I'll run it in its entirety, then provide my answers.
Lee: Joe, here’s my response to the points you made that interest me.
I think the first part of your reply (about relative success) can be summed up by quoting your words “That’s luck … the legacy industry never handed me the keys to the kingdom like they did with you.”
That’s a little self-pitying, don’t you think? Poor Joe! And it doesn’t hold up under analysis. We both started from the same place, albeit a few years apart, but as it happens those particular years saw no change in the model. We both had the same small print run in debut hardcover. We both had the same extremely limited distribution. We both had the same non-existent marketing support. We were first-year clones of each other. We were typical throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks gambits.
The same was pretty much true of our second and third years, too. Meanwhile, of course, we both went to work, trying to get ahead, by writing the best books we could, and promoting them as effectively as possible.
Now, I’m the first to acknowledge the existential luck I had in life. I was born white, male, middle class, tall, healthy, not visibly deformed, in a stable postwar Western democracy at peace, with a welfare state and free education. I think my own little demographic was literally the luckiest ever in all of human history.
But you certainly shared that luck. Not quite as tall, maybe, but certainly better looking … not as extensive a welfare state, but certainly a far more prosperous society. And so on. We started equal, and we made choices. Yours were poor. You threw immense energy into misguided – and actually damaging – stratagems. You didn’t understand the game. Which is not just hindsight. I remember trying to dissuade you, as a friend, in a conference hotel somewhere long ago. You ignored me, and were eventually dropped, while I stayed in the game.
No one “handed” me a key, and no one withheld one from you. Instead, a bean counter sat down and figured he could make more money out of me than you. It was that simple.
And in fact you were then very lucky – a new platform was invented that suited your skill set perfectly. I’m a close observer of the whole self-publishing scene (and I have read more than 600 self-published books) and I think your weaknesses under the old model have been matched by exceptional strengths perfectly attuned to the new model.
I think you should celebrate that, and I think you should stop letting traditional publishing live rent-free in your head. I think all self-publishers should. Because all these endless screechy blogs make you look whiny, not us. “I coulda been a contender!” Get over it already. Move on. Don’t perpetuate the “bitter reject” meme.
Later you said, “I believe you overestimate the value of Hachette’s catalog to Amazon.” No, I don’t. I said I think Amazon overestimates the value of Hachette’s catalog to Amazon. My point was quite clear – Amazon won’t dump Hachette because Amazon’s own internal credo is built on being the everything store. Which dilutes its negotiating power. All negotiations are built on a willingness to walk away. Amazon isn’t willing.
Later you mention print disappearing – which it might, and which I would regret, because I think it would happen without a positive desire on the part of customers. People like print. If it goes, it will have gone because of retail economics, not lack of appeal. Which sounds confused, but that’s an accurate analysis. Mass market is dying not because there’s diminished demand, but because there isn’t enough margin in it. “I can make more out of broccoli than books,” one retailer said. Will all readers switch to e-readers? Not all, I think. Sadly reading’s appeal is fragile now, and many folks will quit and find alternatives. Or not – I’ll be particularly sad about poor people. Any e-reading ecosystem is entirely inaccessible unless you have a working credit card or a viable bank account for PayPal – which poor people don’t. They love used paperbacks – all worn and furry, found, traded, borrowed, bought for fifty cents. But hey. This is the modern world.
As for the rest … I guess I have one question. One thing few people know about me is I love ironing. I just moved, which was a great excuse for a new ironing board. I checked Amazon, naturally, who had boards ranging from $18 all the way to $220. Has Amazon approached the expensive manufacturer and said, “C’mon, pal, America needs cheaper ironing boards! Think of the children!” No, it said, “Sure, throw it up on the site and we’ll see if anyone’s interested. We trust our customers to decide for themselves.”
Another interest is audio. Amazon has low-powered two-channel audio amplifiers listed from $24 to $24,000. Did it approach the expensive manufacturer and say, “C’mon, pal, America needs cheaper amplifiers! Think of the puppies!” No, it said, “Sure, throw it up on the site and we’ll see if anyone’s interested. We trust our customers to decide for themselves.”
