To Tweet or Not to Tweet

Stephanie Thornton asked Tuesday for my opinion on the positives and negatives of Twitter. So did Susan Quinn, so I figured it's a valid question because two of the three people who asked me questions wanted to know about it.

The positives of Twitter far outweigh the negatives, in my opinion. Several positives are the ease of networking with writers, agents, and editors; the instant feedback you can get from your Tweets; and the general camaraderie you can experience by having a community of writers on there sending 140 character messages back and forth to each other.

Using Twitter has helped me connect with writers all over the country and the world, and also some published authors who I would've otherwise not connected with. I occasionally tweet with Gail Carriger (she of Soulless fame), and the Tweets of Generalissimo Stan Lee are always entertaining (but that's because Stan Lee is effing amazing, so nothing more need be said).

I've also been able to tap into the wealth of resources that other writers can provide. A recent conversation I had on there involved determining a name for what I used to call "bionics" in CALLARION AT NIGHT. After consultation with Twitter (and the fabu L.T. Host), I decided to use the word Mecho instead -- which would be short for Fabricated Mechanical Organism (and yes, Bane will be happy to know that a few people on there did misread the word Organism the same way he did awhile back).

Short version is that while Twitter can suck several hours down the drain, the usefulness of it far outweighs the downside. That and there's sometimes very entertaining conversations revolving around wagels, pork loin, and shoving Jeeps into the Mississippi River (those are the subjects of two different conversations, by the way).

But Twitter's not for everyone. I adore it, but you may not. It's really up to you guys. If you do decide to join, or have already, feel free to follow me on there. I sometimes say interesting things. Sometimes.