JACK'S BLOG
|
|
BloggingI WISH THAT I knew. I don't have a clue as to what sells books. I can guess. You need a good product, a book that's well written and edited. You need a potential audience. The book's genre greatly determines that. You need effective marketing, some way of announcing your product to your audience. That should just about cover the bases. I believe that I have covered two of the three bases. My novel, Rebels on the Mountain, seems to fit the first requirement. Every review that I've received has been excellent. Thirteen reviewers have given it 5 Stars and only one has given it four. Interestingly, the person who gave it 4 Stars wrote one of the more glowing reviews. All have been thoughtful and full of praise.
Its genre, historical fiction, is moderately popular. Historical romance is vastly more popular. However, even though romance is a component of Rebels on the Mountain, it is more of an action and adventure story. There are some who would dispute that it is technically historical fiction because its milieu in the late 1950s doesn't qualify as history. I argue that the period is historical inasmuch as its theme, the rise of Castro in Cuba, is historically significant. It was, after all, the prelude to a conflict that almost triggered global nuclear war. Thus, I am tempted to lay fault for the poor sales of Rebels on the Mountain at the feet of its marketing. How do I define poor? How about only two dozen copies in nine months? So, what have I done to market Rebels on the Mountain? I have a website with a weblog. Of course, you already know that, don't you? That's where you're browsing right now. The purpose of this website is to promote myself as an author and help establish my credentials as a historian. Most of my blog postings deal with historical incidents. Its ultimate purpose is to promote sales of my books. I use FaceBook and Twitter as well as Triberr, PinIt, and StumbleUpon to drive traffic to my website/weblog. You and about 30,000 others stop by every month. In retail terms, that's a lot of foot traffic. Granted, most visitors are only browsing or window shopping. They stop by for a few seconds and pass on. However (and here is the interesting part) the most popular page on this website is the one that specifically promotes Rebels on the Mountain. Every other page is designed to direct traffic there. Visitors to the Rebels on the Mountain webpage linger for an average of three minutes. That would indicate that many are viewing the book's video trailer (3 minutes and 38 seconds) or at least reading the synopsis. Nearly half who visit this webpage move on to another to read the excerpt from the novel, another popular webpage. Unfortunately, neither the server logs nor Google Analytics tell me how many click on the links to booksellers that I have embedded on these webpages. Even more critical, I have no way of knowing how many have downloaded free samples of the book. There could be thousands of potential readers hoarding it. It would be nice to know. What do you think? Does my experience prove that blogging doesn't sell books or simply that my blogging hasn't sold my book? Probably the latter. It would be nice if other authors commented below and shared their experiences.
27 Comments
Election 2012MOST PEOPLE SEEM to think that the election on November 6th is a contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. It isn't, not really. Some think that it's Democrat vs. Republican or Conservative vs. Liberal. A good argument could be made that we're supposed to vote either for or against Obama. A few idiots even go so far as to suggest that it's the racists vs the blacks. Pundits can be found debating the election from all of these points of view. I'm not buying any of them. What I wish we were all talking about is simply this: What is the legitimate role of government? If we could agree on that, making compromises here and there as needed, it would be easy to select our law makers and our Chief Executive. We would simply vote for those who are best equipped to perform that role and commit to it. The problem is that we the people are not in agreement on this most fundamental issue.
Let's be honest. If we're going to expand the size and scope of government any further, we must trash the Constitution. We've already violated it many times. Ever since the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act at the end of the 19th century, we have gone well beyond the limited role of government as envisioned by the Founders. We've quibbled with the terms of the document to excuse every excess since then. Again, let's be honest. If you want this government or you want to expand it even further, you need a new constitution. You need to redefine America. It's clear that those who wish to preserve the Constitution are in the minority. It's likely that those in favor of rewriting it are also a minority. A third minority most likely doesn't care one way or the other. If there is a majority, it is composed of people who haven't given it any thought and couldn't be motivated to take an interest. However, the dissonance between our core principles and the practical application of them is creating a problem. We need to start the discussion and resolve it. President Obama is an excellent choice for those who want to rewrite the Constitution and expand the role of government. In word and action, he has chaffed under its restrictions and, on occasion, violated them. In addition to Constitutional constraints, his Administration has selectively chosen to enforce or not enforce legislative mandates. I'm not certain that Mitt Romney would fare better even if he's elected. He has spoken of the need to reduce spending, but has avoided addressing the subject of the role of government. If he were elected and wanted to eliminate programs as a method of reducing spending, he would be at odds with the convoluted legal precedents that we have contrived to justify those that are extra-Constitutional. Without eliminating programs that are beyond the scope of government envisioned in the Constitution, Romney could never reduce government spending enough to avoid the fiscal disaster that is looming in our future. Regardless of the promises that we've heard from politicians during these past one hundred years, government spending is unsustainable at its current rates. Thus, as we enter the debate season in these coming weeks, I'm going to be listening for this discussion: What is the legitimate role of government? If no one addresses it, I believe that we are going to descend into an abyss regardless of who is elected. ONE OF THE KEYS to a happy marriage is that you and your spouse share similar senses of humor. There is, after all, nothing more annoying than people laughing at jokes that you don't get. (I feel that way every time I've attempted to watch Saturday Night Live.) Now, my spouse and I share a very weird sense of humor and both of us were greatly entertained by the new ABC Sitcom, The Neighbors. The Neighbors obviously isn't for everyone. For example, the reviewers hated it. Fortunately, I don't pay attention to them. They often like shows with laugh tracks. I can't stand them. Nothing will induce me to switch the channel faster than a laugh track. So, if you like laugh tracks, The Neighbors probably isn't for you.
The Neighbors is about a family who moves into a community populated entirely of space aliens who are on a mission to observe earth. They forgot to bring the charger for their interstellar cell phone and have been out of communication with their home planet for ten years. The offspring of one of the alien families accidentally reveals himself in his true form to the humans. After the initial trauma wears off, the humans decide to help the aliens on their quest to learn more about earth. We must presume that future episodes will be built around their excursions into the popular culture surrounding their community. The aliens, for example, have never visited a shopping mall. The premier episode was laugh out loud funny, at least for my wife and I. We recommend it for anyone who shares our tastes in comedy. You can see the premiere episode in its full length on ABC.com. 9/27/2012 2 Comments Leaders have courted Cuban expats living in America to finance their revolutions since the mid-1800sCubaIN 1848, PRESIDENT POLK received a three-man Cuban delegation who informed him that revolution was imminent on the island and that its ultimate goal was annexation to the United States. They proffered an interesting ruse to allay English and French suspicions that the revolution might be nothing more than an attempt by the Americans to annex the island. The Cubans proposed that United States forces be concentrated at strategic points in Cuba ostensibly for the purpose of protecting American lives and property. Polk's advisers warned that the Europeans would see through the gambit and a fight for possession of the island would ensue. Thus it was rejected. Most authorities believe that Herminio Portell Vilá, a respected Cuban historian, was correct in his assessment that the Cuban delegation was merely attempting to thwart the ambitions of another revolutionary, Narciso Lopez. Lopez was born in Venezuela to a wealthy plantation owner. His hatred of the Spanish Loyalists took root when his family lost their land to the government. They moved to Caracus where Lopez tried his hand at business but soon proved himself to be a charismatic leader of men. Lopez discovered his taste