Showing posts with label FORTUNES OF WAR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FORTUNES OF WAR. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Live from somewhere near Seattle...

This has to be worth a swift post before I run out the door (duty calls)...



The first title we uploaded to the Kindle Store was The Lords of Harbendane, swiftly followed by Dangerous Moonlight and Fortunes of War ... in fact, Harbendane is still waiting to publish while the other two have gone "live" --!



...and what's more, Amazon.com is having a mark-down special for some kind, so you can get these books for $7.99 ... gotta like that. I do believe that's the cheapest price we've ever seen on these novels.

We'll keep you posted as the list goes up -- and also, as they go up to Mobipocket, which is essentially the same service, but available globally.

More later,

Cheers,
MK

Friday, March 6, 2009

Ebooks ... and other seven-headed monsters

I can honestly say that I've learned a lot today ... about code; about myself; about persistence; about going cross-eyed in front of a monitor and not giving up; keeping a cool(er) head when all about me people were losing theirs and blaming it on me --

[And before you say, "Hey, that reminds me of something," it's a tangential misquotation (deliberate, damnit!) from Kipling's poem, "If." And yes, you can source it on the web -- wonderful poem; find it here: http://www.swarthmore.edu/~apreset1/docs/if.html]

--It's taken a couple of days to get the code right, but Dangerous Moonlight is now online at Smashwords, where you can download it for your iPhone, your Kindle, your Palm Pilot, your Sony Reader...!



Click on this image to, uh, "buy now from Smashwords"


We had wanted to launch with three books, but it's more of a wrestling match than we'd expected, to get really good results in all formats. Mind you, it's well worth the effort, because now Dangerous is going to perform properly on everything short of Microsoft Reader. I'm holding off on offering it in the LIT format for several reasons...

I've heard that the new Reader has "issues;" and also, there's no way short of paying too much money to be able to secure the file to prevent people just copying the text right out into a DTP program and printing it by the case. I don't like that.

Anyway, Keegan is on your smartphone, and on your Kindle (in Mobi format), via Smashwords -- at least with Dangerous Moonlight! The next up will be Lords of Harbendane, but Fortunes of War is being a little devil. A few days ago I rattled off the book's pedigree, which was received by howls of disbelief. To say that the manuscript is a mutt, a moggy, a mule, is too kind ... to call the finished book "moving and inspirational" is not helping me get it bashed into shape for a new edition.

However, we persist. The Smashwords interface is certainly easy. We did time-out a few times when trying to upload/convert files -- but hey, this is Australia, which has a backbone like like a pygmy shrew.

And -- well, that's where we are today. Want Dangerous Moonlight ... Harry and Nick ... on your iPhone or Kindle? Then (here are the magic words) BUY NOW FROM SMASHWORDS. And yes, that's a link, takes you right to the page where you can download the goods.

Chapter Thirteen has commenced at Legends, but otherwise the day has been devoted to CODE. And I have to give credit where it's due.

Jade can actually read this gibberish:


When all else failed (and it did), she loaded it into a progaming editor (Notebook++) and took the css gobbledygook apart. Rebuilt it. Make the gibberish actually work. Ye gods, there's something seriously wrong with the woman. It's not normal. (And Mel Keegan is going to prognosticate about normality?!)

I think this one is going to cost me a bottle of wine.

Ciao for now,
MK

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Gay fiction ... edutainment or entertainment?

Some readers who follow this blog and have touched down on my websites (the NARC site, for example), might know the name of Aricia Gavriel, who has commented here a few times, and written some essays about gay fiction in general, and Jarrat and Stone in particular. Aricia is one of DreamCraft's proofreaders. Before anyone asks, "proofies" are reimbursed in copies, not cash, so "jobs at DreamCraft"won't to be the answer to your prayer anytime soon ... but thanks for thinking about it!

The other day, AG swung by the DreamCraft office to drop in some chapters and pick up some more ... segments of LORDS OF HARBENDANE ... here's another perk of being a "proofie" ... you get to read new books before they're published. You also get to scribble all over them in colored felt-tip pens. Personally, I think it's all part of some evil power trip. Guys: I never said I was a typist. In fact, I'm thinking about issuing a tee-shirt with the logo, I HATE TYPING!.