Can you explain in detail why the e-book market shouldn’t operate the same way as the ironing board market or the amplifier market? Why do e-book buyers – uniquely – need Nanny Amazon to save them from deciding for themselves? Are books special? Are they different? Or are there others factors in play?
Joe: Thanks again for stopping by, Lee. Your thoughts are smart and refreshing. I'll respond point by point.
Lee: I think the first part of your reply (about relative success)
can be summed up by quoting your words “That’s luck … the legacy industry never
handed me the keys to the kingdom like they did with you.”
That’s a little self-pitying, don’t you think? Poor Joe!
Joe: I find it empowering. My daddy didn't buy me a car. I went out and earned my own.
Ribbing aside, you had advantages that I didn't, but that's life. I'm pleased with what I've been able to accomplish, and don't lament what I never had.
Ribbing aside, you had advantages that I didn't, but that's life. I'm pleased with what I've been able to accomplish, and don't lament what I never had.
Lee: And it doesn’t hold up under analysis. We both started from the same place,
albeit a few years apart, but as it happens those particular years saw no change
in the model. We both had the same small print run in debut hardcover. We both
had the same extremely limited distribution. We both had the same non-existent
marketing support. We were first-year clones of each other. We were typical
throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks gambits.
Lee: The same was pretty much true of our second and third years,
too. Meanwhile, of course, we both went to work, trying to get ahead, by
writing the best books we could, and promoting them as effectively as
possible.
Lee: Now, I’m the first to acknowledge the existential luck I had
in life. I was born white, male, middle class, tall, healthy, not visibly
deformed, in a stable postwar Western democracy at peace, with a welfare state
and free education. I think my own little demographic was literally the
luckiest ever in all of human history.
But you certainly shared that luck. Not quite as tall,
maybe, but certainly better looking … not as extensive a welfare state, but
certainly a far more prosperous society. And so on.
Joe: Agreed, except on the better looking part. You've got a suave British Secret Agent look about you, I get mistaken for an elderly Jack Black.
I grew up in America a privileged white male in an affluent family. But as I neared adulthood, our family lost everything. While in college, and for years later, I was poor. I wrote my first novel in 1992, in a basement apartment in the Chicago suburbs, and often had to choose between eating and turning on the heat. (On a particularly cold winter night went to the bathroom and couldn't shower because my shampoo bottle had frozen).
I grew up in America a privileged white male in an affluent family. But as I neared adulthood, our family lost everything. While in college, and for years later, I was poor. I wrote my first novel in 1992, in a basement apartment in the Chicago suburbs, and often had to choose between eating and turning on the heat. (On a particularly cold winter night went to the bathroom and couldn't shower because my shampoo bottle had frozen).
It was during a pretty serious rescission, and writing was something I squeezed in between any job I could get, some white collar, some blue.
This taught me a lot. First, to not be afraid of hard work. Second, to not give up.
I was lucky, but at lot of the time it didn't feel like it. I was, literally at times, a starving artist.
Lee: We started equal, and we
made choices. Yours were poor. You threw immense energy into misguided – and
actually damaging – stratagems. You didn’t understand the game. Which is not
just hindsight. I remember trying to dissuade you, as a friend, in a conference
hotel somewhere long ago. You ignored me, and were eventually dropped, while I
stayed in the game.
Joe: My stratagems--learning how to self-promote and signing in as many bookstores as possible--were the reason my books went into multiple printings and earned out their modest advances ($110,000 for the first three novels, $125,000 for the next three novels). Here's a guide a wrote in 2006 t about all the work you didn't have to do.
Your publishing experience was a lot different than mine.
My efforts, the ones you call damaging, kept food on my table and allowed me to stay a fulltime writer, rather than a writer with a day job. This is what 99% of legacy authors must do; hustle, or work part time (or full time) at something else.
Lee: No one “handed” me a key, and no one withheld one from you.
Instead, a bean counter sat down and figured he could make more money out of me
than you. It was that simple.