for battle while helping a small village fight off an attack by a royalist force. He was captured thereafter and joined the Spanish army to avoid execution. His valor in battle won him their admiration, promotions, and a transfer to Cuba. This new insurrection in Cuba was doomed to failure, and Lopez retreated to New York to seek outside help. He knew that he could not bank on the United States for official recognition, but hoped that he could secure men and financing to support his cause. Unfortunately, the pro-Cuban activists in New York feared that Lopez was another caudillo who would abandon annexation to raise his own flag above the island once independence was won. Thus, they thwarted his plans, forcing Lopez to move to New Orleans where he found greater support. Lopez promised southern sympathizers that he would fight for annexation, and they happily envisioned another slave state as a bulwark to their peculiar institution. In truth, Southern politicians and businessmen feared “Africanization” of Cuba – that is, replacing slaves in Cuba with freed blacks – more than they supported annexation of Cuba as a “slave state.” The difference is subtle though very real. They feared that if the United States did not annex Cuba, a European power surely would, and both the French and British were agitating for the elimination of all slave trade in the Caribbean. As southerners flocked to support Lopez, many joining his growing revolutionary army, even those in New York who had opposed him began to fall into line. Surprisingly, even abolitionists from the north began to support Lopez. They chose to overlook the slavery issue as being secondary to ending Spanish rule in the Caribbean. All looked in favor of Lopez's ultimate victory. Fidel Castro also visited the United States frequently to obtain funding for his revolution prior to "invading" the island. Interestingly, most of the more influential members of the Cuban expat community were reluctant to provide anything more than modest funding. They wanted to head up a new government in Cuba and did not believe that Castro would relinquish power to them after he led the fight to remove the dictator, Fulgencio Batista. They were ultimately correct. ...to be continued
9/26/2012 1 Comment The scourge of slavery corrupted America in every way including its foreign policyCubaSLAVERY ROSE TO DOMINATE America's Cuban policy in the mid-nineteenth century, as the nation marched towards a great Civil War. Britain's consul in Havana, David Turnbill, began proselytizing in Havana for the abolition of slavery in Cuba. He even went so far as to promise the slaves that they would be protected by Britain if they rose up and threw off their Cuban masters. America's Secretary of State, John Forsyth, a slave-owner himself, didn't like it one bit. Firstly, he interpreted Turnbill's comments as a signal that Britain had plans to wrest control of the island from Spain. But, even more importantly, a slave-free island just off America's southern shore, would provide a safe haven for runaway slaves from Southern plantations. However, before Forsyth could effect a plan, a new Administration came into office with the election of James Polk who brought a new Secretary of State, James Buchanan. Polk and Buchanan hatched a new plan. They conceived that the time had come to annex Cuba and make it a state. Why shouldn't America's Manifest Destiny extend south as well as westward. Furthermore, under the terms of the Missouri Compromise, Cuba would be a slave state thereby eliminating the problems foreseen by Forsyth. Escape to the island would be irrelevant to the slaves in the American south. There were, of course, more issues than slavery that made the new plan desirable. New states strengthened the economy, and the United States policy of free trade between the states would bring prosperity to Cuba. Then there were the strategic considerations. The islands fine ports and natural resources would be valuable assets to America. With revolution and its resulting chaos seemingly imminent in Cuba, Buchanan especially could barely restrain himself from sending an offer for $100 million to purchase the island from Spain. However, he had not allowed for Spanish pride or European politics. An offer of half as much would have been adequate. Spain not only needed the money but also would have been glad to have divested itself of the cost of administering the island. Because of Spanish mismanagement of the island's economy, Cuba never generated enough treasure to offset its costs. Still, the Spanish not only refused the offer, but also responded with an indignant reply. Apparently, the Spanish government feared that their opposition would cast acceptance of the American offer as treason. Also, they feared that other European powers would interpret it as a sign of weakness. Interestingly, shortly after this American initiative to annex Cuba failed, a new proposal arrived in Washington, in the form of a secret mission from Cuba. This dance, this courtship between the United States and Cuba would continue well into the twentieth century. Even Castro arrived in Washington shortly after wresting control from the dictator, Fulgencio Batista. Although my novel, Rebels on the Mountain, ends prior to his arrival, my protagonist, Nick Andrews, predicts the mission and its failure.
