As many of you know, I have been revising my Dragon & Hawk trilogy after regaining my rights. The titles have been changed, mainly because I wanted to make the series coherent as a group. Since much of the story deals with Reyna Montoya Svenson Jones (try saying that three times fast after a couple of margaritas!) and her skills as a curandera, I wanted the titles to reflect her unbreakable connection to nature. Even when the saga moves to the next generation, she is still a powerful influence.
Will this confuse the readers? Hopefully not. I clearly state these books are the THIRD edition of the story. What a journey they have had! Initially self-published, then picked up by a publisher, and now back to independent publication, they've been edited by at least four different people. Also, on each cover I have added this is book one, book two, etc. so people can read them in sequential order.
Why republish the same books? As I gained experience, I certainly hope my writing has improved. Tightening the prose, taking out some extraneous wordage, and clarifying scenes makes these editions better. At least, that's my goal. The covers are now obviously linked as a series also.
Originally, I wanted to have all three books out by the end of April, but as I listened to what you, the readers, have told me, I've added a couple of glossaries to the first two books. Book Three is now in its final revision and cover construction stage. I hope to have it in print by mid-May, but it will be out on Kindle sooner.
What takes so long if you're just repackaging the books? It's more than repackaging--it's nearly a total rewrite in some places. Book Two (previously Celtic Fire, Desert Rain / Our of Forgotten Ashes) needed further explanation as to how two people who love one another so deeply could not communicate. Book Three, (previously Dragon's Blood / Dragon's Legacy) needed stronger connection to the first two, and some unnecessary wordage removed. My Beta Reader has it now and will inform me as to whether that was a good thing or a bad thing. Fingers crossed, please.
In any case, it's been a wonderful ride with the Joneses. It's not over. Not by a long shot, but now they look and feel like a cohesive series to me. I hope readers will tell me what they think.
27 April 2016
01 April 2016
An excellent blog post about the snobbery some people exhibit toward independent / self published authors. As the target of numerous snotty sniffs from so-called "established authors" (who, for all intents and purposes, basically wrote captions to illustrations or photos, but they were "real writers"-- gag), I found this post to be SPOT ON:
We Are Not Alone
Real Writers Don’t Self-Publish
One of the things I love about doing what I do is that I have the ability to connect so closely with you guys and speak on the topics that matter to you. Yesterday, a fellow writer shared an article from The Guardian, For me traditional publishing means poverty. But self-publish? No way. She wanted my take on what the author had to say.
For those who’ve been following this blog for any amount of time, I hope I’ve been really clear that I support all paths of publishing (vanity press doesn’t count).
All forms of publishing hold advantages and disadvantages and, as a business, we are wise to consider what form of publishing is best for our writing, our work, our goals, our personality, etc. But my goal has always been to educate writers so they are making wise decisions based off data, not just personal preferences.
We don’t self-publish because all our friends are doing it and we think we can make a million dollars fast cash. But, at the same time, we shouldn’t hold out for traditional out of some misguided idea that self-publishing/indie isn’t for “real” authors and that traditional publishers are somehow going to handhold us.
The author of this article has the right to publish as she sees fit. I am all for empowering authors and trust me, Iknow that self-publishing gets a bad rap for good reasons. I am not blind to all the book spam and authors who write ONE book and camp on top of it for the next five years selling to anyone who looks at them.
But there were some egregious errors in many of the article’s assertions that I’d like to address so that your decision is based of reality not an opinion piece. I won’t address them all today for the sake of brevity, but here were the major ones that jumped out at me.
Read the rest of the VERY INFORMATIVE post here: