What Makes a Movie a "B" Movie?

I'm in Charleston, South Carolina this weekend, doing a bit of book research (for the upcoming Platinum). It's fun to be writing this post in a little historic courtyard with a pineapple fountain splashing next to me.

So, this week's theme is our favorite B-movie. The Word Whore who chose this topic also helpfully specified "/bad movie." While I was pondering which of my favorite movies counts as a B-movie, I got to thinking about the term "B-movie" and wondered if it isn't really one of those antiquated descriptions that just doesn't apply anymore.

Turns out, that is the case. Wikipedia (it *could* be true) says this:

A B movie is a low-budget commercial motion picture that is not definitively an arthouse or pornographic film. In its original usage, during the Golden Age of Hollywood, the term more precisely identified a film intended for distribution as the less-publicized, bottom half of a double feature.

Which is kind of what I thought. The original usage applies today as much as the flipside single - the song on the B-side of the 45-record with the hit song on the A-side.

However, we continue to refer to B-movies:

In its current usage, the term has somewhat contradictory connotations: it may signal an opinion that a certain movie is (a) a genre film with minimal artistic ambitions or (b) a lively, energetic film uninhibited by the constraints imposed on more expensive projects and unburdened by the conventions of putatively "serious" independent film. The term is also now used loosely to refer to some higher budgeted, mainstream films with exploitation-style content, usually in genres traditionally associated with the B movie.

And this bit is why I think a B-movie isn't necessarily a "bad" movie:

In its post–Golden Age usage, there is ambiguity on both sides of the definition: on the one hand, many B movies display a high degree of craft and aesthetic ingenuity; on the other, the primary interest of many inexpensive exploitation films is prurient. In some cases, both may be true.

So, this rubs me wrong. You all know I object to genre being equated to inferior effort. And I'm all about prurient. Looking this up reminded me of an article I read recently, Literary Revolution in the Supermarket Aisle: Genre Fiction Is Disruptive Technology.

It's a fascinating article in that it compares genre fiction to indie technology that takes risks the big companies won't, and thus is the center of innovation, allowing the indies to eventually supplant the corporate giants. Like Apple did to IBM. Anyone out there got an IBM computer?

I really love this idea that genre, in literary or movie format, can take risks and stray outside conventional boundaries. So what is my favorite movie that falls into this definition?

I'm going to go with Notting Hill.

Sure it's big budget and has Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts in it. But it's also "just" a romance. Worse, a romantic comedy with a happy ending and no one dies of cancer at the the end. The lovers end up together, no tragic parting, and there's no realization at the end that life is without meaning.

And it's a brilliantly funny movie - a grand example of story telling.

I love that it's a reverse Cinderella, that Julia is a rich and famous movie star who sweeps the impoverished and unprepossessing Hugh off his feet. I truly believe in their connection and in what they bring to each other's lives. The supporting cast of characters are real, funny and richly realized. And the complicated chase ending, with public declaration of love could be so cheesy and derivative, but instead it's fabulous and perfect. I bet I've watched it ten times, and each time I catch something new.

Not bad for only a rom com.

Looking forward to my fellow Word Whore's picks!

Hey, what's the deal with self-publishing?

So this week we’re all talking about self publishing here at Word Whores! It wasn’t so long ago that it was the most uncool thing ever. Times have changed so much.

It’s probably no surprise that I like the trend. I actually have three self-pubbed projects out. First, I was invited by Meljean Brook and Jill Myles to put a story in our super cool three-novella anthology, WILD & STEAMY. That was a great way to get into self-publishing, as a group project with two smart writers who knew more than I did about it all.

Then I put out a spin-off novella from my Disillusionist series, DEVIL'S LUCK. That was my first solo project. After that, I went and created a new erotica pen name (Annika Martin) and put out a smutty category length novel, HOSTAGE BARGAIN. Just because I sometimes like to write really dirty! This winter I’m launching a spy PNR series, self pubbed,  

Oh, what fun I’m having self-publishing. A few random thoughts and observations:

There’s no right answer to the self-pub vs. traditional pub debate

Different writers have different dreams and goals, different skills, different comfort zones, which means different publishing paradigms will work for them. Here, I’m talking about my own personal experience. The only wrong way is being ignorant or sloppy about the whole thing.

