Antiheroes? Anyone?

So enough with the preachy blog posts. While I mean them in good humor--and ultimately anyone who knows me that I'm not the antagonistic type--I don't want this blog to be all about 'how to' or 'what not to do'. Right now, I'm thinking antiheroes. The true bad guys is books/TV/film who do questionable things, yet we find ourselves rooting for them. Why, you ask? Well, I've recently picked up Richrd Kadrey's latest installment in the Sandman Slim series, The Getaway God. Oddly enough this has coincided with me finally getting around the streaming the TV show Dexter. It seems I'm surrounded by them...

I'm not sure what it is, but I've always been drawn to these types of characters. James Stark of the Sandman Slim series (highly recommend if you like gritty dark humor + urban fantasy) is essentially a sarcastic asshole of a character; a magician who's been to Hell and back (literally) who pretty much plays by one set of rules--his own. Yet, despite his faults and nasty disposition, we're given such a solid look inside this character's head that as a reader you can't help but root for him. He makes no apologies for who he is. He's loyal to the people he cares about. He's saved the earth from monsters much, much worse than him. Basically, he's deeply flawed and doesn't always make the 'nice' choices, yet at the same time he can't really be classified as evil.

Dexter is a slightly different animal. I haven't read the books, but I'm midway through the third season of the TV show. On the surface, Dexter Morgan projects this image of a decent, hardworking guy who at worst appears to be a little odd and closed off from other people. Of course, because the story is from his POV, we know that's not the case. It's an interesting premise--this guy living a double life--forensic blood spatter analyst for the Miami PD on one side, prolific serial killer on the other. The idea that he's following a 'code' when choosing his victims (never someone innocent) which is referred to over and over, attempts to make the idea of a serial killer more palatable. Without the benefit of his constant internal monologue, I don't think this would work. Yet I think because we're so close to him, we see his struggle to maintain this dual life--basically we get to know him so well, it's hard not to feel for his character.

I don't want to turn this post into a novel, but there are more than a few characters out there that could also fit the bill. Think Taxi Driver's Travis Bickle or Alex from A Clockwork Orange. Maybe even Chess Putnam from Stacia Kane's Downside Ghosts series. What about you? Who are your favorite antiheroes?

Tweet this...Random Thoughts About Social Media

So I'm working on a short story that centers around an incident going viral on the internet (most prominently on Twitter) and it's got me thinking about some of the quirks, funny things and annoyances I see regularly while using the site myself.

1. "Buy XXX followers for $$$". Yeah...no, not happening. I can't think of a single instance where I'd fork over cash for anything related to Twitter, especially not just to pad my followers. I'm a firm believer in quality over quantity. I generally follow other writers, readers, and people with similar interests to me (music, movies, art, etc). Usually if I get a follower with this in their heading, I don't bother following back...I wouldn't be your customer, so it's probably a waste of both our times :)

2. "True Twit Validation". I have to admit, this one is a turn off. I usually unfollow when I get this message. I follow people who seem interesting or who appear to have common interests. I don't want to have to jump through hoops to do it...and going to another site to enter a captcha is annoying. And honestly? Real people spam too. They could easily fill out your validation and start bombarding you with sales pitches, so it seems pointless. Also, if you're someone who's trying to build a platform for your book/art/music/business, you're probably going to turn a few potential fans/customers away. It makes you seem unapproachable.

3. "Buy my book/album/etc, here's a link" via DM. I have never EVER been enticed into buying anything by someone using this method. Twitter is a social media platform. I get the promotion thing, I do, and I've used it to promote my own work. What I don't do is send a DM with a link to my book asking someone to buy it. It kind of smacks of desperation. So yes, make people aware that your book/etc exists with a quote, or a review link, or a graphic, etc. And yes, by all means throw in an Amazon link with it. Just please don't beg me to buy it.

4. "Would you please take the time to rate my book". Um...what? I was a little baffled the first time I got a DM like this. First, I'd never heard of the author or book. Second, I couldn't tell if they were asking me to arbitrarily rate it just to inflate their ratings numbers (which I'd never do) or what. I understand ratings and reviews can help sell a book, but I think this one needs a rewording "Hey, if you've read my book, I'd love it if you'd leave a review". Or something like that. It just seemed weird.

5. "The completely different language follower". If I can't understand anything in your profile or you're tweeting exclusively in a language other than English, I won't be able to read it. So...what's the point?

Wow, that sounded an awful lot like complaining :) I feel better now. I guess the point is, when you're on enough, you start to notice different types of interactions, and unfortunately it's the more unpleasant ones that stick in your mind. So what about you...what bugs you on social media? Not just Twitter, but any platform?

Aren't We All Guilty Then?

So I happened upon this article about an English teacher in Maryland (USA) who was put on leave by school administrators because he authored a novel that centered around a school shooting. I'm thinking...what? Unless something is being hidden from the public, it doesn't appear (according to the articles I read) that he's committed any actual crime. What it looks like is an over paranoid, knee jerk reaction to a work of FICTION and if that's the case, it sets a really dangerous, really scary precedent for potentially any author.

Yes, school shootings are a touchy subject.

Yes, he's an educator.

But does writing about one in his novel automatically make him worthy of a psyche evaluation? Of being treated like a criminal? It seems like it should be common sense, but just because someone's written a story about something horrific it doesn't mean they actually want it to happen. If that was the case, then look at the other countless authors out there who write about murder, torture, abuse, terrorism--the list goes on. Do we as authors now have to worry that, if the wrong person reads our books, it could be grounds to lose our jobs? That we could be subjected to a community-driven witch hunt because we dared to write about something terrible or controversial?