Joe: That's called luck, Lee. Your bean counter gave you a break. Mine axed the mystery line, even as my sales were growing.
It wasn't a quality issue. It wasn't because your books were better.
Before I self-pubbed, I had less than 500 reviews on Amazon, all of my titles combined. I wasn't being read, because I wasn't easy to find.
Now I have 13,000 reviews, averaging four stars. Not many authors, no matter how they publish, have over 1000 reviews on a single title. You do. So do other monster bestsellers. So do I.
It wasn't a quality issue. It wasn't because your books were better.
Before I self-pubbed, I had less than 500 reviews on Amazon, all of my titles combined. I wasn't being read, because I wasn't easy to find.
Now I have 13,000 reviews, averaging four stars. Not many authors, no matter how they publish, have over 1000 reviews on a single title. You do. So do other monster bestsellers. So do I.
In the comments you mentioned:
I remember meeting Dick Francis early on and learning a lot from him. In some ways he was the pioneer of the regular-as-clockwork, book-a-year paradigm. How much sense would it have made for me to say, "Oh, you just got lucky, so I'm going to ignore you"?
Joe: Dick Francis is the perfect counterexample to my experience. His publisher carried him for over ten years (was it twenty?) before he had a breakout hit. Your publisher also carried you (and I bet you were getting coop and discounting early on in both the US and UK, along with reviews and ads and a slew of others things I didn't get.)
This also circumvented the dreaded return system. Booksellers were less likely to return signed books, increasing my shelf life. Booksellers I met were more likely to order more books and handsell them. And bookstore algorithms (I believe B&N called it "modeling") would automatically order new copies of books that sold well.
The result of my efforts; I earned out $235,000 in royalties, and all of my books had multiple printings.
But no one wanted to pick up a series in situ. So I wound up selling a horror novel, AFRAID, under the pen name Jack Kilborn, for a $20k advance.
It's nice that you get to write about the same character in the same genre. Some of us had to diversify in order to survive.
I visited 200 bookstores to support the release, and did one of the first author blog tours. I earned out that advance in a month. But then Hachette refused to publish my follow-up novel because the editor didn't like it (it was a two book deal). I wrote a third book for them, and they wanted major changes.
I told them to piss off. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Lee: And in fact you were then very lucky – a new platform
was invented that suited your skill set perfectly. I’m a close observer of the
whole self-publishing scene (and I have read more than 600 self-published books)
and I think your weaknesses under the old model have been matched by exceptional
strengths perfectly attuned to the new model.
Joe: What weaknesses? You mentioned them, but didn't point them out. I feel I was lucky to land two deals, and unlucky with how they turned out.
I also did wind up becoming my own worst enemy, because when Kindle was invented I had IPs earning steady money for my publishers, and they didn't want to give me those rights back. I had to fight hard for them.
Those books Hachette didn't want have earned me hundreds of thousands of dollars.
That series Hyperion didn't want to continue has earned me a million.
And you still want to insist my publisher gave me the same shot that yours gave you? If that's the case, you need to quit your publisher right now, because your sales will go up 1000% like mine did. :D
Lee: I think you should celebrate that, and I think you should
stop letting traditional publishing live rent-free in your head. I think all
self-publishers should. Because all these endless screechy blogs make
you look whiny, not us. “I coulda been a contender!” Get over it
already. Move on. Don’t perpetuate the “bitter reject” meme.
Joe: Even if I had been given the same treatment you had, and experienced great success, I'm still pretty sure I wouldn't be siding with Authors United.
I believe all newbie writers should read this blog post, to see both sides. Your experience is unique, mine is common. The majority of legacy writers get excoriated by the legacy system.
I believe all newbie writers should read this blog post, to see both sides. Your experience is unique, mine is common. The majority of legacy writers get excoriated by the legacy system.
I was, however, very lucky that Amazon invented the Kindle, and that I had a backlist of rejected titles that put me in a perfect position to take advantage of it.
