Sunday, February 19, 2017
Inside the Story: Ideas
Every story must start with an idea. Mine is no exception, of course. How did it come about? I wanted to began with a mystery, something vivid which would draw the reader in and propel the narrative forward.
So I set the first scene in the middle of the woods, and at night. To throw things off a bit I had as my witness, a guy who was something of an enigma too. This part of the story was known to the reader, but they would have no idea where it would lead, how the two were connected, or even if they were connected. Then I added a cast of characters to the mix and started writing. Theirs was to be a voyage of discovery.
As for my characters, I did not want to reveal much about them at the outset. That way the reader would discover things about who they were as the story went along. Character development would coincide with the story.
Those were the ingredients I used to initiate the novel. Once they were in place I had to direct the action so little revelations could be made at just the right time. Each chapter would end with some sort of discovery and be a lead in to the next. That way the reader always had some answered and unanswered questions. The combined effect would be an engaging, fast paced story that culminates in a satisfying and possibly life-changing conclusion.
And it all started with that little scene in the woods.
So I set the first scene in the middle of the woods, and at night. To throw things off a bit I had as my witness, a guy who was something of an enigma too. This part of the story was known to the reader, but they would have no idea where it would lead, how the two were connected, or even if they were connected. Then I added a cast of characters to the mix and started writing. Theirs was to be a voyage of discovery.
As for my characters, I did not want to reveal much about them at the outset. That way the reader would discover things about who they were as the story went along. Character development would coincide with the story.
Those were the ingredients I used to initiate the novel. Once they were in place I had to direct the action so little revelations could be made at just the right time. Each chapter would end with some sort of discovery and be a lead in to the next. That way the reader always had some answered and unanswered questions. The combined effect would be an engaging, fast paced story that culminates in a satisfying and possibly life-changing conclusion.
And it all started with that little scene in the woods.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Publishing Your Own Book - The Reveal
Thanksgiving Day. I'm writing this from my sister's house in Richmond, VA. My home.
About two months ago I received the first copies of my book. Ten of them. Excitement was in the air. I was (and am) a published author! Cool. I meant to keep a copy for myself, but wound up giving them all away. A few weeks ago I bought three more copies, and gave two of them away. (The other was sold. I needed the cash.) Once again I have no copies. But the pdf text is still with me.
A Facebook announcement was in order, but first I tried the links to make sure they were good. My friends responded well to the announcement and I created an "author" page for the book, but I haven't really done anything to promote the page except change the title picture. I don't want to be pushy. Self-promotion has never been my forte.
The first ten copies went to family and friends, many of whom were my 'readers'. All had presented good reviews for the book, and a couple were exceptional. My sister's husband is not a guy who reads a lot, but his evaluation was excellent. Another, my aunt Faye, who is a retired university professor gave the story high marks. She loved it, said there were no grammatical errors, and I had an excellent command of the English language. Cute. (It was actually her evaluation that prompted me to try and publish.) Everyone else liked the story too, so I was happy that Page Publishing picked it up. I put a special note inside each cover and sent the books away.
A few weeks later I checked my author's page and found out the book was in the 'promotional stage'. Page's people had put together a press release about my book. A copy was sent to me for my own perusal, and it was good. I commented on one thing. The same word was used twice in the same sentence. They changed the word and I approved it forthwith.
Thanks to my editor Courtney, who supervised all this. My experience with Page Publishing is still overwhelmingly good.
About two months ago I received the first copies of my book. Ten of them. Excitement was in the air. I was (and am) a published author! Cool. I meant to keep a copy for myself, but wound up giving them all away. A few weeks ago I bought three more copies, and gave two of them away. (The other was sold. I needed the cash.) Once again I have no copies. But the pdf text is still with me.
A Facebook announcement was in order, but first I tried the links to make sure they were good. My friends responded well to the announcement and I created an "author" page for the book, but I haven't really done anything to promote the page except change the title picture. I don't want to be pushy. Self-promotion has never been my forte.
