Monthly Archives: February 2009

Dear Facebook, It’s not me, It’s you

Posted on by

I’ll go ahead and admit that I never “got” Facebook. I mean, I have an account, technically my second, but it largely languished, receiving snippets of content from my RSS and Twitter feeds. I never really cared if I was a ninja or a pirate, or for playing scrabble, or joining groups to show ironic allegiance to myriad infomercial products. But while I didn’t, numerous others did, causing the service to gain new users at upwards of a million people per week. I used to think that my issues with Facebook were my own, that was until recent events changed my mind. Beacon, deactivating instead of deleting, and now the ToS. Facebook just doesn’t seem to understand the internet.

An Honest Attempt

I first joined Facebook in 2005. I was going through my second attempt at college as an outsider in a school where everyone knew everyone else. The service, which was barely a year old, had already exploded across college campuses, with current and former students still being the only ones allowed to join and long before the dawn of the Facebook API. At the time, Facebook was simply a closed, visually generic version of MySpace. That every profile was the same seemed to force the ability to differentiate (the real use social networks isn’t to connect, but rather to stand out) not on horrendously designed profiles, but rather on the content in those profiles.

I was okay with that. I slowly started populating my Facebook profile. I searched for other friends be they online or off, and did what I could to connect with them. I uploaded a few photos of my apartment. I scribbled a few notes. And then I was done. I didn’t generate enough content to actually make going to the site worthwhile. The bulk of my good stuff ended up here, on my website. Or on Flickr. Or on another site that did the myriad little things that Facebook tried to do, but you know, did them well. So, for the first two years or so that I was on the site, my profile largely languished.

You'll use the internet his way

You'll use the internet his way

And then the news of Beacon hit

Despite the plethora of data that Facebook connects from users, Facebook still has no means of actually generating a profit. Yes, they do run advertisements, and yes, they can target exactly whom they show those adverts to by frighteningly precise demographics. But, this hasn’t helped them make anything close to a profit as Facebook has some of the lowest click-thru rates of any service on the internet.

In Zuckerberg’s attempt to milk his idea for a profit, he decided to team up with numerous online shops, turning purchases that users made into implied endorsements. To accomplish that, an item purchased from eBay would appear in a user’s feed with an implied endorsement.

Or Fandago. Or Travelocity. Or Blockbuster. Or numerous other services. The new advertising scheme was called “Beacon”.

The outrage was quick and deserved. Why? For a few reasons. One, Facebook didn’t notify users in a clear and timely manner that they were going to use this service. The service, which was launched in November of 2007, was suddenly broadcasting potential Christmas presents to friends and family on Facebook.

Second, Beacon was opt-out, not opt-in. This is a major no-no online, and something that the Facebook people should have perhaps realized. But, the arrogance of the service assumed that everyone would want this, in much the same manner as it assumed everyone would want to use the same generic profile.

And finally, Facebook committed the largest social faux pas of all, it lied about the service. Facebook gave misleading information about Beacon not only to partnering sites, but also news organizations.

But you can’t quit

I, like many other users, decided that this was enough. Even though Facebook backpedaled on Beacon rather quickly, they didn’t quite backpedal far enough. Yes, Facebook made Beacon opt-in, but they only made the publishing of results as optional. Whenever you made a purchase from any of their partner sites, Facebook still knew. And they likely still do. I decided to try and quit. At the time, Facebook wouldn’t actually let you quit the service. They would simply deactivate your account. Their logic was eventually, you’d want to come back, and when you did, all of your content should still be there.

From Facebook’s point of view it made sense. Why? Because their terms of service claimed full copyright over everything you submitted until you deleted your account. If you couldn’t delete your account, they were free to use all of your materials in any way they saw fit, forever. It was a win-win for Facebook.

The first blogging example of this hit the ‘sphere in July of 2007, causing a general uproar. So much of an uproar that the New York Times ran an article about it in February of 2008, right on the heels of the Beacon Fiasco. I know because I was one of the people trying to quit at the time. After the Times article, Facebook made it easier to leave.

A smarter return

Several months later, I was working on a startup idea and decided to try and use Facebook to try and give it legs. This time, however, I was determined to play things smarter. Because Facebook had engaged in dubious acts in the past, I used an email unassociated with any other online activity. I uploaded only a single photo, and didn’t give Facebook any original content. Just for fun, I would occasionally pump in gobs of bogus status updates to make myself a non-desirable marketing target. I was too vague, going in too many directions at once.

