Why Readers Lose Interest in Sequels

This week I was fortunate enough to be visited by long time friend, Danny Adams. Our friendship runs so deep that I often forget as we’re having dinner that sitting across from me is a well published author (whom if I’m not mistaken, is being interviewed in StarLog magazine this month).

During our conversation, I started to ask a question but distracted myself with a full scale analysis of sequels and it wasn’t until I realized Danny wasn’t saying anything that I stopped. Apparently this was useful feedback, but before we could finish, we had to leave.

Danny, and all interested authors, here’s my take on why readers lose interest in sequels.

What makes a story good?

I suppose the ideal story is one that drags you into it that you actually forget that you’re actually reading. But, how is that accomplished?

The common components that I’ve noticed from stories that I’ve enjoyed are ones where the main character is thrust into an unfamiliar environment, stumbles into an adventure as he learns the rules of the environment, events unfold and he becomes the reluctant hero, pushing his own boundaries, and eventually learning something about himself, and in the end making a difference.

This generalization appears everywhere: Neo from the The Matrix, Luke Skywalker from Star Wars, Ralph from Greatest American Hero, Stile from Splity Infinity, Zane from On A Pale Horse, William from Wizard’s Bane, and even Harry from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.

But it’s at this point where things diverge. Some stories end after they are told, other’s have long standing sequels, where others flop. What makes Spiderman 2 enjoyable while Ghostbusters 2 and Weekend At Bernie’s II a forgotten memories? Why are people so enthralled with The Lord of the Rings? How does Star Trek and Stargate SG-1 and Dr. Who to keep going with endless spin-offs, and what caused Babylon 5 to crash in the last season?

The thing in common with series that fail is where the author simply tried to capitalize on the existing relationship and knowledge from the prior story.

Superman II holds far less interest than Smallville, primarily because we are joining in on the character as he develops.

It’s just as enjoyable to share Author’s realization that he’s just done something incredible as he pulls the sword from the stone.

A story needs to continue the growth of the character.

Stories like Star Trek and Stargate SG-1 survive because each time they visit a different world, the rules, culture, and context are different — they have to learn all over again. Discovering the environment with the main character is vital, it’s provides the energy and wonder. Deep Space 9 had things come to them, but it wasn’t the same. Making a human the alien was a brilliant move on the part of Farscape, there was endless discovery.

A story needs a dynamic environment, in which the main character can rediscover himself and continually be tested, rise to the challenge, or even fail.

Competitors?

An opinion piece: are Apple and Microsoft competitors? This line of reasoning says no.

Who made the spoon that you used to eat your breakfast cereal this morning?

Every once in a while I’ll hear people talking about how Microsoft and Apple are competitors. As someone who’s technology agnostic, I don’t see the world in such shades of black and white. Here’s my reasoning as an outsider comparing the two.

Apple is a hardware company, their goal is selling as many units of whatever as possible, whether it be computers or mp3 players. With a focus on design and user experience, backwards compatibility takes a back seat to form and functionality. They excel at elegance and minimalism. They aim sharply at the home user. Disposability is ok. The next big thing is the future.

Microsoft is an operating system and business application vendor, their goal is to put that software on to as many pieces of hardware as possible. They are an industry leader in office applications and software development environments. They aim sharply at business and government. Backwards compatibility is highly important. They’d run on toasters if they could.

Is there overlap between the two? Sure, some. Is it a make or break difference? Not really, much is a matter of preference and familiarity.

I twitch anytime I hear someone say OS X is more “intuitive” than Windows; the word they’re looking for is consistent. Coarse application design is more similar, meaning once you get over the learning curve, subsequent new challenges have a ring of familiarity.

But more importantly, are the two environments mutually exclusive? Not at all. That’s why platform agnostics run both systems. Some things are just easier to do in some environments than others.

The operating systems wars and the phone wars are about luring people toward purchasing something from that camp. But look closer. MS-Office runs on OS X, and quite nicely. Safari and QuickTime run on Windows, and quite nicely. Once you’ve made the purchase of their crown jewel, the fighting appears to stop.

