Fixed a typo

There was a paragraph indentation missing from Hostile Planet.  It was in chapter 7, so if you've got a copy of the book, you can probably spot it.  I've uploaded the fixed file to my retailers.

I have no idea how the indentation disappeared.  I must have edited that paragraph or something after doing the formatting.  *shrug*  Anyway, it's fixed, and hopefully that's the only goof.

Progress Report

It's been a slow month, thanks to life getting in the way, but I'm finally getting back up to speed, sort of.  I've finished the mobi draft of Mind Games, formatted it, and am about to begin the final proofread.  It currently stands at just over 109,000 words.  If you'll remember, the first draft was about 79,000 words.  I always end up adding material during revision, but I didn't expect to add quite that much.  Nevertheless, I'm pleased.  Six-figure word counts are the way to go.  Hostile Planet barely missed the mark at 99k and change.

I've joined an indie SF writer's group on Slack.  I'd never heard of Slack until a few days ago.  So far, it seems kind of neat.

I also downloaded the latest update for Calibre.  Man, I love that program.  I hope the inventor is a wealthy and happy dude, because he deserves it.

So that's all for now.  Mind Games is coming soon.  Stay tuned.

Walmart teaming up with Kobo

The indie author community is abuzz with the latest news: Walmart is partnering with Kobo to sell ebooks via Walmart's store:

Customers will be able to shop for e-books and audiobooks on Walmart's website, and the retailer will sell e-readers in its stores and online.

I have nothing against Amazon.  In fact, I love Amazon.  But healthy competition is good for both authors and readers, and this new corporate partnership looks promising.  And, frankly, it's about time Walmart got in the game.  They should have gotten serious about ebooks years ago.  But better late than never, I guess.  In any event, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Tractor beams!

They're not just science fiction anymore, apparently.

Using this technique and 40kHz ultrasonic waves (similar to a pitch that only bats can hear), they were able to levitate a two-centimeter polystyrene sphere, the largest object ever trapped in a real world tractor beam.

There aren't any tractor beams in the Wheel of Fire, but maybe I'll use them in a future work.  For now, my readers will just have to settle for sword-wielding assassin-monks, plasma rifles, space marines, anti-gravity engines, metaphysical planes of existence, and genetically engineered humans.  :D

Proper care and feeding of dependent clauses

Dependent clauses are wonderful things, but that doesn't mean they can be used indiscriminately.  One can use such a clause in a manner that's grammatically correct, but that doesn't mean that manner is the best way to go in that instance.  It's a craft thing, not a grammar thing.  Luckily, there's only one real "guideline" to keep in mind regarding these things:

When you start a sentence with a dependent clause, it weakens that sentence.

(Yes, I'm aware of the irony of starting that sentence with a dependent clause.  But this is a blog post, not a blurb or story, and nobody's paying me for my blog posts, so it doesn't matter.  ;) )

And that's it.  Keep that rule in mind, and then edit your lines accordingly.  For example, if you're writing a blurb for your book, then you want your sentences to be as strong as possible.  You want that blurb to grab the prospective reader by the virtual lapels, give him a good shake, and say, "This book rocks!  Click 'buy' already!"  You don't want a blurb that says, "Well, you might like this book.  Or not.  I'm not that confident about it, but please give it a try anyway."

Let's examine one of my own blurbs.  Here's the blurb for Clouds of Venus:

Dale Kinmont is a college student in post-catastrophe America. He's lucky; he lives in one of the walled cities for the nation's elite, and life is pleasant. He expects to graduate and find employment in his uncle's company.

Everything changes when he's framed for murder. He's tried, convicted, and sentenced to hard labor in the prison colony on Mercury. 

He ends up in Hesperus instead, a flying city that soars eternally through the acidic skies of Venus. His goal now is to find a way to clear his name and return to Earth before Hesperus erupts in civil war. He also must battle the harsh realities of the planet itself. Because if the Hesperans don't kill him, Venus probably will.

Only one of those sentences starts with a dependent clause, and it's the very last one.  By the time the prospective reader reaches that last sentence, his or her mind is probably already mostly made up about whether or not to purchase the book.  Also, the rules of blurb-writing are different for the last sentence of the blurb, because that sentence is the final "hook" that, ideally, convinces the reader to grab the book.  For the rest of the blurb, though, it's best to follow the guidelines.  Save the dependent clauses, sentence fragments, snarky puns, and whatever else for that last line.