So, AG was over at DreamCraft and, as usual, used one of the computers to surf for a while. Her home machine is a brontosaurus, equal to the task of emails, so long as it's an interface like the old Eudora or Pegasus, or Gmail at a stretch of the imagination. Hotmail? Crash. There are five fast machines in one room at DreamCraft, running every operating system under the sun ... ah, the joys of being a multimedia studio.

Okay, Keegan, cut to the chase. Let's have the gist of this ramble while we're still young!

AG was on Speak Its Name (http://speakitsname.wordpress.com/), which is a gay book review site I've had bookmarked for a long time. Somehow, however, I managed to miss the page AG stumbled into. Shows you how observant I am. The link is right there on the top of the page. I just never noticed it, much less clicked it. I, uh, tend to read blogs in the evening after work, when my brain is fairly fried.

If I'd clicked through, I'd have landed here: http://speakitsname.wordpress.com/about/ ... and discovered an interesting discussion about (!) OKHOMO.

Many readers of this blog will be blinking now, muttering, "Say what?" Turns out, it's a jargon term meaning, "everyone's gay and everyone's okay about it" ... meaning, the characters in the story are okay with being gay. Off-the-page, in fact, a minority of readers and some gay book critics very definitely take umbrage at having the angst factor in a novel diminished, so as to get the adventure aspect of the story moving, and probably also (the important facet of this discussion) to increase the book's entertainment value.

Aricia Gavriel nailed the absolute heart of the "OKHOMO" question in the comment posted to the above page. It got me thinking last evening. I'm still thinking about it. So, that's where I'm going with this!



Does a gay novel, particularly a gay historical novel, have a duty to be filled with the angst and pain of reality, in order to convey a not-so-subtle message to readers, in the manner of edutainment? Or can the angsty part of the narrative be toned down, in favor of entertainment?

In fact, I don't actually have much of an opinion either way; and I can certainly see the sense of both points of view. Gay writers and publishers are in a cleft stick (a fact book reviewers frequently ignore, or never recognized in the first place). Gay fiction readers are either gay or gay-friendly -- which means the writer and publisher are "preaching to the choir" with angsty material.

Gay fiction readers are already well aware gays have been persecuted throughout history, and are still suffering today. A modicum of angst in the narrative is an extremely good thing, since it sets the reality for the novel's background; However, unless the storyline is actually about the persecution of gay characters, there's only so far a writer can go into the realms of pain and suffering, either physical or emotional, before the story starts to tickle a dangerous line beyond which the reader will find the book depressing, or maudlin.

So, I can see both sides of the argument -- and there are two ways to go: entertainment and edutainment. Sure, you want a gay historical which is intended as entertainment to be true enough to history to be realistic. But after that, the narrative has to get past the sorrow, get on with the story and give the reader a thrill, a laugh, a good reading experience. The gay novel which is intended as edutainment is where writer and publisher can afford to wallow in the pain and misery of reality.



In several places in these blog pages, I've said "the reader is the ultimate bottom line," and it's critical for both writer and publisher to know who those readers are and what they need. Past a certain point, preaching to the choir could easily be a mistake. Who's going to pay good money for a depressing book? Yet, any historical novel set in an era when there was prejudice toward gays needs to be realistic enough ... and there is certainly a delicate "floating point" around which writer and publisher are working.

How much reality is too much? The "floating point" shifts constantly between entertainment and edutainment. The decision as per which pigeonhole is the right one for a specific novel is for the writer to decide. (An editor or publisher can certainly ask for a rewrite: "Give me another draft with a lot more sorrow, some really miserable characters, and we'll go to contract." In other words, a book can be shifted from one pigeonhole to the other ... and back again.)

As a writer with several historicals under by belt, I've risen to this challenge and each time come to a decision on a book-by-book basis. The heaviest angst is in WHITE ROSE OF NIGHT, set in the Crusades era, where there's a death sentence waiting for gays who are caught. Next heaviest in sorrow would be FORTUNES OF WAR, which is a lot more realistic than WHITE ROSE. Seriously here, WRON is a historical fantasy, with the emphasis on the fantasy. FORTUNES is set in the Elizabethan era, and its historical accuracy is very high indeed. DANGEROUS MOONLIGHT, set in 1727, has a medium dose of misery and a massive story which tends to overpower the sorrow -- if it didn't, you'd never get through 450pp. THE DECEIVERS is quite high-level angst ... in a much shorter book. What you can get away with in 250pp, you won't be able to carry through 450pp. DECEIVERS is set in 1862, with a historical accuracy factor of about 99.995%. NOCTURNE is extremely accurate in historical terms, and moderately miserable in gay terms, with another monstrous story which overcomes the sorrow and gets the reader through about 400pp.