Users, on the whole, don’t care (and often don’t understand) about the underlying system. They just have a problem they want to solve, learn how to do it once and without change, and any tool that gets the job done will do.

Just like my spoon.

Seeing in Black and White

I just had an interesting thing happen: I saw in black and white. That’s what my brian actually saw with the unaided eye. Here’s the cool part, I tell you how I reproduced it. It was like nothing I’d experienced before. It was beautiful.

A few moments ago, I just had a very interesting and unique experience. I saw in black’n’white. I’d never had this happen before in my life. First I’ll describe the experience, then how I did it, which, curiously enough was repeatable.

“It was clearly not imagination… It was a greyscale world that I physically saw, like a black and white movie, but a zillion times sharper, far more dynamic range, and in 3D.”
With the totally unaided eye, my brain saw my surroundings, in broad daylight, in black and white. The only exception was that objects which were normally bright red had an ever slight red hue to them, but it was only brilliant red objects that did this.

The effect lasted about 7-10 seconds in duration before the color faded back in, almost as if the saturation was being brought up from near nothing to normal.

To convey the effect, this is much like the image I saw:

Seeing in Black and White

When I moved my eyes to look at other parts of the scene, the effect diminished, but if I kept focusing on one spot, like a child’s staring contest, the effect would hold longer. This was very much the inverse of the behavior of an after-image, where if you stay still it fades, but if you rapidly blink, it returns.

The black and white effect composed of the entire field of view. And as it gently faded back to normal, it affected more of the center of the field of view first:

Seeing in Black and White

It only took 2-3 seconds for normal color to return. There was no pain or any form of discomfort before, during, or after. I’m in very good health.

It was as if the signals from the cones were being ignored by the brain, but the signals from the rods were fine. I remember that the detail was astounding, and that the tone of the grass was very similar to the sky, though I’ve been unable to represent that as closely as I’d like in my photographic simulation.

I’m certain you’ve personally woken up in the morning and upon your eyes adjusting to the light have seen the image fade in, not focus, but as your brian assembles bits of the information into meaningful images, like it’s adapting to light after not being exposed to it for a long while.

Here’s how I did it.


I’m going to err on the side of giving too much information, some that might not be relevant, primarily because I don’t know what actually caused it. However, I was able to recreated it, on demand, several minutes later by experimentation; the effect lasted even longer. It was wondrous.

Being inside for the better part of the morning, I figured I’d go outside an lay in the sun for a few minutes. So, I lay down on my back on our driveway which has a slight incline. It was about thirty minutes past noon, and the sun was slightly overhead just off center to my right, enough that it was still bright enough that just closing my eyes was uncomfortable, so I criss-crossed my arms over them to put them in shadow, though I could still tell it was very bright out with my eyes closed. The weather was 89°F, I was in direct light, and there were few clouds in the sky.

I rested this way for about 10 minutes, and I did so just to the point where my eyes were fully relaxed and no longer concerned about the brightness of the light though my eyelids. Also, I wasn’t quite drifting off, but relaxed as you might be just taking in warmth of a nice day at the beach.

What led to the discovery was that I heard a car drive by and so I sat up quickly, opening my eyes. Two things stood out. One, this gave me a slight head-rush, though I’d describe it weak at best. Two, my eyes had not adjusted to the light fully. And, although while bright, it wasn’t uncomfortable, there was no blinding whitewash, no pain, and no caused for squinting required — I was looking away from direct light.

That’s when I noticed the scene seemed extremely washed out and monochromatic; it looked like a black and white photograph.

Thinking my mind or eyes were playing tricks on me, I moved my eyes, but the effect lasted longer than a second, though faded as I looked at more “new” material in my field of attention.

The reds came rushing back in first, with greens right after. It wasn’t one color than another, it was overlapped. I became visually more aware of reds, as that happened, greens started replacing the grey tones as well, and by the time greens were normal, the other colors like purples and blues from the nearby flowers in our garden were already present.

