Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Contest Rules
Hey folks! We here at the Archives like having contests. And when we have contests, we REALLY have contests. A few folks have been abusing contest entries in the past, so while we really don't want to, we are going to have to implement some standard contest rules that apply to all contests past and future held here at the Archives, unless otherwise noted. These rules are in addition to any specific rules stated in each contest's individual post.
1.) Our contests are informal, and not legally binding.
2.) One entry per person, unless otherwise stated. The Archives reserves the right to investigate contest entrants' online personalities to determine if they are real humans or shell accounts for the purposes of multiple entries. The standards we use to determine this are on a case-by-case basis and may be arbitrary. In less fancy words, if we think you're a fake, we have the right to discount your entry.
3.) Entrants are responsible for taking the initiative to claim their prizes. Entrants must check back and get in touch with the Archives person hosting their contest if they win; the Archives will NOT pursue contact with the entrants! Be sure to check back! If we do not hear from you in 30 days (standard), we will draw another winner or consider the contest prize forfeit.
4.) We will do our best to ensure contests are right, fair, and awarded promptly. However, sometimes life gets in the way and we ask for your patience if that happens.
5.) We reserve the right to change the rules at any time if someone is being a poopy head. Sorry.
Okay. Ugh. Now that that's over with, happy contesting, everyone!
Monday, March 14, 2011
Non-Writing-Related Achievement Unlocked!
I'd like to share a little story with you today, Alliterati. A strange little story about a girl named-- uh, me. No, not Me, just, you know, me.
Anyway.
8 years ago I was looking for a job. Any job.
8 years ago, I applied for a job, educating people about animals.
8 years ago, I got the job. I loved the job. I did the job well. But I had my eye set higher, wanting to take care of animals, not just talk about them.
7 years ago, I applied for a job taking care of animals. Really cool animals.
7 years ago, I got the job.
7 years ago, I was still pretty immature. Yeah, it was a job I wanted, but I was pretty young, and was having trouble with my serious boyfriend at the time. I didn't take it seriously. I didn't understand what it meant.
6 years ago, I lost the job. Not by choice.
4 years ago, I got fed up with animals and went into real estate instead. Just as the economy tanked.
4 years ago, I found a pretty solid and amazing job at a great company with great co-workers. But slowly, I started to realize that real estate wasn't what I wanted to do forever.
1 year ago, I went to the zoo with my family and then-future-husband and realized just how much I missed being in that environment. Professional. Zoological. Working with animals. Making a difference. Having a cause.
1 year ago, I applied for a job I was perfect for, working with animals and educating people about them.
1 year ago, I got a generic rejection email (oh how familiar those are to writers!) without even being called for an interview.
1 year ago, I rallied around that rejection and maybe even went a little crazy. I applied for three different volunteer positions, two working with animals/ the public and one working with kids.
9 months ago, I started volunteering. A lot. At all three places. In between planning my wedding and still working full-time and taking two college classes. I also applied to every single job that came up that I remotely qualified for at the place that I was dying to work.
1.5 months ago, I got a call back for the first time. An interview. A position that wasn't ideal (no hands-on with animals) but that I could do. A foot-in-the-door position.
38 days ago, I interviewed for that job.
33 days ago, I got a generic rejection email telling me I didn't get it. I already knew. I blew the interview.
2 weeks ago, I applied for yet another position. And another. And four more. One of which was working with animals, and educating, but I wrote it off. Fat chance they'd call someone like me, bearing the red "F" on my employment record, for a hands-on job.
5 days ago they called. For the position that's both educational and working with animals. Can you come in for an interview on Saturday? Sure can. Had to cut a book launch party short, but it was closer to the interview location than I was already, so it worked out.
42 hours ago, I walked into the interview room to see that three of the four interviewers were the same people who had interviewed me the last time. At least they seemed happy to see me.
41 hours ago, I must have done something right. After asking me if I had any questions at the end, and answering the few that I had, the main interviewer turned to me and said, "Well, we're going to go ahead and offer you a position now."
41 hours ago I nearly started crying in front of my new co-workers and supervisors. They walked me out of the interview, pointing me toward HR, where I was to start filling out my new-hire paperwork. The lady who had offered me the job told me, "We didn't mean to surprise you, but we have a code we use when we want to hang on to someone."
26 hours from now, I go back and do some more paperwork.
33 hours after that, I have my orientation. Next week, I'll start my new job. Working with animals. And educating people about them.
I'm shocked. Still. After thinking I messed up beyond all repair so many years ago, I managed to make a pretty big move in the right direction. And I am beyond excited to do this job!
There are some negatives: it's a REALLY long drive. And it's seasonal, and part-time. But all of that is okay with me, because even if I don't get to keep this job, it makes it so much easier for me to get my foot into other doors later.
Something else came up this weekend, too, that would help ease the pain of working part time if it pans out. But I won't discuss that one now, because it's not a sure thing yet. And I'm still pretty focused on the new job thing. I keep thinking they're just messing with me, that they'll call at any moment and say, "Haha! Just kidding!" and I will hang up the phone and know that I knew it all along.
But I have decided that if they think I am worthy, then I must be worthy. I will be worthy. I am worthy.
I am worthy.
I am scared.
I am excited.
I can do this.