The first ten copies went to family and friends, many of whom were my 'readers'. All had presented good reviews for the book, and a couple were exceptional. My sister's husband is not a guy who reads a lot, but his evaluation was excellent. Another, my aunt Faye, who is a retired university professor gave the story high marks. She loved it, said there were no grammatical errors, and I had an excellent command of the English language. Cute. (It was actually her evaluation that prompted me to try and publish.) Everyone else liked the story too, so I was happy that Page Publishing picked it up. I put a special note inside each cover and sent the books away.
A few weeks later I checked my author's page and found out the book was in the 'promotional stage'. Page's people had put together a press release about my book. A copy was sent to me for my own perusal, and it was good. I commented on one thing. The same word was used twice in the same sentence. They changed the word and I approved it forthwith.
Thanks to my editor Courtney, who supervised all this. My experience with Page Publishing is still overwhelmingly good.
Saturday, November 5, 2016
Candidate of the Apocalypse: Questions and Answers
Charles was at a town hall meeting answering questions: As usual these were completely off the cuff and unscripted. Although there had been pressure to 'plant' people in the audience who would ask softball questions so he could give pat answers.
During Charles' talk he had stated "The political elite in Washington would have you believe the problems we face are too hard for us poor ignorant regular people to understand, much less find solutions for. But I tell you this, There is no problem in Washington that practical intelligent people cannot solve, fairly easily."
The first questioner recalled the statement and asked: "Can you give us an example?"
"I'll give a couple of them," was his reply.
"First, Let's talk about the budget, something which is required by law, but the other party has been hesitant to do. I can solve the problem in a single statement. Last years actual revenue is this year's budget. How difficult it that? In that way the size of the pie is known, and the politicians can argue all they want about how many and how large the slices will be.
Next, how do we balance the budget? Require every agency to put away 5% of their budget in the bank as a rainy day fund. And if the department head cannot meet this metric, they will be relieved of duty. Fired." Charles secretly wanted to place an elected official at the head of every department for that reason, with an added law. If the director was fired they also couldn't be re-elected.
"What about the problem with lobbyists?" a man asked.
"Turn the process upside down. Up to now the lobbyists will come to Washington and wine and dine Congressmen. Or take them on an all-expense-paid vacation to the Bahamas, or, wherever. My change would be this: if a legislator wants a lobbyist to come to Washington, they will pay all their expenses. Travel, hotel and meals. All this would come out of their own budget. The lobbyist pays nothing. Can you see how the dynamic would change?"
Another stood: "Do you think this type of change can actually happen in Washington?
Charles nodded. "Yes, I think it can, but making things simple is not easy for the Washington elite. That's because people in that city have ulterior motives. Most of this is driven by party politics. So they can't make things simple because it would mean the job is easy and anybody could do it. Also, they wouldn't be able to grab power when the opportunity came.
Last of all, what about revenue itself? How come for many years now we the people of these United States have been complaining about the IRS, the size and scope of government, and endless regulation. Yet no one has offered any viable solution. In public anyway. Actually bills have been floated to take care of these very things, like the Fair Tax Bill, yet they have gone nowhere, they are victims of political maneuverings and insider politics. Most of the meetings which kill solutions are done in private so the representatives do not have to be answerable to you. I want to make the results of every meeting public along with the transcripts. That way you know who is offering solutions and who is obfuscating the issue.
The time for change, real change is now. But it will take more than just me. It will require a sea change in attitude by our representatives. That means we have to un-elect a lot of people. (Mostly those in the opposing party, but some in his own too.) And replace them with representatives who will do what they are elected for and actually represent you. Who believe in the rule of law, and who are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to preserve the republic for future generations.
Our founding fathers did this very thing. It's time our representatives stood for someone besides themselves."
For that he received a standing ovation.
