to revolution. Lliberals ?have a tendency to view individual actions as cooperative and constructive, not competitive and destructive? (49). According to the liberal perspective, the state seeks to be abusive of the liberties of the individual. This leads to tension between the state and the market. Thus, to solve this problem, the liberals believe the government must only ?perform the limited number of tasks that individuals cannot perform by themselves, such as establish a basic legal system, assure national defense, and coin money? (50). This was actually one of Adam Smith's central ideas; the government should do the work that private interests won't. Because classic liberals see the state as destructive to the market, they seek no governmental interference in the market outside of the tasks that people cannot do themselves. This is a piece-by-piece viewpoint of the market economy. Structuralists seek to view the market economy in its entirety. Because they believe that the economic structure is the strongest influence on society, the free market system envisioned by liberals will create class conflicts between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. While liberals believe that the state is a dangerous force, structuralists see that ?the state and the bourgeoisie are intertwined to such an extent that the two cannot be separated? (77). This basically means that liberals see the state as an opposing force while from the structuralist view point, only the proletariat sees the state as a dangerous force because of the cooperation between the bourgeoisie and the state. Viewing the economy in its whole, it is easy to understand that the government supports and defends the elite class of bourgeois essentially because they are the capital owners. This is extremely evident in the current state of affairs in the United States. For example, rich oligopolies, such as the banking companies, have an extremely tight connection to the government. Many companies contribute heavily to the campaigns of politicians who, if elected, pass regulation that helps the oligopolies. The government recently passed a bill that makes it harder to file for bankruptcy. The bill was lobbied heavily by the banking industry, which holds much of the capital of the nation. It only benefits the banking industry. It will make it extremely hard for people to file for bankruptcy, and also makes them have to pay back the money. This legislation hurts the working class tremendously while benefiting the banking industry. Thus, it is evident that the government does indeed support and defend the interests of the elite class.
This tight bond between the government and bourgeois leads to the exploitation of the laborers and one of the pitfalls of liberalism. What leads to class conflict? There are many remarkable findings when looking at this problem from a global point of view. According to Leninists', the profit-seeking capitalists would not use surplus capital to raise the standard of living of the proletariat. ?Therefore, capitalists societies would remain unevenly developed ones, with some classes prospering as others were mired in poverty? (81). In reality, the standard of living has risen for the majority of people worldwide because of the effects of modernization. V.I. Lenin was wrong when it came to the standard of living for the proletariat, but he was correct in his analysis that capitalists societies would be unevenly developed and that the proletariat would still get the short end of the stick. Lenin's imperialist theory of capitalism seeks to ?explain how it was that capitalism shifted from internal to international exploitation, and how the inequality among the classes had as its parallel the law of uneven development among nations? (81). Lenin believed that the imperial phase of capitalism exported exploitation to poor peripheral countries as wealth and poverty were put onto the world stage. Looking at the world's economy, this made a new class of proletariats that was not bound within nations. For Lenin, imperialism was a tool that rich capitalist nations sought to use to increase revenue by making poor nations dependent on them for manufactured goods, jobs, and financial resources. It also made these poor nations heavily in debt, thus making them more dependent on the rich capitalism nations. This leads to a cycle of dependency. The bourgeois (by owning the means of production) and the government benefit from this 'tool' while the proletariats suffer tremendously. Why do the proletariats suffer? Imperialism heavily exploited the working class, especially of the colonized countries, by denying them basic workers rights and keeping them impoverished through a cycle of debt. Basically, structuralists see the bond between the rich and the government as detrimental to the working class.
When it comes to competition, liberals believe that it ?constrains self-interest and prevents it from becoming destructive to the interests of others? (50). Producers must push prices down because of competition, thus benefiting the working class by creating low prices. This is countered with Marx's ?law of concentration (or accumulation of capital)? (76). The theory is that the capitalist system produces ?inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. As the bourgeoisie continue to exploit the proletariat and weaker capitalists are swallowed by stronger, bigger ones, wealth and the ownership of capital become increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands? (76). The law of disproportionality also counters the liberal view that competition benefits the working class. According to the law of disproportionality, ?capitalism, because of its anarchic, unplanned nature, is prone to instability? (75). Capitalism can be subject to overproduction or underconsumption. ?Capitalists are not able to sell everything they produce at a profit and workers cannot afford to buy what they make? (76). This disproportionality between supply and demands leads to economic fluctuations and increases the chance of social unrest and revolution. The Keynesian Theory of economics can further prove this disproportionality.