This part will be hard to describe because there’s no English equivalent for it, but it wasn’t like I was seeing in black and white, but rather the absence of color.

I know that sounds identical from a logic standpoint, but the perception was an absence of something, not the presence of something. Intellectually, I knew there had to be color, I just wasn’t seeing it.

It was a greyscale world that I physically saw, like a black and white movie, but a zillion times sharper, far more dynamic range, and in 3D.

It was clearly not imagination, nor dream, it was very real and perceptible.

That’s what made me want to try and repeat it.


Though this time around, if I could get it to work, I’d plan a more scientific excursion. So I selected an area of our yard with brilliant colors, our flower garden, which would be my baseline.

First, I waited about 5 minutes and looked at the area, taking in all the things I should be expecting to see. The area was already in normal color after the effect had faded long ago, but I wanted to be sure.

Seeing in Black and White

So, I laid back down with the intention of trying to get the head rush. I shielded my eyes in shadow, and waited for them to relax and get comfortable, and then waiting a moment, quickly sat up and stared at the area I knew had colorful flowers, a bright red car, and tons of green grass. I made sure I would focus only in one area, trying to stare out to infinity, much as you’d do for those 3D posters, though I was more trying to keep my eyes in a relaxed state because I wanted them in focus.

The preparation this time around took merely a minute or two. The head-rush was again weak from sitting up quickly. I turned in the direction I had planned and opened my eyes.

It’d worked.

The effect returned just as before, but lasted this time about 20 seconds and the effect was just as strong until I couldn’t help myself and look at the astounding detail in scene around me, which caused the effect to fade.

Since I had more time to study the scene, this is when I actually noticed the reds within the black’n’white image in my head. The B/W effect seemed more pronounced when I didn’t move my eyes, relaxing them.

When I turned to look at other things, color would seep in, and if I held my eyes relaxed in the same spot, the color would fade back out partly, much the same way as you can make objects in your blind spot vanish by holding your vision still long enough. That same kind of fading away was what I saw, but with color.

I suspect the effect is caused less by the head rush and more by the eyes being exposed and conditioned to bright light (even with the eyes closed, or maybe the red light through the eyelids saturates the cones like a red filter, though I did not see a green after image). When the eyes are opened, there’s a whole rush of visual information, and I suspect the brain is compensating for the overload by taking in shapes, detail, and tone and then overlaying color after the signal settles. I wasn’t aware that visual processing of color was an independent process.

This led me to two very interesting side thoughts.

One, I’ve always wondered if while under hypnosis people really saw things but said they didn’t, or whether their honestly perceived it. I now know it’s possible to perceive things differently than the visual input as actually providing.

Two, the black and white image was astonishingly detailed in greyscale, much like an Ansel Adams image. Being able to produce this effect on demand to view how a scene might be photographed in black and white is a fantastic tool to have in one’s photographic arsenal.

I hope science doesn’t declare this is bad for you, because I’m going to do it again!

[UPDATE: I can’t get it to happen inside, seems bright sunlight is required.]

iPhone 3GS Compass

So, if your game uses the compass and it’s being played in a moving vehicle, what happens….

The new iPhone 3GS has a compass in it, and most certainly it’s going to be used for precision game play at some point.

Then it dawned on me, one of the number one applications of the iPhone is to act as babysitter. You fire up a game and hand it to the kids in the back seat as you’re driving somewhere.

I’m wondering how this is gonna work as people try to play compass-enabled games while moving, say a car, bus, or train.

My first gut instinct is that initial QAing of games will happen seated, but their real use will be in an environment where there’s motion, and at that point this potential problem may start to get noticed. It may surface as bugs, where ‘the game’ did something unexpected.

As for me, I can’t wait to see how a few malicious sharp terms and exit ramps will affect future game play.

MacHeist 3: A Look At Group Purchasing Behavior

Have MacHeist sales stagnated? He’s my take on why, and what can be done to fix it, and how it has to play out… for the better!