Anyway.
8 years ago I was looking for a job. Any job.
8 years ago, I applied for a job, educating people about animals.
8 years ago, I got the job. I loved the job. I did the job well. But I had my eye set higher, wanting to take care of animals, not just talk about them.
7 years ago, I applied for a job taking care of animals. Really cool animals.
7 years ago, I got the job.
7 years ago, I was still pretty immature. Yeah, it was a job I wanted, but I was pretty young, and was having trouble with my serious boyfriend at the time. I didn't take it seriously. I didn't understand what it meant.
6 years ago, I lost the job. Not by choice.
4 years ago, I got fed up with animals and went into real estate instead. Just as the economy tanked.
4 years ago, I found a pretty solid and amazing job at a great company with great co-workers. But slowly, I started to realize that real estate wasn't what I wanted to do forever.
1 year ago, I went to the zoo with my family and then-future-husband and realized just how much I missed being in that environment. Professional. Zoological. Working with animals. Making a difference. Having a cause.
1 year ago, I applied for a job I was perfect for, working with animals and educating people about them.
1 year ago, I got a generic rejection email (oh how familiar those are to writers!) without even being called for an interview.
1 year ago, I rallied around that rejection and maybe even went a little crazy. I applied for three different volunteer positions, two working with animals/ the public and one working with kids.
9 months ago, I started volunteering. A lot. At all three places. In between planning my wedding and still working full-time and taking two college classes. I also applied to every single job that came up that I remotely qualified for at the place that I was dying to work.
1.5 months ago, I got a call back for the first time. An interview. A position that wasn't ideal (no hands-on with animals) but that I could do. A foot-in-the-door position.
38 days ago, I interviewed for that job.
33 days ago, I got a generic rejection email telling me I didn't get it. I already knew. I blew the interview.
2 weeks ago, I applied for yet another position. And another. And four more. One of which was working with animals, and educating, but I wrote it off. Fat chance they'd call someone like me, bearing the red "F" on my employment record, for a hands-on job.
5 days ago they called. For the position that's both educational and working with animals. Can you come in for an interview on Saturday? Sure can. Had to cut a book launch party short, but it was closer to the interview location than I was already, so it worked out.
42 hours ago, I walked into the interview room to see that three of the four interviewers were the same people who had interviewed me the last time. At least they seemed happy to see me.
41 hours ago, I must have done something right. After asking me if I had any questions at the end, and answering the few that I had, the main interviewer turned to me and said, "Well, we're going to go ahead and offer you a position now."
41 hours ago I nearly started crying in front of my new co-workers and supervisors. They walked me out of the interview, pointing me toward HR, where I was to start filling out my new-hire paperwork. The lady who had offered me the job told me, "We didn't mean to surprise you, but we have a code we use when we want to hang on to someone."
26 hours from now, I go back and do some more paperwork.
33 hours after that, I have my orientation. Next week, I'll start my new job. Working with animals. And educating people about them.
I'm shocked. Still. After thinking I messed up beyond all repair so many years ago, I managed to make a pretty big move in the right direction. And I am beyond excited to do this job!
There are some negatives: it's a REALLY long drive. And it's seasonal, and part-time. But all of that is okay with me, because even if I don't get to keep this job, it makes it so much easier for me to get my foot into other doors later.
Something else came up this weekend, too, that would help ease the pain of working part time if it pans out. But I won't discuss that one now, because it's not a sure thing yet. And I'm still pretty focused on the new job thing. I keep thinking they're just messing with me, that they'll call at any moment and say, "Haha! Just kidding!" and I will hang up the phone and know that I knew it all along.
But I have decided that if they think I am worthy, then I must be worthy. I will be worthy. I am worthy.
I am worthy.
I am scared.
I am excited.
I can do this.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Sequel, mequel, double-bubble-beequel.
If you're someone who spends a ridiculous amount of time following pop culture (me, oh most embarrassingly me), you'll know that this summer, Hollywood will thrust upon us approximately one billion sequels and prequels. Yessir, we've the distinct pleasure of anticipating masterpieces like "Transformers: Dark of the Moon", "Furious Five" and "Big Momma: Like Father, Like BARF---I'm sorry, I couldn't even finish that one.
Even a lot of the books I'm reading lately have been book one in a trilogy. But if the intention of a sequel is not explicitly stated on the cover, it drives me batty. I have a huge problem with getting to the last page and screaming "AND THEN WHAT????" Especially in libraries. Sorry, patrons.
I'm really not an anti-sequel person, though. For books and movies I truly enjoy, I'll gladly fork over a little extra cash to spend some more time in a great story. Sometimes the story is just "too big" (like, say, the Star Wars trilogy) to fit into one volume. Sometimes the world is so incredibly enticing (say, the Wheel of Time series) that it just begs for another long look.
The general word in the publishing world is that you shouldn't start writing a sequel until the first book has been picked up for publication. However, this seems to be a rule like: "Don't go swimming right after eating." (Om nom nom SPLASH) But what if your story's too big for one volume? Your world too pretty to abandon after 400 pages?
As someone JUST diving into her first ever sequel, I'm lacking on wise words for those wanting to do the same. So, I open it up to the peanut gallery (maybe a cashew gallery...those are better than peanuts.) Have you written a sequel? In the midst of one? Did the idea come after the first volume or was it always planned? Any advice for the sequel-noobs who have no idea what they're doing (me, oh most embarrassingly me)?
