The thing about categorization these days is that publishers are trending away from categorization. Certainly some authors, like Danielle Steele, have made it big in the romance genre, which has consistently outperformed all others over the years.
Indeed, traditional publishers have for decades forced authors to stick to one genre or another. This had to do with the fact that editors were largely genre-specific themselves. They were purists, and simply didn’t want to see any cross-genre copy.
Over the last three decades, however, Indie publishing has revealed that this wasn’t at all what customers wanted. True, most readers of romance are indeed purists. Most other readers, however, enjoy seeing multi-genre elements in their books, a fact that mainstream publishers began accepting when their own profits dried up in the recent global economic crisis while those of many Indie publishers took off.
In response, as well as due to the fact that modern editors have increasingly grown up in multi-genre environments, mainstream publishers have at least somewhat relaxed their stiff requirements that a manuscript fix neatly and squarely into the square peg hole. Before the crash, publishers had the luxury of priding themselves on their superior sense of literary art and would eschew inputs from people like economists and marketing staff. In reality, they understood the numbers reflecting market demands and trends, whereas publisher’s sense of “art” was often outdated by a couple of decades. In response to the crash, the publishers that survived started listening to the numbers guys who kept telling them that books most likely to become bestsellers contained significant multi-genre elements, if not being truly multi-genre novels.
The problem is, one cannot refer to a Top 100 Bestselling Author’s list and logically conclude that remaining true to one genre is the way to go for the simple reason that such lists were crafted by old-school publishers who forced authors to remain specific to one genre. It’s a matter of the tail wagging the dog. The only way to find out what people really want is to look at all sales (mainstream, Indie, and eBook), particularly sales trends, which show a relative reduction in one-genre novels and a relative climb in multi-genre novels.
Thus, even if one wants to be published by one of the mainstream publishing houses, that’s ok, as they have begun recognizing the value ($$$) of publishing books that people actually want to read vs allowing editors to straight-jacket authors into single-genre pigeonholes.
Thus, the best answer to the question of “which genre” is “whatever genre you want, or even multiple genres.”
Think of how many nametags we might save by this happenstance combination. “Jones, family of 5…” All wear “Mx. Jones” name tags.
How’s that for economies of scale?
A recent article said, “Trump is viewed unfavorably by 67 percent of Americans overall. Big whoop. The authors would like you to believe that somehow translates into an element of undesirability or an inability to beat the opposition.
The White House indicated President Barack Obama may visit Hiroshima during his final visit to Japan next month. His spokesman said “Obama would like to see the world rid of nuclear weapons,” and ” ‘symbolically’ there’s probably ‘no more powerful illustration of that commitment than the city that contained the victims of the first use of that weapon.’ ”
Put simply, Barack Obama wants to apologize to Japan for America’s use of nuclear weapons to end World War II.
The truth is, America should NEVER apologize to Japan. We ended the war in the most humane manner possible, saving SIXTY TIMES the number of Japanese casualties that would have resulted from conventional warfare. Furthermore, casualties of war peaked in World War II. The deterrent value of nuclear weapons is incalculable, but it’s safe to say that during the second half of the 20th century, global wartime casualties would have been between 4 and 10 times greater without nuclear deterrence.
During the summer of 1945, Operation Downfall was the conventional alternative to using nuclear weapons. It involved the direct invasion of Japan, and comprised of two parts, Operations Olympic and Coronet, that would have resulted in Japanese casualties upwards of 20 million, as predicted by the Vice Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff, Vice Admiral Takijir? ?nishi. This was based on the fact that there were 2.3 million Japanese Army troops prepared to defend the home islands, backed by a civilian militia of 28 million men and women, and the mindset at the time is that all would have fought to the death for their Emperor.
American predictions were somewhat less, estimating the invading Allies would suffer between 1.7 and 4 million casualties in such a scenario, of whom between 400,000 and 800,000 would be dead, while Japanese fatalities would have been around 5 to 10 million.
Let’s average the American estimate, 7.5 million, with the Japanese estimate, 20 million. Result: 13.75 million Japanese deaths.
Reports of casualties for Nagasaki and Hiroshima vary, but even at the highest ends of the scale, they amount to approximately 160,000 immediate deaths with another 66,000 dying by December, 1945, for a total of about 226,000.
Compare these two figures, and please note that one figure is 61 times greater than the other:
1. Casualties of NOT using nuclear weapons: 13.75 MILLION
2. Casualties of USING nuclear weapons: 226 thousand.
If we had NOT used nuclear weapons, more than SIXTY TIMES as many Japanese people, mostly civilians, would have lost their lives. As it is, both targets were specifically chosen for their military nature in an attempt to minimize civilian casualties.
If the numbers are difficult for you to imagine, consider the following representation:
Casualties as recorded, using nuclear weapons:
Casualties that would have occurred had we not used nuclear weapons:
So, should America “apologize” for using nuclear weapons, thus ending the war FAR sooner and with VASTLY FEWER casualties?
We didn’t start the war, but we certainly ended it, and in the most humane manner possible: “This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital [Kyoto] or the new [Tokyo]. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one.” – Diary of President Harry S. Truman, from various pages on July 17, 18, and 25, 1945.
A number of folks have asked me about training materials. “Training for what?” is my first question. “Well, for whatever might happen” is usually the response. So, with that in mind, I’ve begun collecting links to training videos available online that might help myself and others who find themselves in situations involving natural disasters, violent crime, and both unarmed and armed conflict (riots, rebellion, insurrection, terrorism, military operations other than war (MOOTW), civil war, and war.
I am doing so, however, only with the explicit and express understanding that these resources are not available on this website, but rather, are routinely available elsewhere online; these resources are only to be used to support the law, not violate it; that by “law” I refer first and foremost to the U.S. Constitution, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article V), and all subsequent local, county, state, and federal laws lawfully adhering to the U.S. Constitution. As always, this website’s Disclaimer Page applies.