And so, my account largely languished, as I mentioned in the introduction. But, many of my friends and family and countless strangers saw the ease of centralization and filled up Facebook with blog posts, photos, and videos. At the time, they were rather safe in doing so. While your content was on Facebook, the service technically held total copyright control over them. But, you could regain control over your baby photos simply by deleting your content. A bit severe, but still a manageable out.

Fool me once

Or it was, until February 4th of this year, when Facebook plugged that out by removing a few lines from their Terms of Service statement, the binding legal contract that users agree to when they join, specifically the lines that say that deleting your work terminates their license to it. Furthermore, the termination section of that same statement now says that even if your account is removed, they still claim the same “irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense)”.

Reality Check

For most people, this probably won’t be a deal breaker. For most people, allowing Facebook to use their photos in advertising is a rather fair trade off in exchange for free hosting. But for others, it’s it’s the end. For me, this is Facebook’s third strike. I’ve personally unhooked all of my info that fed into my account, removed Facebook Connect from the comments on this site, and took the Facebook app off of my phone. It’s not a breakup, it’s a starvation.

Yes, it seems that Facebook really doesn’t understand the Internet, at least not like I do. Users want empowerment, not enslavement. We want transparency, not obfuscation. After well more than a decade online, I realized it’s not me that doesn’t understand Facebook, it’s Facebook that doesn’t understand the Internet.

Five Important Reasons to have a Writer’s Website

Posted on by

To say that the internet isn’t going away would be an exercise in understatement. It’s 2009, and the number of people online has surpassed the one billion mark. As a writer, that’s a mind-numbingly large potential audience. And yet, there are still plenty of writers out there without websites. Judging from my readership, you already do, so this might be preaching to the proverbial choir. But, I’m going to do it anyway.

Why should a writer have a website?

Showcase your work

A website is a great place to establish an accessible, readable, and searchable portfolio of the works which make you, the writer, shine. If you’re established, your readers want to read you. If you’re currently establishing yourself, then you can give your reader a reason to want. A writing portfolio should establish desire. How you choose to do that is wholly up to you.

Connect with others

The ability to leave comments on websites has been the standard for better than five years now. Giving readers the ability to comment is a great way to interact with your audience. However, leaving comments on others websites is also an excellent way of meeting and communicating with others in the writing industry – writers, agents, editors, publishers – as well as letting their readers discover you. After all, when you have your own website, you have someplace to link to with your comments.

Practice

The term website and blog have slowly become interchangeable. And for the sake of this post, I’m treating them as synonyms. To that end, a website is a great means to practice the art in which you thrive. It’s also a fantastic method to learn more about yourself as a writer. Why? Articulation often leads to understanding. How many times have you sat down to write about a problem, only to find a solution before you’ve put your pen down?

Brand creation and maintenance

Whether your unpublished or currently on numerous writing short lists, as a writer, you are your own brand. A website is just one tool for establishing a central location for the definitive information on your brand. Or, to put it more bluntly, your writing website is the ultimate guide to you. For more on brand management, I’m recommending this video by Gary Vaynerchuk.

The internet was created for writing

Despite the heaps of love paid to music, photos, and video online, the backbone of the internet was and always will be writing. The internet is a text-based medium. As a writer, this gives you a leg-up on those who don’t embrace the written-word. For a writer to not have a website is to squander that very advantage.

Let’s Talk Lost 5.05

Posted on by

So, I skipped the video for Episode 4, and you know what? I’m not going to apologize about it. But here’s last night’s rather middle-of-the-road episode “This Place is Death”

No real big suprised this week, except one teensy little one near the end which I’m not even totally sure of yet.

And sorry for the bouncing in the video, I need to stick with my tripod for these things.

A Writer’s Tool Chest

Posted on by

tools

In my article at ProWritingTips.com, I laid out five basic reasons for writing an outline before launching into fiction writing. While these particular tips were tailored for fiction, they were in no way meant to be a definitive guide to outlining. I left out a great deal of detail like how long or in depth an outline should be. Honestly, the article was selfishly tailored towards novels, as my novel is my highest priority.

The wonder that is fiction is drawn from the lack of exact solutions. There is no surefire, one-size-fits-all solution to writing fiction. Attempting to create one would at best leave the creative process hobbled and stifled, and at worst would kill it outright. The bit about a hundred monkeys with a hundred typewriters is pure hogwash.