You know, I think I might have enjoyed "The Lost World" more if it had hamsters.
Even a lot of the books I'm reading lately have been book one in a trilogy. But if the intention of a sequel is not explicitly stated on the cover, it drives me batty. I have a huge problem with getting to the last page and screaming "AND THEN WHAT????" Especially in libraries. Sorry, patrons.
I'm really not an anti-sequel person, though. For books and movies I truly enjoy, I'll gladly fork over a little extra cash to spend some more time in a great story. Sometimes the story is just "too big" (like, say, the Star Wars trilogy) to fit into one volume. Sometimes the world is so incredibly enticing (say, the Wheel of Time series) that it just begs for another long look.
The general word in the publishing world is that you shouldn't start writing a sequel until the first book has been picked up for publication. However, this seems to be a rule like: "Don't go swimming right after eating." (Om nom nom SPLASH) But what if your story's too big for one volume? Your world too pretty to abandon after 400 pages?
As someone JUST diving into her first ever sequel, I'm lacking on wise words for those wanting to do the same. So, I open it up to the peanut gallery (maybe a cashew gallery...those are better than peanuts.) Have you written a sequel? In the midst of one? Did the idea come after the first volume or was it always planned? Any advice for the sequel-noobs who have no idea what they're doing (me, oh most embarrassingly me)?
You know, I think I might have enjoyed "The Lost World" more if it had hamsters.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Why Genre Definitions Can Be Limiting
gen·re –noun 1. a class or category of artistic endeavor having a particular form, content, technique, or the like.
One of the very first things we get asked as writers is "what genre is your story?" And I can probably guarantee that everyone reading this blog has, at least once, stared at the asker like a deer caught in the headlights of a car. In my case it's been a few times, but that's beside the point -- this being that writers are expected to be able to clearly define what genre their story falls under at any given time.Which is all well and good, except genre can more readily be translated to mean "what section of the bookstore will I find your story in?"
I take issue with the genre question in a lot of instances, particularly when there's so many things that can go on in a really well done book. Take the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling as an example. On its surface, the stories appear that they're going to be limited to Young Adult Fantasy due to the age of the character and the specific story elements within the first book. These being that Harry is sent to a school where he learns how to become a Wizard. However, the Harry Potter stories transcended the elements that would have otherwise limited it to that particular subset of the bookstore.
Now, I can imagine what you're going to say -- "But having a clearly defined genre is good for writers and for readers. It means that writers know what to write and readers know what they're going to read."
I'm not so sure that readers know what they're going to read when they pick up their next book. Sure, they might assume they do because they're shopping in the Mystery section or the Fantasy section or the Romance section, but that doesn't mean they're not going to find a story in those areas that doesn't pull them somewhere else.
Let's look at Soulless by Gail Carriger as another example. Within that story, we see strong appeal for the reader of Paranormal Romance right off the bat. However, there's also a strong appeal for the reader of Steampunk because of the way that Carriger created her world. If memory serves, I ended up finding this book not in the Romance section of the bookstore but in the Science Fiction one. And I find myself wondering if two booksellers would shelve Carriger's novel in two different places -- would one put in Romance and another in Science Fiction? What about shelving it in Mystery? It does have some strong mystery elements within the plot. Where would you shelve it?
My (rather rambling) point is that genre definitions can hinder us as writers and us as readers. If we decide we're writing an Epic Fantasy, for example, then we have to follow specific guidelines that people expect from an Epic Fantasy -- wizards, quests, heroes, love interests, etc. If we decide we're writing a Romance, well then there's the requirement that it must end in a Happily Ever After for the primary couple of the story.*
And those are just a few of the limitations I can think of that the concept of genre imposes on us as writers. What other restraints do you see?
*Granted, I don't know a whole heck of a lot about the Romance genre's expectations. That's just the one that popped into my head first.
NOTE: I don't advocate for getting rid of genres. I think they can simplify expectations and the creation of stories by a whole heck of a lot. They're still limiting though.
One of the very first things we get asked as writers is "what genre is your story?" And I can probably guarantee that everyone reading this blog has, at least once, stared at the asker like a deer caught in the headlights of a car. In my case it's been a few times, but that's beside the point -- this being that writers are expected to be able to clearly define what genre their story falls under at any given time.Which is all well and good, except genre can more readily be translated to mean "what section of the bookstore will I find your story in?"
I take issue with the genre question in a lot of instances, particularly when there's so many things that can go on in a really well done book. Take the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling as an example. On its surface, the stories appear that they're going to be limited to Young Adult Fantasy due to the age of the character and the specific story elements within the first book. These being that Harry is sent to a school where he learns how to become a Wizard. However, the Harry Potter stories transcended the elements that would have otherwise limited it to that particular subset of the bookstore.
Now, I can imagine what you're going to say -- "But having a clearly defined genre is good for writers and for readers. It means that writers know what to write and readers know what they're going to read."
I'm not so sure that readers know what they're going to read when they pick up their next book. Sure, they might assume they do because they're shopping in the Mystery section or the Fantasy section or the Romance section, but that doesn't mean they're not going to find a story in those areas that doesn't pull them somewhere else.
