Ask yourself if it is worth it.

Because of all the miss-impressions I hear about both writing and bookstores, I have to assume that I  have just as many miss-impressions of other peoples' jobs and hobbies. You don't really know something unless you do it, intensely and long enough to get the real gist.

Talking to my brother about the bookstores in his hometown. I won't say what town because I don't want to insult anyone. 

So there is a big-time bookstore there that does all the things that a big-time bookstore does. Has a in-house coffee shop, has famous authors come by for readings, and so on.

So Mike's wife, Sherry, goes in to ask for some support for a charity benefit and the owner is "rude and nasty."

So I said, "That's what I've been trying to tell you, Mike. The owner has probably reached her limit. She's overburdened herself trying to do all the things everyone tells you to do. It's called burnout and it will happen to almost all the owners of such shops."

Well, Mike is skeptical. Almost everyone I say this to is skeptical. To most people, that's what bookstores are: and no amount of failure or change of ownerships will change that impression. Because the trend is stronger than the truth. It overwhelms the real-world experience to the extent that even the victims of the myth buy into it. 

I'm in my 44th year at my bookstore and I'm enjoying it more than ever. Not even close to burnout. In fact, we're doing better than ever. 

What I do is sell books. That's it. Sell books.

Meanwhile, Mike tells me that they shop at the "smaller" bookstore in town. 

"Does it have a coffee shop?" I ask.

"No, but there is one next door."

"Next door is fine. That's someone else's problem."

I'm firmly convinced that in twenty or thirty years, the book industry will look back on this era and wonder what we were all thinking. "Wine and coffee, restaurants, and space and time for stuff other than books? WTF?"

Again, I don't think most will agree with this assessment, including other bookstores, but at the very least, there is something to my position. "Keep it simple, stupid." 

So Linda says, "But it's a draw. It brings in people who sit and chat."

So then my question becomes, "OK, say it's a 30% extra draw. Meanwhile, you have at least 100% more effort to stock and staff your restaurant. Everyone of of those author readings, and club meetings, and gatherings require planning and effort. All of it draws attention, time, and energy from your real job of selling books. If it doesn't, it's because you hired someone to do it. At best, it's a break-even proposition that will eventually drain you, 

All I'm saying is, ask yourself; "Is it worth it?"

Publishers don't have time for that editing thing.

Funnily enough, I've only been what I would term "edited" by a publisher twice, out of 27 books and five shorts stories. (EDITOR: "There is no such word as funnily.")

I think there is an erroneous expectation on the part of beginning writers that publishers will work with you to fix a book, but in my experience, publishers don't have time for that. They get so many submissions, they can just accept the stories that already work. I suppose if you are a "famous" author, you have a hands-on editor--though I think the super famous authors can publish anything they want. (Some of the famouser SF writers weren't a rigorous with their later works: Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke.) (EDITOR: "There is no such word as famouser")

When I wrote my first book way back in 1980, I just assumed that the publisher would take it over, fix it up, and away we go. 

Instead, other than a few copy edits, nothing. 

In some ways, it was a rocky start. I let the book be published (How could I say no?) even though it might not have been ready. I will admit, they rejected the first effort at the third book because they felt I was trying too hard to make two books out of it. That was the right decision: in fact, years later, I combined "Snowcastles" and "Icetowers" into one book.

By the time I wrote "Icetowers" I understood I was on my own and thus that third book holds up much better than the first two. 

From the time I came back in 2013 and published "Led to the Slaughter," I hired my own editor, not just for copyedits, but for story changes as well. Lara Milton was great at it, and all my books benefited greatly from her suggestions.

But I had zero pushback from the publishers. And so it went for most of the books following. Because of this, I made the choice not to publish several books because I didn't think they worked. Maybe they would have been fine, but I wasn't sure who would tell me that.

Finally, in one of my last books, I did have a publisher who asked for major changes, not once, not twice, but three times. The first two changes were major improvements, but I felt the third change was too much. Again, I wasn't going to dispute a publisher.

I can remember a couple of instances where I got major push backs from my copy readers. I went back and adjusted "Led to the Slaughter" a couple of time to its improvement. 

I struggled over the decision to leave the second chapter of "Deadfall Ridge" in or not. There isn't a lot of action in the second chapter, but I felt it was absolutely crucial in developing the character of the main protagonist. I've always been glad I chose to keep it. 