During Charles' talk he had stated "The political elite in Washington would have you believe the problems we face are too hard for us poor ignorant regular people to understand, much less find solutions for. But I tell you this, There is no problem in Washington that practical intelligent people cannot solve, fairly easily."
The first questioner recalled the statement and asked: "Can you give us an example?"
"I'll give a couple of them," was his reply.
"First, Let's talk about the budget, something which is required by law, but the other party has been hesitant to do. I can solve the problem in a single statement. Last years actual revenue is this year's budget. How difficult it that? In that way the size of the pie is known, and the politicians can argue all they want about how many and how large the slices will be.
Next, how do we balance the budget? Require every agency to put away 5% of their budget in the bank as a rainy day fund. And if the department head cannot meet this metric, they will be relieved of duty. Fired." Charles secretly wanted to place an elected official at the head of every department for that reason, with an added law. If the director was fired they also couldn't be re-elected.
"What about the problem with lobbyists?" a man asked.
"Turn the process upside down. Up to now the lobbyists will come to Washington and wine and dine Congressmen. Or take them on an all-expense-paid vacation to the Bahamas, or, wherever. My change would be this: if a legislator wants a lobbyist to come to Washington, they will pay all their expenses. Travel, hotel and meals. All this would come out of their own budget. The lobbyist pays nothing. Can you see how the dynamic would change?"
Another stood: "Do you think this type of change can actually happen in Washington?
Charles nodded. "Yes, I think it can, but making things simple is not easy for the Washington elite. That's because people in that city have ulterior motives. Most of this is driven by party politics. So they can't make things simple because it would mean the job is easy and anybody could do it. Also, they wouldn't be able to grab power when the opportunity came.
Last of all, what about revenue itself? How come for many years now we the people of these United States have been complaining about the IRS, the size and scope of government, and endless regulation. Yet no one has offered any viable solution. In public anyway. Actually bills have been floated to take care of these very things, like the Fair Tax Bill, yet they have gone nowhere, they are victims of political maneuverings and insider politics. Most of the meetings which kill solutions are done in private so the representatives do not have to be answerable to you. I want to make the results of every meeting public along with the transcripts. That way you know who is offering solutions and who is obfuscating the issue.
The time for change, real change is now. But it will take more than just me. It will require a sea change in attitude by our representatives. That means we have to un-elect a lot of people. (Mostly those in the opposing party, but some in his own too.) And replace them with representatives who will do what they are elected for and actually represent you. Who believe in the rule of law, and who are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to preserve the republic for future generations.
Our founding fathers did this very thing. It's time our representatives stood for someone besides themselves."
For that he received a standing ovation.
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Politics: Four of Hillary's Commercials, a Critique
I am posting this in response to the many Hillary commercials I've seen so far in the election. To be honest, I've only seen one of Trump's ads. Evidently she's running scared. In all fairness, these commercials don't help her chances.
1: Her Economic Plan
Soak the Rich.
Her commercial says she is going to make the rich 'finally pay' their fair share. Finally? You've got to be kidding The United States has the second highest corporate tax structure in the world. These high taxes here have caused thousands of companies to relocate to better places. That's a lot of business, and tax revenue, that would otherwise still be here.
It should be known that the top 10% of earners actually pay about 70% of total taxes. So how is it they are somehow not paying their fair share? If anything, they are paying more than that.
Let's also look at it this way. Last year the Federal Government took in more revenue than it ever has in its history. Yet they are still up to their ears in debt. The real issue is not revenue. It's spending. About one and a half billion dollars more than they make. Every day.
This brings to mind an interesting fact. Hilary will not give an answer to how much is 'fair' for the rich to pay. What percentage? 10? 20? 50? Or more? Corporations and the rich aren't paying their fair share, (to her, anyway) and no matter how much they are currently taxed, it's somehow still not enough.