Let's look at Soulless by Gail Carriger as another example. Within that story, we see strong appeal for the reader of Paranormal Romance right off the bat. However, there's also a strong appeal for the reader of Steampunk because of the way that Carriger created her world. If memory serves, I ended up finding this book not in the Romance section of the bookstore but in the Science Fiction one. And I find myself wondering if two booksellers would shelve Carriger's novel in two different places -- would one put in Romance and another in Science Fiction? What about shelving it in Mystery? It does have some strong mystery elements within the plot. Where would you shelve it?
My (rather rambling) point is that genre definitions can hinder us as writers and us as readers. If we decide we're writing an Epic Fantasy, for example, then we have to follow specific guidelines that people expect from an Epic Fantasy -- wizards, quests, heroes, love interests, etc. If we decide we're writing a Romance, well then there's the requirement that it must end in a Happily Ever After for the primary couple of the story.*
And those are just a few of the limitations I can think of that the concept of genre imposes on us as writers. What other restraints do you see?
*Granted, I don't know a whole heck of a lot about the Romance genre's expectations. That's just the one that popped into my head first.
NOTE: I don't advocate for getting rid of genres. I think they can simplify expectations and the creation of stories by a whole heck of a lot. They're still limiting though.
Monday, March 7, 2011
The Top Ten Reasons I Royally Suck At Social Media-- And The Lessons You Should Learn From Me
Okay, so-- to start this post out, I am going to apologize. Herein lie some of my deepest, darkest secrets (at least about social media). So please be gentle! I'm hoping that by sharing some of my biggest (known) foibles, I can enlighten someone else. And not only that, but maybe hold myself accountable for them all.
Here we go!
10.) I have a social phobia. It's minor, and I'm working on it (ALWAYS working on it), but I have a hard time reaching out to people. I tend to wait until they come to me.
Why this sucks: Social media is all about reaching out to other people. I read lots of blog posts, but I rarely comment on them because I can never think of anything clever to say. And when I do comment, I feel like I mostly just have empty things to say.
What you should learn from me: Well, uh, be more clever? Leave insightful, relevant comments when you can. The people who comment the most on my blogs are the ones whose blogs I read religiously-- whether I comment back or not. And by all means, reach out to other people. Leave your comfort zone and talk to new bloggers-- we were all new bloggers once! Let the others you read know that you care about them, too!
9.) I don't embrace all forms of social media. I have a hard time thinking I will EVER be able to Facebook with any degree of seriousness.
Why this sucks: Well, for starters, I had to pick freaking Facebook to hate-- only the largest social network on the planet. But I just don't connect to it on an emotional level. There is nothing there but emptiness for me.
What you should learn from me: Facebook can be a very useful tool, and I do know some people who embrace it wholeheartedly. But to me, it's still sort of difficult to use, and I don't agree with their privacy practices. Still, if you are looking for a guaranteed place to connect with other people, Facebook is probably the best place to start. There is, as of yet, no other place where you will find nearly everyone on the planet. (Though Twitter is coming up fast!) But the overall lesson here is to embrace as much social media as you feel comfortable with. If something doesn't appeal to you, don't do it just because you think you have to. It will show, and you will suffer. A lot.
8.) I am, most of the time, a very awkward person. Rumor has it I can be funny. On occasion, I even make people laugh. But for some reason, either my sense of humor or my in-person confidence do NOT translate electronically. When I try to be funny online, I nearly always end up with things like "Haha! Look at that cat jump, I bet it's full of springs" or some such nonsense. And see there? That last sentence? I was trying to be funny with my unfunny example, and I bet you didn't even laugh! Not even a little inward smile!
Why this sucks: I LOVE BEING FUNNY OMG. I want to BE that person. I want to be clever and witty and have people go, HAHA THIS GIRL IS HILARIOUS LET'S ALL BE HER ARMY AND TAKE OVER THE WORL--- Uh, sorry. Wrong blog post.
What you should learn from me: Dude, you're all safe, don't worry. Everyone else I know on the internet? Yeah. Totally funny. HILARIOUS even. Sigh...
7.) I like my cats too much. There's a saying about too much of a good thing. Well, just about everyone likes cats, right? I ask you internet, is there such a thing as cute cat pictures in moderation?
Why this sucks: Because I really do love my cats and think they are absolutely hilarious and want to share them with everyone. To be fair, this applies to all my animals, but my horse doesn't usually stick her butt in my face when I'm lying down on the couch trying to write blog posts or Twittering. Usually. However, whenever I share something about my cats, I feel like I come across more "HAHA LOOK AT ME I HAVE SIXTY CATS THAT I DRESS UP IN LITTLE OUTFITS AND PLAY TEATIME WITH" than, you know, entertaining. (See Reason #8).
What you should learn from me: Maybe don't talk about your cats all the time. Or do, like, a lot, so I won't look so crazy. Thanks for helping me out here. You understand, don't you?
No-- but really. There are some aspects of your personal life that don't need to monopolize your blog or Twitter or Facebook or whatever. Keep things mixed up and light, and people will keep coming back.