That's how well your system works. I bought my house and two cars for cash, with books that the Big 6 were convinced wouldn't sell. I'm talking about my rejected novels, not the ones that were legacy pubbed.
That's how well your system works. I bought my house and two cars for cash, with books that the Big 6 were convinced wouldn't sell. I'm talking about my rejected novels, not the ones that were legacy pubbed.
The only time I mention "I coulda been a contender" is when someone says they earned their success through hard work and talent.
C'mon, Lee. You know luck plays a huge part. You got a lot luckier than I ever did, so why not acknowledge that? You've even mentioned luck before:
"To get as successful as I have gotten as a writer, it's like winning the lottery the same day that you get hit by lightning twice. It's staggeringly unlikely. So I'm unbelievably fortunate." - Lee Child
I can understand the "hit by lightning" part. Circumstances beyond my control ruined two of my publishing deals. In my case, the luck I had was bad.
But my luck was still greater than thousands of other legacy authors, who sold 1/10 of what I did when I was with Hyperion and Hachette. And I never thought I was better, or more deserving, than any of them.
But my luck was still greater than thousands of other legacy authors, who sold 1/10 of what I did when I was with Hyperion and Hachette. And I never thought I was better, or more deserving, than any of them.
Lee: Later you said, “I believe you overestimate the value of
Hachette’s catalog to Amazon.” No, I don’t. I said I think Amazon
overestimates the value of Hachette’s catalog to Amazon. My point was quite
clear – Amazon won’t dump Hachette because Amazon’s own internal credo is built
on being the everything store. Which dilutes its negotiating power. All
negotiations are built on a willingness to walk away. Amazon isn’t
willing.
Lee: Later you mention print disappearing – which it might, and
which I would regret, because I think it would happen without a positive desire
on the part of customers. People like print. If it goes, it will have gone
because of retail economics, not lack of appeal. Which sounds confused, but
that’s an accurate analysis. Mass market is dying not because there’s
diminished demand, but because there isn’t enough margin in it. “I can make
more out of broccoli than books,” one retailer said. Will all readers switch to
e-readers? Not all, I think. Sadly reading’s appeal is fragile now, and many
folks will quit and find alternatives. Or not – I’ll be particularly sad about
poor people. Any e-reading ecosystem is entirely inaccessible unless you have a
working credit card or a viable bank account for PayPal – which poor people
don’t. They love used paperbacks – all worn and furry, found, traded, borrowed,
bought for fifty cents. But hey. This is the modern world.
Lee: As for the rest … I guess I have one question. One thing few
people know about me is I love ironing. I just moved, which was a great excuse
for a new ironing board. I checked Amazon, naturally, who had boards ranging
from $18 all the way to $220. Has Amazon approached the expensive manufacturer
and said, “C’mon, pal, America needs cheaper ironing boards! Think of the
children!” No, it said, “Sure, throw it up on the site and we’ll see if
anyone’s interested. We trust our customers to decide for
themselves.”
Another interest is audio. Amazon has low-powered
two-channel audio amplifiers listed from $24 to $24,000. Did it approach the
expensive manufacturer and say, “C’mon, pal, America needs cheaper amplifiers!
Think of the puppies!” No, it said, “Sure, throw it up on the site and we’ll
see if anyone’s interested. We trust our customers to decide for
themselves.”
Can you explain in detail why the e-book market shouldn’t
operate the same way as the ironing board market or the amplifier market? Why
do e-book buyers – uniquely – need Nanny Amazon to save them from deciding for
themselves? Are books special? Are they different? Or are there others
factors in play?
Joe: Lee, this is a great comparison. You did a bit of chest thumping in both of these posts, and I went on the defensive. I'm happy you did that, because it shakes things up a bit and makes for an interesting read.
But the end of your previous post, where you spoke about your concern that Amazon becomes the only publisher left, is a valid point and could have been brought to the forefront.
You make another valid point here. Are books different from other markets where prices diverge?
I'll opine that books don't have as wide a range of prices, like an amplifier or an ironing board, because their components all cost about the same. You don't expect a Bentley to cost the same as a Hyundai. The Rolls is a better car, made of better materials.
