A New Blurb

This is from best-selling noir writer Mike Dennis, whose latest novel SETUP ON FRONT STREET is available from Amazon. If you know of Mike and his writing, you know he's got the goods. If you have never picked up his stuff, why wait? Here's what he had to say about THE BACKSEAT VIRGIN: A SOUTH FLORIDA NOIR COLLECTION:

"Florida crime fiction writers had better make room for Scott Chase. His original voice rises from the Miami demimonde and drags the reader deep into its underbelly. These tough stories are what noir is all about."

Sounds like it's time for me to start writing some more noir. Unfortunately, my writing and posting will be cut drastically starting next week. It's August, as you know, and that means the start of football. As the coach for kickers and punters, as well as co-special teams coordinator at the high school where I work, my world is going to revolve around the pigskin. I usually kiss my wife and son on or around the first weekend in August and say "See ya in November!"

So to my readers and those who keep up with this blog, *smack*... See ya in November!!

Not really, I'll keep you guys updated on what's going on with the team.

Talk to you soon.

Rick Frost Has Arrived

This is ultra-cool!!! How about this for publicity? From an airport in South Florida:

Happy Independence Day

I thought about writing a long, heartfelt blog about my feelings for this country, and specifically the men and women who have fought to make it free. I thought about doing what countless others will do today, and rightly so. Because freedom isn't free, and needs to be defended. But I decided to let someone far smarter, far greater and much more of a hero than I ever will be do the honors today. From his speech commemorating the 40th anniversary of the D-Day landings at Normandy, here is Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the United States:

"These are the boys of Pointe de Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.

Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your "lives fought for life...and left the vivid air signed with your honor…."

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith, and belief; it was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you."

God bless America, and Happy Independence Day!

The Backseat Virgin

I like shadows in my stories. Superheroes are great, so are adventure stories and even the occasional drama. But I prefer all of those to have at least a hint of darkness in them. Make me choose between Spider-man and The Punisher, and I'm taking Frank Castle every day (for those of you who are confused, that's The Punisher's real name). I rarely, if ever, root for the perfect hero. It's just not fun to follow someone who has nothing wrong with them. Because of that, I like writing those kinds of characters. Rick Frost, the main character of my YA adventure series, does have a dark side to him. I've only really hinted at it so far, but it is coming out more and more in later books. But that wasn't enough...

THE BACKSEAT VIRGIN: A SOUTH FLORIDA NOIR COLLECTION is four short stories and one short novella that don't just wade into those shadows, but dive in head first. I love writing noir, which is a style of literature that doesn't avoid the darkness, but glorifies it. The characters in noir stories are heading for doom; there's no avoid it. There is no happy ending, only an end.

These stories are set in South Florida in the late 1970's and early 1980's in the middle of the drug boom. Cocaine was just being discovered and had started to take off as America's drug of choice, and South Florida was where over 90% of it came into the country. With all that money, drugs, greed and power packed into one area, it was inevitable that darkness was going to creep in and take over. These stories highlight that darkness.

If you don't mind walking into the shadows with me, then click above and take the journey. I hope you like reading it as much as I loved writing.

Buy THE BACKSEAT VIRGIN: A SOUTH FLORIDA NOIR COLLECTION from Amazon.com

New Review Up

This review is special. It is by Conner, a kid who is in the age group I was going for with Rick Frost & the Alaskan Adventure. His mom, Michelle, runs the That's What She Read book review blog. I want to thank her and Conner for their time and the opportunity to send them my book.

Here is Conner's review. Thanks buddy!

A Little Honesty Please

Finally, the impact of self-publishing digitally cannot be ignored. John Locke, the author not the character on "Lost", is eighth on the list of authors who have sold over a million copies of their novels on Kindle. It's official. Don't believe me? It's in the Los Angeles Times, so it has to be true.

I have some problems with the article. Carolyn Kellogg, the writer of the piece, gives you straight facts in the first two paragraphs: Locke is from Kentucky, he's the eighth writer to achieve this milestone and the first to do so without a traditional publisher behind him. All true and all nice to know. But this is where the news ends and the scorn begins.

Observe the slant of the press in action: First sentence of paragraph three is "But at what cost?" Either it was intended as a nice pun, or Kellogg is just sour. The rest of the third paragraph and the fourth are more facts. She discusses Locke setting his price at 99 cents, Kindle Direct Publishing allowing authors to set their own price, the royalty rates of 70% for ebooks between $2.99 and $9.99, as well as the 35% you get for books lower or greater than that range.