6.) I don't know when to stop. Sometimes on Twitter or in blog comments, I will get into a conversation with someone. Eventually, this conversation needs to come to an end, right? But much like a real-life interaction, I find myself unable to pull away if the other person is still talking to me.
Why this sucks: This can be totally fine if the other person is not afraid to end conversations. But if I find someone else who doesn't like to end them either, we always somehow wind up in a conversation taking place entirely through non-committal noises and emoticons. "Ha! :)" "I know! :)" And so on and so forth.
What you should learn from me: Don't be afraid to end a conversation that's not going anywhere. If you don't respond to my non-committal noises and emoticons, I'm cool with that. It makes me feel less like a weirdo. (See Reason #8).
5.) When I fangirl, I don't go halfway. There are some people I interact with on some social media sites who I am totally cool with and perfectly comfortable talking to. And then there's Nathan Fillion. To be fair, I'm not actually interacting with Nathan Fillion. Interaction implies he would talk back to me. No, aside from my dreams, Nathan remains unattainable. But that doesn't mean I don't try to completely embarrass myself every chance I get.
Why this sucks: If there's someone you really admire from afar, it can be really intimidating to talk to them. Really, really intimidating. And if you eff it up, chances are they will forever see you as "that creepy stalker who totally threatened to come steal my underwear." Ahem.
What you should learn from me: DON'T ASK FOR FAMOUS PEOPLE'S UNDERWEAR. Okay, okay, that never happened. Ahem. No, but seriously-- don't be afraid to talk to people you admire. You admire them for a reason. They might have something to teach you if you just speak up. But if you know you're awkward online, maybe don't try to be funny. Restraining orders really aren't as hilarious as you think. (See Reason #8).
4.) I get busy and social media is always the first to go. This is not an uncommon reason. But it still sucks.
Why this sucks: I love being busy. I thrive when I'm busy. But that usually means that when I'm busy, I'm not blogging, or Twittering, and my readership suffers. At least, I like to think it does. You guys cry when I'm not around, right?
Right?? Guys??!?!?
What you should learn from me: Busy is good and fine and dandy. But if you make a commitment to social media, you should do everything in your power to keep it.
3.) I sometimes feel like I need to wait until I have something to talk about to post online. I always get novel ideas by the dozen, it seems. I have more books to write than I have lifetimes. But blog posts? Yeah. Empty well.
Why this sucks: It makes me feel boring. Like I'm rehashing the same old jazz everyone else blogged about three years ago when it was, you know, interesting. Or I go the other way and blog only about personal stuff because that's all that's going on at the time. I also wind up feeling like I'm waiting around all the time for something interesting enough to blog about to come to me.
What you should learn from me: Give yourself a theme. And here's a life-changing thought: be a writer, but DON'T MAKE YOUR THEME WRITING. I know, right? We're even breaking that rule here at the Archives! The most successful bloggers I know (measured by my own very arbitrary Success-O'-Meter, fueled by admiration and the applause of fairies), don't blog about writing. Sure, they mention their writing. But it's not why people read their blogs. It's a perk. They bring something else to the table entirely.
Bring that something else.
2.) I occasionally come across as a b!$(#. I never, never, EVER intend to hurt anyone's feelings. And I never say mean things to people (unless they cut me off on the freeway. Then you're fair game, (*^&*^* (*&(&((*&^%&^%). But sometimes, something I say comes across as TOTAL SNARK.
Why this sucks: Well, like I said, I'm not a mean person. And I generally like everyone I interact with on a regular basis. Sometimes though, it's like my mouth just WANTS to eat my foot. Like it's just going along, and then suddenly drives by a fast foot place and then all it can think about is having foot for dinner.
What you should learn from me: This is a hard one. It requires a large degree of objectivity and obsessive self-analysis. If you mess up and say something weird or snarky sounding that you don't mean, fess up and apologize. Best case scenario: the other person will say "oh I totally didn't take it that way!" and you'll start to learn when it's something to worry about and when it's not. Worst case scenario: you have already apologized if they do take it the wrong way.
And the biggest reason I royally suck at social media:
1.) I don't post regularly. This actually ties in a lot with Reason #4. Most of the time, I don't post regularly because I don't have something interesting to say. I feel like when I have something interesting to say, I'll blog more often. But if I don't have anything to say now, what makes me think I'll have anything to say-- ever?
Why this sucks: The thing is, I have plenty of interesting things to say. But they all involve a lot of work. Guess what? Work is often required for something to be good.
What you should learn from me: Don't be lazy. Put the effort into social media, and social media will put the . . . um . . . you know, there's not really anything I can say there that won't sound creepy and near-innuendo. But I think you get my point. No free lunch, gotta work before you can retire, etc., etc., and so on. Another helpful tool? Regular features. Give your readers something to expect and come back for-- but make it interesting.
There you have it, folks! The Top Ten Reasons I Royally Suck At Social Media. I hope you learned something. From the looks of my Twitter feed, I sure haven't. Gulp.
Here we go!
10.) I have a social phobia. It's minor, and I'm working on it (ALWAYS working on it), but I have a hard time reaching out to people. I tend to wait until they come to me.
Why this sucks: Social media is all about reaching out to other people. I read lots of blog posts, but I rarely comment on them because I can never think of anything clever to say. And when I do comment, I feel like I mostly just have empty things to say.