She offers nothing in terms of incentive for the creation of new businesses, or to keep them from moving overseas, except to punish them. This punishment money, which will apparently be a lot, will be put to use somehow 'creating jobs'. May I say that anytime a politician says they are going to 'create jobs' they are lying? Politicians only create government jobs, which means they have to take (read, steal) money from hard working people and give it to bureaucrats, and that's a good percentage of the problems our economy faces today.
All this policy will do, should she be elected, is to hasten the exit of corporations overseas, they will bow out before getting hit by the fines.
But the government can do some things to help the economy and promote business. How about addressing the high corporate tax rate? What if they lowered it? Wouldn't that work to help keep jobs here rather than have them move overseas? Wouldn't a low tax environment possibly attract business from foreign places too? And, wouldn't more companies here would translate into new jobs? The economics is quite simple.
What about the EPA? Last year they issued something like eleven thousand new regulations. Every regulation should be considered a tax because it costs companies money and time. Higher costs for businesses translate into higher costs to consumers, or lower income for employees. Or both.
Last of all, why didn't she address the real issue at hand? The drastic rise in size and scope of the Federal Government? Wouldn't taking steps to control spending at the top send a message to the country that the government is willing to do its part too? She has no commercials to that effect.
2. Her Plan for Technological Supremacy.
Hey, let's put up a lot of solar panels!
Yea. That's going to give us technological superiority. Some problems here. The sun doesn't always shine. Funny how she doesn't understand that simple fact. There will be hours, lots of them, in which these panels will be useless. Plus, as other countries are learning. It's nice to think that making a bunch of solar panels will save the world, but this is very expensive electricity. Many times higher than the cost of gas, coal, or nuclear power. I'm not saying that solar is not a good way to go. It may be the wave of the future, but for now, and the near term, we should go with and continue to develop the cheaper sources of energy for electricity. That's what our infrastructure has been created to handle. We have enormous reserves of coal, gas and nuclear material, enough to power our country for hundreds of years. The best course of action is to let research continue on solar and other alternative types of power, while allowing companies to further develop our present types of energy.
Forcing a sea change of power on the country is unwise when there are obvious problems with the new technology and great benefits from the existing set up.
Another thought. Where will she get the money? Of course, from all those corporations that are moving overseas! Governments do not make money. They take it from others. Economists know that for every dollar taken by taxation, the private sector loses one and a half to two dollars. That's because the money has to be spread out through the governmental bureaucracy, whereas private sector companies often have few or no layers.
3. Steady Leadership
From the woman who brought you Benghazi.
Records indicate that the embassy made requests several times for extra security because they had hints that something was going to happen. These were ignored. And, when the attack began, resources which the US had in hand were not called in to help. Rather they were ordered to stand down. Once the magnitude of the attack was known she lied, saying the attack was a reaction to a YouTube video criticizing Islam, which had hit the weekend before. It couldn't be, the attack had already been planned by that time. When hearings were called to investigate the matter she lied again, and again and again.
Benghazi is not the only scandal involving her performance.
The current investigation centers around her treatment of classified emails and top secret information on her computer. When she wasn't feigning ignorance she simply lied, again and again and again. She has lied so much it makes one wonder if she ever actually tells the truth.
Here we have a blindingly incompetent woman, who rose to power on her husband's coat-tails. Who eventually made it to the House of Representatives, accomplishing nothing of merit for her time there. Then, as Secretary of State, well, we all know how that turned out.
So her campaign is one of obfuscation and - lies. One could no doubt find a more competent individual by randomly selecting a name out of the phone book.
4. Her Critique of Trump's Shirts
First, she stole a spot from the Letterman show about the shirts without his permission. So she had to make a new commercial.
In the spots she claims his shirts, and other clothing items, are being made in a dozen foreign countries. This is in spite of the fact that his tag slogan is "Make America Great Again." So what is my answer to this? Big deal. It is most likely that Macy's approached Trump about a line of shirts based on his style. Trump doesn't design them, other people do that. He approves their work, probably making suggestions along the way. It is doubtful that Trump specifies the manufacturing either. Macy's picked the places where they could get the best deal, in terms of price and quality, for them. Is this somehow evil, or un-American? Of course not. It is in the best interest for a company to maximize effeciency. And even though these shirts are made in another country, the profits go to American corporations and employees as well.