John Marynard Keynes developed his theory just as the Great Depression spread poverty all over the United States. In his view, ?individuals and markets tended to make decisions that were particularly unwise when faced with situations where the future is unknown? (56). Basically, Keynes believed that people were concerned about being unemployed in the future. So, everybody spent less money, saved more, and the result was that fewer goods were purchased and produced. Thus, ?the recession and unemployment that everyone feared?[was] caused by the very actions that individuals took to protect themselves from this eventuality? (56). This is called the paradox of thrift. The wealth gap in the country continued to grow and all the capital was concentrated within the hands of the few elite. Competition vanished at this point because the means of production was halted. ?Keynes argued that the state should spend and invest when individuals would not?? (56). Keynes was a liberal at heart, yet even he envisioned the Great Depression and the consequences of it. Structuralists seek to end this instable cycle of booms and busts by creating a socialist society where everybody is as equal in class as possible. No competition will exist because the state will set the prices. There will be virtually no wealth gap because everybody will contribute equality and earn equal capital. There will see be an elite group of people who basically run the country. These people will have a great deal of power because they run the government. Using Keynes views, a checks and balances system would be setup to make sure the people in power will not exploit the population.
In my personal point of view, I am persuaded by the Keynesian compromise, which is a system of embedded liberalism. The wealth gap in many third world countries is staggering, yet a market system is needed to build wealth. Structuralists argue that capitalism is an unavoidable step towards socialism because it creates the wealth. The government must regulate this capitalist system so that the working class is not exploited. The Keynesian compromise is a liberal international system that includes free trade and open markets at its core. However, ?individual nations would be able to undertake the sorts of domestic policies that Keynes advocated for moderating inflation, controlling unemployment, and encouraging economic growth? (58). Basically, free markets dominate relations between nations while the state has an ?important macroeconomic role within each nation?? (58). This 'Keynesian Compromise' is a mixture of John Maynard Keynes' views and Bretton Woods' views. Instead of viewing the IPE as state versus market, the Keynesian compromise seeks ?the right degree and nature of state intervention within an overall system of open markets? (58). A good model is most of Western Europe, including France and the Netherlands. Western Europe has a free market and extensive social welfare systems. The European Union advances the free market system while each individual nation chooses which social programs it plans to have. Switzerland, for example, has universal health care for all its citizens. Switzerland also has markets and trade. This country has one of the highest standards of living in the world, higher than the United States. And this country uses embedded liberalism. Markets, trade, social and welfare programs, and government intervention along with a system of checks and balances is the ideal viewpoint that I advocate.
Work Cited
Balaam, David N., and Michael Veseth. Introduction to International Political Economy. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2005.
Common Writing Mistakes
Common Writing Mistakes
Most books aren't rejected because the stories are "bad." They're rejected because they're not "ready to read." In short, minor stuff like typos, grammar, spelling, etc.
I don't mean places where we, as authors, deliberately break the rules. Those are fine. They're our job. Language always changes with use, and we can help it on its way. No, I'm referring to places where someone just plain didn't learn the rule or got confused or overlooked it during the self-edits.
I've been editing novels since early 2000. Looking back at my experiences, I feel like sharing the most common mistakes I've seen. If you'll go through your manuscript and fix these before you submit it to a publisher, your odds of publication will increase dramatically.
Once you've found a publisher who publishes what you write, you want to present yourself in the best way possible. Submitting an unedited manuscript is a bit like going to a job interview wearing a purple Mohawk, no shoes, torn jeans, and a T-shirt. Your resume may be perfect, and your qualifications impeccable, but something tells me you won't get the job.