9/25/2012 2 Comments Who dominated the U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba: The State Department or American businessmen?CubaHOW DARE THE SPANISH exclude the Yankee traders from trade with Cuba. By the time Van Buren became President in the mid-nineteenth century, the debate over the strategic value of the island was forgotten. Business had become the business of America. Even the State Department seemed only dimly aware that Cuba was a Spanish possession. All that concerned them was that American ships calling at ports in both Cuba and Puerto Rico were paying duties of $1.50 per ton of cargo while Spanish ships were paying only $.625. If it was a tariff war they wanted, that is what they would get. John Forsyth, Van Buren's Secretary of State and a southern slave-owner, expressed America's position when he wrote that the United States could not tolerate the exclusion of its capital and industry from Spain's insular possessions. Cuba's potential was for the enjoyment of all nations. This is another of those attitudes that took root and persisted until Castro nationalized all U.S. Holdings in Cuba. Forsyth went on to explain America's motives as for the benefit of the Cubans themselves. Spanish colonialism with its rigid policy of commercial exclusion served only to damage the future prosperity of Cuba and Puerto Rico. An enlightened nation would not pursue such harmful economic policy. Forsyth's condemnation was a warning to Spain. While continued Spanish possession of the island served the strategic interests of the United States – that is, it maintained the status quo of political power in the Caribbean – it did not serve America's commercial interests. In other words, Spain was on notice. The United States would tolerate their rule in Cuba only until it was prepared to take the island and defend it from more powerful European nations such as England and France. A student of history as well as an accomplished spy, Nick Andrews, the fictional protagonist in Rebels on the Mountain, is not surprised to find American commercial interests dominating Cuba when he's sent there to sort out the mess created by moribund U.S. Diplomacy and a rebellion led by Fidel Castro. He discovers that U.S. Foreign policy on the island has been supplanted by the commercial interests of American businessmen and mafioso.
9/24/2012 2 Comments Change has not always been popular in politics, especially in foreign relationsCubaA NEW CUBAN-AMERICAN POLICY evolved in the early nineteenth century, one that dominated American diplomatic relations with the island nation until Fidel Castro came to power. The United States became committed to maintaining the status quo even though the status hardly remained stable during the decades that followed. It was an irrational preference to avoid change at all costs. Ultimately, it cost the United States a great deal. Spain was looking in the wrong direction in the early nineteenth century for enemies of its Caribbean empire. From their point of view, America seemed the most likely to foment revolution in Cuba and Puerto Rico. Despite declarations from early Presidents, Spain suspected that the Spirit of '76 lurked in American souls. Every attempt by the United States to establish commercial agents in Cuba were rebuffed. Spain suspected that they would be nothing more than agent provocateurs provoking rebellion on the islands. However, the real threat lay in Spain's former colonies on the mainland of Latin America. Mexico and Columbia, led by a former rebel leader, Guadalupe Victoria, then President of the independent Mexican Republic, wanted to mount an expedition to drive the last vestiges of Spanish imperialism from the hemisphere. The American President, Clay, and his foreign ministers scrambled to defuse the threat. Clay did not believe that the Mexican and Columbian coalition could defend the islands if they liberated them. He was convinced that the British could easily seize them even though that European power disclaimed any interest. Britain argued that it was already overtaxed maintaining its existing empire. An even greater threat was growing further south. Simon Bolivar had dreams of a united Latin America, a United States of Latin America. Unlike the norteamericanos, Bolivar welcomed British involvement. He called a Congress of leaders from all of the Americas except for the United States and Brazil, who had remained neutral during the various rebellions in Latin America. However, Bolivar did invite British participation. He plans centered around naval support from the British. Against Bolivar's wishes, Mexican and Central American leaders invited a delegation from the United States, but Bolivar limited their participation to observe only. The American delegation was sent to disrupt the Latin American Congress, but the two members had no chance to derail the proceedings. One died en route and the other tarried so long that the Congress concluded before he arrived. America's fear of any change in Latin American affairs was assuaged by Mexico and Columbia who held out against Bolivar's ambitious plan. In writing Rebels on the Mountain, I explored America's fear of change in Cuba during the period just prior to Castro's rise to power. As a senior officer, my protagonist, Nick Andrews, is welcomed to the inner circles of Havana: American diplomats, business leaders, and mafia. In these milieus I was able to explore the reasons why change was feared. Nick doesn't alter these forces; he can only observe them for the benefit of the reader's understanding.