When we say "America First" it doesn't mean we will only deal within the boundaries of our fifty states and territories. Rather, it means we will closely maintain the ideals that made our nation great in the first place, and not compromise them.
1: Her Economic Plan
Soak the Rich.
Her commercial says she is going to make the rich 'finally pay' their fair share. Finally? You've got to be kidding The United States has the second highest corporate tax structure in the world. These high taxes here have caused thousands of companies to relocate to better places. That's a lot of business, and tax revenue, that would otherwise still be here.
It should be known that the top 10% of earners actually pay about 70% of total taxes. So how is it they are somehow not paying their fair share? If anything, they are paying more than that.
Let's also look at it this way. Last year the Federal Government took in more revenue than it ever has in its history. Yet they are still up to their ears in debt. The real issue is not revenue. It's spending. About one and a half billion dollars more than they make. Every day.
This brings to mind an interesting fact. Hilary will not give an answer to how much is 'fair' for the rich to pay. What percentage? 10? 20? 50? Or more? Corporations and the rich aren't paying their fair share, (to her, anyway) and no matter how much they are currently taxed, it's somehow still not enough.
She offers nothing in terms of incentive for the creation of new businesses, or to keep them from moving overseas, except to punish them. This punishment money, which will apparently be a lot, will be put to use somehow 'creating jobs'. May I say that anytime a politician says they are going to 'create jobs' they are lying? Politicians only create government jobs, which means they have to take (read, steal) money from hard working people and give it to bureaucrats, and that's a good percentage of the problems our economy faces today.
All this policy will do, should she be elected, is to hasten the exit of corporations overseas, they will bow out before getting hit by the fines.
But the government can do some things to help the economy and promote business. How about addressing the high corporate tax rate? What if they lowered it? Wouldn't that work to help keep jobs here rather than have them move overseas? Wouldn't a low tax environment possibly attract business from foreign places too? And, wouldn't more companies here would translate into new jobs? The economics is quite simple.
What about the EPA? Last year they issued something like eleven thousand new regulations. Every regulation should be considered a tax because it costs companies money and time. Higher costs for businesses translate into higher costs to consumers, or lower income for employees. Or both.
Last of all, why didn't she address the real issue at hand? The drastic rise in size and scope of the Federal Government? Wouldn't taking steps to control spending at the top send a message to the country that the government is willing to do its part too? She has no commercials to that effect.
2. Her Plan for Technological Supremacy.
Hey, let's put up a lot of solar panels!
Yea. That's going to give us technological superiority. Some problems here. The sun doesn't always shine. Funny how she doesn't understand that simple fact. There will be hours, lots of them, in which these panels will be useless. Plus, as other countries are learning. It's nice to think that making a bunch of solar panels will save the world, but this is very expensive electricity. Many times higher than the cost of gas, coal, or nuclear power. I'm not saying that solar is not a good way to go. It may be the wave of the future, but for now, and the near term, we should go with and continue to develop the cheaper sources of energy for electricity. That's what our infrastructure has been created to handle. We have enormous reserves of coal, gas and nuclear material, enough to power our country for hundreds of years. The best course of action is to let research continue on solar and other alternative types of power, while allowing companies to further develop our present types of energy.
Forcing a sea change of power on the country is unwise when there are obvious problems with the new technology and great benefits from the existing set up.
Another thought. Where will she get the money? Of course, from all those corporations that are moving overseas! Governments do not make money. They take it from others. Economists know that for every dollar taken by taxation, the private sector loses one and a half to two dollars. That's because the money has to be spread out through the governmental bureaucracy, whereas private sector companies often have few or no layers.
3. Steady Leadership
From the woman who brought you Benghazi.
