Back to Balance… and Marketing

A few weeks ago I mentioned that one of my current goals is to balance things in my life in order to rejuvenate and celebrate the joy in what I do every day. (That’s not to say I’ve been miserable, simply that it’s incredibly easy to get swept up in the myriad of ‘shoulds’ and forget to have a complete and utter blast.)

As if hearing the cries of aspiring (and published) writers, literary agent Nathan Bransford posted his ideas on marketing and balance. The long and the short of it is that writers should have some sort of Googleable web presence, but that trying to do ‘everything’ in terms of promotion–and there are a zillion ways to do this these days–you are going to dilute yourself and not do anything well.

Here, here.

It all comes back to balance. (I love it when things come full circle.)

Jean Oram

Create Your Badge

Lately, I’ve been reading here and there little somethings that reflect my own thoughts on Twitter and Facebook and all those ‘follow/friend’ social networking opportunities. That is: Don’t follow everyone just to count coup. (There is an actual term for those who do this, but my brain is letting me down.) Their advice (and mine too): Follow those you are genuinely interested in.

In other words: So what if you have 1200 followers? If you are following 1200 people we know exactly how you obtained those 1200 followers. You can’t possibly read all those tweets and create a true relationships with those followers. My warning is: Don’t kid yourself into believing all those followers are a true platform and that they are all going to run out and buy your book if you ask them to (if you are an unknown).

Interesting fact that I can’t back up (it’s in a book around here somewhere–Later note: Here’s an article on Dunbar’s Number): People bottom out around 150 relationships. After they reach that threshold, they are unable to maintain and sustain more relationships. True relationships take time, energy and memory making them genuine and rewarding for all involved.

Now, a little clarification on my rant–there is nothing wrong with using social networks and gaining a following. You don’t have to know someone’s favourite colour or know their lineage to have a relationship that will result in them supporting your endeavours. In fact, I recommend building online platforms and using social networking sites. I guess what I am trying to say is: keep it genuine. As Nathan says, if you don’t ‘feel’ it (blogging, tweeting, etc), your audience is going to know. So, do what you are good at. Do what feels genuine and it will get you a whole heck of a lot farther in your promotion or platform building.

Nobody can do everything. And nobody can do everything well.

Jean’s book montage

Jean Oram’s favorite books »

So, another tough question for you blog readers–where is the balance between writing and promotion? How do you keep it fresh when you are blogging and tweeting and facebooking? Or do you?

I’m Big In England

Okay, maybe not ‘big’ per se…

Maybe not *this* big...

However, my query hook has made it into the Guardian’s Book Blog. (The Guardian is a Jolly Big newspaper in Lovely Ol’ England.)

“From “VI Warshawski meets Lucy and Ethel” to The Price, in which “two elves decide to defect from their kingdom and make new lives in a neighbouring land”, or The 15 Date Rule (“for astrophysicist Allie, falling in love is as easy as identifying the planet Venus”), it’s an eclectic mix of submissions, and Bransford has collected an impressive response rate from wannabe agents.”

The 15 Date Rule! That’s me! Something I wrote is being quoted in a BIG newspaper across the world! How freaking cool is that!!? It gives me a shot of hope when only a few days ago I felt a bit like a crash test dummy that had finally rounded that ‘last’ corner and slammed into the proverbial brick wall and was left to slide down, a mortifying tangle of limbs and bruises.

Thanks Guardian and thanks Nathan. This made my day. Oh heck, my week!

Catch Up Time: Blog Contests

I took a few days off and almost forgot to update you lovely folks on what happened in the online ‘stuff’ I was involved in last week.

Over on Nathan Bransford’s blog and his Agent For a Day contest, I was query number 15. (I offered to have my query tossed in the slush pile for his readers to get a taste of what it is like to be an agent.) I just checked and there are 325 comments with an 8% request rate. I did learn through this process that my query is repetitive. Believe it or not, this query was looked over/critiqued by others. But seeing it through these generous fresh eyes, I see all sorts of things I didn’t before. It was a great experience and I am pleased to be a part of it, even if I did get rejected almost 300 times.