BloggingWE COULD MAKE A CAREER out of reading all of the analytics available to help us analyze traffic at our websites/weblogs. I suspect that you, like I, have far better things to do with our time. Thus, I am going to show you the key indicators that I follow. There are probably more that I should be paying attention to, and I'm sure someone will comment below to tell me about them. So, let's just say that I'm getting the conversation started. I don't know about your website/weblog hosting service. I use iPage. This is not an advertisement for them but I could easily write one. They provide me with full access to the server log entries relating to my website/weblog (my weblog is embedded in my website). I can request an updated report at any time and the server will compile the latest entries for all requests for webpages as well as XML feed from my website. Thus, I can see up-to-the-minute rankings: Which pages are popular and which are not. I use this information to help me decide what topics I should be emphasizing and which I should probably avoid. However, there are some things that server logs don't tell me. How long are visitors reading the pages that they request. What is the bounce rate (the number of visitors who leave my website/weblog after requesting a page). Google Analytics provides me with these types of information and more. Remember, there are some analytics that only the server can provide, for example, the number of requests received for blog feeds. A feed is not a webpage. It is an XML data document providing all of your blog postings (or a selected portion of the most recent ones) arranged in a structured format. A feed reader on the users computer workstation displays the data in a readable format. Since the XML data document is not an HTML webpage and does not contain the code required to send analytical data to the Google data processing center, Google Analytics has no visibility of this activity. Likewise, there are some analytics that only Google can report, for example, how long does a webpage remain on the users computer workstation screen (from which we can assume whether the user merely glanced at it or read it in detail). Once the website/weblog host server returns a webpage in response to a request, it loses track of it and cannot report this information. There are two ways to look at your analytics: (1) How well is your website/weblog performing compared to others, and (2) how well is your website/weblog performing compared to itself. I have no idea of how well other websites/weblogs are performing compared to mine. I'm certain that those hosted by major corporations and government agencies attract infinitely more visitors than mine. Likewise, I'm certain that best selling authors fare a lot better. But, what about websites/weblogs maintained by other undiscovered authors? I used to worry over how well I was doing compared to them until I realized that it didn't matter. I became more interested in tracking the effect of my content, especially blog postings, on visitor metrics: Which pages were most popular, not only on the basis of the number of pageviews, but also, the length of time they spent reading them. Furthermore, I became concerned with the bounce rate, that is, how many visitors stuck around to read more than one page. I assume that they must like what they are reading if it inspires them to read more. This is the kind of information that helps me fine tune my content and, hopefully, become more successful.
What does success mean to me? Becoming discovered as an author and selling books. How well is that working out for me? Tune in next week. Check with your web hosting service to learn what analytics they offer. The chart above is based on those offered by iPage and may not be the same for you. Also, keep in mind that Google Analytics provides extensive help and training in applying analytics to better manage your website/weblog. You may want to check these out. Election 2012WE THE PEOPLE are fast approaching a tipping point. We are about to relinquish political power to those who seek equality. People living on the government dole will soon outnumber those who pay for it. They will be in the majority and able to elect whomever they want. Is there any doubt that they will only want to elect those who redistribute wealth from the wealth producers to them? Once they dominate, is there any reason to believe that they will elect leaders who would reverse that trend? These two graphs show our government at work attempting to create equality. They're taking from tax payers and giving to non-payers. Even though there are still more households paying taxes than there are collecting benefits, the system is unsustainable. Imagine how bad it will be when the balance tips the other way and there are more non-payers than payers. Now imagine candidates running for office in an attempt to pull the country back from the brink of financial ruin. Obviously, most voters on the public dole will be inclined to vote for their opponents, especially if the opponents disclaim any problem and promise to continue redistributing the wealth. How should the candidates for fiscal responsibility appeal to the beneficiaries of government largess? Or, should they focus their attention on those who are footing the tax bill and looking for relief? Interestingly, Candidate Romney raised this issue, and has been castigated for dissing the American people – well, at least those Americans who don't pay taxes. This country was not founded on the principle of equality. The Declaration of Independence professes that all men are created equal, however, it then explains that equality refers to everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What each of us does with those rights is in our own hands. It does not state either explicitly or implicitly, that anyone of us is responsible for anyone else's life, liberty, or happiness. The word “equality” does not even appear anywhere in the Constitution or its Amendments. “Equality” is a progressive concept, popularized around the start of the last century. Every attempt by progressives to attain equality has diminished the United States. We the people have suffered. Our economy has suffered. Our liberties have suffered for the following reasons:
I do know that President Obama and many of his party have not only championed progressive ideals, but also promise to continue to do so if re-elected. It seems that a fair percentage of those polled wish to return the progressives to office. It's interesting that their popularity in the polls almost equals the percentage of people on the public dole. This brings me back to my opening statement: “We the people are fast approaching a tipping point.” They are approaching a majority, but have not yet reached it. There is still time to turn back the tide of progressivism. This opportunity may not exist in the next election if we fail to turn back the momentum of progressivism in this election.
