Kindle

I got a new Kindle for my birthday.  I loved my first generation Kindle, but not for its appearance.  This one, however, is pretty enough to bling out.  What you see above: custom designed Gelaskin and a padded case from Lollington on Etsy.

So far, I love my new Kindle although the user interface is different and I miss the Gen1 content manager.  I bought it when the hype about the then-unnamed iPad was at a fever pitch, and a part of me wondered if I'd regret buying a new Kindle when (according to rumor, at least) Apple was so heavily pregnant with the Messiah of ereaders.

The answer?  Nope, no regrets.  I read books, and the matte, electronic ink screens of ereaders from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Sony et al is much better for sustained, long-form reading than a full-color, backlit LED.   If my media of choice were magazines, newspapers, and blogs I'd probably prefer the iPad.  For a lot of people, that's what they consume and that's what they should buy.  

I say this a lot but maybe I haven't said it here: when I first bought my Kindle, I thought I'd only use it for trashy novels.  Books that I didn't want to keep and cherish, books I didn't want to display on my shelves, books whose covers I didn't feel like exposing on the subway to judgy, judgy strangers.

I have been seriously surprised to discover how much I prefer it to a paper copy.  It always fits in my purse.  The screen always flickers on to just the right page.  It's always the same weight, whether I'm reading a novella or a doorstop.  I can hold it, and turn pages, with one hand.  I can buy books while waiting to board my flight at an airport.  I can buy a new release without making a sidetrip to the bookstore.  I love getting book samples, and being able to read them at my leisure - instead of hunting for an empty chair at a bookstore (they are always all occupied), or sitting on the floor (I think this bothers other people more than it bothers me, but a lot of other people getting a little bothered does add up).  I don't have to worry about cracking the spine or bending the cover while reading those first few pages, and the samples usually include a full chapter or more - I'd feel guilty reading that far into an unpurchased book at a bookstore.  I love having 10 or 15 samples in my menu, so when I finish a book I can instantly dip into another - exactly the book I'm in the mood for at that exact moment in time  (you know how sometimes you put a movie on your Netflix queue because you can't wait to watch it, but when it arrives the next day you are inexplicably in the mood for a different kind of film?  You ordered a comedy and want a drama; you ordered a thriller and feel like a rom-com, etc., and then it's just not as fun to watch the movie you couldn't wait to see the night before.  Like that, but with books, and instant gratification).  I love being able to juggle multiple books at once - something I never used to do (this may not be a positive side-effect, but I like it).

I've dabbled in bookbinding.  I take pleasure in a well-designed cover, a well-chosen font, a layout that gives the text just enough room to breathe.  I enjoy books as objects.  But I don't fetishize them.  I don't read for the experience of holding a pretty paper product.  I read for the content, and when I weigh up all the pros and cons there's no doubt about it: reading on the Kindle is just plain better.  

So that's that.  Now I read everything I can on the Kindle.  I read Middlemarch on my Kindle.  I read The Great Deluge on my Kindle.  I read Tom Jones and Tristram Shandy on my Kindle.  Given the choice, I will pick the Kindle every time.  

True statement: I am a top 1000 reviewer on Amazon.com.

I mostly review the pulp novels that I'm addicted to, so no linky link - names changed to protect the guilty and all that.

For anyone curious about how to achieve this august title, or interested in improving their own rank, I am going to share my tips and tricks.

Everything I'm about to say can be summed up in one simple sentence: The more people who see your review, the more positive votes you will get. Let's take a closer look at how to make that happen.

#1 - Be the first to review something. New products get the most traffic, which translates to more readers, which translates to more votes. But that's not all. If you get your review in first, your review will start out on the main product page. The more positive votes you get, the more likely your review is to stay on the front page - later reviews, even if they are much better than yours, will be posted straight to the "see all ## customer reviews" page. Fewer people click through, so fewer people vote. If a product is popular, that great review will be buried under newer reviews. The early lead turns into a nearly insurmountable advantage.

#2 - Leave positive reviews. This is sad but true: the bar is set much lower for positive reviews. 4 or 5 stars and a couple of sentences declaring that a book is "Wonderful! The best book I ever read! You will love it!" will probably do better than a thoughtful critical review. A really well-written positive review is ranking gold.

By contrast, negative reviews collect "unhelpful" votes no matter how great they are. Positive reviews that contain a whiff of criticism are more likely to get negative votes too. I think this is because the people most likely to visit a product page are fans, and a lot of fans don't take kindly to opposing opinions.

It's important to write negative reviews, but hard to rank with them. A negative review generally won't collect "helpful" votes unless it is well-written. The more entertaining a negative review is, the better. And the more balanced it is - acknowledging the book's positive points, or exhibiting a solid understanding of the genre in which it belongs - the better.

Beware. Amazon will knock negative reviews off of the main product page. There are rumors that Amazon will delete 1 and 2 star reviews, and whether or not this is true a 1 or 2 star review is much, much more likely to be delayed while the censors vet it or just plain rejected.

#3 - Game the system. I recently reviewed a book that had been out for only a couple of days, but long enough to collect 3-4 glowing, 5-star reviews. I knew my review would bypass the main product page completely, and since I had a few problems with the book I knew my review wouldn't get bumped up for propaganda purposes. So I tried something different.