What about people that read these subjects then? People who watch movies or play video games or listen to music? Does an interest in violent or macabre subjects automatically make someone mentally unstable? Or prone to commit a crime? Where do we draw the line in all of this?

I don't know. Like I said, maybe there's more than meets the eye here. I almost hope there is. Because if his only crime is writing a novel about a school shooting, then this country is headed in a sad direction.

Ms. Manners Does Reviews :)

Today we're talking book reviews. OK, I'm talking book reviews. As an author, I recognize their importance. As a reader, I appreciate seeing what others thought if I'm on the fence with trying out a new author, or if I'm unsure about a book in general. One thing I've noticed, however, is there are still a lot of authors out there who feel the need to comment on/react to their reviewers. Especially when those reviews are less than flattering. Authors?

DON'T DO THIS.

Please. It's bush league. Amateur. Makes YOU look like an asshat. If you get a bad review, pull up your big ADULT pants and walk it off. Sure it stings. Someone on Goodreads has made fun of your baby using animated GIF's. Or they tossed a 1-star on Amazon with a big old 'Don't Waste Your Time' in the heading. I get it, really. Sometimes reviews sting, particularly when someone is brutally honest about why they didn't like your book.

Guess what? That's their opinion. It might not be nice, but it doesn't make it any less valid. It doesn't mean the rest of the world will think your book is garbage. In fact, what one person hates another person might love. I'll let you in on a secret: I often read the bad reviews on a book first. Why? Because a brutally honest reviewer is often very specific about why they didn't like something. More often than not, it's a personal preference--i.e., I didn't like the plot, or the character was annoying. It might convince me to take a shot, because maybe I don't mind the things this reviewer talked about. (Unless it's talking about a story riddled with grammar or punctuation errors, in which case, I silently thank the reviewer for saving me from wasting my time. I'm not buying your unedited manuscript, but that's a whole other post)

I'm skeptical of a book that has only 5-star reviews. Even more-so if the author is relatively unknown. Newsflash: even the big, bestselling superstar authors have a mix of good and bad reviews. It's part of the game. You put your work out there, you risk putting into the hands of someone who doesn't like it. That's OK. BUT if you must vent, do it behind closed doors. Don't argue with the reviewer. Don't enlist your friends and family to come to your defense. It's a turn off. Both to the reviewer and other potential readers. If someone sees you being all argumentative an defensive, they're less apt to leave their own review, and you lose. If they're like me, they'll be less apt to buy it.

So my advice in this long-winded post? Be thankful. Thankful someone is reading. If you've sent a review copy, thank them and be done. Ignore that urge to defend your work and recognize not everyone will like it. It's not the end of the world if they don't, I promise. :)

Checking in...

So after much procrastination, I finally buckled down and made myself finish the sequel to Living Dead Girl in July. Currently, the semi-polished draft is sitting in the hands of a couple different readers so that I can get some feedback before I submit it to my publisher. I can't give you too much detail yet, but here's what I'm willing to share ;) 

• The working title for this book is 'Reaper Madness'
• This story is all fantasy/urban fantasy/pnr, rather than a contemporary romance that turns into fantasy
• The story begins a few months after Living Dead Girl ends
• Jen, Jack and Sam all play prominent roles; PJ makes a brief appearance
• There will need to be a book three to resolve the story completely
• There are a couple huge, unexpected twists 

Now, a few random thoughts before I send you on your way:

It didn't start out this way when I first thought up Living Dead Girl, but there is a whole, huge, bigger picture that ties this story all together. There are reasons behind many of the things that happen in book one that will come to light later in the story. I'll be honest--I'm a little nervous about book two. It borrows from various mythologies, and half the story takes place in the afterlife (or, rather, an alternate set of worlds where human souls go between reincarnations). To me, it's a great deal easier weaving supernatural elements into the real world than creating a whole new one and making it believable. We'll see if my readers 'buy into it'. 

Renea Mason's Reader Appreciation Party This Week!!!!

If you're a book lover, you must stop by this crazy event! It's happening on Facebook and runs the entire week. (I will also be stopping by.) Great way to interact with other readers and authors, discover some new books and maybe even win a thing or two. Tons and tons of prizes, games, and so many author guests. Check out this rafflecopter :)

a Rafflecopter giveaway

By now you're used to this, right?

I haven't done much of anything with my social media accounts lately. Sure I'll throw out a few tweets here and there, or diddle around on Facebook, but nothing particularly productive. Aren't we all a little too plugged in now? I think about this every so often, how much we've grown to rely on technology in such a short span of time. Like everything, there are pros and cons, of course.

 Back when I was a kid, when our family got together, we'd all sit together at the dinner table or in the living room or even outside. Maybe the TV would be on, but we'd still be conversing. The past few years I've noticed suddenly everybody is sitting around with their phones or tablets. Sure, conversations still happen, but they're interspersed between checking emails, texts, Facebook, or searching Youtube videos, etc. We're all distracted. We've joked that we're one step shy of texting conversations to each other but really, it'd be sad if it sunk to that level, wouldn't it?

I have to wonder when this obsessive phone checking habit became normal behavior. You see it everywhere, too. People don't bat an eyelash at a mom glued to her phone while she's at the park with her kids rather than playing with them. Or a group of friends who go out to eat and spend half their time taking pictures of the event to post on Instagram rather than simply enjoying the meal and company. Never mind the constant oversharing through all the various social media outlets--things that years ago, it wouldn't have occurred to any of us to share, but now flood all of our newsfeeds.

I'm not really complaining. I just wonder, why do we feel the need to do it? What is so compelling? And most of all, are we all beginning to miss out on real life experiences because of it?