The publisher's investing a lot in every book it accepts. E-publishers tend to invest loads of time, and print publishers tend to invest an advertising budget and the cost of carrying inventory. Why ask them to invest hours and days of editing time as well? If the publisher gets two or three or ten nearly identical submissions, you want yours to be the one requiring the least editing.
The first thing you need to do, and I hope you've already done it, is use the spelling and grammar checkers in your word processor. They're not perfect, but they'll catch many of the "common mistakes" on my list. I've been asked to edit many books where the author obviously didn't do this, and I confess that I may have been lazy and let a couple of mine get to my editors unchecked. Bad Michael!
Here's a list of the mistakes I see most often.
Dialogue where everyone speaks in perfect English and never violates any of the points below. Okay, I made that up. That's not really a common problem at all. But I have seen it, and it's a terrible thing.
It's is a contraction for "it is" and its is possessive.
Who's is a contraction for "who is" and whose is possessive.
You're is a contraction for "you are" and your is possessive.
They're is a contraction for "they are," there is a place, their is possessive.
There's is a contraction for "there is" and theirs is possessive.
If you've been paying attention to the above examples, you've noticed that possessive pronouns never use apostrophes. Its, whose, your, yours, their, theirs...
Let's is a contraction for "let us."
When making a word plural by adding an s, don't use an apostrophe. (The cats are asleep.)
When making a word possessive by adding an s, use an apostrophe. (The cat's bowl is empty.)
A bath is a noun, what you take. Bathe is a verb, the action you do when taking or giving a bath.
A breath is a noun, what you take. Breathe is a verb, the action you do when taking a breath.
You wear clothes. When you put them on, you clothe yourself. They are made of cloth.
Whenever you read a sentence with the word "that," ask yourself if you can delete that word and still achieve clarity. If so, kill it. The same can be said of all sentences. If you can delete a word without changing the meaning or sacrificing clarity, do it. "And then" is a phrase worth using your word processor's search feature to look for.
Keep an eye on verb tenses. "He pulled the pin and throws the grenade" is not a good sentence.
Keep an eye on making everything agree regarding singular and plural. "My cat and my wife is sleeping," "My cat sleep on the sofa," and "My wife is a beautiful women" are not good sentences. (I exaggerate in these examples, but you know what I mean.)
I and me, he and him, etc. I hope no editor is rejecting any novels for this one, because I suspect that most people get confused at times. In dialogue, do whatever the heck you want because it sounds more "natural." But for the sake of your narrative, I'll try to explain the rule and the cheat. The rule involves knowing whether your pronoun is the subject or object. When Jim Morrison of The Doors sings, "til the stars fall from the sky for you and I," he's making a good rhyme but he's using bad grammar. According to the rule, "you and I" is the object of the preposition "for," thus it should be "for you and me." The cheat involves pretending "you and" isn't there, and just instinctively knowing "for I" just doesn't sound right. (I think only native English speakers can use my cheat. For the record, I have great admiration for anyone who's writing in a language that isn't their native tongue.)
Should of, would of, could of. This one can make me throw things. It's wrong! What you mean is should have, would have, could have. Or maybe you mean the contractions. Should've, would've, could've. And maybe 've sounds a bit like of. But it's not! Of is not a verb. Not now, not ever.
More, shorter sentences are better. Always. Don't ask a single sentence to do too much work or advance the action too much, because then you've got lots of words scattered about like "that" and "however" and "because" and "or" and "as" and "and" and "while," much like this rather pathetic excuse for a sentence right here.
On a similar (exaggerated) note: "He laughed a wicked laugh as he kicked Ralphie in the face while he aimed the gun at Lerod and pulled the trigger and then laughed maniacally as Lerod twisted in agony because of the bullet that burned through his face and splattered his brains against the wall and made the wall look like an overcooked lasagne or an abstract painting." Now tell me this sentence isn't trying to do too much.
Too means also or very, two is a number, to is a preposition.