After the main product page, the next place where a review can be featured is the "most helpful..." section at the top of the product's review page. There's a box at the top, split in half. On the left side is the "most helpful positive review" and on the right side is the "most helpful negative review." The "most helpful negative review" will generally also be the most laudatory negative review. It's usually a 3 star review, the highest rating that is categorized as negative.

The review I had written was pretty critical for a 4 star review, but pretty positive for a 3 star review. I selected 3 stars, and voila: my review was almost instantly selected as the "most helpful critical review," and was stickied on the main review page - where it wouldn't just get buried by more recent reviews.

#3 - Review popular titles. The more popular an author is, the more widely publicized the book, the more people will visit the product site, the more votes you will get. Being the first to review a best-seller is the reviewer equivalent of winning the jackpot. But it's hard, since people who have ARCs (advanced reading copies) will be posting reviews - often before the release date - and even if reviews are closed until the date of release, you can bet that several reviews will go up within the first hour. The more popular the title, the more you have to concern yourself with timing.

The opposing strategy is:

#4 - Be the only/obviously best reviewer for less popular titles. It's not as effective as #3, but it's easier and more reliable.

What to write?

A few points about what makes a good review:

To summarize or not to summarize? This might be superstition on my part, but I find books are more likely to be featured on the main page if they include at least a little plot summary.

Include detail, but don't spoil. It's bad manners to put spoilers in a review, but a good review must be specific. If I'm criticizing something, especially, I want to include an example - but I'll try to pick one from the first 50 pages of the book. I want to let the reader know that I'm choosing my example carefully, too, so they don't leave angry comments. Like so: "Silly Pulp Novel is full of plotholes you could drive a truck through, starting in Chapter 1 when..."

It helps to be authoritative... If you know a lot about the subject of the book, if you are very familiar with the author, the period, the genre, etc., and you can speak authoritatively about a book, that's a good thing.

...and friendly. Part of the reason why Amazon reviews are popular is that they're not written by professionals - it's fine to be opinionated, informal, even emotional. A good review makes you feel pallsy with the author, like you just had a nice chat.

It's important to note that while you can strategize to get your review onto the main page, its placement there is not set in stone. Reviews that get lots of positive votes will move up to the main product page, displacing what's already there, and I've seen my own reviews get preference over unranked reviewer submissions when there were no votes involved.

My personal suspicion is that there is some real human involvement in review placement - I've seen reviews move on or off the main page for reasons database technology alone can't explain. My further suspicion, for which I have no evidence at all, is that Amazon is fairly responsive to author/agent/publisher requests - "Please feature this review, please don't feature that one." With 10%+ of all books being sold via Amazon.com, it would be very frustrating for the publishers not to have any control over what appears on the product page - and that would be a fair compromise.

Fountain Pens

I just discovered d*i*y planner. It's a great site devoted to organization, writ large, and more particularly to organizational tools...day planners, notebooks, books and such. It's got me all excited planning out the perfect 2010 organizer. Which, naturally, had me fiddling around with all of my fountain pens and fountain pen ink.

My favorite source for fountain pen info, which pens are good/popular and where to buy them, is the Fountain Pen Network.

My favorite fountain pen is my Pelikan m150:


It's not a very expensive pen - about $50 - and it writes beautifully. Which is to say: it starts writing the second I put the nib to paper, the line it produces is even and fine, I can write for a month or more on a single fill of ink, it doesn't skip or bleed.

It's the kind of pen that will convince you that fountain pens are not only prettier but more practical than disposable pens.

The only "bad" think about the Pelikan m150 is that it only takes bottled ink - no cartridges. The more I use fountain pens, the clearer it is to me that this is the way to go (because you have to draw the ink up through the nib, it's not dry when you start writing; there's more volume in the barrel for ink than in a cartridge, so fewer refills), but when I was starting out I preferred cartridges.

My favorite pen that takes cartridges? The Namiki Vanishing Point:


It's got a retractable point, it produces a very fine and precise line, it's reliable and attractive. It only takes Namiki cartridges, which aren't hard to find, but does restrict the colors of ink available.


The best part about using a fountain pen is the incredible variety of inks. I like to use unusual colors - J. Herbin's Poussiere de Lune is one of my favorites - the delicacy of the color is impossible to find in any disposable pen, anywhere, let alone the wonderful shading.

But since most people tend to black and blue for professional writing, there are literally hundreds of different shades of black and blue ink. This review of Diamine inks - just one brand, and a very good one - samples fourteen blues and three blacks. The color might be lighter or darker, more or less solid.

Noodler's, one of the best ink companies out there, makes "bulletproof" inks - inks that are not only waterproof but resist UV light, UV light wands, bleaches, alcohols, solvents, petrochemicals, oven cleaners, carpet cleaners, and carpet stain lifters. They've just come out with a new line of forgery-proof inks, whatever that means.

And there are great in-between choices for people who want to write in a color that's dark and serious, but not necessarily black or blue - like Private Reserve Avacado [sic], pictured to the right, or Black Cherry.