The last thing I ever submitted was a short story. To my great surprise, the first two short stories I ever submitted were accepted to anthologies, which will always make me wonder if I missed my true calling. Anyway, on the second story, the publisher was very hands on. Again, I accepted the first two rewrites as improvements. Again, the third rewrite, for me, went too far...but I didn't fight the publisher over it. Once they accept a manuscript, I sort of feel like it's theirs. 

From now on, I'm going to stick to my guns on changes I don't agree with, even if it means being rejected. I'll have to figure out where to draw the line; in the two examples, the first suggestions were great, the last suggestions not so much. I think I could have tried to politely argue the point. I've now had so many books published, I don't fear rejection anymore. 

Like I said, it isn't common to be edited heavily, and I suspect it will be even less common in the future.

Cue the X-Files music.

Linda has been rewatching the X-Files from season one on. I hung in there for a few episodes, but I just have a hard time watching something twice.

Anyway, there is a current actual news story bubbling up about a supposed expert whistleblower who maintains that the governments of the world have been tracking down and have in their possession technology of a non-human nature. The sources are what I would call secondary news outlets, not the sheer nuttery sites, but also not mainstream.

So I went down the rabbit hole for a few hours. The way it's presented, the whistleblower is credible. But he's credible to the credulous, if you know what I mean.

It's all a tease so far. To me, the big tease is an almost sure giveaway that it's a bunch of hoo-ha. There have been too many Al Capone Vault discoveries, identifications of Jack the Ripper, the Sedgeway will change how we travel brouhaha, and other bullshit for me to give it much credence. 

But...wouldn't it be cool? They've been reverse engineering alien technology for years? 

Sadly, it's the very fact that it would be so cool that makes me doubt the whole thing.

Googled my name.

Did what I haven't done for a while and Googled my name. There are pages and pages of listings. I guess that's what happens when you write 25 books.

To my surprise, it said I have 768 reviews for "Deadfall Ridge." (4.2 out of 5) I had no idea it was that high. I wonder if they have changed things. Believe me, these things are relative: "Fairy Tale," by Stephen King has 46,000 reviews, while my 768 reviews ain't bad for a indie book.

The guestimate is that each review can represent up to 10 sales. I haven't really kept track. That's from Amazon alone, and there are other venues, including my own store.

I also found a lot of reviews I didn't know existed for my other books--partly, I think, because there are different editions from switching publishers. There are even reviews for my short stories (a perfect 10 ratings for "Free Mars," and even a few reviews for my little confection, "Burp, the Burrow Wight.")

I'll never have a completely accurate number for how many books I've sold because a couple of my publishers weren't exactly on top of things.

But all in all, it's pretty encouraging.

So now I'll wait another few years before Googling my name again.

The Sword of Damocles.

We mortals all know that the Sword of Damocles hangs over our heads. But once you've had a heart attack, you can see the sharpness of the blade. It completely changes how you look at things. 

I started reading obituaries pretty early, probably in my 30s. (I read somewhere that reading obituaries is a sure sign of middle-age.)

The name of this blog is, "The Best Minimum Wage Job a Middle-Aged Guy Ever Had." I started writing it in 2006, when I was 54 years old. I'm now 70, but I can't figure out a graceful way to change the title, so I'm keeping it.

A big chunk of my family is visited Bend this week. I'm happy to see them. At the same time, some of them knew me from the big chunk of my life when I was younger and also deeply depressive. I see them rarely because we are spread out all over the country. So there's that thing where you are what your are and people remember you as you were, There is a weird sort of fight to remain the current self and not fall back into your former self.  

Linda, being the youngest sibling in her family by far, talks about how hard it was to make her siblings realize she wasn't just a kid anymore. Strange to say at the age we are, but it is still a thing. 

Reading about De Niro and Pacino having kids in their 80s made me wonder about how they must think about things. I'm nearing retirement--and putting it off as long as is feasible. I've already spent too many days at home wondering what to do. I like going to the store. I still enjoy it.

At the same time, whenever I start making changes or investing in longer projects, I wonder if I should be doing it. There's a commercial on these days that has a bunch of old people cheerfully talking about their hobbies and plans...and then an abrupt shift to a dark screen and the sound of a monitor flatlining.

Ghee, thanks for reminding.