But, writers do use tools. There are different tools for different projects. There are different tools for different points within the same project. Typically, the writer isn’t even limited to just one tool at any given moment.

The solution that I’ve found works best for me, is to keep myself open to as many tools as possible. After all, my primary goal is to become the best that I can at writing. I have a desire, so strong that it borders on sin, to craft stories in which the reader cannot turn away from. It’s an addiction, and if I can find a better high, I’m likely going to look at it. And I’m likely going to look at it here, or at ProWritingTips.

However, when addressing the topic of tools, the sheer selection means that any instruction on the art of writing will invariable A) leave something out, B) list a method that isn’t exactly applicable with a writer’s current situation, and C) list a method which has several alternatives.

With option B, there isn’t much I can do for you. However, with options A and C, I urge you to speak up. We are, after all, a community. I’m just doing my part to add tools to your writer’s tool chest.

February Book Pitch – Pitch Me!

Posted on by

Congratulations to Jaime Bentley! Her pitch for Christopher Moore’s “A Dirty Job” was the winning pitch for the first month of what looks to be a regular trend.

January's Pitch Winner

January's Pitch Winner

For those that missed it, in January I decided to hold a pitch contest to determine the next book I would purchase in what I hope to make a monthly trip to the bookstore. The impetus for turning the decision into a contest was a desire to broaden my horizon. So, sometime this week I’ll be swinging by the local bookstore and picking up not one, but two copies of “A Dirty Job”.

Why two, you ask? Because, we’re doing it again. And the person who pitches the winning book for February will get a copy of January’s winning book for free.

Here’s the run down:

Got a great book you want to tell someone about? Pitch me. Did you write one? Pitch it to me. Are you representing a client? Pitch them to me. Recently read something that was horribly overlooked for its pure genius? Pitch me.

The rules

  • The book must currently be in print and available at a brick-and-mortar store.
  • You only get two sentences, or 40 words to sell me. Title and author are not counted in this limit unless you use them in the pitch itself.
  • Pitches must be listed here, as a comment, by Friday the 6th of March.
  • The winning pitch receives a free copy of the previous month’s book.

January’s winning pitch: A Dirty Job by Christopher Moore. Paranoid Beta Male given the job of “death collector”. Hilarious (in the laugh out loud kinda way) and perfectly dark :)

On Violence: How Much is Too Much?

Posted on by

It took me nearly a thousand words into the first chapter of Project Kingdom before I killed someone. Granted, the one who died wasn’t by any means a character in the novel. No, the one who fell is just a by-product of a violent scenario.

As a war veteran, I’m more than familiar with death. The problem is, how far do I water down life and death in combat for my readers?

I’m prone to lean towards realism while trying to maintain the sense of story. After all, I know that war is something for people with a serious stomach, and I don’t want to turn off any readers.

So, the first kill in my novel is rather cinematic.

Setting the scene

Edmon, the spearman in the following, is one of the two protagonists in my novel. He’s just one of dozens of characters, but the story follows him rather closely. In the following scene, he engages in the first act of fatal violence in the book. It’s by no means the last.

In an attempt to make the scene easier on the reader’s palate, I’ve made it more cinematic. My question is…

Too much?

A cry caught his attention, and instinct guided the blade of Edmon’s spear upwards. His eyes locked in horror on a pair of hands raised over a head, grasping the wooden handle of a large rock hammer.

Those hands went limp. That rock hammer fell slowly, tumbling downwards. Edmon watched it as it passed arms that framed a face covered in a beard, black tattoos, and soot. He watched the hammer fall before rough shoulders and a bare, barrel of a chest. He watched it fall in front of a stomach splashed red and wet in blood.

The hammer clanked and clattered against the ground, jumping up and down a few times until finally settling with a handful of shivers. Edmon reached forward and pushed the Bayard warrior with his foot, freeing the end of his spear. The fallen warrior slumped onto the ground, groaning slightly as Edmon kept on his flanking run.

The later violence proceeds in a much quicker manner, however, this scene greets the reader a scant five pages into the first
chapter.

What do you think?

How do you handle violence in your works? How do you handle violence in your works? Do you hide it behind clever art, or deal with in blunt realism?