What you should learn from me: Well, uh, be more clever? Leave insightful, relevant comments when you can. The people who comment the most on my blogs are the ones whose blogs I read religiously-- whether I comment back or not. And by all means, reach out to other people. Leave your comfort zone and talk to new bloggers-- we were all new bloggers once! Let the others you read know that you care about them, too!
9.) I don't embrace all forms of social media. I have a hard time thinking I will EVER be able to Facebook with any degree of seriousness.
Why this sucks: Well, for starters, I had to pick freaking Facebook to hate-- only the largest social network on the planet. But I just don't connect to it on an emotional level. There is nothing there but emptiness for me.
What you should learn from me: Facebook can be a very useful tool, and I do know some people who embrace it wholeheartedly. But to me, it's still sort of difficult to use, and I don't agree with their privacy practices. Still, if you are looking for a guaranteed place to connect with other people, Facebook is probably the best place to start. There is, as of yet, no other place where you will find nearly everyone on the planet. (Though Twitter is coming up fast!) But the overall lesson here is to embrace as much social media as you feel comfortable with. If something doesn't appeal to you, don't do it just because you think you have to. It will show, and you will suffer. A lot.
8.) I am, most of the time, a very awkward person. Rumor has it I can be funny. On occasion, I even make people laugh. But for some reason, either my sense of humor or my in-person confidence do NOT translate electronically. When I try to be funny online, I nearly always end up with things like "Haha! Look at that cat jump, I bet it's full of springs" or some such nonsense. And see there? That last sentence? I was trying to be funny with my unfunny example, and I bet you didn't even laugh! Not even a little inward smile!
Why this sucks: I LOVE BEING FUNNY OMG. I want to BE that person. I want to be clever and witty and have people go, HAHA THIS GIRL IS HILARIOUS LET'S ALL BE HER ARMY AND TAKE OVER THE WORL--- Uh, sorry. Wrong blog post.
What you should learn from me: Dude, you're all safe, don't worry. Everyone else I know on the internet? Yeah. Totally funny. HILARIOUS even. Sigh...
7.) I like my cats too much. There's a saying about too much of a good thing. Well, just about everyone likes cats, right? I ask you internet, is there such a thing as cute cat pictures in moderation?
Why this sucks: Because I really do love my cats and think they are absolutely hilarious and want to share them with everyone. To be fair, this applies to all my animals, but my horse doesn't usually stick her butt in my face when I'm lying down on the couch trying to write blog posts or Twittering. Usually. However, whenever I share something about my cats, I feel like I come across more "HAHA LOOK AT ME I HAVE SIXTY CATS THAT I DRESS UP IN LITTLE OUTFITS AND PLAY TEATIME WITH" than, you know, entertaining. (See Reason #8).
What you should learn from me: Maybe don't talk about your cats all the time. Or do, like, a lot, so I won't look so crazy. Thanks for helping me out here. You understand, don't you?
No-- but really. There are some aspects of your personal life that don't need to monopolize your blog or Twitter or Facebook or whatever. Keep things mixed up and light, and people will keep coming back.
6.) I don't know when to stop. Sometimes on Twitter or in blog comments, I will get into a conversation with someone. Eventually, this conversation needs to come to an end, right? But much like a real-life interaction, I find myself unable to pull away if the other person is still talking to me.
Why this sucks: This can be totally fine if the other person is not afraid to end conversations. But if I find someone else who doesn't like to end them either, we always somehow wind up in a conversation taking place entirely through non-committal noises and emoticons. "Ha! :)" "I know! :)" And so on and so forth.
What you should learn from me: Don't be afraid to end a conversation that's not going anywhere. If you don't respond to my non-committal noises and emoticons, I'm cool with that. It makes me feel less like a weirdo. (See Reason #8).
5.) When I fangirl, I don't go halfway. There are some people I interact with on some social media sites who I am totally cool with and perfectly comfortable talking to. And then there's Nathan Fillion. To be fair, I'm not actually interacting with Nathan Fillion. Interaction implies he would talk back to me. No, aside from my dreams, Nathan remains unattainable. But that doesn't mean I don't try to completely embarrass myself every chance I get.
Why this sucks: If there's someone you really admire from afar, it can be really intimidating to talk to them. Really, really intimidating. And if you eff it up, chances are they will forever see you as "that creepy stalker who totally threatened to come steal my underwear." Ahem.
What you should learn from me: DON'T ASK FOR FAMOUS PEOPLE'S UNDERWEAR. Okay, okay, that never happened. Ahem. No, but seriously-- don't be afraid to talk to people you admire. You admire them for a reason. They might have something to teach you if you just speak up. But if you know you're awkward online, maybe don't try to be funny. Restraining orders really aren't as hilarious as you think. (See Reason #8).
4.) I get busy and social media is always the first to go. This is not an uncommon reason. But it still sucks.
Why this sucks: I love being busy. I thrive when I'm busy. But that usually means that when I'm busy, I'm not blogging, or Twittering, and my readership suffers. At least, I like to think it does. You guys cry when I'm not around, right?
Right?? Guys??!?!?
What you should learn from me: Busy is good and fine and dandy. But if you make a commitment to social media, you should do everything in your power to keep it.
