75 things not to do when writing a fantasy novel. I'm under the impression this list was made, at least partly, to be funny (or fun). Some of the advice must have been said in jest, for it doesn't seem to make sense otherwise. It does make me laugh at times.

“Is your book basically a rip-off of The Lord of the Rings?”

Some things make sense, like #70's advice: Does your main villain punish insignificant mistakes with death?

Or #71: Is your story about a crack team of warriors that take along a bard who is useless in a fight, though he plays a mean lute?

Obviously #71 would be outright theft of another's work (haven't you read “The Chronicles of Prydain”?) And #70 makes sense for the simple fact that if a villain did that, he'd soon run out of henchmen...except....except....

What if the villain is making a point to someone much more important to him, that if he messes up, death!

Other things make far less sense to me. #2: Is your main character a young farmhand with mysterious parentage?

That's a basic story idea, and it's been done quite a bit (“The Princess Bride”, “The Chronicles of Prydain”, “Star Wars”), but there's something about reoccurring stories which readers like. 

Generally, readers want what is familiar, what they've read before. As well as that, most readers aren't voracious in the sense that they've read everything there is to read. A writer can get away with the farmhand opening simply because most readers won't have read it five hundred times before. And if a writer can bring his own unique flair to the tale, he can pretty well fool those who have.

Also, if you're a writer and write a lot of stories....certainly one of them will begin this way. Your character may not be a farmhand, but in some basic form the idea will exist. You'll have a character living a ho-hum existence, not expecting anything out of the ordinary to happen (but perhaps hoping for the unusual), then be thrown into an adventure and find he has just what it takes to win the day, or at least survive, yet learn something. 

Uh, isn't that MOST stories?

Writers break these rules all the time, and readers gobble it up. These rules are meant more for editors than for readers. But the irony (or the idiocy) is that editors are more likely to take something filled with well-done cliches than well-done originality, for the simple fact that the cliches have at least proven to sell.

“Harry Potter” is in no way original. The entire series falls back on many fantasy cliches, but J. K. Rowling had the ability to combine them in new ways, to create new forms. Perhaps all she accomplished was to make it harder for future writers to use the same cliches, but I still don't believe it's impossible.

Nothing is original, everything is a cliché.

But the kicker is this: I read through this list, and most of what is on it seem like great ideas. I'd love to read about these things. I enjoy stories about these things. But the writing has to be good, and the writer has to at least provide his own personal elements, so as not to simply retell another story.

There is a danger, though, in using rehashed material. If you're falling back on Tolkien or C. S. Lewis to help you find things to write about, how can you be sure the parts of your story which should be original are? Is your dialogue different? Is the plot different? Will the conflict vary?

I'm tempted to write a story about a child who grows up to avenge her fallen people just to prove I can do it with at least some originality...oh, wait, I am writing that story. The Czar Chronicles series I've begun is just that. In my own little way.

I guess we'll see if it's any different from “Conan The Barbarian” or any of the other stories containing a revenge element.

It's a good thing stories aren't made of one single element, but several or even dozens.

I suppose if you used all 75 of these “don'ts” in your story you could be in trouble. But dare to use some of them, and dare to own them. Don't just copy, make them yours.

Apparently the only gift I'm getting for Christmas is a Kindle. It's all I really need. It's all I really want. I was determined, that, if one was not given to me, I would buy one myself. My mother came through with flying colors and sent me hers.

I got it today and opened it, played with it, loved it.

I hate being glued to my computer to read. It's bad enough I have to sit here and write, network, and watch Youtube videos. I need to be able to move around sometimes! That is one thing that won't change for me. I can hold a pageless device, but I cannot be glued to what reminds me of a school desk.

I hated reading in school. It always had the feeling of “having to”.

E-reading is the future for most people. I honestly believe that, not as a writer, but as a reader.

Physical books cost too much these days, and prices keep going up. E-books, especially those self-published e-books which are just as good as any other book, and all of the classics no one owns the rights to anymore, are an inexpensive way to go.

Physical books take up a lot of space. I have a bookshelf with just shy of one-hundred books. If I moved tomorrow I would give all but a few favorites away. I'm a minimalist. I'm not packing these books and taking them with me. I would rather move and rebuy them.What if I owned one-thousand books?

An e-reader, not necessarily a Kindle, is all about economy. Price and space. Price and space.

Now, if only someone will invent cheap Hoi Poi Capsules!

What a difficult thing to answer, as it depends on so many variables. I lean toward a lower price, and here's why.

~~~

Self-published e-books, unlike traditionally published hardcovers and paperbacks, have an indefinite shelf life. My book won't be pulled from the internet after six or twelve months. I don't have to squeeze as much “value” out of my book as I possibly can before my publisher back-lists it. 

Instead, I can play the numbers. Without time constraints, I can aim to sell more copies and make a profit through bulk rather than through margin. You know, like Wal-Mart does.

~~~

Lower production costs = More Savings.

Self-published e-books have very few middlemen involved in the publishing and sales process. I don't have employees. I don't have shipping costs. I have no building to pay a mortgage, lease, or taxes on. I'm not printing a physical book which requires the purchase of ink, paper, a printer, etc.

So why should the reader pay for what I don't have to pay for? That is to my advantage. I'm saving money, and I intend to pass the savings off to my reader.

~~~

I make more per book at $2.99, than I would with a traditionally published book at $15. How? Royalties. By self-publishing I get an 80% royalty. That's about $2.40 a book through Smashwords and $2.10 through Amazon. An 8% royalty on a $15 book would net me about $1.20 after everyone else took a piece of the pie. 

Even selling my books for 5 times less than I could through a traditional publisher, I'm still getting twice the value, and I'll likely sell more copies to boot!

~~~

Inexpensive books are in the reader's best interest. Over a year's time, how many books might an avid reader buy? How much money would an avid reader save by buying e-books or going to the library? A lot of money. Even those readers who only read occasionally will save a lot of money.

It's easier to convince someone to pay for a book that costs five times less money. There's nothing emotional about three dollars. No one is going to stare at a $3 book and think “I could use this money on something better.”

~~~

I don't feel like I'm cheating myself, which seems to be the main argument for higher prices. True value in a book isn't in its price, but in how many readers I reach. Value isn't selling the book once for $100,000, it's selling it 50,000 times for $2.99. I have a far better chance of reaching the second than conning someone into the first.

~~~

I wish to sell my book for less mainly because I cannot justify selling it for more. Why should anyone buy something I write if it costs more than a meal? I would honestly feel guilty if I sold my book for more than a few dollars. My readers have families to feed. They have bills to pay. They struggle day to day. 

I want them to buy my book and enjoy it, but I don't think I'm more important than their livelihood. I'm putting readers first. They're just as much a part of the process as anyone or anything else is.

~~~

What happens if I publish my first novel for $2.99 and it doesn't sell? I'm going to do an experiment. I'm going to charge $4.99 and see what happens. 

There's only one thing I've heard or read in favor of higher-priced books which makes sense to me. Inexpensive books, to many readers, look “cheap”. The readers themselves may believe they're getting more value from something in a higher price range.

As odd as this sounds (it's the same book, so why should it look better at a higher price?), there is evidence for the psychology behind it. 

If my work sells, it won't matter. If my work doesn't sell, what do I have to lose?