I’m in the mix-it-up camp

I haven’t left traditional publishing completely. I started with a NY publisher (Spectra/Random House) and I like the idea of having one foot in both camps. It feels natural for me. I’ve also got stuff out with Samhain (digital first) and Audible, too. Different models give you different benefits.

I love the control of self-pubbing, but I would also like to walk into a bookstore or Target or Wal-Mart and see a row of my books; at the moment, being pubbed with a NY house is the best way for that to happen. 

I now write two kinds of books

These days, I’m splitting my major series projects into two groups: One group that fits the NY publishing model - that’s my more mainstream stuff, or the stuff that falls into a really obvious marketing category - I’m writing a new UF series like that, with big pubs in mind to target. 

The other group fits self-publishing. My upcoming spy paranormal, MR. REAL (winter 2012), is a perfect example of that—it’s steamy, quirky, and  super genre-bending (paranormal/romantic suspense/mystery/sci fi). Hell, I barely even know how to describe it, and I'm the writer. 

Self-publishing: awesome for the DIY control freak!

I’d rather be writing, sure, but it’s not like it’s that much of a time commitment. And, I love having control of my cover, my back blurb, the timing, the ARCs, title, pricing, all of it. Nobody gets to mess this thing up except me. I will be angry at nobody but myself! It is totally exhilarating to live and die by my own sword.

You so need an editor

I use editors and proofreaders, and sometimes even cover artists, even though I design some. No writer should pass or skimp on the edits. I’m so hyper about the quality of what I put out, even with hired help, I wheedle over every little decision, every word—way more than my NY pubbed books because there aren’t layers of people to catch things—the buck stops with me. With my Devil’s Luck novella, wow, I read that thing dozens of times preparing it. Though, I do format myself. I use Guido Henkel’s fabulous guide. (If you use it, consider trying out one of his books as a thank you!)

I’m starting to view self-pubbing more as an art than a skill

I used to think you either know how to do this stuff or not. but really, self-publishing is like novel writing—there’s always more to learn, and there are schools of thought on everything (formatting styles, ISBNs, cover dimensions, pdf styles, advertising, pricing, length, timing, back matter, and on and on). 

Self-publishing encourages diversity & author power

I know with all this self-publishing gold rush talk, a lot of people have slapped up a lot of garbage, but there is also a lot of interesting stuff going up—things traditional publishers would never have touched. Good things. It’s especially nice for shorter works and riskier works. (Digital-first houses have also added to this diversity.) Mostly, it means authors like me have more choices of what to write and sell. Yay! 

Money

I’m not one of those authors who is totally raking it in with self pubbing—at all. I still work a regular job over here and struggle to make ends meet. But with self-pubbing, you get to offer your books for a lower price, and you get to keep more of it—that’s totally clear to me. I earn around $2 selling a $2.99 ebook on my own vs. around $1.30 from a $7.99 ebook a NY publisher sells, pre-agent (your results may vary). And more people can afford $2.99. (With paper, that’s not so true: self pub print costs writer and reader more, because the economies of scale aren’t there, so self pub paper often costs more than $8. Still, not everyone has an ereader. Which is why I’ll put out my PNR spy series in paper as well as ebook. I haven’t figured out who through.) 

That said, money isn’t the only reason I write. Sometimes other factors weigh more heavily. Hence my two-camps thinking above.

Self-publishing—and my opinion on same—is evolving

Things are changing so fast with self-publishing, it’s dizzying. I’m relatively certain my view on one or more of the above points will alter in the next six months. Maybe even the next three months. Which is kind of cool!

To Self-Pub or Not to Self-Pub

That is the question. My answer: I will one day, I have no doubt. I have not yet.

Naturally, I have a story about this. I submitted a novella to a publisher who'd put out a call for a specific flavor of story. My novella did not make the cut, but I liked the characters and the story. So, I briefly considered self-publishing it. Why briefly? Because the rejection came in on a Thursday and by Monday morning, I had email from an editor desperate to fill a hole in an anthology she was editing. She asked if I had a story tucked in a drawer that I could dust off for her.