If you write often, and get hand cramps, fountain pens are the way to go. Unlike with ball point pens, you don't have to press the nib into paper to make the ink flow. It's a lighter and less muscular way to write.

The truth is, anything you can do with regular pens you can do better with fountain pens. And while it's an expensive hobby if you want to buy lots of fancy pens, it can be very economical too. If you settle on a single low-to-mid range pen ($5-$50), and bottled Noodler's, fountain pens are cheaper than gel pens, and competitive with ball points. Of course, it takes a fair bit of willpower not to be seduced by the lure of pretty pens.

The Star Copy Style

I'm looking at the style sheet for the Kansas City Star where Hemingway earned his writing chops. To the surprise of no one, here's the first paragraph:

Use short sentences. Use short first paragraphs. Use vigorous English. Be positive, not negative.

But there are all kinds of other interesting instructions, like:

Never use old slang. Such words as stunt, cut out, got his goat, come across, sit up and take notice, put one over, have no place after their use becomes common. Slang to be enjoyable must be fresh.

"He was ill in February," not "He was ill during febraury." During February would mean every fraction of a second of the month's time. A body may deliberate during the day, but that means no recess was taken in the entire period.

"He suffered a broken leg in a fall," not "he broke his leg in a fall." He didn't break the leg, the fall did. Say a leg, not his leg, because presumably the man has two legs.

Bodies are not shipped or sent - say "The burial will be in Ottumwa, Ia."

"Several persons were in the room," not "several people." The people of Kansas City" is correct.

"The execution of the death sentence," not "the execution of the man."

"The building was partly insured," not "partially instured."

A long quotation without introducing the speaker is a poor lead especially and is bad at any time. Break into the quotation as soon as you can, thus: "I should prefer," the speaker said, "to let the reader know who I am as soon as possible."

"He was made unconscious," not "he was rendered unconscious."

A man marries a woman; she is married to him.

He died of heart disease, not heart failure - everybody dies of "heart failure."

The words donate and donation are barred from the columns of The Star. Use give or contribute. The use of raise, in the sense of obtaining money, has been forced into usage where no other word seems to do as well. But raise is not a noun.

In most cases, desire is preferable to want.

Each other applies to two, one another to three or more.

If is used to introduce a suppositional clause, as: I shall not go if it rains. It is incorrect to say: I do not know if I can go. The correct form is whether: I do not know whether I can go.

Both simplicity and good taste suggest house rather than residence, and lives rather than resides.

A Woman of the Name of Mary Jones - Disrespect is attached to the individual in such sentences. Avoid it. Never use it even in referring to street walkers.

Admittance and Admission - Admittance is better than admission in relation to admittance fees and admittance to places, lodges, etc.

Some of these instructions sound a little antiquated, but I've been reading The Nick Adams Stories and am continually struck by how fresh Hemingway's language remains. I bet in practice these rules would still work, without striking a false note.

How to Recognize a Bottle Blonde

I realize the topic of this entry isn't quite up to the tone I've set for my blog so far. Oh well. It was going to happen eventually. Now, moving on.

1. The bottle blonde's hair is of a perfectly even, uniform shade of blonde. Very few people have hair of a perfectly uniform color - blondes less than other people, because the color is so sensitive to sun. Dye, on the other hand, tends to flatten the range of colors. This only really works when the bottle blonde dyes her own hair, or has it dyed cheaply. An expert colorist will try to mimic the color variation of naturally blonde hair.

2. The bottle blonde's hair is too shiny. When I had highlights in my hair, this was what I noticed most - my hair was unnaturally shiny, all the time. Some people must have naturally shiny hair, and some natural blondes may gloss their hair regularly enough to give the same effect - but if you ask me, this is a nearly foolproof indicator of a bottle blonde. Expert colorists will want to enhance, not dampen, this effect for their clients - shiny hair is good, after all - so even if they manage to realistically blend color, the bottle blonde will walk out of the salon with unnaturally shiny hair.

3. The bottle blonde's hair does not change with the seasons. Natural blondes will have noticeably darker hair in the winter, and noticeably lighter hair in summer/fall. I imagine that this, too, is something that an expert colorist would compensate for - but then, it would take a pretty sophisticated client to want it.

4. Beware of assuming that dark roots always mean the bearer's hair is not naturally blonde. Sometimes hair that grows in dishwater blonde will lighten considerably, especially under the influence of sun and saltwater. Roots are only a good indicator if the line between dark and light is crisp and even along a part in the hair. Similarly, don't assume that anyone with dark eyebrows or eyelashes has dark hair - I can't be the only natural blonde on the planet who darkens my eyebrows and eyelashes every day.

5. Basic sloppy salon procedures - i.e., if highlights are too chunky, if they are scattered through the top layer of hair like silly string, if they are placed too evenly, etc., etc.

6. The people who masquerade best as natural blondes are people who are almost, but not quite natural blondes. They have the right complexion, usually, and especially if they have money to burn on a good colorist it's going to be nearly impossible to spot the difference. However, one of the above methods should work.

These tips aren't foolproof, but I venture to say they'll almost always lead you to the correct conclusion.