Vincent Zandri has sold 100,000 ebooks in 60 days.

That's 100 THOUSAND books in sixty days.

Sumbitch, brother!

Now Vincent works his ass off promoting his books. There's no question about it. And I stand in absolute admiration at both his efforts and successes (and maybe a little jealousy as well?). But interestingly, in his blog, he mentions that his publisher, Stonegate Publishing, had the right juju in selling ebooks--apparently more so than other ebook publishers.

So that got me to thinking. How does one indie publisher absolutely excel at selling their books and promoting their authors, while others just shuffle along and seemingly only go through the motions of selling books? I mean you have some indie publishers simply beating the bejesus out of their competition. Other publishers in the ebook business just tread water.

Take Untreed Reads, for instance. A San Francisco publishing house that does only ebooks. They are one of those 'beat the bejesus out of the others' kind of houses I mentioned. They offer their books in a plethora of different bookselling sites around the world. And they are successful. Very successful. (a publishing house soon to bring out one of my Turner Hahn/Frank Morales novels, by the way)

How?

Don't all ebook publishers jump into the same swimming pool more or less wearing the same bathing suit? Each one has the tools in front of them to succeed or fail. Yet so few seem to really succeed while hundreds of start-up ebook publishers flash into existence for a year or two and then fade away.

Trestle Press is a new company. It's head honcho is a guy by the name of Giovanni Gelati. Full of piss and vinegar (and Giovanni, if you're reading this--that's a compliment). Has a thousand ideas about publishing. Asked me to submit a lot of my stuff--and be damn if it wasn't up and on Amazon in a matter of days. I'm excited to be one of his early writer/authors. I've got a feeling Trestle Press is going to be a stellar performer.

Let's hope so. I'm busting my ass trying to write the material he wants. His success is my success. And yes, brother, it's about damn time I saw some success in this gig.

It's been a long time coming.

How do you write hardboiled/noir? First person--that is, through the eyes and in the voice of the main character as they live through the moment? Or in third person--becoming the all seeing, all knowing omnisicent voice that takes the reader by the hand and escorts them through the story.

It's an issue I still struggle with on a daily basis. In one series I tell the story through the eyes and voice of one of the characters: Turner Hahn. He's a cop. A cop who has his strengths and weaknesses. He's very bright--but he's not all knowing. Sometimes he and his partner misses clues. Doesn't interview the right witnesses. Ask's the wrong questions.

Another character I write is an accomplished assassin named Smitty. Here is the third-person voice; the all seeing observer who is privy to everyone's thoughts and words. You feel his confidence. You admire his skills. You anticipate what might happen next.

Both work. Both have their own advantages. But I'm confused.

First person gets you in the head of the characters. I mean--right down there in the mud and slime and body fluids. You smell what he smells. Feel the emotions he feels. See the gun come up and aim at you from out of a dark alley. It seems to me, when I think about it, that this is the perfect format for hardboiled/noir. You are there when they discover the piece of evidence that turns an entire case on top of its ears.

Yet taking the second route in telling a story--if done properly--can scare the hell out of a reader. You can set the reader up for traps and sudden surprises. You know what's coming as the writer. The reader doesn't. And I have to admit it's fun. Fun scaring the bejesus out of a reader. Throwing something at them that make's them sit up and yelp in delight or in dismay.

But which style is better? I haven't a clue.

So I guess I'll use both.