Over on the Miss Snark’s First Victim Blog, I was part of Authoress’s Secret Agent Contest (Entry #34). Sadly, I didn’t hook the secret agent (Kate Schafer Testerman–I guessed it was her. I read her blog all the time and recognized her voice in the comments section.). She didn’t totally discount my entry, but she wasn’t hooked either. And I learned from the wonderful readers who left comments on my 250 word piece that I did overdo the ‘breathing’ thing in my opening. I guess I was kind of banging the issue over their head. Oops! Sorry guys. I will fix that!

The interesting thing with this contest was the fact that the changes I made (based on judge feedback from a different contest) were the very things that turned off these readers as well as the agent. Ack! Another writer, Judith, noted this in her piece as well. I guess we both learned to be ourselves, now didn’t we? Either that or you can’t win no matter what you do. Ha, ha. Groan.

Oh, and I also entered two pitch contests last week. One I’ve heard back on Query Tracker. I wasn’t picked out of the 500+ entries. It was good practice though. Try summing up your work in one line. Wowzers! I won’t hear back for the Knight Agency’s pitch contest for some time yet, but I don’t have my hopes up too high on that one. I’m sure they’ve had at least 2000 entries and while I am pleased with my pitch, I’m not confident I can knock 2000 other folks out of the ballpark. Know what I’m saying?

All the contests were great experiences for me, but they also wore me out. Combine that with the mind bending online class with Shannon Donnelly and my brain is a big, messy, mashed up pile of swirling neurons.

Either way, I’ve learned an incredible amount in the past week…leading me to admit that my trip to Vegas and LA last weekend came just in time. I needed a break and distraction. Not thinking about writing or even checking email for 3 days was just what the doctor ordered. But now I’m back…so let’s hit it!

If you are curious, these were my pitch contest entries (long, convoluted and well, the best I seemed to be able to come up with at the time):

For Query Tracker (one line only):
When Beth breaks up with her fiancé as a way to solve her mounting problems, she also breaks up with her dreams of starting a family; however she doesn’t count on the new man in town waltzing over to offer her dreams on a platter or that following her dreams will only add to her mounting problems.

For the Knight Agency (you are only allowed 3 sentences):
After an accident takes her future father-in-law’s life, Beth breaks up with her fiancé and their mounting problems, not to mention her dreams of starting a family. While she waits for her ex to recover from his debilitating guilt due to causing the fatal accident as well as dry out, Beth meets a fresh-from-the-city doctor who provides exactly what she expects: a steady shoulder to cry on as well as an unbiased ear. What Beth doesn’t expect is the dazzling engagement ring she can’t seem to refuse nor the fact that her ex is suddenly speeding down the path to recovery—just in time to make Beth question whether she should utter the words ‘I do’.

Hack or Literary God?

Nathan Bransford had an interesting blog post the other day. Here’s the question that he presented to his readership:

“You go down to the crossroads and make a pact to have your novel and future novels published. You are given a conditional choice. Either you can receive the highest literary acclaim for your work, but a guarantee that you will never earn enough to give up your day job. Or you can always be considered a terrible hack, but make bucketloads of cash.Which do you choose?”

Personally, I fell into the majority and chose money. I don’t need to write the best flowery, deep, moving and meaningful stuff available to the masses to be happy. In fact, writing like that would undoubtedly make me somewhat unhappy. For one thing, imagine the pressure and tight critiques you would get. Ouch. Every time you opened your mouth you’d be afraid of using the wrong word or that you wouldn’t sound as brilliant and literary as you were made out to be by the press. Imagine the heyday when you stumbled over a word! I’d have to become a recluse.

On the money side, you get the chance to reach a lot of people (assuming you’re making money from your immense writing popularity and not your naked photos posted on the Internet). By reaching a wide audience, you are given the opportunity to provide people with hours of entertainment and enjoyment. Nice. Sure, there will people who say, ‘It’s only Jean Oram. It’s not celebral. It’s light. You don’t have to think.’ So what? I’d be in good company with writers like Nora Roberts, Stephen King, Meg Cabot. They don’t have day jobs to support their writing. And they reach a lot of people and give people a lot of enjoyment. For me, that is what writing is about. Connecting. And I am not saying that beautiful, deep, literary writing doesn’t connect. It does. And it resounds deeply when it does. But it doesn’t get the chance and opportunity to connect with as many people and is subject to intense criticism.

So, here I sit with 66% of Nathan’s commenters, leaving my ego at the door: Show me the money.