I did one story set in the era before Christian piety got into the Celtic tribes of Britain, in the years when the late-Roman morality would have almost certainly influenced the thoughts and behavior of the tribes left to cope in the socio-legal vacuum when the legions departed. AN EAST WIND BLOWING was not widely popular, for various reasons. Some critics cite the silly cover (don't blame me for that one! GMP put the cover on it, not MK) or various editing problems (GMP was the publisher; they were in strife and starting to wind down, though no one knew it at the time). It's also the least angsty of my historicals, due to the time setting. The Romans had a very different view of homosexuality; the Christians had not yet taken over, and no one knows how the Celtic tribes felt about the whole subject, so it's writer's licence! Work this out: freedom from angst (plus a silly cover) yields a gay novel which has been the least popular of all my work. In other words, gay fiction readers need some angst ... as in, no pain, no pleasure? Hmmmm.

A very good argument for both sides of this delicate case -- how much reality is too much in gay historical fiction intended as entertainment, and which pigeonhole should a novel be put into? -- is made by the commentators on the page at Speak Its Name: http://speakitsname.wordpress.com/about/ ... and I want to thank Aricia, for leaving a comment, from the perspective of the book-buying reader.

Thanks to AG for that ... I'll paste the comment over here, for reference. I also urge readers to go have a look at the original page, which has opinion galore. For the moment, here's AG:

    Interesting question — and already so well discussed, I can really only add one more idea to the melting-pot. I agree, books should be well researched before they are well written … and nobody with half a brain in their head doesn’t know what gay men have suffered through the ages (and still today in places like the mid-east … and could be in America too, if the “Dominionists” get into the White House and institute Old Testament Law to replace democracy — terrifying thought isn’t it?)

    However, I’m “just a reader.” I guess … I’m the person who puts down their twenty to buy your book! So at least some of the time the writer needs to think about what I want in trade for my twenty. Sure, I want good research and good writing …

    But I read for entertainment and fun — hardly ever to be educated and/or maybe even to get depressed. My point is, I already know what the past (and other countries) was (and are) like for gays. I don’t need the lesson taught again and again, so — bottom line — a writer has to “get realistic” and still make the book entertaining and fun!

    That’s a whopping-huge ask. I’ve read some books where I was scratching the head and saying, “I’m positive this wasn’t true,” then also, I’ve read some books where the homophobia was probably 100% total accuracy, but the book ended up so depressing I struggled to finish and only got through because I’d paid maybe thirty or forty for this novel.

    My personal fave is Mel Keegan. In the historicals MK walks the line between the real and the entertaining … and gets it just right (for me). (Truth is I really also get excited about MK’s SF work, which is maybe 400-600 years from now, and homophobia is gone totally — replaced by things that are just as bad and new fights … meaning, gays can live their own lives without prejudice, and take part in the new fights to set people free). But in the subject of Historicals — I’ve read a lot, and for me, Mel Keegan gets the balance of “real” and “entertainment” just right.

    Hope this was interesting…


Very, AG -- and thanks for the plug, kiddo. Every little helps! Incidentally, when's your site going back up? A couple of people have asked about "Aricia's Jarrat and Stone Page."

Cheers,
MK

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Brokeback Gymhunks

I used a gym once.

This effect did NOT happen:

I'd caption this "Before and After," but whoever pasted up the photos in some magazine did the job backwards. After and Before. Screws up your concept of linear time, doesn't it?

I didn't walk properly from the next three weeks (remember Postcards from the Planet of the Apes? I'm still not out of that particular wood. Ouch.). I kid you not: Keegan has a "trick back" but, fortunately, it's not too common among the general population. If it were, Hollywood would be SOL. Arnie and Sly and Brad and company would spend half their lives in traction.