A Lee Child hardcover costs about as much to print as a JA Konrath hardcover (actually, mine was more expensive because you had much larger print runs).
You were paid more, and the publisher certainly wants to recoup as much of that as possible. Since your brand is strong, you're able to move a lot of ebooks at $12.99.
You were paid more, and the publisher certainly wants to recoup as much of that as possible. Since your brand is strong, you're able to move a lot of ebooks at $12.99.
I'm fine with that, and good for you. It does go against your earlier point about feeling bad for the poor people who can't buy expensive books, but I do believe there is a market for $12.99 ebooks, or even $29.99 ebooks.
That's not the problem I have.
The problem I have is authors like you, right now, and groups like the Authors Guild and Authors United, are fueling the belief that Lee Child sells well at $12.99, therefor Joe Blow can sell well at $12.99 if he signs with the Big 5, too.
That is far from the truth.
Yes, high ebook prices work for a few handfuls of bestsellers. But they kill the careers of midlisters stuck in shitty legacy contracts.
My sales went up 1000% once I got my rights back from my publishers. How many midlist authors are being held hostage in a similar way, just so publishers can maintain control of the paper oligopoly that makes them and a handful of authors like you amazingly rich?
You're thriving, but thousands of others are withering.
Even without Amazon discounts, Doug Preston's latest Kindle thriller is ranked at #861 and priced at $12.99. He's probably not recouping his huge advance, but he's doing okay. If all he had were those sales, he could make a living.
In contrast, The Three by Sarah Lotz, a new Hachette release, is also $12.99 and ranked #119,551. Her hardcover is in the 200,000s. How is she going to earn her advance out? Make a living? Put food on the table? Hachette loves the book enough to promote it on its website as a lead title. But is it getting her book into Target department stores? I looked, didn't see it. I did see yours and Doug's books, though.
I don't mean to pick on Sarah, or put her on the spot. I don't know her, she was just the first debut Hachette author I found when I went looking. I did notice she didn't sign your little Authors United petition (I say "little" when comparing it to the petition Hugh and I did with 8x as many signatures).
Amazon offered, three separate times, to compensate authors who were being harmed by this negotiation. I bet Sarah would benefit from that compensation. So would hundreds of other authors. Where was AU? Hint: they were immediately rejecting the proposals, as was Hachette.
These are the folks you've chosen to side with.
I don't mean to pick on Sarah, or put her on the spot. I don't know her, she was just the first debut Hachette author I found when I went looking. I did notice she didn't sign your little Authors United petition (I say "little" when comparing it to the petition Hugh and I did with 8x as many signatures).
Amazon offered, three separate times, to compensate authors who were being harmed by this negotiation. I bet Sarah would benefit from that compensation. So would hundreds of other authors. Where was AU? Hint: they were immediately rejecting the proposals, as was Hachette.
These are the folks you've chosen to side with.
Authors signing with big publishers not only have to contend with those publishers pricing their ebooks as luxury items, failing to get them into bookstores and other paper outlets (especially with coop), they also can wind up as collateral damage because their publisher refuses to negotiate with the biggest bookseller on the planet.
I know you said that writers should make hay when the sun is shining, and self-publish. Good, smart advice. But that is counter to you supporting Hachette in this dispute.
You're sending out the message that Amazon--the only competition that the Big 5 ever had and the company that has allowed more authors to make money than any other time in history--is the bad guy and is going to hurt authors. You're also sending out the message that high ebook prices are okay, when they're only okay for a small minority of major bestsellers.
Right now, the authors being hurt are those stuck in the middle of this negotiation--and Amazon has tried to take those authors out of the line of fire three times. Hachette has not.
Authors United, in their ridiculous and oft-repeated assertion that they aren't taking sides, is making those Hachette authors suffer even more. They should be pressuring their own publisher to negotiate (because, you know, that's who they have contracts with, not Amazon). But AFAIK they haven't even contacted Hachette.
All the biased media coverage is perpetuating a bunch of lies and nonsense. And that's harmful.
