Nonsense-Free Kristin

Devon Eriksen didn’t wait for permission from traditional publishing. He wrote Theft of Fire, a hard sci-fi thriller that male readers were starving for, and sold tens of thousands of copies on his own terms. In this conversation, we talk about why men stopped reading, how indie authors can fill that gap, and why getting canceled was actually the best thing that happened to his career.

If you’ve been told the market for male-focused fiction doesn’t exist, Devon’s success proves otherwise.

In This Episode

* Why traditional publishing abandoned male readers

* How Devon built an audience before launching his book

* The difference between writing to market vs. writing what you want

* Why “books don’t rot” - your work can take off at any time

* The real reason Devon chose not to use Audible

* How to market yourself as an author without being a “content creator”

* What actually matters more than your first week sales numbers

Guest Links

Devon Eriksen

* Website: devoneriksen.com

* Twitter/X: @Devon_Eriksen_

Theft of Fire (Orbital Space #1)

* Ebook/Paperback: Amazon

* Audiobook: Devon’s Website

Kristin’s Links

Services & Content

* Editing Services: nonsensefreeeditor.com

* Newsletter: Fictional Influence on Substack

* YouTube: Nonsense-Free Kristin

* Books by Kristin: https://amzn.to/3Jt5FOP

Sponsors

ManyChat - Turn social media comments into subscribers automatically. Get 30% off at manychat.partnerlinks.io/nonsensefree

About This Podcast

Nonsense-Free Kristin is for independent authors and creators who are building their platforms, mastering their craft, and creating their own signal. New episodes weekly.

Timestamps

[00:00] - Getting canceled was the best thing for my career[03:15] - Why men stopped reading (and it’s not what you think)[07:30] - The publishing industry’s “diversity” problem actually hurts diversity[12:45] - How I built an audience before my book even launched[18:20] - Why “books don’t rot” - your timeline is longer than you think[22:10] - The Audible scam: Why I refused to use it[28:40] - Marketing is about relationships, not advertising[35:15] - Stop trying to appeal to people who hate you[42:00] - Why most indie authors fail (and how to avoid it)[48:30] - The real competition isn’t other authors[52:45] - Advice for men who want to write but feel shut out

Read The Black Crown: https://amzn.to/43wAppu

Follow John on Twitter (X): https://x.com/J0hnADouglas

Traditional fantasy publishing is dying—and indie author John A. Douglas explains exactly why male readers are fleeing en masse from modern bookstores.

From a bullied homeschooled kid to becoming a successful self-published fantasy author, John won’t stay quiet about how publishers actively alienate their core audience. Now indie authors are creating the epic fantasy adventures that traditional publishers refuse to publish, and the future of literature depends on writers who aren't afraid to write what readers actually want.

This brutally honest conversation exposes the industry's biggest failures and shows why the rebellion against the norm is a double-edged sword when it comes to building your author platform. If you love fantasy but hate what's happening to the genre, this interview will change how you see the entire publishing world.

Bjørn: Why are you doing this?

Patrick: Because you let me. —From Speak No Evil (2022)

The greatest films always leave themselves open to a number of interpretations, and the newly released horror movie, Heretic, is no different. Terrifying, thrilling, and oddly funny in spots, the ending leaves you wondering what it all meant, what you’re supposed to do now, and if you’re like me, will probably leave you wanting a second viewing.

Most of the YouTube commentariat has rendered the firm verdict that Heretic is a plain-faced attack on organized religion, a misogynist institution designed solely for men’s benefit and women’s detriment. The thriller is just the set dressing for the message, they say.

You might be surprised to hear me say this after last week’s article, but I disagree.

Heretic begins with two fresh-faced Mormon missionaries going door to door attempting to convert people to their church. Unlike many evangelical organizations whose missionaries are comprised of elder married couples (often with grown children), the Mormon church sends young adults—pairs of boys or girls—most of whom are naive, untested, and unused to the vulgarity of the secular world.

Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton (their first names are never given and these girls never address each other by their Christian names) arrive at the door of Mr. Reed (first name also never given), ready to answer all his questions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

After coming into his home, only after being assured his wife is baking a pie in the next room, Mr. Reed offers them soft drinks and says, “I think it is GOOD to be religious.”

We find out later in the movie that, yes, he most certainly does think it is good to be religious. For the girls anyway. For his prey.

The question is why.

We got a hint early in the movie alluding to what I think the message of the film is. Before Sisters Barnes and Paxton arrive at Mr. Reed’s house, they see a trio of pretty girls filming a TikTok in the middle of a crosswalk.

Sister Paxton, the blonde, eagerly rushes up to them, ready to get her first documented baptism. The girls are eager to take a picture with Sister Paxton, but then rip off her skirt, exposing her Mormon “Magic” underwear. And they run off laughing.

It’s just so funny, committing sexual battery in the open street. And filming it! And probably posting it to their followers.

I seethed in the theater, boiling over with the need to get in their (fictional) comments and make sure those little b*****s were canceled so hard they got kicked out of college.

Because we all know why those girls felt so comfortable doing that to poor Sister Paxton. I doubt little miss TikTok would have dared try to rip any piece of clothing off any of these ladies:

They did it because they knew they’d get away with it. They knew the sweet Mormon girl wouldn’t knock their teeth down their throat.

It was a display of power. Nothing more. And it was very in line with the overall theme of the movie.

Feeding Girls into the Meat Grinder

The innocence and ingrained accommodating nature of the Mormon missionaries plays a prominent role throughout the film. Some will point to the girls stepping inside Mr. Reed’s house without actually seeing his wife, but I think this is the least stupid thing they did. In their place, even now in my decrepitude, I would have too.

At this point there were solid green flags. A friendly man in a nice house in a nice neighborhood, a living room with a homey decor that reeks of a woman’s touch. It all looks legit. And Mr. Reed is so friendly, charming, and yes, handsome. There was nothing to put them off… except the normal human refusal to step inside a stranger’s house.

I find it borderline hilarious that the LDS church criticized this film, saying: “Any narrative that promotes violence against women because of their faith or undermines the contributions of volunteers runs counter to the safety and wellbeing of our communities.”

To accuse a movie of endangering their fresh-faced 19-21 year-old missionaries is quite a stretch.

YouTuber (and former Mormon Missionary) Alyssa Grenfell does a great job of breaking down why the LDS Church itself is the one placing these girls in harm’s way. It is not only their age and the fact that the missionaries are sent into dangerous places at home and abroad; it’s also the sheltered way in which they’ve been brought up.

Both actors in Heretic are former Mormons and their performances were perfect. Sister Paxton in particular had the sweet, encouraging way of showing interest when she spoke to Mr. Reed that most men would interpret as flirting.

I have known many Mormon girls in my life, especially in middle school, where Southern Baptists reigned supreme and Catholics were called Mary-worshippers to our faces. It made sense that we would be friends with the Mormon girls.

I went to services with them (obviously never the Temple). Their families gave me the whole spiel. I love my Mormon friends.

And I prayed and cried every day they were on their missions. I could tell they censored their letters about how it was going. (Gary, Indiana is where they were sent, if you were wondering).

Unlike the evangelicals, the Mormons send little girls who have likely never been kissed and are as innocent as can be into all manner of dangerous neighborhoods.

Of course the Mormons don’t like the movie. It shines a light on the danger they put these girls in for NO reason. Muslims are growing faster than Mormons. They don’t send young girls into foreign countries to strangers doors.

Muslims ALSO don’t lie to their girls and tell them that if they love God enough, then they will be safe. And neither do most evangelical missionaries. The married couples who go to Cambodia, Pakistan, or any other number of hostile places accept they may die for their ministry and have accepted that risk to spread the word of God.

These young girls have been told from birth that there is no risk, that they will be personally protected by Heavenly Father if their heart is true.

This is a vicious lie that can only be told if you hate young girls with your whole heart.

Did God find Polly Klaas deficient? I think not.

It’s sickening to tell this to the most innocent among us and is tailor-made to make pliable, cooperative victims.

Thus brings us to why Mr. Reed selected his victims the way he did.

Supplanting God Instead of Seeking Him

I don’t think it’s too much of a spoiler to say that Mr. Reed obviously spent many years studying religion. Not just Mormonism; from the looks of it, he studied ALL of them, going back as fas as he could.

Impressive, I suppose, except when you consider WHY.

It was not to seek God, to understand His plan, and how Mr. Reed should fit into it.

It was to decipher which of the religions best facilitated his own unearned authority and which one(s) ensured willing and pliable victims?

He wasn’t wrong that Mormons were the best option on BOTH counts.

Mormonism isn’t uniquely bad, not in general and not towards its women. But its beliefs are structured in a way that attract bad individuals.

The belief in personal revelation is a huge problem, for one.

Unquestioned male headship is another.

The insular nature of how Mormons are raised and that they remain child-like in their beliefs on human nature far longer than most others puts the final nail in the coffin.

The first moment Sisters Barnes and Paxton start to feel uneasy with Mr. Reed is when he asks them about polygamy, specifically if they actually believed Joseph Smith was given the green light to marry all those women he wanted to sleep with, or if he made it all up to justify his adultery.

The girls were uncomfortable with their church doctrine being questioned. But that’s not actually what Reed was asking.

What he was really asking is “Do you believe in personal revelation?”

Because if the answer is yes, that makes his plan smooth sailing.

The danger of personal revelation was also seen in Under the Banner of Heaven (a non-fiction book turned semi-fictional mini-series).

The show looked at a real crime committed by members of a highly respected Mormon family, one of whom asserted God spoke to him. And what did God say?

You guessed it: Have sex with your underage step-daughters. It’s cool, bro. I’m God.

Funny how God ALWAYS tells these “prophets” that serving him means having sex with a bunch of young girls.

The problem with personal revelation is that you can’t disprove it. You can only attack the “prophet” himself. And if the “prophet” is popular, you just might get yourself killed, which is what happened in the mini-series. And real life.

The already-atheist movie reviewers who gleefully assert that Heretic is an attack on religion, missed the message. They missed what the ending meant.

They missed that it wasn’t a condemnation.

It was a call to action.

Being strong in your faith means being learned in its history so you can spot straw men and other assorted nonsense. It also means standing up for your faith and yourself.

“Turn the other cheek” doesn’t mean be everyone’s personal b***h.

And “Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone” does NOT mean just let everyone do whatever they want to you, your family, and your community.

Two things can be true at once.

* God is real and religion is how we make sense of Him AND

* Evil men exist and they use religion as an effective vector of controlling and silencing their victims

The film insists that you can be pure of heart, a true and faithful believer… while also stabbing a M-Fer in the neck when you need to.

If you liked this post in particular, please consider becoming a paid subscriber or making a one-time donation to help support the publication ↓

I will not lie to you: My reasons for renting Sweet November in 2003 were not virtuous. I had a massive crush on Jason Isaacs (of The Patriot fame and later, Harry Potter’s Lucius Malfoy) as well as Michael Rosenbaum, who starred in the WB’s Smallville as Lex Luthor.

I scoured IMDB to find EVERYTHING Rosenbaum was in so I could watch it. Imagine my delight to see he’d starred alongside Isaacs. In a romance!

I couldn’t get to Blockbuster fast enough!

It uh… didn’t turn out how I’d hoped.

However…

That’s not why this movie deserves the first-place trophy in the sad halls of awful Thanksgiving-themed movies.

Even for seasoned consumers of Lifetime and Hallmark movies, there occasionally emerges a film so offensively sweet, so cloyingly sentimental, and so oblivious to real human behavior that it threatens its viewers with a coronary.

Sweet November is about Nelson, played by Keanu Reeves, a mean-spirited workaholic who gets himself fired in a way that beggars belief. In a weird, not at all cute meet-cute, he meets Sarah, a flighty, whimsical woman who persuades him to spend a month with her.

He agrees, but is later shocked to find out she has been doing this every month. Her gay best friend (the criminally under-utilized Jason Isaacs) calls Nelson “November.” The last guy was “October” and the one before that… you get the picture.

That’s what Sarah does. She helps people. Men, specifically. Through the power of her whimsy (and sexual prowess), she takes emotionally-stunted men (some of whom including Nelson are addicts) and she fixes them.

In a month.

Like all manic pixie dream girls, she is able to use her feminine wiles to ooze into Nelson’s cracks and form him into a new, better person.

More than her whimsy, her adorkable feminine shenanigans, her patient and sensual schooling of Nelson shows him all he’s been missing in his work-focused life.

Honestly, I could have forgiven the movie (and its writers) if it had continued on this path. Boy meets girl, girl improves boy, boy marries girl. Okay, I’ll take it. I could have even forgiven the complete lack of chemistry between Charlize and Keanu.

(Real question, has Keanu ever been a good romantic lead? Nothing comes to mind)

Instead (23-year-old spoiler warning), it turns out that Sarah has non-Hodgkins lymphoma. So even when Nelson falls in love with her, she tells him to leave. “November is over.”

She cruelly rebuffs him and sends him packing. Even when he chases her down and insists he’s not afraid of her illness, that he won’t run away from her impending death, she won’t have it, even though she returns his affections.

“I want you to always remember me this way.”

So to recap, dying girl (who knows she’s dying) barters, begs, and manipulates a series of men into falling in love with her, making several of them propose marriage to her (Nelson is the only one she wanted to say yes to, she confesses). All while knowing she will not be around for long.

It struck a particularly nasty cord with me and I admit I projected my own fears of being abandoned by a future partner onto the (male) script writer.

Was this wish fulfillment for him? Did he wish that women would just go away and leave the men who love them when they fall ill? You know, to spare men the bother of caring for the sick and no-longer attractive woman?

Or did he think this is what women are? So horrifically vain they would send away a man who loves them to ensure his last memory of her would be one of beauty?

It’s gross either way.

Roger Ebert said it best: “Sweet November” passes off pathological behavior as romantic bliss. It’s about two sick and twisted people playing mind games and calling it love.

If only I’d read that review before I scurried off to Blockbuster.

Damn you, Rosenbaum, and your blue-eyed smolder…

In the end, "Sweet November" is less a movie and more a cautionary tale about the perils of romanticizing dysfunction. If you're looking for a film to watch with your significant other to celebrate your love, go with The Wedding Singer.

It’s the best and I will not be dissuaded from that opinion.

Fictional Influence is a reader-supported publication. If you especially enjoyed this article, feel free to leave a one-time donation ↓

Fictional Influence #3: Pitch Black (2000) warned you about being a follower

Donate to victims of Hurricane Helene at Samaritan's Purse: https://www.samaritanspurse.org/

Fictional Influence is a weekly blog and podcast by Kristin McTiernan

To get this podcast in blog form, you can subscribe at https://www.fictionalinfluence.com

If you specifically enjoyed this episode, you can leave a tip here: https://square.link/u/aEnj4jw4

Fictional Influence #2: Paradise Requires Violence: Furiosa and Protecting What's Yours

Fictional Influence is a weekly blog and podcast by Kristin McTiernan

To get this podcast in blog form, you can subscribe at https://www.nonsensefreewriters.com

Collectively, the class of 1997 remembers the best teacher they ever had—Mr. Brackett. He was something of a cultural touchstone because of the way they all stood up as one at their graduation ceremony and saved him from being unjustly fired by a cowardly school administration.

They also remember, maybe with tears in their eyes, how the ENTIRE community stood up with them.

Mr. Brackett had stood up for them for many years, sacrificing his time and sometimes emotional health to help his students in any way he could. They would not allow his kindness and his excellence to be repaid with cruelty.

And America looked on, touched by the loyalty this man had engendered just by being himself.

It didn’t matter that Howard Brackett wasn’t real. He was a fictional character played by Kevin Klein in the movie In & Out. But he spoke to us on a deeper level and asked us, subtly and with good humor, to learn from him.

And we did. But maybe not the right lesson.

Hollywood: It’s Okay to Be Gay

It was a big deal for a school teacher to be outed as gay in the 1990s. It wasn’t a question of IF you’d be fired, but when. Would they sack you the second they found out, or quietly wait until the end of the school year?

It was a blanket assessment: Gay = deviant predator. And like all blanket assessments, it was wrong. Hollywood took up the task to persuade the millions of people who’d never actually met a gay to judge each person individually.

Just look at their actions and character, the movies and tv shows urged us. NOT who they find attractive.

In & Out was just one of those films and, in my opinion, the best. It shed light on the reality that for most well-adjusted people, being gay was the least important thing about them.

It worked. And acceptance of gays in society, including marriage and adoption, became near universal.

So why, in 2023, was it found that gay acceptance has gone down? This state of affairs has gays my age and older rightly miffed. They worked so hard to be a part of the society, won, and now they’re being shoved back into the same category as perverts.

Why? Because younger millennials (and by extension, Gen Z) decided that ACKSHUALLY who they want to bang is the only interesting thing about them. And all of us are duty-bound to congratulate them for it.

