Photos: the follow-up -- and more book stuff!

Thanks for the response to the photo post from early this morning.

I've got to admit: I didn't expect the one-sided response, at all.  If anything, I expected it to go the other way.  It happens that the one you all seemed to prefer is also the one that I preferred.  But the almost-unanimous response in comments was quite shocking to me.  I hadn't necessarily been planning to share the entry and comments with my editor -- but how couldn't I, with a response like that?  So I did, and it actually did have some real impact. 

Isn't that neat, just as a concept?  Within hours of posting, blog readers weighed in on something, and it had a real impact on my book.  It's like the article in Esquire about Wikipedia that the author put up on Wikipedia for people to edit.  Neat.

I don't think the brick-and-mortar world has figured out how to take very much advantage of the power of this stuff.  And there's a lot of potential, I would think.  New product releases are very expensive.  What if Wal-Mart threw some product ideas up on a blog and let its consumers weigh in on what they'd buy?  What if television networks streamed a set of pilots online and let online viewers vote?  Focus groups taken online.  I bet that's being done, actually -- I don't know for certain, but it has to be, doesn't it?  There's no conceivable way they're not doing this.  They're crazy if they're not.  Insane.

Effectively, the anonymous lawyer blog has been the test for the book.  Reader response absolutely influenced tons of aspects of the book.  There were ideas, posts, directions that got good response and I knew I wanted to hit in the book, and there were things that got lukewarm or negative responses on the blog that I steered clear of in the book.  At one point on the blog, I asked readers for suggestions about how to torture associates.  I received a couple hundred responses.  There's a place in the book where I needed a set of e-mails from readers about something similar.  And those real e-mails I got were the first place I looked.

I met with my editor today and came home with all sorts of goodies.  We're very close to deciding on a cover, and he showed me a dozen rejected options.  He let me take a couple of the rejects home with me -- color printouts mounted on black card stock.  They're really neat.  I mean, it's unbelievable to see book covers that say "Anonymous Lawyer" and my name -- it makes the book feel real in a way nothing else has.  And even the rejected covers are fine -- they look like legitimate book covers, of real books.  I wish I had the digital versions, because I think that would be a neat post.  Perhaps once the cover is official -- once it's up on Amazon or something -- I can get the alternates and post them.  I'll try.  That would be cool.  And unique.  I want to find unique things to do with this blog that websites for books wouldn't do, and that people who aren't writing a book don't get to see.  I think that would be cool.

The other thing I came home with is the copyedited version of the manuscript.  The book has made its official transition from file to paper -- that is, every change I make from now on has to be on paper, printed out and manually inserted into the master.  This makes sense, since they want one master copy instead of rogue and mismatched files all around.  Computer technology -- versioning, file sharing, etc -- surely must mean that there are easy ways to do this, without having to do everything on paper -- but I understand it.  Ten years from now, I suppose I'd be surprised if it's not all done online, but not yet. 

Over the next few days I need to go through all of the copyeditor's notes and decide what changes to sign off on, what to keep as is, and what to switch to something else.  As I was reading through, I kept a running list of the things that were interesting to me.  They might be interesting to you, too.  They might only be interesting to me.  It's hard to gauge.  So, let me offer...

Behind-The-Scenes Stories of the Anonymous Lawyer novel, related to the copyediting process.  (Hold your breath, it's as exciting as that makes it sound.)

1. Chips Ahoy! has an exclamation point, officially.  So if I write about the Chunky Chips Ahoy! cookies on the conference room table, it's probably bad for me not to use the exclamation point.  That looks strange in the middle of a sentence though.  It's sort of weird and fun enough that I may keep it, but it may be reason enough to change to a cookie without an exclamation point.  Mallomars were in a previous draft, but my agent pointed out that Mallomars are unique to the Northeast, and there was a Times article about how they're seasonal, so they had to go out.  I'd take cookie suggestions in the comments, if anyone cares, but it's really trivial, so it's okay if you don't want to bother.

2. Dumpster is apparently a trademark and has to be capitalized.  Never knew that.

3. Book-on-Tape is a trademark of a publisher that isn't mine.  So I'm switching the one reference to the more generic audiobook.  I'm surprised they've been able to keep that trademark.  Book-on-tape is pretty generic sounding, I think.  I didn't take trademark law, so I don't know the rules.  Maybe someone knows better than me.

4. BlackBerry.  Two capital Bs.  Funny enough, I saw a Times article tonight that doesn't do it.  So I may double-check.

5. The pastry with the cheese or fruit in the middle is a Danish, not a danish.  Or so they say.  That's funny that no one would ever dream of capitalizing Cookie or Cake -- no matter how delicious -- but you name something after a people, and it needs the capital letter.  Open question: would a Napoleon?  And, if so, what about neapolitan ice cream?  Or is that even derived from Napoleon?  It's probably not.  I'm probably just being silly.

Okay, the first one was okay, but the rest of these are seriously boring.  I'm sorry.  At least they're buried all the way at the bottom of the post.  :)

Comments

[Kaschief]

Just read up on Dumpster. Apparently, it's the combination of 2 words: Dempster - the name of the founders and dump. We learn some'n new everyday.

By the way, when the book is released, do we get a discount? Just kidding....Ok, No... I'm serious. :-)

[Matt Astle]

Neapolitan should be capitalized, I think, because doesn't it mean "from Naples, Italy"? Just like Danish means "from Denmark"?

[Norm]

Famous Amos? He may not be national enough, but if you're set in LA it might work. Don't actually think the "!" in the middle looks funny as long as there's enough words between it and the end of the sentence that it's obviously not the end of the sentence itself.

[Liz]

What about Pepperidge Farm Chocolate Chunk Cookies? They're national, aren't they?

[Erin,]

Yeah Neapolitan = Naples.

[ASSociate]

How about Oreos?

[lori]

Books on Tape was held not to be generic in 1987 because the court didn't think that people used “books on tape” generically. But that can't be true NOW, can it? I smell genericide.

[girlMD]

what about NutterButters? they're yummy, hardly seasonal by any stretch, and ubiquitously found in vending machines across the country.

[Pam]

I vote for Milanos. They're my favorite. And I like the random punctuation stuff -- I'm a geek!

[Java]

This was not boring.
I love trivia.