3.) I sometimes feel like I need to wait until I have something to talk about to post online. I always get novel ideas by the dozen, it seems. I have more books to write than I have lifetimes. But blog posts? Yeah. Empty well.
Why this sucks: It makes me feel boring. Like I'm rehashing the same old jazz everyone else blogged about three years ago when it was, you know, interesting. Or I go the other way and blog only about personal stuff because that's all that's going on at the time. I also wind up feeling like I'm waiting around all the time for something interesting enough to blog about to come to me.
What you should learn from me: Give yourself a theme. And here's a life-changing thought: be a writer, but DON'T MAKE YOUR THEME WRITING. I know, right? We're even breaking that rule here at the Archives! The most successful bloggers I know (measured by my own very arbitrary Success-O'-Meter, fueled by admiration and the applause of fairies), don't blog about writing. Sure, they mention their writing. But it's not why people read their blogs. It's a perk. They bring something else to the table entirely.
Bring that something else.
2.) I occasionally come across as a b!$(#. I never, never, EVER intend to hurt anyone's feelings. And I never say mean things to people (unless they cut me off on the freeway. Then you're fair game, (*^&*^* (*&(&((*&^%&^%). But sometimes, something I say comes across as TOTAL SNARK.
Why this sucks: Well, like I said, I'm not a mean person. And I generally like everyone I interact with on a regular basis. Sometimes though, it's like my mouth just WANTS to eat my foot. Like it's just going along, and then suddenly drives by a fast foot place and then all it can think about is having foot for dinner.
What you should learn from me: This is a hard one. It requires a large degree of objectivity and obsessive self-analysis. If you mess up and say something weird or snarky sounding that you don't mean, fess up and apologize. Best case scenario: the other person will say "oh I totally didn't take it that way!" and you'll start to learn when it's something to worry about and when it's not. Worst case scenario: you have already apologized if they do take it the wrong way.
And the biggest reason I royally suck at social media:
1.) I don't post regularly. This actually ties in a lot with Reason #4. Most of the time, I don't post regularly because I don't have something interesting to say. I feel like when I have something interesting to say, I'll blog more often. But if I don't have anything to say now, what makes me think I'll have anything to say-- ever?
Why this sucks: The thing is, I have plenty of interesting things to say. But they all involve a lot of work. Guess what? Work is often required for something to be good.
What you should learn from me: Don't be lazy. Put the effort into social media, and social media will put the . . . um . . . you know, there's not really anything I can say there that won't sound creepy and near-innuendo. But I think you get my point. No free lunch, gotta work before you can retire, etc., etc., and so on. Another helpful tool? Regular features. Give your readers something to expect and come back for-- but make it interesting.
There you have it, folks! The Top Ten Reasons I Royally Suck At Social Media. I hope you learned something. From the looks of my Twitter feed, I sure haven't. Gulp.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Attack of the Shiny New Ideas
Now, I might be in the minority here when I say that I don't really get the "shiny new idea" syndrome. You know, that aching, soul-tearing feeling that THIS (the aforementioned SNI) is what I must spend my entire time on, that this SNI must overtake my entire life, that this SNI overrides any and all desires for every other need to edit, draft, or indulge in otherwise necessary writing.
I'm jealous of those that DO get SNI syndrome, though. You see, for the last two years I've been editing, scrapping, rewriting, hating, sobbing over, ignoring and then editing a total of TWO (no more) manuscripts. I know, right? Sure, I had the offhanded chance to write other things here and there, but nothing I was ragingly excited about.
But, as of last week, those two time sucking manuscripts are either dead or done (for now) and I am freeeeeee to write whatever I want. (For the most part.)
Come heeeere. Shiny New Idea! Come here! ::whistle whistle:: Here boy!
I've certainly got other things to work on, of course. Sequels. Previously started ideas. Heck, I've got two complete drafts I could start revising again. But nothing that screams: WRITE ME! DROP EVERYTHING AND WRITE ME!!! STOP EATING, NO SLEEP, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? JUST WRITE!
Then again, SNIs could be a lot like significant others: the right one doesn't come along just because you whine about not having one. I was single long enough to understand even THAT. (But not much else: what means you this "dressing up for the opposite sex?")
How's your Shiny New Idea treating you lately? How'd it come to you? Is it all encompassing or does it treat you nice by letting you eat and sleep?
Nathan Fillion understands Shiny. Maybe he'll give me an SNI.
Ooh. Dang, NF. You make me aim to misbehave sometimes.
UPDATE! I know it's down in the comments, but you MUST check out Kristan Hoffman's hilarious post on Shiny-New-Idea-itis! Maybe reading about how to deal with the problem will help me GET the problem. Go here: http://kristanhoffman.com/2011/03/03/psa-on-shiny-new-idea-itis/ Thanks, Kristan!
I'm jealous of those that DO get SNI syndrome, though. You see, for the last two years I've been editing, scrapping, rewriting, hating, sobbing over, ignoring and then editing a total of TWO (no more) manuscripts. I know, right? Sure, I had the offhanded chance to write other things here and there, but nothing I was ragingly excited about.
But, as of last week, those two time sucking manuscripts are either dead or done (for now) and I am freeeeeee to write whatever I want. (For the most part.)
Come heeeere. Shiny New Idea! Come here! ::whistle whistle:: Here boy!