They forgot what made Howard Brackett, and by extension, gays in general, universally accepted.

In & Out & All Around

If you haven’t seen the movie, Howard is a high school teacher and basketball coach who lives a normal, quiet life. He has been engaged to Emily, a fellow teacher, for MANY years. A loving, religious, celibate relationship. He cares for his charming parents and looks after his students. But on the night of his annual Oscars viewing party, a former student of his outs him as gay… something he never realized about himself.

Much hilarity ensues as he tries to convince himself and everyone else that he isn’t gay. Except he is. He just never realized it. I won’t spoil every plot point but I will tell you that the scene I described at the beginning of this post isn’t the happy ending of the movie.

One by one, his students stand up at graduation and say, “I’m gay too!” in support of Mr. Brackett, followed by every member of the community in attendance. It’s heart warming to say the least. At one point, wise old Wilford Brimley (who plays Howard’s father) stands up when the school principal insists that parents wouldn’t be comfortable with Howard teaching their children. He doesn’t raise his voice when he says, “Excuse me, I’m a parent.” But it chokes me up every time.

It’s a wonderful scene, and definitely the climax. But not the happy ending.

The happy ending is the wedding that plays over the end credits, which gives Howard everything he truly wanted:

* He gave his mother the wedding she so desperately wanted (her own vow renewal)

* The community he lived in got rid of the reporters plaguing them because no secret = no scandal

* Emily (played by Joan Cusack in all her boob-a-licious glory) got a husband who adored her and was intensely attracted to her. Something she very much deserved.

* Everyone was happy, which made him happy.

Did he end up with Tom Selleck’s character long term? Maybe. But if so, that’s just a bonus. The happiness of those he loved was his happy ending, something the movie made abundantly clear by showing us who Howard was. That was why we loved him. We gave our views on gays a second thought. And we became better people.

Are You Howard-Maxing?

The problem with scenes like that soaring graduation ceremony is that poorly raised narcissistic people look at that and only see the adulation Howard received, not the reasons for it. The annoying purple-haired narcissist doesn’t see that friends and strangers alike were willing to stand alongside Howard because who he was shone clearly in his actions. For decades, he had been kind, selfless, and a good friend and neighbor.

The younger crop of gays decided to make their sexuality the centerpiece of their identity and reason for being. Remember that certain child of Hollywood actors who came out at her grandfather’s funeral?

Remember all those TikToks about “queer” teachers who were having private conversations with their students about sexuality and telling the kids not to tell their parents?

You know, basically the worst fears of the 90s anti-gay movement?

Somehow, movies, books, and tv shows that touted the message: “Love people for who they are, not who they are attracted to” got turned into “Love and respect me specifically for my sexuality, or you’re a bad person.”

A good analogy of why Howard gays are liked and TikTok gays aren’t? Foot fetishists.

Even others in the fetish community can’t stand feet people. Why?

Because they are publicly gross. A bondage person would never think of sitting down at dinner with a bunch of their normie friends and start telling a friend’s wife about all the things they’d like to see them do/wear.

But feet people? They think nothing of asking a woman to kick off her shoes to “show me the pedicure.” Nothing of ogling and making comments ceaselessly in any setting.

And we won’t go into what they feel empowered to say online.

If you’ve ever noticed influencers blurring their feet out in their pictures… now you know why.

Feet people bring their nasty to the dinner table while bondage people don’t.

And it’s the same thing with Howard gays.

Contrary to the younger generation, they don’t think the flavor of queer you are constitutes WHO you are. And anyone who does is just boring.

I’m not the first to say it, but if that’s your go-to when describing yourself, maybe you need to do something else. Have you considered Warhammer?

If not that, maybe consider being of service to something greater than yourself. Because that’s the kind of thing people like to make movies about.

It’s also the kind of thing people like to pay money to watch movies about. Over and over, for decades.

Personally, I think that should be everyone’s goal: Live a life worth making a movie about.

Fictional Influence #4: Hollywood Hates Humans: Godzilla King of the Monsters

Fictional Influence is a weekly blog and podcast by Kristin McTiernan

To get this podcast in blog form, you can subscribe at https://www.fictionalinfluence.com

If you particularly liked this episode, you can leave a tip here: https://square.link/u/aEnj4jw4