Now let's re-write that blurb with the other sentences rearranged so that they start with dependent clauses:

In post-catastrophe America, Dale Kinmont is a college student. Living in one of the walled cities for the nation's elite, he considers himself lucky, and life is pleasant. Upon graduating, he expects to find employment in his uncle's company.

When he's framed for murder, everything changes. Tried and convicted, he's sentenced to hard labor in the prison colony on Mercury. 

Instead, he ends up in Hesperus, a flying city that soars eternally through the acidic skies of Venus. While there, his goal is to clear his name and return to Earth before Hesperus erupts in civil war. Also, he must battle the harsh realities of the planet itself. Because if the Hesperans don't kill him, Venus probably will.

It's basically the same blurb, but it lacks some of the punch, doesn't it?  That's because dependent clauses are sort of "passive-aggressive," or at least more so than independent clauses.  The natural position in a sentence for a dependent clause is after the independent clause, not in front of it.  When we swap those positions, the sentence feels a little weaselly, as if the writer was trying to hedge his bets by not fully committing to the sentence's meaning.  That's because the sentence's meaning is based on the independent clause, but it's only modified by the dependent clause.  The difference in the effect of these two methods of sentence construction is subtle, but it's real, especially on a subconscious level, and it can mean the difference between a sale and a non-sale.

Most of the time, both in blurbs and in the text of your story, you'll want to start your sentences with independent clauses.  That makes for stronger sentences.  Strong sentences are more engaging than weak ones, and reader engagement is crucial, especially in blurbs.

So that's my craft advice for today.  Have a look at your blurbs and see if you can re-write your sentences so that they start with independent clauses, not dependent ones.  If you do, then I think you'll notice a positive difference.  Good luck!  :D

Coldest January ever?

Sure seems like it.  Snow fell for the second time this winter.  Other than a few days of highs in the fifties, this month has been frozen solid.  I legitimately cannot remember a colder January than the one we've had so far.  Still a couple of weeks left, though, so who knows what will happen.

In the meantime, I'm trying to get Mind Games polished up.  Progress is slow.  I hate myself for how little I've gotten done this past week.  But that's life, I guess.

My least favorite Heinlein quote

Robert Heinlein was one of the most quotable authors who ever lived, in my opinion.  I see lines from his work pop up on internet forums all the time.  And with good reason, because there's a lot of simple, though, at times, perhaps uncomfortable, truth in his words.  For example:

A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.

That's from Friday, and it hits home now more than ever, I think, especially in the age of the internet.

Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.

That's from Starship Troopers, and it should be obviously true to anyone who takes a cursory look at history.

But there's one popular quote that gets under my skin, and it's this one:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

I absolutely hate this one.  The division of labor, or "specialization," as Heinlein puts it, is what makes a modern society possible.  If we were all jack of all trades but masters of none, then we'd all be living hand to mouth in Stone Age conditions.  After all, if a man is busy doing all the things, then he won't have time to focus his efforts on any one thing.  He'll never become excellent at anything.  The more specialized labor becomes, the more efficient the broader economy gets, and the richer lives we all lead in the aggregate.

I don't want to see Mozart wasting his time changing diapers and butchering hogs.  I want to see him writing music, because that's where he's most valuable to the rest of us.  Let someone without any artistic genius do the diaper-changing and hog-butchering.  At the same time, I don't want to see a professional athlete spending his days pitching manure and programming computers.  I want to see him play ball at the highest level, and that means dedication and focus on his game.

Now, granted, Heinlein's quote doesn't suggest that a man should actually do those things on a regular basis, but rather that a man should be able to do those things.  Okay, fair enough.  Still, though, that's a nuance that not every reader is going to get.  It's just not a good quote.  In fact, it's a destructive quote, because it diverts individuals away from what they're best at in favor of pursuits in which they have less skill or talent.  It stands in direct opposition to what makes modern living possible.

This seems obvious to me, yet this stupid quote keeps popping up here and there on the internet as if it's some laudable thing.  Anyway, that's my pet peeve for today.  Your tolerance for my ranting is appreciated.  ;)