As a glossed over quick introduction, MacHeist is a short-run sale of software packages for the Mac that has a twist. You pay $39 for a bundle of software, and some of that software is “locked.” A portion of your purchase price goes to charity, and the more money raised for charity, the more items in the bundle that get “unlocked.” Thus the more people buy, the more you continue to get. It’s a great scheme, only it isn’t working.

MacHeist 3MacHeist, at the time of this writing, is conducting their third “heist” and after some amazing fluster of activity, new sales appear to have stagnated at an alarming rate.

Alarming to bundle purchasers, because if not enough sales happen, bundle purchasers won’t get all the amazing high-cost software at the extreme end of the bundle. What’s important about that statement is that it’s never happened before, and the problem isn’t the recession.

In informal polling, there appear to be two kinds of purchasers: early adopters and frugal purchasers.

The early adopter purchases the bundle early, knowing a good value when they see it, spurred on by the fact that there are additional incentives for doing so.

The frugal purchasers have their eye on either the final packages in the bundle, or are looking at the bundle as a whole. They don’t want to purchase the bundle until they know everything in it is unlocked.

And that’s the interesting part. If no one buys it, nothing gets unlocked. If everyone takes a risk, everyone gets handsomely rewarded, guaranteed. Thus each potential purchaser is waiting on the action of everyone else — it’s crowd mentality, only the driven behavior is idleness.

The secret ingredient is momentum. By carefully crafting a set of software incentives, under ideal circumstances the early adopter crowd overlaps with the late takers. This manifests itself as a steady stream of purchases.

It might be argued that The Directorate which runs MacHeist became victims of their own success and actually caused the problem by marketing the sale too well. Based on all the pre-sale puzzles, rumors, and incentives, there was a flurry of purchases in the early hours of the sale and projections seemed rather high.

However, one of the primary packages in the bundle required what looked like a high goal to unlock, the perception was that momentum was slowing. And perception drove reality. “Hmm, that doesn’t look like it’ll get unlocked, I think I’ll wait to see if it does before I buy,” is all it took to slow the influx of unlocking purchasers.

This was ill-timed, as it also happened to coincide with the reward for the first 25,000 buyers being removed from the table as the 25,000th bundle was sold. Days later, a only mere 5,000 more have sold and questions are being raised if the final packages will be unlocked.

The up-front fast burn created enough of a gap that people who were on the fence at different points became more segregated than usual. This didn’t happen in the last two sales.

So here’s my prediction: they have to fix this. Meaning, new incentives will re-emerge, the goals will have to be re-addressed, and it’s in the best interest of MacHeist to unlock the bundles anyhow at the end of it.

Turns out before I could finish this post, a new bonus was added, and that did stir a little traffic. But the real objective here is to convey there’s movement, specifically enough that the goal could be reached. That will inspire sales again, and in turn actually unlock the software. By re-calibrating the goal levels, this would solve the problem. In fact, the easy solution is to put all the last packages into one final, achievable goal.

The truth of the matter, however, is whatever happens will be remembered, if not chronicled in Wikipedia forever. If MacHeist goes down in flames for not unlocking all it’s bundled packages, people will be ever the more skeptical, and that means early adopters turning into late purchasers. That only exacerbates the problem, killing future sales opportunities.

By contrast, if the packages do get unlocked, whether by purchasers or by The Directorate making its own donation from the profits it receives, then MacHeist will be seen as more of a sure thing in the future, sliding more of the late comers and risk adverse customers into the early adopter side. This would actually increase future sales, because more gets unlocked sooner, enticing the skeptical buyers.

As such, “betting” on MacHeist with a purchase at this point still seems like a safe move. And, even if none of my predictions happen to come true, enough is unlocked already that the $39 price tag is still an awesome buy for the collection of software provided.

Connecting Models and Photographers… why so hard?

There are numerous sites that proclaim to connect models and photographers, however based on the design and business models I’ve seen, I don’t think it can work in present form. Here’s why.

