Social Options

    I've been trying to define the differences between Facebook and Google+ for a few months now, and I think it comes down to control. 
    On Google+, I have transparent and almost complete control over my stream. I can circle someone, or uncircle them if I'm not interested in what they have say. I can even block them if they keep sharing things I don't care about.
    On Facebook, I can 'like' and 'unlike', but Facebook wants to control my stream. They decide which are the top stories, or whether that post from a friend is important enough to show me. They have added controls to enable me to change the level of importance I want to see from each person or page, but they still decide the importance of each post.
    Sure, people can and do block me on Google+, but that is still about putting control into the hands of the users. Maybe that's a subtle difference, but for me, it's all the difference required to put Facebook in second or third place.

NaNoWriMo

That's my excuse for not writing more here. It's the only one I have. I'm on track to 'win', but barely keeping up.

Bred is for sale at Smashwords.com, but it will be a week or two before it's available at other online retailers. I've had very good responses from the few people who have read it, so I'm feeling pretty good about it. I may lower the price a bit, but I think I'm going to just make a bunch of coupons for promotional posts, and keep the normal price at $4.97. I picked that price just to give my 2 cents worth to Apple, who thinks every price should end with .99.

Bred is available.

I pushed the publish button. Here's hoping it wasn't too soon.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/102694

A Lesson in Publishing

My first adventure in self-publishing a novel started a few months ago, and I've learned one very important thing. If the editor or artist can't give you an estimate on initial contact, contact someone else. The reasons for this reluctance to offer solid prices are specious, in my opinion. They're usually something like, "I don't want to scare people," or "They might want the moon for the price of cheese." If someone is going to get scared away by a price, they aren't going to be happy about it, even if they pay it. And if someone knows the moon costs $1000, and the cheese costs $100, they won't be surprise if they get charged $1000 for the moon. It's not rocket science.

An editor knows how much it will cost to edit, so there's no reason not to be open. If an editor doesn't want to be open about it, don't waste your time. Someone who can't even give you a range of possible costs is not someone you want editing your project. Don't pay for an estimate either. If an editor doesn't post prices on their web-site, and won't even offer examples of pricing unless you send them money first, find another editor. There's a lot of them out there, and many of them are clear about what they charge for specific services. Find one of those--or just contact Anna.

The same idea applies to artists. You can't charge by the word for images, but if the artist doesn't know how long it will take, and can't offer even a general range of prices, they should hire someone who can help with the business side, and they should concentrate on the art. If you trade four or five emails with an artist, over the course of a month, and you still don't have any idea how much it will cost, stop wasting your time. If you send an artist an idea of what you want, and they can't tell you something like, "I can do that for $100 - $500," find another artist. Or contact Chuck. Or DigitalDonna.

If the professional you've chosen to contact can't put a price on something right away, find another artist or editor. Just move forward with your project, no matter how much you wanted that first choice. And for goodness sake, don't sign anything until you are sure.

Social Discussion

If you look at social media through the normal lens, the 'user profile' glasses, it all kind of looks the same. One of the things writers do is swap out the lenses. So what are the alternatives?

I thought maybe a chicken farm, or maybe an egg farm. I have no idea if or how much difference might be between those, but to use some marketing terms, I put Google in the 'free range' category, while Facebook is more like 'caged'. I'm not sure about Twitter... game hens maybe.

But now I think these social media sites are about conversation. Maybe you want a debate, with rules or such, or maybe you want to hang with friends and be in the now. And I think that's why users get upset when the rules of conversation change.

The whole point of social media is participation, and there are rules. You have 'like' or 'follow' before anything happens. You converse by those rules, and then they change, just a little bit, and it's no longer the same conversation. That can be very annoying.

Govern

Government actions matter less then their willingness to admit them.

Executing an innocent man is wrong, mistake or not. Maintaining a secret prison is worse, no matter how comfortable the prisoners.

Bombing an innocent village is wrong, no matter the reason. Covering it up is worse.

If my government is keeping secrets from me, do I have real representation? What does taxation without representation mean? How much say does that give me? How can I know which secrets should be kept if I don't know what they are?

Royal Balance

The Seelie Court would say, "May the divine winds carry you to paradise."

The Unseelie Court would say, "May you suffer a painful accident and die."

Those two statements mean the same thing, but Unseelie only say it when they mean it and are willing to make arrangements. Seelie would never admit such a thing had ever crossed their minds--would you like an apple?

Or maybe it's the other way around. You can never tell with faeries--at least not until someone's heart has been ripped out.

Both courts would say, "The thing about humans is you can always find another side to be on."