He said/she said. Use those only when necessary to establish who's speaking. They distract the reader, pulling him out of the story and saying, "Hey look, you're reading a book." Ideally, within the context of the dialogue, we know who's talking just by the style or the ideas. When a new speaker arrives on the scene, identify him or her immediately. Beyond that, keep it to a minimum. I don't mean delete them all, because it's really frustrating counting backward to see who is speaking because you forgot. Just don't go overboard with them. Oh yeah, and give every speaker his/her own paragraph.
Billy-Bob smiled his most winning smile and said, "What's a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?" I don't like this. Use two shorter sentences in the same paragraph. Billy-Bob smiled his most winning smile. "What's a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?" Same effect, fewer words, no dialogue tag (he said).
In the previous example, I don't like "smiled his most winning smile," because it's redundant, but I'd probably let it slide. But please, if you find yourself writing something like that, try to find a better way to express it before you just give up and leave it like it is. During the self-edit, I mean, not during the initial writing.
"The glow-in-the-dark poster of Jesus glowed in the dark." This editor won't let that one go. Much too redundant, and it appeared in a published novel.
Lie is what you do when you lie down on the bed, lay is what you do to another object that you lay on the table. Just to confuse matters, the past tense of lie is lay. Whenever I hit a lay/lie word in reading, I stop and think. Do that when you self-edit. (Note: Don't fix this one in dialogue unless your character is quite well-educated, because most people say it wrong. I do.)
Beware of the dangling modifier. "Rushing into the room, the exploding bombs dropped seven of the soldiers." Wait a minute! The bombs didn't rush into the room. The soldiers did. To get all technical about it, the first part is the "dependent clause," and it must have the same subject as the "independent clause" which follows. Otherwise it's amateur, distracting, and a real pain for your poor overworked editor.
Okay, so these are too much fun to let go. Here are a few more from http://www.uis.edu/writestuff/gaffes.htm: Just like men, heart disease is the number one killer of men in the U.S. Mixing Bowl Set designed to please a cook with round bottom for efficient beating. We will oil your sewing machine and adjust tension in your home for $10.00.
When something dark gets lighter, that is lightening. Them things that flash through the skies during a thunderstorm are called lightning bolts. No e, okay?
If you are able (many readers are not), keep an eye out for missing periods, weird commas, closing quotes, opening quotes, etc. When I read a book, be it an e-book or a printed book, I can't help but spot every single one that's missing. They slap me upside the head, which makes me a great editor but a lousy reader. If you're like me, use that to your advantage. If not, that's what editors are for.
Grammar Quiz is 10 questions. If you get any of them wrong, it does a great job of explaining why.
University of Texas at Dallas - Scroll down to the "Writers" section.
Looking for the rules on how to punctuate dialogue? Here are two fine sites that explain them well:
http://www.authorinresidence.ecsd.net/Dialogue%20Punctuation.htm
http://www.gabwhacker.com/xwp/bluequill/said1/asp
=====
Michael LaRocca's website at http://www.chinarice.org was chosen by WRITER'S DIGEST as one of The 101 Best Websites For Writers in 2001 and 2002. His response was to throw it out and start over again because he's insane. He works as an editor from Chiang Mai, Thailand, and publishes the free weekly newsletter WHO MOVED MY RICE?
About Writing
About Writing
Here's everything I know about improving your writing, publishing it electronically and in print, and promoting it after the sale.
Two questions you should ask:
(1) What will it cost me?
(2) What does this Michael LaRocca guy know about it?
Answer #1 -- It won't cost you a thing. The single most important bit of advice I can give you, and I say it often, is don't pay for publication.
My successes have come from investing time. Some of it was well spent, but most of it was wasted. It costs me nothing to share what I've learned. It costs you nothing to read it except some of your time.
Answer #2 -- "Michael LaRocca has been researching the publishing field for over ten years."
This quote, from an ezine (electronic newsletter) called Authors Wordsmith, was a kind way of saying I've received a lot of rejections. Also, my "research" required 20 years.
But in my "breakout" year (2000), I finished writing four books and scheduled them all for publication in 2001. I also began editing for one of my publishers, a job I've been enjoying ever since.
After my first book was published, both my publishers closed. Two weeks and three publishers later, I was back on track. All four books were published, and a fifth was released in 2004. Written in 2003, no rejections. Another scheduled for 2005 publication, no rejections.