Yes, yes. Happy ending for the ugly duckling rejected story. I rewrote it, cut it to fit and shipped it saying I hoped the editor could use it. She laughed and said of course she would use it.

Here's my self-publishing point. I was dreadfully uncomfortable to have not come into the anthology the traditional way - via a submission that could be rejected. The story had already been rejected in one incarnation. Sure, I'd reworked it. But the point is, not every idea can be a hit out of the park, right? What if this story was just a stupid idea that deserved to be rejected? From this brief experience (which, again turned out just fine because the editor sent edits back saying it was a perfectly fine story. I got to refine it further based on her suggestions and fix what needed fixing) I discovered how much I rely on someone else telling me whether my story passes muster or not.

Why yes, I am a neurotic, self-doubting mess. What makes you ask?

It appears that self-publishing will require two things of me when I get around to it: 1. I'll have to suck up my emo and get a story out there so the market can tell me whether a story is stupid, mediocre or brilliant. 2. I'll want to pay a professional editor to tell me when something I've written isn't fit to wrap dead fish (and subsequently how to fix it - if it's worth saving at all).

I suspect that *how* one goes about publishing isn't as important as having plenty of content to publish on a regular basis. While I'm working on the content part, I follow several blogs that beat the self-publishing drum - places that will teach you everything you could ever want to know regarding the hows and whyfors of the process. http://www.kristinekathrynrusch.com/ (specifically her Thursday blog posts on the business) and http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/ which kind of covers everything under the sun, but if you hunt down his self-publishing posts, they're goldmines of information.

There you have my secret strategy: Keep writing and keep learning about self-publishing. 


Image Source: http://purpurnena.deviantart.com/art/Ugly-Duckling-175869639?q=sort%3Atime+favby%3ABarbieBee&qo=1

Non-Adventures in Self Publishing

I actually find myself in a bit of the same boat as Linda yesterday - the first few posts this week have actually already done a fantastic job in describing some of the ins and out of self-publishing vs trad publishing, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of both.

Really it comes down to what you're trying to do, I guess.

But things weren't always that simple. I started writing A Brush of Darkness in 2008 - at that point in time I joined RWA and a number of other writing organizations to try to learn the ropes. One of the biggest no-nos was self-publishing.

If you  *had* self published, you sure as hell didn't want to mention it to an agent or editor you were querying. It often smacked of desperation and failure.

But self-pubbing had a different meaning back then - we didn't have e-readers, so self-pubbing meant you were either publishing with a vanity press (i.e. PAYING someone else to publish your work) or you were shelling out mega-bucks to do your own Print On Demand thing. Very few authors made any money this way - and those that did were the ones who were selling them out of the trunks of their cars. Forget getting anyone to really review your work, or getting a bookstore to shelf them.

And then the e-readers came along and showed that e-books were a viable option - and the beauty of it was that a writer didn't need to pay all that extra for paper and binding. Sure, a good cover and formatting is needed, but the heavy costs for a physical object? Shipping? Printing?

Gone.

With those obstacles out of the way, suddenly getting stories out to the public was much easier. Not that it's all roses. There's still a bit of a stigma on books that are self-pubbed, but that's becoming less and less with each day - particularly as big sellers are moving through the system - whether it's "Fifty Shades of Grey" or Amanda Hocking's work - the fact is that readers don't care WHO publishes a book. They just want to read good stories.

That being said, there is a difference between an author putting up a work that is well written but maybe doesn't fit a genre that a publisher feels they can sell...and writers who just throw their work out there without doing things properly. (Namely an editor - do NOT skimp on this cost - everyone needs their work edited and it can make a huge difference from a professional standpoint - you want people to weigh your writing on its own merits, not nitpicking over your commas and grammar.) Also, just because you CAN self-publish doesn't mean you should - or at least, not right away. It can be so tempting to get it out there, but now that there's so much competition in the marketplace for readers attention, you absolutely have make sure your work is the best it can be.
   
Will I self publish? Probably, yes. I'm not sure what, yet - I don't have a backlist and I don't have reams of trunk books that I can pull out and fix up, so I have to weigh my own options of the books I want to write and the amount of work I want to do to get them into readers' hands - and that's a very personal choice for many authors. There's definitely no one size fits all motif here.