You notice, Hollywood loves muscles. The action stars have 'em. The actresses have 'em. The cameradudes have 'em. The ladies who run the sewing machines, making up the costumes have 'em. The makeup artists have 'em.

I wonder if the writers have to have 'em? Now, that's just plain not fair. I think I have an allergy to something they use in the gym. Possibly the floor cleaners? Or the stuff they wash the windows with. Maybe the barbells or punchbags. Some people come out in a rash when they come into contact with these allergens; I seem to come out in a bad back. At least you can stand up straight when you have a rash ... or mostly straight, not counting the odd little dance routine they do, hopping from foot to foot, when they're desperate to scratch SOMETHING, and can't, because they're in a public place.

Seriously, cheers to Jake Gyllenhall on the above. It's all for a movie, something called PRINCE OF PERSIA, which apparently started life as a game, like TOMB RAIDER. I know nada about the game, but if the movie is anything like KULL, that was a lot of fun, with Harvey Firestein (another of my Very Favorite Gay Actors) as a character called Juba, who used to hang out and party with the muscle-bound Kull at one time. I'll have to keep an eye on this one of JG's, and try not to miss it at the theatre.

Cheers also to the movie industry, post-LORD OF THE RINGS, for getting its teeth into some fantasy projects. Right now, I'm taking a keener than usual interest in fantasy, because I'm writing one. THE LORDS OF HARBENDANE is coming along nicely. At the moment I'm polishing up the new opening to the novel, and trying to visualize a cover. I have some ideas, but it'll be a little while before anything gels properly. Jade has the patience of a saint, and as for me -- I know how fortunate I am to be able to participate in the cover design process. With more conventional publishers, you have no idea what's going to be on the cover till, with trembling fingers, you open your package of presentation copies...

The publisher usually gives you six or eight, right off the top of the palletized load which was just delivered from the printshop. You break the bubble-wrap, take a deep breath, and hopefully you don't shudder too much.

Covers can be curious creatures. Take the Millivres edition of FORTUNES OF WAR, for example:

A couple of semi-juvenile gymhunks, to be sure ... and one of them is wearing (get this) an eyepatch. Huh, what, now? I had one reader write in with an odd comment, wanting to know where the character with the eyepatch went. She had been waiting throughout the whole novel for Dermot to lose an eye. Now, whose bright idea was it to stick an eyepatch on a semi-juvie hunk, and call the result Dermot Channon?

That was one occasion when I indulged myself in a small shudder. Not that I dislike gymhunks, you understand (me being of the broken-backed variety, I have a certain amount of respect for people who can actually survive the torture devices upon which these institutions base their astronomical subscription fees). But nowhere in my novel did I describe any of the characters as having any kind of "punk" look whatsoever ... and I don't recall anyone, anywhere in the novel, wearing the bloody eyepatch!

Okay, Keegan, calm down. (Steam puffing out of both ears.) Calm blue ocea, calm blue ocean...

And here you have another great reason for being involved in indie publishing, so long as you have the inestimable good fortune to sign with a studio which wants to work in partnership with the writer. You retain some creative control over the packaging -- and when you remember that the packaging goes a long way to selling the book, you realize how important it is.

Lately, for the sake of interest (as I'm also working on the other "write a novel of your own" type website), I've been having a look at the submission policies of several other online indie publishers of the more-or-less gay variety. There are some big, busy online publishing businesses, and part of me (being a writer) goes oooh, ahhh. But a close look at the fine print shows how little participation the writer would have in the process.

You ask yourself, would you sell more copies with a bigger online publisher? Probably. Would you earn more money? Probably not, because they have a complex business to run and can't possibly do real profit sharing. They'll pay royalties, which are never much. Would it be as gratifying a process as the deal I already have? Definitely not. I'd be back on the old tenterhooks, wondering what tripe was going to land on the cover, and how many YEARS would go by before the book finally went into print (or went online, in the case of an ebook). So ... I'll be staying with DreamCraft, having found my niche and settled comfortably into it.

Last note for today: the pilot copy of AQUAMARINE has not yet arrived, and we're on the weekend now. The earliest you can look for the book to go on sale would be Monday our time, because Australia Post doesn't deliver on weekends.