But what else can you do? You pretty much have to prepare, but there are going to be things you leave undone. There are things your family will have to wrap up. You can't stop living.

Anyway, happy Summer weather and sorry about this particular blog. Family visits get you thinking.

Which three of my own books would I recommend?

Which of my books do I feel good about recommending?

That's a different question than which books are my favorites or which books do I think are my best, though a Venn diagram would be 90%.

So which books do I put into people's hands?

"Led to the Slaughter," probably first, depending on the reader's tastes. (Not everyone likes the fantasy/horror element.) This book, for me, has stood the test of time. It's a darn solid book, in my opinion. The history was as accurate as I could make it. It was solidly constructed and I never had any second thoughts about it.

"Deadfall Ridge," if the reader is more inclined to "reality." I mean, at least there aren't any fantasy elements to it. It's a bit far fetched, but to me that's what thrillers do. They bend reality to make it more exciting. Again, I think this is a solid book. 

"Tuskers," the first book in my super pigs series. It's a fast-paced book, if you can buy the premise. There are a couple of great characters in the book, characters who came out of left field and took over. And if the reader likes the first book, chances are they'll like the others.

Most of my other books require more explanation, I guess. I think there are a couple of good ones there; in fact, probably my two favorite books to write: "Fateplay" and "Blood of the Succubus." I thought "Snaked" was pretty good, too.

A few others were me simply feeling my story-writing oats. I liked them, but I never pushed them. So they are my orphans, in a way. Some of them only went to ebook format. Not that they weren't good, just that I had exhausted everyone by my output. I rather liked "Shadows Over Summer House," my one sort of gothic/romance type book. "Gargoyle Dreams" is another love story, and I think my editor, Lara Milton liked it best. Linda liked the first person/straightforward storytelling of "I Live Among You."

My vampire books were me learning to tell a story again. I think they are decent, and in fact, the second book, "Rule of Vampire," was one of the most solid books I ever wrote. 

"Fairy Punk" was me having fun, and "The Last Fedora," perhaps was the most original and unusual of my books.

And a few others, toward the end of my writing binge, were more experimental. They were me trying something different, trying to stretch. The reviews by readers weren't as encouraging as my early books, but I'm proud of them. I know what I was trying to do. 

I didn't try to mention all my books. It's the same problem I had writing them; too many, too fast. But I was in the zone and I didn't want to disrupt it. What a great time I had. 

Competition is complicated.

I've learned to back off from direct competition over the last 40 years. My first experience was the worst because I simply didn't know how to handle another store popping up when I wasn't making enough money in my own store. 

Well, I'm not the boss of others. My job is to adjust.

That first competitive situation became toxic and I'm not completely excusing myself. 

The natural impulse is to get competitive, as if it's a war. But that's a mistake. The competition has every right to try doing the same thing you are doing. 

Nowadays, I wait for a decent length of time, and then introduce myself to the competition and make it clear that I'm hoping for a cooperative relationship. And since that first time, that has mostly worked out. At worst, the competitors ignored me, and that was all right. At best, there developed a true cooperative relationship. I don't know that there has ever been a buddy/buddy relationship, but I don't tend to be buddy/buddy with anyone. 

This doesn't mean you shouldn't react to competition, however. Observe what they doing and see if you need to match them in price or variety. 

Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing. They are who they are and you who you are. They'll be the new kid in town for awhile, fresh and new and frisky, and you just have to let them be that way. In response, you need remain steady and reliable.

I've always had an underdog persona, at least to myself, so it was a surprise one day when someone pointed out that I was the old and established store. 

"I'm the old guy?" I asked.

Well, yeah. Lean into it. 

Weirdly enough, after a while you start hoping for smart competition, not dumb. Smart competition means they are playing by the same rules and have the same constraints you do. Dumb competition is a wild card that can be hard to handle and cause chaos for everyone 

So I try to delineate my strengths and weakness and adjust to the current situation. Competition doesn't usually put a store out of business. Either the economy is strong enough for all stores or weak enough that all stores feel the pressure.

The other response is to double down. Response to competition by upping your game. It might mean taking a few risks. It might mean making at least a gesture toward the customer that you're on their side. You might have to go lower on prices, or increase your inventory. 

I'm a great believer in keeping things simple, so I generally do what I'm already doing--but just more of it or less of it. 

What I learned is, competition will always be there. There is no avoiding it. There is only accommodating it.