Whose logo is on your spine?

No, no dear friends. I'm not asking about your tramp stamp. I mean the spine of your book. It's where the publisher puts their trademark. So, who do you /want/ on the spine of your book?

I have to admit, I am learning much from my fellow word-whores this week. I know nil about self-publishing. My take on it is: "See the previous and later posts for the week. What they said."

I poked around. I tried to find data to share to sound like a reasonable, learned author. Everyone else has done it better, more concisely, and with more flair. I'd be redundant at this point, so I bow graciously to the experteeeeeze my co-horts have, to the knowledge they are sharing, and beg your patience as I cannot even add to this discussion. I am thoroughly enjoying it, however, as I have a few manuscripts I'd definitely consider playing around with in the self-pubbed realm.

*applauds the word-whores*

Self v Trad Publishing: It's a Business Decision

Deciding to self-publish vs traditionally-publish any creative work -- from a writer's perspective -- has to be the point at which the analytical part of the brain tells its creative counterpart to shut its pie-hole. It's also the time a few of those college general ed classes come in handy. Micro Econ any one? Intro to Business 101? No? Let me summarize.

There are six things that must be considered when making this business decision, Make no mistake -- it is a business decision:

1. Product Intention
2. Consumer Expectations
3. Competitive Landscape
4. Return on Investment (ROI)
5. Opportunity Cost
6. Measuring Success

Product Intention: What is your reason for putting the product on the market? This may seem like it has a simple answer. "Make me money, duh." If that's all the more thought you put into it, then you're screwing yourself right out of the gate. Consider reasons like: building personal-brand awareness (a.k.a Name Recognition), maintaining consumer loyalty, and personal satisfaction. It is very important to be honest and clear with yourself on why you are truly putting your product on the market. It affects how you approach everything and how you ultimately decide if all your efforts are worthwhile.

Consumer Expectations: The Who, What, Where, When and How of the product you are selling from a buyer's perspective. Answer questions like: Who has interest in your product (publishing houses, high-tech tweens, mainstream ages 20-50, international markets, niche markets, etc)? What is their threshold for quality (editing, formatting, customer service, etc.). How do they expect to receive your product (digital download, print copy, local bookstore, online site, etc)? If you fail the consumer, they will not be a return buyer. That may or may not matter to you depending on your Product Intention.

Competitive Landscape: Who else is offering a product like yours? How are they offering it? How well is the market responding to their offering? If you don't take the time to become familiar with your competition, then you can't learn from them and you set yourself up for disappointment through unrealistic expectations. There is no such thing as being so unique as to not have competition. If you're thinking that, you're thinking with your ego not your analytical brain.

Return on Investment: How much of what you put in are you going to get back? There are short and long term answers to this question. Remember, you are investing more than money and time. What you get back may have nothing to do with either. Only you can decide the value of your investments and returns.

Opportunity Cost: The value of what you are giving up while you are investing in/working on the product. There is only so much time in a day. In order to spend an hour on X means you are not spending it on Y or Z. Does the value of Y plus Z exceed X? It's not an algebra question. It is a question of priorities and risk. This is where your personal life collides with your professional. Also, this is where your choice of Path A excludes you from Path B.

Measuring Success: Get ready to grade yourself on the previous categories. This ought to be the simple part, but you're not always going to have control over (or access to) hard data. When you establish what metrics you will use to gauge your success, be realistic on what information is available to you. Numbers aren't everything. Your product could earn you a million-dollars, but have cost you custody of your kids.

Success is what drives all good businesses, but only you can decide when you are truly successful.

EMPLOYEE OR ENTREPRENEUR? or should I traditionally publish or self publish? James tell me what to do!