See how much faster it was the second time around? That's because I learned a lot.
Also, I found more editing jobs. That's what I do when I'm not writing, doing legal transcription, or doing English consulting work in Thailand (my new home). But the thing is, if I'd become an editor before learning how to write, I'd have stunk.
2005 EPPIE Award finalist. 2004 EPPIE Award finalist. 2002 EPPIE Award finalist. Listed by Writers Digest as one of The Best 101 Websites For Writers in 2001 and 2002. Sime-Gen Readers Choice Awards for Favorite Author (Nonfiction & Writing) and Favorite Book (Nonfiction & Writing). 1982 Who's Who In American Writing.
Excuse me for bragging, but it beats having you think I'm unqualified.
I'll tell you what's missing from this monologue. What to write about, where I get my ideas from, stuff like that. Maybe I don't answer this question because I think you should do it your way, not mine. Or maybe because I don't know how I do it. Or maybe both.
Once you've done your writing, this essay should help you with the other stuff involved in being a writer. Writing involves wearing at least four different hats. Writer, editor, publication seeker, post-sale self-promoter.
Here's what I can tell you about my writing.
Sometimes an idea just comes to me out of nowhere and refuses to leave me alone until I write about it. So, I do.
And, whenever I read a book that really fires me up, I think, "I wish I could write like that." So, I just keep trying. I'll never write THE best, but I'll always write MY best. And get better every time. That's the "secret" of the writing "business," same as any other business. Always deliver the goods.
I read voraciously, a habit I recommend to any author who doesn't already have it. You'll subconsciously pick up on what does and doesn't work. Characterization, dialogue, pacing, plot, story, setting, description, etc. But more importantly, someone who doesn't enjoy reading will never write something that someone else will enjoy reading.
I don't write "for the market." I know I can't, so I just write for me and then try to find readers who like what I like. I'm not trying to whip up the next bestseller and get rich. Not that I'd complain. But I have to write what's in my heart, then find a market later. It makes marketing a challenge at times, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
When you write, be a dreamer. Go nuts. Know that you're writing pure gold. That fire is why we write.
An author I greatly admire, Kurt Vonnegut, sweats out each individual sentence. He writes it, rewrites it, and doesn't leave it alone until it's perfect. Then when he's done, he's done.
I doubt most of write like that. I don't. I let it fly as fast as my fingers can move across the paper or keyboard, rushing to capture my ideas before they get away. Later, I change and shuffle and slice.
James Michener writes the last sentence first, then has his goal before him as he writes his way to it.
Then there's me. No outline whatsoever. I create characters and conflict, spending days and weeks on that task, until the first chapter leaves me wondering "How will this end?" Then my characters take over, and I'm as surprised as the reader when I finish my story.
Some authors set aside a certain number of hours every day for writing, or a certain number of words. In short, a writing schedule.
Then there's me. No writing for three or six months, then a flurry of activity where I forget to eat, sleep, bathe, change the cat's litter... I'm a walking stereotype. To assuage the guilt, I tell myself that my unconscious is hard at work. As Hemingway would say, long periods of thinking and short periods of writing.
I've shown you the extremes in writing styles. I think most authors fall in the middle somewhere. But my point is, find out what works for you. You can read about how other writers do it, and if that works for you, great. But in the end, find your own way. That's what writers do.
Just don't do it halfway.
If you're doing what I do, writing a story that entertains and moves you, you'll find readers who share your tastes. For some of us that means a niche market and for others it means regular appearances on the bestseller list.
Writing is a calling, but publishing is a business. Remember that AFTER you've written your manuscript. Not during.
I've told you how I write. For me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** EDITING **
The next step is self-editing. Fixing the mistakes I made in my rush to write it before my Muse took a holiday. Several rewrites. Running through it repeatedly with a fine-toothed comb and eliminating cliches like "fine-toothed comb."
Then what?
There are stories that get rejected because the potential publisher hates them, or feels they won't SELL (as if he knows), but more are shot down for other reasons. Stilted dialogue. Boring descriptions. Weak characters. Underdeveloped story. Unbelievable or inconsistent plot. Sloppy writing.
