Monday, July 22, 2013

Summer Sizzles Sales Event


Here's the Scoop with my Publisher's Promotions for August.  Get in.

  1. 'Share the Imajin Books Buzz' contest- share our events on Twitter and Facebook, and share your pics of our books and receive entries into a draw for a KINDLE FIRE or KINDLE PAPERWHITE 3G--winner's choice! Open to US and UK residents (Kindle Fire or Paperwhite 3G) and Canada residents (Paperwhite 3G.) Other prizes include three $20 Amazon or Kobo Books gift cards. Void where prohibited. Draw will take place the first week of September. To enter, use the Rafflecopter form on our home page from August 1-31.

  1. $1.99 eBook Sale – www.imajinbooks.com – all ebooks will be priced at $1.99 from August 1-15th.

  1. Twitter Party - for two days, August 17/18, we'll be holding a Twitter Party online and giving away prizes (ebooks and gift cards from Amazon and Kobo.) Join us by searching for #ImajinAuthors. Leave us a question or comment by including #ImajinAuthors in your tweet. The party begins each day at 2:00 PM EST and goes until 8:00 PM EST. Our authors will drop by when they can. Follow us at http://www.twitter.com/imajinbooks

Thursday, July 18, 2013

New Adult vs Chick Lit

I've been involved in an interesting conversation with my SCBWI critique group. The question was raised "Do you ever get the feeling that "New Adult" is a new, less offensive term for "chick lit"?..."
Here are some of our ideas on the subject.
Me: I hope not.  YA to New Adult defines a barrier between high-school and college. Looking back it's all the same to me, but to someone in high-school it is a HUGE difference. It's the difference between the involvment of parents or no parents.  I would serious avoid the term chick lit. It sounds girly and cheesy
Antje : Yes and No. I think New Adult is a little more on the dark side, creepy stories for ages 18 and up. But good point. Chick lit seems a little "out" these days. (I was told) that my story was way to serious historically and emotionally to put into this category. I think this was a good statement defining this new category.
Ishta: Chick-lit would be the Traveling Pants books or some of Maureen Johnson's earlier stuff or Sarah Dessen. I don't think any of us are writing it. Protagonists with the mentality of a high-schooler, but old enough to legitimately buy booze. I thought "New Adult" just meant "YA with actual sex". But maybe I'm wrong.
Lindsey: I haven't done a ton of research on it, but the few blog posts I've read have listed titles that strike me as very chick-lit-y.  I'm not criticizing - Meg Cabot is my favourite form of brain candy - but I wonder if this is more about marketing...
I agree that the difference between high school and college is a huge one and I agree that readers at that stage of life would probably enjoys books about it!
I was thinking of adult writers like Sophie Kinsella - young heroines, in or just out of college, definitely having the sex...
Kate: Just as a point of clarification - I believe that "Is Anybody Out There" by Marion Keyes which may be 'serious' chick lit is really New Adult. Kids out of high-school, maybe with or without sex, but looking at adult ups and downs, loves and losses... getting too close too soon, finding jobs,  I think that's the epitome - learning the lessons of life - New Adult example. Europe has been producing these our whole lifetime and Japan has been writing their stories for longer than that. America is late to the New Adult level of quality writing.
Me again: The term Chick Lit to me means romance and sex.  New Adult sounds more like the ups and downs of real life, even if it's fantasy or sci-fi New Adult is about maturity.  The two terms would be the difference between me buying a book or not, so yes, it has to do with marketing as well. 
I don't think we really came to a consensus.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Recycling isn't good enough anymore

If we take a look at the purpose of recycling, most of us conclude the purpose is to save the environment.  Isn't that the truth?  We want to keep plastics out of the landfills because they take so long to decompose.  Rather, we can melt it down and reform it into bottles, picnic tables or other such useful objects.  Recycling is a nation wide project where we all benefit.  So what happens when your local recycling stations no longer take plastic?  Do we just throw them out like we did in the eighties? Some of us might sigh with relief thinking the burden of washing out all those yogurt containers is over.  Others, like me, will consider this de-evolution an atrocity and bag up their plastic and ship them two hours away to a station that will take it.  The real tragedy is the reason behind the abandoned project: because it costs too much money.
Since when did recycling have anything to do with money? Oh boohoo, the city budget is maxed out cause high-ranking officials need compensation for their frivolous spending habits.  We'll have to cut financing from things that only matter to regular citizens. (I'm just being judgmental here, I haven't yet spoken with the mayor about this unfortunate turn of events.)  If everyone did things the easy way everything would suck.  You can quote me on that. What will it cost to dig new landfills since the old ones are stuffed with non-bio-degradables? What will it cost when our children have to deal with the towers of garbage ruining their environment?
We need to start reusing plastic containers as much as we can. I'm not saying, stuff your teddy bears with it, but Zip-lock bags will last through 10 washings. I know I've done it. Or how about buying products with less packaging? When the local recycling agencies are no longer dependable, we can step up our moral duty because it is the only option.