Self-publishing. Yes, Jeffe is right (as she so often is) it is what every author you know is talking about. Why? Because we are in the middle of a change in the way you read books. Okay, maybe not quite the middle, maybe the first third. Here's the breakdown as I see it. Ebooks are growing. E-book readers are gaining followers everyday. I am a convert. I have a TON of paper books (hell, I bought 2 new ones today). But I truthfully prefer to read on my Nook Color. There is something about it. I love it. I have to make myself stop reading on it to get to my paper books. I know there are those of you who are crying: "I'll NEVER give up my paper books! I love them too much!" And I'll never give up my cassette tapes, I love them too much. Oh, wait a minute. I am old enough to see the correlation between books and what happened in the music industry. When I grew up it was on records and 8-tracks. My first car had an 8-track. I had boxes and boxes of cassettes as a teenager. For years the cassette was THE ultimate way to get music. Then came the CD. Wait, I can have my music, it sounds better, it doesn't wear out, AND I can go instantly to my song of choice? Cassettes died. Quickly. Then came the MP3. The digital download. When's the last time you even listened to a CD? For me? Probably not in 2012. I haven't bought a CD in at least 5 years. Seriously. I have a gigantic musical library but now it comes to me on my Zune. I hate to break it to bibliophiles, but books are going the same way. Now you will always be able to buy books. You will. Just like I can get the newest Kid Rock album on vinyl if I want to. (And I do, make no mistake about it, I do.) But sooner than we think, them majority or books WILL be ebooks. And just like in music, going digital means that a lot more folks can cut out a middle man to do it themselves and keep a bigger portion of each sale and keep the whole amount of their creative freedom. And that day is here. Now I LOVE my publisher. I do. Kensington has been good to me, and they are superb to work with. That doesn't mean that I didn't have to work my ass off to push sales of my book. I did. Kensington didn't set up my blog tour, they didn't write the 30+ blogs I did to promote the book (which took HOURS and HOURS), they didn't get me on the panels of any conventions, they didn't set up my website, maintain my twitter, work my facebook, they didn't print my bookmarks, or meet and greet the hundreds and hundreds of new fans and readers that I have. I did that. All of it. And I am cool with that, this is not a complaint it's an illustration, but it was work. Hard work that paid off, but in the end I will see very little of that monetary reward percentage wise. Cause here is the cold HARD truth of publishing. My cut off each book sold is just under .60 cents. This is pre-tax. And I won't see anything until my advance is paid back and after the "reasonable holds against returns" is covered. (What's that? "Reasonable holds against returns" is an arbitrary amount the publisher holds from your royalties for an indefinite amount of time in case bookstores return your book. It is not a set amount, nor is it even a set percentage. Reasonable is all the info you get. Oh, and it can be adjusted up at the publishers sole discretion without any recourse for the author. It is STANDARD in ALL publishing contracts.) And if I do get a royalty check, it is only sent twice a year. Now look at self-publishing. At the proper price point you will get 70% of your sale. For most books that is well over 2 dollars. There are NO holds against returns, reasonable or not. You get paid monthly or bi monthly. You get an accounting of books sold as they are sold, instead of waiting to get your royalty statement to see what you did. And there is the time factor. I wrote BLOOD AND BULLETS in 2010 and sold it in Dec. 2010. It hit the shelves Feb. 2012. Yep, you read that right. Over a year. Trust me, the advance I got for it was long gone by that time. Self pubbed material can be uploaded in an hour. And that creative control? I have a Shub-Niggurath in space story with a cantankerous lead named Molly. It's a weird story with a weird length. NOBODY WANTS TO PUBLISH IT. It's too long for a short, too short for a novel. The main character is crotchety as hell. It's got bug aliens, and space ships that live, and elder gods. It's sci-fi horror. "But, James, you're an urban fantasy writer." So no publisher wants it. But I bet there are readers out there who want it. So I am working on it, and it will be out this summer. Self-pubbed. I have crime short stories. They will hit this summer too. Self-pubbed. In my opinion, I don't think authors should ditch traditional publishing. Not at all. But don't be handcuffed by it either. This is your career. If you wrote a weird little story about a Unicorn Detective solving crimes in WW2 England, then you KNOW that isn't going to be published traditionally. But if you write from love I bet your fans still want to read it. So put it out there. Do the work, make it nice and self publish it. What's the harm? Don't let your work lay fallow and wasted. You wrote it, or you want to write it, then do and self publish it. If you work as hard promoting it as you do your other stuff, then I bet it finds a home. If you want more info on self publishing here are the links. A NEWBIE'S GUIDE TO PUBLISHING AND ROBERT SWARTWOOD