That's what you have to fix.
I started by using free online creative writing workshops. What I needed most was input from strangers. After all, once you're published, your readers will be strangers. Every publisher or agent you submit to will be a stranger. What will they think? I always get too close to my writing to answer that.
Whenever I got some advice, I considered it. Some I just threw out as wrong, or because I couldn't make the changes without abandoning part of what made the story special to me. Some I embraced. But the point is, I decided. It's my writing.
After a time, I didn't feel the need for the workshops anymore. I'm fortunate enough to have a wife whose advice I will always treasure, and after a while that was all I needed. But early on, it would've been unfair to ask her to read my drivel. (Not that I didn't anyway, but she married me in spite of it.)
Your goal when you self-edit is to get your book as close to "ready to read" as you possibly can. Do not be lazy and do not rush. You want your editor to find what you overlooked, not what you didn't know about, and you want it to be easy for him/her. EASY! Easy to edit, easy to read. It's a novel, not a blog.
Your story is your story. You write it from your heart, and when it looks like something you'd enjoy reading, you set out to find a publisher who shares your tastes. What you don't want is for that first reader to lose sight of what makes your story special because you've bogged it down with silly mistakes.
Authors don't pay to be published. They are paid for publication. Always. It's just that simple. Later, I'll tell you where to get some free editing. But there's a limit to how much editing you can get without paying for it. Do you need more than that? I don't know because I've never read your writing. But if you evaluate it honestly, I think you'll know the answer.
As an editor, I've worked with some authors who simply couldn't self-edit. Non-native English speakers, diagnosed dyslexics, blind authors, guys who slept through English class, whatever. To them, paying for editing was an option. This isn't paying for publication. This is paying for a service, training. Just like paying to take a Creative Writing class at the local community college.
By the way, I don't believe creativity can be taught. Writing, certainly. I took a Creative Writing class in high school, free, and treasure the experience. But I already had the creativity, or else it would've been a waste of the teacher's time and mine.
(Later I taught Creative Writing in China. We call this irony. One of my former English teachers also had Rod Serling as a student.)
If you hire an editor worthy of the name, you should learn from that editor how to self-edit in the future. In my case it took two tries, because my first "editor" was a rip-off artist charging over ten times market value for incomplete advice.
That editor, incidentally, is named Edit Ink, and they're listed on many "scam warning" sites. They take kickbacks from every fake agent who sends them a client. (I'll talk about fake agents later.) Avoid such places at all costs, and I will stress the word "costs." Ouch!
If you choose to hire an editor, check price and reputation. For a ballpark figure, I charge less than a penny a word. Consider that you might never make enough selling your books to get back what you pay that editor. Do you care? That's your decision.
Your first, most important step on the road to publication is to make your writing the best it can be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** PUBLICATION **
My goal is to be published in both mediums, ebook and print. There are some readers who prefer ebooks, and some who prefer print books. The latter group is larger, but those publishers are harder to sell your writing to. I want to be published in both mediums, because I want all the readers I can get.
Before you epublish, check the contract to be sure you can publish the EDITED work in print later.
If you know your book just plain won't ever make it into traditional print, print-on-demand (POD) is an option. Some of my books fall into this category. The best epublishers will simultaneously publish your work electronically and in POD format, at no cost to you.
A lot of authors swear by self-publication, but the prospect just plain scares me. All that promo, all that self-editing, maybe driving around the countryside with a back seat full of books. I'm a writer, not a salesman. Maybe you're different.
I self-published once, in the pre-POD days. Mom handled the sales. I had fun and broke even. With POD, at least it's easier (and probably cheaper) to self-publish than it was in 1989, because you'll never get stuck with a large unsold inventory.
POD setup fees can range anywhere from US$100 to well over $1000. Don't pay the higher price! Price shop. Also, remember that POD places publish any author who pays, giving them a real credibility problem with some reviewers and readers, and that they do no marketing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** PROMOTING YOUR PUBLISHED WRITING **
It doesn't matter how you publish your book. Self-published, epublished, POD, or traditional print publishing from a small press or an absolute powerhouse. Marketing falls largely on you, and the same things always work. Book signings, book reviews and interviews in the local newspapers and on radio. (Or Oprah, but what are our chances?)
