I recently wrote about the novel-length work I've been slogging through for the last year-and-a-half, The Letter From William Waiklin.

My wife had two points of criticism: she felt I had "given too much of the storyline away" and she didn't think my picture should appear on the back cover of the proposed artwork.

I scratched my forehead and gave her a confused look, both habits that bother her to no end. Why? Because they have each been linked separately to hair loss, I asked inside my head.

But I was genuinely unsure how other authors--and, in fact, whether authors themselves were the party responsible for the task--slapping together the short synopses on the backs of their books. I studied titles I had in my collection and found the examples to vary somewhat in how far they went to bait the reader into buying into the story.

Some synopses went the minimalistic route. Romances, in particular--not that I personally have a large selection of romances--seemed to give few details about the story. I'm guessing that is because the storylines share many similarities with other romances. The specifics tend not to be a buying factor. Again, I'm guessing, not being an expert.

Other titles' synopses went much further. I looked for a common reason why the authors (or whomever) found it necessary to put in so dangerously many details. Like my wife, weren't they afraid they'd be giving away the perfect storyline that they alone could have invented? And what reason would a reader have to purchase the book if the whole story was laid out for them?

Regarding the idea of another author lifting the storyline for their own purposes, I am not concerned. The fine specifics of how the story unfolds could really only be told by me. And I don't say that in a vain way. It's simply that I believe, as with painting or web design, both of which I've had a hand in, even if you set out to copy a work wholesale, the result will inevitably have marks, and not typically small marks, of the copier's style. You just can't hide it. In fiction, the opportunity for individual style avails itself at every moment. So for another author to "steal" my story, I believe, is an impossibility. Even if I were to sit down with him and give every twist and turn, each nuanced character trait I had spent months aligning to achieve the best story I could create, by the end of the test, I would have the book I am writing and he would have a different work. I believe I could defend myself as the original creator in the end.

Regarding giving away the farm to the reader, I decided that my synopses were not like a movie trailer, where not only do you get a more or less chronological run-through of the story, you get fed one visual take on the story. For me, this is the real reason a book synopses can afford to describe in more detail the essence of a story. So much is left to the reader's imagination.

As a reader reads, he is bringing to the experience everything he has seen in his life. The brown, antique table with scroll details that he sees is not the same table I envisioned when I keyed the passage. Again, the opportunity for a reader to bring his own flavor to the story avails itself in every line of the story.

So on both of the synopses-related counts, I've considered my wife's apprehensions and will leave it unchanged for the time being. 

Whether or not I should have placed my mug on the back cover, I am undecided. I've seen author pics on some books and not on others and I'm not sure if there are good reasons going one way or the other. Some attractive authors choose to leave themselves off, while some do not. The same holds true for the less fortunate authors. I'm guessing it's a matter of personal preference.

Whether or not I will leave my picture off the back cover is a matter of debate. Email me with your opinions on that matter as well, but I tend to trust the woman whom I've lived with, who has had to live with my mug beside her every day for the last nearly 19 years when she says don't go with the picture.

I am a web designer when I'm not authoring. That's sitting for long periods of time followed by sitting for long periods of time. That should equal fat and stiffness, poor eyesight and carpel-tunnel, right? Yes, it does. IF one doesn't take the necessary precautions to avoid that fate.

The point was made well by Isaac Asimov. I read--and I'm boldly paraphrasing, so don't bother correcting me--that he was asked what he would do if he were told he had only a short time to live. His answer was he would write faster.

So my point, in turn, is this: if you want more time to write, take care of yourself. Your health is too important to skimp on. If you're unhealthy, your mentality changes, and what, if not your psychological take on the world, affects your writing?

Furthermore, we authors strive to make every aspect of our writing environment as comfortable as possible. We settle on the best pen or laptop, find a desk that will serve our style, go to lengths to shut out the rest of the world. Why not pay that same amount of respect and attention to yourself, the most important piece of equipment in the process?

Who has the time, you ask? I'd argue that we all have the time.

If you're anything like me, you don't just write while you're writing, right? You write all the time. If you're really like me, you sleep poorly when you do sleep because you're pestering yourself about how your character is going to possibly show up in scene with the so-and-so and still not be discovered, or something like that. You plan and plot while you're in the car, at the grocery store, in the shower, in the middle of conversations (sorry, dear).

So if I'm always writing, then I'm not really losing any time by working exercise into my routine. I may be losing some opportunities to actually put words down, but I find I write better a] when I've mentally prepared for the upcoming scene and b] when I've literally gotten my juices flowing.

I have a membership to a fitness club in my area. I go there three, sometimes four times a week. I work my core muscles and I spend time on the elliptical machine since it's low-impact. I stretch and I look around, like most authors do all the time. That's where the stories are. And I think about writing in general, scenes specifically and I don't feel like I've wasted a moment or become less of an author.

Can I get a hell-yeah because hell, yeah.

The argument is pretty short actually. The famous quote from Richard Bach, and the one I've had posted on the wall next to me from the day I took up writing again after a 17 year hiatus--hope I didn't make you spit your coffee onto your monitors with that revelation--reads: "A professional writer is an amateur who didn't quit."

So the argument may be based on semantics, but Bach doesn't question whether the writer is an author. He implies that an unpublished or unpracticed author is still an author. He's an amateur.

So, by all means, refer to yourself as an author. If you write with any level of seriousness, welcome to the business. It's not like your inclusion leaves less room for the rest of us.

And referring to yourself as an author, even if your level of confidence only allows you to say it in your head, is an important tool. Who can work, thinking of themselves as a pretender? I believe thinking of myself as an author is an important step in my ability to write every day. How else could I justify to myself, or my wife, or my children, or my dog, the long hours I accumulate over a week and over--what is it now?--a year-and-a-half? And still no finished book?