Kellogg then writes "Which means Locke receives slightly less than 35 cents per Kindle ebook he sells." This sentence is by itself, in its own little paragraph. Anyone who writes knows that if you do that, you want the reader's eyes drawn to that sentence. She goes on to say, "Locke makes money with his 99 cent gambit than he would selling the same number of books with a traditional publisher."

Hey, Carolyn... sorry, Ms Kellogg, as that's how respected journalists want to be addressed, I have a response to your statement:

So freaking what?!

And yeah, I put that by itself; I want Ms Kellogg's eyes drawn to it. So what if Locke, or Amanda Hocking or I want to sell our books for 99 cents? So what if we don't go the way of the "traditionally published" authors? Why should we do it? Just because you want us to?

Let me get off the rant for just a second to continue the analysis. Don't worry, I'll come back to it. She goes on to say that Lock "puts a downward price pressure on Kindle ebooks in the process." Really? He does? So because he prices his books at 99 cents, that means that everyone who publishes through KDP has to do the same thing right? Apparently, Donovan Creed, Locke's hero in his under-priced books, has a gun to the head of every self-published writer in the world.

According to the logic of Ms Kellogg's column (and yes, it's a column, Carolyn, not a news piece), the only reason a reader buys the Creed books is because Locke prices them at 99 cents. And you won't buy a book priced at $2.99, or $3.99, or $12.99 will you? Oh, damn... wait. There's seven other people who have sold a million copies of their books on Kindle and none of them has a single book priced at 99 cents. Wonder how come readers are buying those books? Maybe Donovan Creed really can't be in more than one place at a time.

And this "downward price pressure" you talk about, Ms Kellogg? Price, as you should have learned in basic economics, isn't "set" by the producer. It is set by the consumer, in this case the reader. If readers didn't buy Locke's books at 99 cents, then he'd change the price. I know that because I'm going to assume he's a smart guy. He did write a few books.

Sorry, Ms Kellogg, I forgot. The only reason Patterson, Connelly, Charlaine Harris, Steig Larsson and the other traditionally published authors got to the hallowed million-sales pedestal is because they have a publisher behind them. Nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that they are good writers. Nope, its not that.

Look at this statement: "If he sold a million Kindle e-books at 99 cents, he'd clear $346,500 -- nice work if you can get it. But if he were working with a traditional publisher, that $346,500 might be a lot closer to $1 million." Yes, it would be closer to a million. And the publisher would be raking in about ten to twenty times that million that Locke would be receiving... or the million the other seven on the list are getting. With Locke, he's keeping a larger percentage of the money.

Why the focus on money, Ms Kellogg? If writing were just about money, then everyone would be pumping out vampire novels. Yes, there's a lot of them. But people are devouring George R. R. Martin's A Song of Fire and Ice novels and there's not a vampire or sparkling teenager to be found. What's number one in fiction right now according to traditional sources? Tom Clancy's Against All Enemies. My Lord, Clancy is soooo 80's! Spies and espionage and right-wing crazies trying to destroy the world, right? How could he be number one if the focus is only on money and what sells, Ms Kellogg? Number two is a love story from a thriller writer, David Baldacci. Yeah, that's money-driven isn't it? A guy turning his back on all his fans just to write something from his heart. Give me a break. (Disclosure: I like Clancy, and his spies and espionage and right-wing heroes saving the world.)

To justify her position, Ms Kellogg invokes the name of self-published royalty, none other than Amanda Hocking, she of the instant success that make legends. "not everyone can sell 1 million e-books in five months. "In fact, more people will sell less than 100 copies of their books self-publishing than will sell 10,000 books," cautioned one observer. Who? None other than Amanda Hocking, who was the first self-published million-seller to make headlines."

Did Amanda Hocking say that? Yes. Is it true? Yep, it is. But here's a few dirty little secrets for you: 1) not everyone who signs with a traditional publisher will sell more than a few hundred books; 2) those people who don't sell with traditional publishers can turn themselves into successes with hard work in the self-published world; and 3) its okay if you only sell a hundred books, because you are doing something you have wanted to do, not sitting on your tail wishing you had.