Start with http://www.kidon.com/media-link/index.shtml. It will allow you to look up all the local media outlets in your area that have websites.
If you write to them all, you're a spammer. Plus, it'll take ages. Look for the ones with a legitimate interest and fire away.
If you find a stale URL, and I think you will, look for the name of that media outlet at some place like Google. Spend some time looking for the right press contacts, spend some time writing your press release, and do what you can.
Most of these sites list email, snail mail, and phone numbers. Since I live in Asia, I've only used email.
Book reviews, author interviews, book listing sites, and book contests are something we can all do, regardless of where we live.
Aside from two radio interviews and a seminar in Hong Kong, and some emailed press releases to the LOCAL media back in the US which may or may not have succeeded in anything, my marketing has come from the Internet.
I have a website. I have a newsletter. I write free articles such as this one. You found me somehow, right?
Here's the type of message I receive often in email. To be more precise, in spam.
"If a million people see your ad, and you get 1% of them, that's 10,000 readers and therefore $15,000 profit and you only paid 1000 for those million addresses."
NO!! It doesn't work that way. Need I use the words dot-com bust?
My website is free. My newsletter is free. I don't buy mailing lists, I don't harvest email addresses, and I don't spam. I want interested traffic, not just sheer numbers.
Do you think the Phoenicians tried to sell sails to people a thousand miles from water?
Internet marketing isn't a replacement for the methods mentioned above, but a complement to them. And by using it, I got you here. Hi!
Your goal in marketing is this. There are people in the world who like what you like. And since you like your book, they probably will too. You have to find those readers and make them interested, without spamming them and without "playing the numbers game."
If you're an e-author, let me state the obvious. Nobody buys ebooks who doesn't have Internet access. Do they? So you definitely need a website.
Traditional print authors need websites too. Even blockbuster authors like J.R. Rowling and Stephen King, who I doubt could garner any more name recognition, have websites. So does every long-established inescapable monstro-business from hell like McDonalds and Coke.
Okay, those folks pay web designers. I'm not doing that. I can't generate sales like that. And yes, I've been employed as an HTML programmer. But you can write your own website without learning HTML if you want. It's no harder than writing a manuscript with a word processor.
It won't be super-flashy like the big boys, but it'll communicate the information. Remember, you can communicate. You're an author! That's what keeps people coming back to a website after the thrill of the flash wears off. Information. Content. Your specialty. Not a ticket to massive overnight traffic, but slow steady growth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** CLOSING THOUGHTS **
Here's something you've heard before. When your manuscript is rejected -- and it will be -- remember that you aren't being rejected. Your manuscript is.
Did you ever hang up the phone on a telemarketer, delete spam, or close the door in the face of a salesman? Of course, and yet that salesman just moves on to the next potential customer. He knows you're rejecting his product, not him.
Okay, in my case I'm rejecting both, but I'd never do that to an author. Neither will a publisher or an agent. All authors tell other authors not to take rejection personally, and yet we all do. Consider it a target to shoot for, then. Just keep submitting, and just keep writing.
The best way to cope with waiting times is to "submit and forget," writing or editing other stuff while the time passes.
And finally, feel free to send an e-mail to me anytime. michaellarocca@chinarice.org. I'll gladly share what I know with you, and it won't cost you a cent.
I would wish you luck in your publishing endeavors, but I know there's no luck involved. It's all skill and diligence.
Congratulations on completing the course! No ceremonies, no degrees, and no diplomas. But on the bright side, no student loan to repay.
=====
Michael LaRocca's website at http://www.chinarice.org was chosen by WRITER'S DIGEST as one of The 101 Best Websites For Writers in 2001 and 2002. His response was to throw it out and start over again because he's insane. He works as an editor from Chiang Mai, Thailand, and publishes the free weekly newsletter WHO MOVED MY RICE?
ukryj reklamę