CubaSOME MIGHT BE LED to think that Cuba isn't part of the Western Hemisphere. Under the terms of the Monroe Doctrine, wasn't the United States supposed to protect all countries in that part of the world from European intervention? Actually, no. President Monroe was warning Europeans, especially Spain and Portugal, that any attempt to interfere with or colonize any state in the Americas would be viewed as an act of aggression requiring U.S. Intervention. By 1823, all of Spain and Portugal's colonies in the Western Hemisphere had won their independence, except for Cuba and Puerto Rico and they were specifically excluded from America's “protection.” Why? Theoretically, independence was desirable for all of the Western Hemisphere. The rejection of Old World rule was implicit in the Declaration of Independence. To tolerate imperialism anywhere in the world, especially anywhere in the New World, was a betrayal of the American ideal. On a more practical level, where would America be if it supported the overthrow of Spanish rule in Cuba only to be replaced by the English? Or the French? It was no secret that England wanted to install puppet governments in the former colonies of Spain in the New World. These newly minted states were struggling to emerge as independent nations. Most were ruled by a cuadillo – a strong man, military-political leader. The British felt it would be easy to replace any and all of them with their own cuadillos (and they were probably correct in their thinking). There was no doubt in Monroe's mind that American commercial interests would suffer under such an arrangement. The Monroe Doctrine was a rather hollow threat inasmuch as the United States was not a major power at that time. Fortunately, Britain was focused on war in Europe and didn't entertain any ambitions in the Western Hemisphere at that time. They even went so far as to offer a limited alliance with the United States to enforce the terms of the Monroe Doctrine. However, America was still leery of Britain. The War of 1812 was still fresh in their memories and they suspected any overture from that direction. The exclusion of Cuba and Puerto Rico from the terms of the Monroe Doctrine was a tacit admission that the United States was powerless to force an Old World empire to surrender its existing claims in the New World. Ultimately, the primary motivator of Cuban-American relationships has always been the commercial interests between the two nations. Although American and Cuban leaders alike may have dreamed of adding a Cuban Star to the American constellation, it never happened because those commercial interests were never sufficient to warrant it. Businessmen in both countries never saw any necessity for a political bond. This is the conclusion that Nick Andrews, the hero in Rebels on the Mountain, reaches as he observes Castro's revolution on behalf of members of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
|
More than 500 postings have accumulated since 2011. Some categories (listed below) are self explanatory, others require some explanation (see below):
CategoriesAll America Army Life Blogging Cuba Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 2016 Entrepreneurs Food Good Reads History Humor Infantry School In The News Korea Middle East Oh Dark Thirty Opinion Sea Scouts Short Story Sponsored Survey Technology Television Terrorism Today's Chuckle Veterans Vietnam Writing Explanations |
Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 Jack Durish All rights reserved
|
Web Hosting by iPage
|