As a photographer that photographs models, there’s two primary goals that any website that tries to connect models and photographers should aim for:
Model: Leah M. - Image Copyrighted by Walt Stoneburner

1. Assisting a photographer in finding the right model.

2. Assisting the client in finding the right photographer.

All else is peripheral.

The idea is that if you’re a model looking for work, you post your portfolio online and photographers approach you with gigs. Conversely, if you’re a photographer, you post your portfolio and jobs start coming out of the wood work. The reality is that few sites can deliver on the promise adequately, not to a fault of the site’s objective, but due to design, business model complexities, or subtleties pertaining to the problem of brokering.

Naturally, for any such site to work you’re going to need a critical mass of both kinds of users just to have a wide enough selection to make this happen. As such, it’s important not to alienate users — something that is very easy to do with bad design or practice. It’s not enough that a site be free.

The closest site that I’ve come across that seems to have the right idea is www.ModelMayhem.com. It’s search capability is right on target. You tell it that you are looking for models in your local area that are some number of miles from your zipcode, that are between the ages of 18-24, female, 5’2″ – 5’7″, olive skin, with shoulder length black hair, green eyes, and poof — out pops a number of candidates.

This is the way it should work. You tell the criteria about what you need, and it finds people with those attributes.

The problem is the interface is klunky, the portfolio space limited, the navigation is horribly disorganized, and pretty much anything other than models is left wanting. Yet it’s still usable.

I wish it had a way to describe the kinds of services photographers offered and made them in a searchable fashion as well. Oh well, at least finding models isn’t problematic.

Such locator services are not a social network, nor are they a dating service. They’re supposed to be resources that connect professional with professional, with the added bonus of having a reasonable idea of what you’re getting. It frustrates me when a site is designed around chit-chat and messaging. Simply put let one professional find another, preview their work, and then get in contact with them by email; don’t obscure things. A site that works gets traffic, it doesn’t need fudging to get visitors.

Conversely, I just deleted my account over at www.aMuseBook.com, a web site that professes to do the same thing: connect models and photographers. I’d argue not only that it doesn’t, but that it physically can’t in my personal opinion — it’s a business model problem gone awry.

While better organized, and certainly much prettier, it’s search capabilities are downright awful. The best geographical resolution is state-level. So, if you’re looking for a model in Texas, that’s all of Texas. Additionally, providing search criteria for attributes just isn’t possible, which means locating a specific model by looks isn’t doable. And if you can’t find candidates, you aren’t going to be hiring.

Here’s another bad design choice that just seems obvious. If you want to find a model, you typically are looking for an age bracket, yes? Well, the site doesn’t let you search by age, instead you have to search by a specific birthday, which is stupid. Oh, and that’s a Day – Month – Year birthday at that. Even searching by year alone isn’t helpful, because simply year subtraction doesn’t give age.

Now while aMuseBook does give you more space to store your photos, it unlocks features using a point system. You gain points by commenting on people’s pictures and telling your friends to join. What becomes transparent very quickly is that the site is not structured to make contacts, but to get you to churn through pages so that Google Ads get thrown in your face generating an alternate revenue stream. I quickly got tired of being told in every email I have to “use” the site and it will ‘work’ for me.

Hogwash. If I can’t locate a model or post a comprehensive portfolio, then neither I, nor the models, are getting any serious value out of the site.

Adding insult to injury, the site gives you the ability to provide URLs to your own site; this sounds good at first, until you realize that many models and photographers keep their photos on Flickr. Why? Because Flickr is great for managing photos. But what does aMuseBook do for those sites? It blocks them out, showing up as www.*****.com, and when I questioned the site admin about it, I got back a response stating they didn’t want their site for depositing competitor URLs and not another portfolio site.

Wait a second. The service is there to help me find people by showing them my portfolio but they don’t want me to show them my portfolio if it’s elsewhere? Plus I can’t post my portfolio unless I leave comments that I wouldn’t have otherwise. That’s stacking the deck and gives unrealistic feedback. And when points are rewarded for clicking on ads, I’m pretty sure that’s against Google’s terms of service for AdSense.