I'll post the news on the blog here, as soon as we get the copy and give it the "OK" for release, and a day or so later, you can look out for a newsletter from DreamCraft.

Here's hoping for Monday.

Ciao for now,
MK

Sunday, June 15, 2008

The Bard strikes back



No sooner had I uploaded my last post than I got a challenge. Nothing to do with the topic of movie violence, or whether I'm right or wrong to have reservations about it. I halfway imagined somebody would be upset about my not worshipping the ground Steven Spielberg walks on ... or something. But, no. Or, not yet anyway. The challenge was along the lines of, "All right, Smarty-pants, if you're so clever, how DO you write a sonnet?"

Okay, kids, since I've never been one to run away from a challenge, here goes:

Sonnets 101.

A sonnet is a rhyming poem where the lines and rhythm (metre) are set in exact patterns. Just (duh) take a look at an existing sonnet, and reverse-engineer it. I'm going to paste in the sonnet I wrote for THE SWORDSMAN, and we'll pick it to pieces right here...

How shall I say that I have never known
A thing more fair than life, than love, more rare?
Yet must I say, more precious, still, than these
Is friendship's very soul, and mateship's care.

A lie would pass these lips, were I to claim
That I have never wooed — nor loved, nor lost;
Yet all my lost affections leave me thus:
Cherishing friendship's pleasure ... and the cost.

For, seldom do the years design this joy:
Two hearts, two souls, around one cause entwined,
Where friendship, courage, joy and all the rest
Yield such sweet sorceries as soothe the mind ...

All this is surely true. Yet, still I say:
When friendship turned to love, I bless'd the day.


THE SWORDSMAN is a kind of 'court of the Medici' gay fantasy novel, so the 'sound and feel' of the sonnet reflect this ... and it's why I chose to use a sonnet instead of another poetic form. This pattern was 'The In Thing' for a long time, in exactly this era, from before Leonardo till well after Queen Elizabth I.

Notice it has 14 lines: 3 sets of 4, and two danglers.

Notice that the rhyming lines are 2 and 4 in each of the three 'verses' and then the dangling couplet rhymes.

Notice that EVERY line has 10 syllables. Not one less, nor more.

Lastly, notice that the 'punchline' to the whole piece is in the couplet at the end.

The sonnet form is uncomfortably like the limmerick. A limmerick is five lines, where the 'punchline' is saved for the last line, and lines 1, 2 an 5 rhyme, and lines 3 and 4 rhyme, albeit differently with each other:

If one caught a Chinchilla in Chile
And shaved off his beard, willy-nilly
It could rightly be said
That one have just made
A Chilean Chinchilla's chin chilly

Welllll ... the sonnet is distressingly similar in form, but I've never yet read a funny one. Now, there's a thought! (Can you imagine Shakespearean limmericks??)

How do you write a limmerick? First think of three rhyming words where the third one has the potential to be used as a punchline. Then, use the other two to frame the setup in Lines 1 and 2, and you're only short of the bridge:

On the chest of a barmaid at Yale
were tattooed the prices of ale,
and upon her behind,
for the sake of the blind,
was the same information in Braille.

(and yeah, okay, that's the 'printable version,' I know. Young children might be reading this. Although I can't imagine why.)

How do you write a sonnet? First, grasp the GIST of it. What's it about? This gist is the punchline, though the poem isn't funny. (I would LOVE to see a hilarious sonnet ... and a heartbreaking limmerick...) Once you know what the sonnet is about, you explore the concept and then have the inestimable joy of beating it into the format of 4x 4-line 'stanzas' plus one rhyming couplet...

Take it away, Bill, let's have Number 57! What a belter that one was:

Being your sad slave, what could I do but tend
Upon the times and hours of your desire?
I have no precious time at all to spend
Nor services to do, till you require:

Nor dare I chide the world-without-end hour
Whilst I, my sovereign, watch the clock for you,
Nor think the bitterness of absence sour
When you have bid your servant once adieu:

Nor dare I question with my jealous thought
Where you may be, or your affairs suppose,
But like a sad slave, stay and think of nought
Save where you are, how happy you make those;-

So true a fool is love, that in your will,
Though you do anything, he thinks no ill.


...and yep, that was one of the two sonnets from Shapespeare's pen, rather than my own, that I used in FORTUNES OF WAR!