As a war vet, as some one with kills attached to his name, I can say that there is no sense of morality attached to the act. But, for the reader’s benefit, should I construct one?

Fiction Friday, Maybe?

Posted on by

Today marked my first blog post outside of this website in quite some time. It’s listed as a guest post right now, but it’s actually going to be a weekly column focusing on the technical aspects of writing fiction.

It’s a more educational take on my personal, casual approach to story-driven writing as seen here.

I’ll be running over a slew of topics dealing with everything from plot structures to character-types to motivational tips. Think Copyblogger, but focusing on fiction, not copy.

My first post – 5 Reasons to Outline Your Fiction Writing – is up now. Swing by, give some comment love.

Stephen King Can Hear Your Fears

Posted on by

Over at the Who’s News Blog, Stephen King was quoted saying the following,

Don't make him angry...

Don't make him angry...

“The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good.”

Burn!

So, in the great tradition of the internet, it’s time to start the King Hype Machine in hopes of a fiction genre turf war that will put the 90s East Coast / West Coast Rap Feud to shame.

  • Stephen King – the only person alive who can call Chuck Norris a “Nancy” and get away with it.
  • Stephen King’s glasses keep his killer eyes lasers in check. When he takes them off, you know he’s about to kill a bitch.
  • King’s books are all memoirs, not just “On Writing.”
  • King can hear your fears, and that makes him smile.
  • Stephen’s last name isn’t really “King,” it’s something Satan said about him once, and it just kind of stuck.
  • King lets Clive Barker publish books so he has somebody to crush on best sellers lists.
  • King writes long form, with special ink he makes by hand-crushing the remains of Edgar Allen Poe.
  • The keys of King’s typewriter don’t clack, they scream in pure horror at his touch.
  • Freddy Krueger’s ability to kill through nightmares is technically called a “Stephen King.”
  • Each of King’s manuscripts are first typed on paper imbued with the souls of baby rabbits

Feel free to continue on in the comments.

Cheat Your Way Through Writer’s Block

Posted on by

At some point in every writer’s career, things get real. It doesn’t matter what the medium – be it copy or fiction – there comes a time where, as a writer, you’ll be sitting at your desk doing everything in your power to avoid writing about something. Call it a block, call it lack of motivation, call it a creative malaise, but for some strange reason some current assignment is a painful experience.

*Not Actual Size

*Not Actual Size

The tragedy is that finishing a piece, especially a creatively strenuous one, is a euphoric moment. It’s a sense of accomplishment that goes beyond mere relief and can often mirror illicit drugs. The level of such a high is often tied to the output required of you, the creator.

There are myriad suggestions for overcoming such blocks. Exercise to clear your mind and pump up your endorphins. Pre-writing to better formulate your ideas. Drinking to get rid of your pesky inhibitions. All of these tactics are easily boiled down to the same general theory – look away from the problem to overcome it.

I’ve had measures of success with each of these.

I am a huge proponent of the outline and mind map. However, I use these to deal not with block, but with sorting out more complex issues. For me, a block isn’t typically a lack of inspiration, but rather a matter of rhythm. I need that rhythm to write. The harder, more complicated the assignment, the harder it is to find the right rhythm for the task.

My method is to trick myself.

That is, I cheat. When forced with writing something I don’t want to write, I often resort to writing that which I do. I pick a sure-fire, guaranteed home run from my list of assignments and swing for the fences. I blast through as quickly as possible, from front to back. And as I tack the final thought onto the work, dismissing any edits or sense of word count, that’s when I make the switch.

As quickly as possible, I throw open a new document on the word processor and dive head long into the tough assignment. The euphoria from that easy home run acts as the primer for the rhythm of that which I’d been avoiding. Everything after that is the perpetual motion of writing.

Frisbee – Term of the Day

Posted on by

Frisbee – adj – a term used to describe something that is shallow, lacking any intellectual or creative merit, yet which is enjoyed without guilt.

Ex: The Killers’ first album was total frisbee music. Their latest album is just a bad rip-off of Wham! and Tears for Fears.

The term is derived from two sources. The first is a comment on the relative depth of a frisbee, or relative lack thereof. Thus, any work described as “frisbee” is noted as having a lack of depth. The second is the game of Frisbee – it is fun to play every once in a while, but play too often and you run the risk of turning into, well, the people in the video below. Obviously, things described as frisbee are best enjoyed in moderation.