Records indicate that the embassy made requests several times for extra security because they had hints that something was going to happen. These were ignored. And, when the attack began, resources which the US had in hand were not called in to help. Rather they were ordered to stand down. Once the magnitude of the attack was known she lied, saying the attack was a reaction to a YouTube video criticizing Islam, which had hit the weekend before. It couldn't be, the attack had already been planned by that time. When hearings were called to investigate the matter she lied again, and again and again.
Benghazi is not the only scandal involving her performance.
The current investigation centers around her treatment of classified emails and top secret information on her computer. When she wasn't feigning ignorance she simply lied, again and again and again. She has lied so much it makes one wonder if she ever actually tells the truth.
Here we have a blindingly incompetent woman, who rose to power on her husband's coat-tails. Who eventually made it to the House of Representatives, accomplishing nothing of merit for her time there. Then, as Secretary of State, well, we all know how that turned out.
So her campaign is one of obfuscation and - lies. One could no doubt find a more competent individual by randomly selecting a name out of the phone book.
4. Her Critique of Trump's Shirts
First, she stole a spot from the Letterman show about the shirts without his permission. So she had to make a new commercial.
In the spots she claims his shirts, and other clothing items, are being made in a dozen foreign countries. This is in spite of the fact that his tag slogan is "Make America Great Again." So what is my answer to this? Big deal. It is most likely that Macy's approached Trump about a line of shirts based on his style. Trump doesn't design them, other people do that. He approves their work, probably making suggestions along the way. It is doubtful that Trump specifies the manufacturing either. Macy's picked the places where they could get the best deal, in terms of price and quality, for them. Is this somehow evil, or un-American? Of course not. It is in the best interest for a company to maximize effeciency. And even though these shirts are made in another country, the profits go to American corporations and employees as well.
When we say "America First" it doesn't mean we will only deal within the boundaries of our fifty states and territories. Rather, it means we will closely maintain the ideals that made our nation great in the first place, and not compromise them.
Sunday, September 4, 2016
Getting Your Book Published: The Cover
Last week I got the artwork for the cover of my book. I relayed to you before that I had sent the description in weeks ago, at the beginning of the process. Having to wait while someone else tries to capture a particular vision based on a couple of paragraphs can be exhausting if one were inclined to worry. I simply held hope that everything would turn out ok.
Guess what? It kind of did. The cover was very close to what I had envisioned. I did not feel it had to be modified at all. So after one day of consideration, I sent the approval e-mail to my book editor. Excellent job art department! I hope that one day I'll get to meet the guy, or girl, or team, who put the picture together and, if possible, interview them. I like to know how people create things. It's mysterious. For now a sigh of relief is in order.
Right now the book is in the last part of the process, that is, printing, and in another week or so I will be getting a couple of advance copies. As soon as I do, I will post the cover art here.
Now we are close, within a couple of weeks of the big reveal.
Guess what? It kind of did. The cover was very close to what I had envisioned. I did not feel it had to be modified at all. So after one day of consideration, I sent the approval e-mail to my book editor. Excellent job art department! I hope that one day I'll get to meet the guy, or girl, or team, who put the picture together and, if possible, interview them. I like to know how people create things. It's mysterious. For now a sigh of relief is in order.
Right now the book is in the last part of the process, that is, printing, and in another week or so I will be getting a couple of advance copies. As soon as I do, I will post the cover art here.
Now we are close, within a couple of weeks of the big reveal.
Saturday, August 6, 2016
Publishing Your Own Book Update
A few days ago my book entered a new phase of development. The editing and typesetting is now finished. The next part is to put it all together. Very early in the process I sent them a description of what I thought the cover should look like. I'm supposing they have been working on that design concurrently with the text, as the art often takes longer to create. The cover will be the part of the book I have limited control over, and yet this is the first thing people will see. Ironic isn't it?
Until the cover is finished I will have to wait.....
Until the cover is finished I will have to wait.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)