If people are churning pages leaving “Nice smile” comments, how is one to know which comments are real (and therefore useful) versus people just trying to collect points? The information itself becomes devalued. Thus the business structure and the design alienates users in the short term, while the lack of utility alienates them in the long term. It can’t be viable.

And that’s why I deleted my account over there: It wasn’t usable or productive.

No wonder it’s so hard for models and photographers to get connected. I wish there were a simple directory that focused on doing one thing and one thing well, connecting professionals. It’s a hard problem, but the person that cracks that nut can steal a whole lot of business from all these other sites without trying too hard.

Fundamentally, the problem is that a brokering agent has to provide and organize information. Limiting it, not being able to search it, or failing to have a positive user experience drives away the very assets that are needed to make the site work. This appears to be a case where a well simple organized directory could be a winner-take-all.



UPDATE: I have found an awesome site for models, photographers, and makeup artists. It’s call Miss Online and it allows unlimited photo uploads with no point limitation schemes. It also includes discussions, groups, blogs, and email. The site is very active and quite attractive to use; advertising is at a minimum, and you aren’t coerced into clicking through tons of pages. Plus, and here’s the real proof: as a photographer I’ve had more exchanges with models with this one site than all the other sites combined. It does get you connected.

Is AVG killing windows Remote Desktop?

Today terminal services stopped working, and I could no longer remote in to my Windows box. At the moment, speculation suggests it appears to be a false-positive by AVG.

This morning Anti-Virus Guard,AVG (not the free version), decided that TRMSRV.DLL in the System32 directory was threat and copied it out of the directory.

The result was that Terminal Service no longer works. That means that software like Remote Desktop Connection 2 (RDC), can’t connect, although the machine responds to pings and Samba requests.

Placing a exception in AVG to not check that directory (sounds bad, eh?), and restoring the file from another machine seems to have temporarily address the problem.

I wonder if AVG knows about this.

We’re also seeing that Cygwin and the System Restore Point is also among the collateral damage.

UPDATE 11-Nov-2008: Looks like AVG is now flagging Windows as a virus.

New iPhones? Speculation at the Apple Store.

At the Apple store, I was given an interesting tidbit about an “event” that happened, and passed by rather silently.

Total speculation follows.

This weekend, I was at the Apple Store, and managed to get into a rather in depth conversation with someone, who, well, really knew their stuff. More so than other store employees I’ve chatted with, and some of them were pretty good.

I was passed the observation that an interesting “event” had occurred rather silently.

They ran out of iPhones.

This person explained to me that Apple does a really good job of keeping them stocked, since they were a major supplier for the area. However, they were clean out.

The only times that ever happened, was when Apple was about to change inventory on them. Killing the 4GB model was one. Going to the 16GB was the other.

A 32GB or 64GB iPhone seems likely, as iPhone customers want as much memory as an iTouch allows.

This would be a good time to add additional gestures, which, incidentally would help out with the lack of cut’n’paste.

But the real feature I’m looking for? The ability to push my contacts to other people with an iPhone. We’ve got the same device, the same applications, the same data, and bluetooth, there’s no technical reason I can’t give someone my ‘electronic business card’.

Battlestar Galactica and the writers strike

My speculation on what turns the new ending of Battlestar Galatica will take.

It’s been in the news that the ending to Battlestar Galactica has been rewritten.

Supposedly, it’s darker. Depressing. And, you might need a security blanket to get through it.

Here’s my speculation on what happens:

  1. Adama finds Earth.
  2. The Cylons find Earth.
  3. The colonies are wiped out.
  4. But, the Cylons finally figured out how to reproduce.
  5. We, the viewers, are actually Cylons.
  6. And to atone for their sins, the Cyclons made themselves forget they are Cylons.
  7. The only remaining evidence is a population that is monotheistic, with legends of a polytheistic society.