That is really what is bothering Ms Kellogg and the rest of the naysayers. We are doing something that has been a dream for a long time. For a lot of us, we have wanted to create a world, spin a yarn and have someone else read it. We are, to paraphrase my buddy Mark Terry, arrogant enough to think that someone might want to read our dreams. But we are doing it ourselves, not relying on someone else.

To Ms Kellogg and those like her, publishers sitting in New York are the ones who should determine what books sell. John Locke, Amanda Hocking and those of us who are self-publishing think that the readers should determine that. They are the ones we write for ultimately, right?

One last thing, and it a glaring case of not only how biased Ms Kellogg is, but also how arrogant she is. I'll quote her again: "not everyone can sell 1 million e-books in five months. "In fact, more people will sell less than 100 copies of their books self-publishing than will sell 10,000 books," cautioned one observer. Who? None other than Amanda Hocking, who was the first self-published million-seller to make headlines."

I added the bold and italics to emphasize the mistake. If Amanda Hocking is the "first self-published million-seller", then how come there's not nine authors in the hallowed list that sparked this article in the first place. Could it be that with Locke, the media had to reluctantly admit that someone who didn't go the traditional route has done what they thought was impossible? So why isn't Hocking in there?

Because Carolyn Kellogg, the Los Angeles Times and the media do not want self-published authors to be a success.

They want us to fail.

News flash, Ms Kellogg... we've already succeeded.

Whats In A Name

“Writing is a socially acceptable form of schitzophrenia.” E.L. Doctorow said that. He was the author of the novel Ragtime, which the famous movie and play are based on, so the dude knows of which he speaks. But I am not sure if he was talking about pen names. However, in today’s world, he might as well be.

Just look at all of us out here. Nora Roberts writes sometimes as JD Robb. Stephen King had Richard Bachman. Joe Konrath (real name) writes under J. A. Konrath, Jack Kilborn, and now Joe Kimball. Heck, even Stan Lee, the creator of some of the greatest comics ever is really named Stanley Martin Leiber. Why do we do it?

Is it because we want to be someone else for a while? Because we want to keep ourselves hidden, even in the midst of putting our deepest dreams and hopes out on a page for the world to see? Or is because we just want to keep things straight in our minds, and perhaps in the minds of our readers?

I write under a pen name. My initial reason was more the last one than either of the other two. First, I wrote a book that was a pure thriller. It involved terrorism, a small town and was a lot of fun to write. But then I had an idea for a set of adventure novels. They would turn into the Rick Frost adventure series, of which two are currently available for purchase here and here (how’s that for a plug?). I still had ideas for more thrillers, some straight mysteries, and even had written a collection of noir short stories. So would they all be released under the same name? I put that question to my team of advisors, also known as my wife and a few close writing friends. Their answers were mixed, some in favor of a pen name, some not.

I decided to do it because I didn’t want the kids who would read my Rick Frost young adult adventures picking up my South Florida noir stories and delving into the dark and seedy side of life. So if one was written by Todd Bush, and the other by my pen name, then the kid wouldn’t know the difference. That is unless they did about five seconds worth of research on the internet and made the connection.

So what pen name would I pick? My name is Todd. But for some reason, people they either don’t know me, or know me and forget my name, always call me Scott. Don’t know why, just happens that way. I don’t have a bother named Scott, don’t even have friends named Scott. It just comes out. Maybe I look like a Scott. But I combined it with a random last name and got my pen name: Scott Chase.

Now I have my noir collection coming out next month. It is all about what happens away from the glitz and glamour of South Florida; how it was before the drug wars, and how it got to be the place it is today. The stories are not happy, not resolved at the end in a nice, neat little bow. But they are fun to write and, I hope, fun to read. They are also written by Scott Chase.

But do we use pen names so that we get to delve into a part of ourselves that doesn’t get to come out and play often? Perhaps that’s the case, because I don’t often get to show my love for the shadows, and curiosity for what’s happening behind the “Employees Only” and “Do Not Enter” signs at clubs and bars. Also, my mom worries about putting writing out that is… how to put it… less than holy might be an interesting way of saying it. So maybe writing under a pen name allows me to hide a little bit, even if I don’t want to. Let’s face it, if writing isn’t honest, then it doesn't have a prayer of being good.

Pen names have been around since the beginning of published writing. Ben Franklin even used one. They will still be around. I know a lot of indie writers who are using them to keep the genres they write in separate. But I am not going to hide that I am Todd Bush and Scott Chase. That wouldn't be honest. And I want to have at least a prayers chance of being good.