I've certainly got other things to work on, of course. Sequels. Previously started ideas. Heck, I've got two complete drafts I could start revising again. But nothing that screams: WRITE ME! DROP EVERYTHING AND WRITE ME!!! STOP EATING, NO SLEEP, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? JUST WRITE!
Then again, SNIs could be a lot like significant others: the right one doesn't come along just because you whine about not having one. I was single long enough to understand even THAT. (But not much else: what means you this "dressing up for the opposite sex?")
How's your Shiny New Idea treating you lately? How'd it come to you? Is it all encompassing or does it treat you nice by letting you eat and sleep?
Nathan Fillion understands Shiny. Maybe he'll give me an SNI.
Ooh. Dang, NF. You make me aim to misbehave sometimes.UPDATE! I know it's down in the comments, but you MUST check out Kristan Hoffman's hilarious post on Shiny-New-Idea-itis! Maybe reading about how to deal with the problem will help me GET the problem. Go here: http://kristanhoffman.com/2011/03/03/psa-on-shiny-new-idea-itis/ Thanks, Kristan!
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Why Twitter is Awesome for Writers
This isn't going to be the standard argument for Twitter's usefulness to writers. Seeing as everyone's been told backwards and forwards until their heads spin that Twitter is good for networking and building your brand, that argument is very old hat by now. And in fact, I'm reasonably sure that y'all are sick of hearing about it.
No, there's a different reason that Twitter is amazing for writers, and here's why: at 9:52 am Eastern time on Monday, Februrary 28, Theresa Meyers wondered on Twitter if Steampunk science could develop a machine that detected whether a woman was a virgin or not. This sparked a discussion of how you'd make the machine actually function properly, which involved @nemone7 and @SyferLocke among others.
Aaaand things snowballed from there, until you come to yesterday when I spent a good portion of my workday sketching out a short story called "The Trials of the Virgin." To be fair, Theresa will probably say I was the one who sparked my own idea because I made a comment about virgin sacrifices working to get someone published and she just played off that, but I'm still blaming her for sparking my idea (my blog, my rules).
The idea was sparked in conversation on Monday -- it's now Thursday and I already have a basic outline and plot development document (sort of) put together along with slightly over 1,000 words written on the story itself. Then I found out about Carina Press's call for holiday or winter-themed Steampunk submissions, and now I'm planning to maybe turn this short story into a novella and send it along to them. Or maybe keep it at short story level and send it to David Lee Summer's Tales of the Talisman magazine during the reading period in July. It all depends on where I am when Carina Press's deadline of June 15 rolls around.
What's my point here? Well, Theresa lives in Seattle; Nemone7 lives in Dublin; @SyferLocke lives in Wichita, Kansas; and I myself make my home in Eastern Massachusetts. Because of Twitter, and the connections it engenders among people, the four of us were able to talk back and forth about an idea that one person mentioned. And yesterday, Theresa, Nemone7, and I spent at least an hour collaborating on the Google Documents outline I'd made for "The Trials of the Virgin."
Even ten years ago, this sort of long-distance cross communication wasn't possible outside of knowing each other's email addresses or belonging to an internet chat room. Go back 20 years, or 30 years, and this electronic collaboration does not exist. In the age of Twitter, you can have four creative people separated by time zones and distance collaborating on the same idea.
How is that not awesome?
No, there's a different reason that Twitter is amazing for writers, and here's why: at 9:52 am Eastern time on Monday, Februrary 28, Theresa Meyers wondered on Twitter if Steampunk science could develop a machine that detected whether a woman was a virgin or not. This sparked a discussion of how you'd make the machine actually function properly, which involved @nemone7 and @SyferLocke among others.
Aaaand things snowballed from there, until you come to yesterday when I spent a good portion of my workday sketching out a short story called "The Trials of the Virgin." To be fair, Theresa will probably say I was the one who sparked my own idea because I made a comment about virgin sacrifices working to get someone published and she just played off that, but I'm still blaming her for sparking my idea (my blog, my rules).
The idea was sparked in conversation on Monday -- it's now Thursday and I already have a basic outline and plot development document (sort of) put together along with slightly over 1,000 words written on the story itself. Then I found out about Carina Press's call for holiday or winter-themed Steampunk submissions, and now I'm planning to maybe turn this short story into a novella and send it along to them. Or maybe keep it at short story level and send it to David Lee Summer's Tales of the Talisman magazine during the reading period in July. It all depends on where I am when Carina Press's deadline of June 15 rolls around.
What's my point here? Well, Theresa lives in Seattle; Nemone7 lives in Dublin; @SyferLocke lives in Wichita, Kansas; and I myself make my home in Eastern Massachusetts. Because of Twitter, and the connections it engenders among people, the four of us were able to talk back and forth about an idea that one person mentioned. And yesterday, Theresa, Nemone7, and I spent at least an hour collaborating on the Google Documents outline I'd made for "The Trials of the Virgin."
Even ten years ago, this sort of long-distance cross communication wasn't possible outside of knowing each other's email addresses or belonging to an internet chat room. Go back 20 years, or 30 years, and this electronic collaboration does not exist. In the age of Twitter, you can have four creative people separated by time zones and distance collaborating on the same idea.
How is that not awesome?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)