To your credit, you haven't perpetuated any nonsense here. You came in guns blazing, and I like that. We disagree on the luck factor, and that's fine. And you made two very good points in these posts.
Why the hell isn't AU making those points?
If you spoke for AU, and used the comparisons and rhetoric you used on my blog, I wouldn't have much to disagree with. I don't want Amazon to rule the world. I believe ebook pricing is elastic and everyone's sweet spot (where unit sales and profits peak) is different. We're not far apart on those issues.
But while this system has worked extraordinarily well for you, it screwed me. And it has screwed thousands of others.
That's why I continue to write this blog. So authors don't have to go through what I went through.
That isn't whining, Lee. That's activism. And I need to point these things out, repeatedly, for new authors who are learning about these topics for the very first time. This is A Newbie's Guide to Publishing, not an Insider's Guide for Pros.
That isn't whining, Lee. That's activism. And I need to point these things out, repeatedly, for new authors who are learning about these topics for the very first time. This is A Newbie's Guide to Publishing, not an Insider's Guide for Pros.
It's unlikely that anyone reading this will ever attain the level of success you've had. Encouraging writers to follow your path is like encouraging toddlers to climb Mount Everest.
In contrast, thousands of writers have followed my path. Some have succeeded well beyond me. Others are making money for the very first time.
As doctors know, "First do no harm."
All of the one-sided media coverage is harmful.
Large publishers are harmful.
Being ill-informed is harmful.
Authors United is harmful.
Amazon may be harmful sometime in the future, but right now it is doing good by the vast majority of authors who self-publish. I just got a nice bottle of scotch and a shadowbox in the mail today from Amazon, because my Jack Daniels novel, Stirred, has sold 100,000 copies.
That's 100,000 copies without appearing in brick and mortar bookstores, because they boycott Amazon books.
That's 100,000 copies that could have been through Hyperion, but they missed the boat.
100,000 copies is nothing to you. But to a guy who knows how hard it is to handsell 100 hardcovers, one at a time, over an eight hour period in a mall bookstore, that number amazes me.
All authors work hard. Many authors are damn talented.
Very few will get the breaks you got. And very few will get the breaks I got.
But my dream is more attainable for the masses than yours is. And positioning yourself against a company, Amazon, that makes those dreams possible, while endorsing publishers that exploit and harm the careers and pocketbooks of the majority of authors they work with, saddens me. Especially since anyone looking at the situation can easily see that Authors United is very much out to protect the rich and privileged at the expense of the poor and unlucky.
Thanks again for your thoughts on this. You're always welcome here, and it's a pleasure to have someone with a much different perspective than mine voice their opinion.
I also asked Barry Eisler to chime in (even though he and I vehemently disagree about airline seats) and he emailed me:
Barry: Hi Lee, you mentioned ironing boards and amplifiers as products that Amazon allows suppliers to price as they like, knowing some people will prefer the high-end items and others the low-end. In this system, no one is being denied access to ironing boards etc because low-priced alternatives are plentiful. And you asked, Why not just do the same for books? I think this is a great question and a great way to frame the issue — by far the best presentation I’ve seen on the topic yet from anyone affiliated with Authors United. So thank you for that.
For the most part, I agree. We already live in a world where there are more low-priced and probably even free books (not to mention library access) than any one person could read in a lifetime. So if some readers can’t afford, or don’t want to spend the money on, what we might think of as the luxury end of the book market, it’s not exactly a national tragedy.
I wouldn't want to go too far with this argument; I think reading is an important public good and in general I’m in favor of lower prices, more choice, and easier access for everyone, and therefore I tend to favor the business model that’s built to accomplish those aims rather than the one that’s built to impede them. But I’m also in favor of people having the freedom to price their goods as they like. There’s a balance in there somewhere, and maybe we fall to slightly different sides of it, or we have somewhat different views of the best way those possibly competing interests can be reconciled. Thinking about your points, I had the sense that our views might not be so different.
But this is what gets me. Why is this the first time anyone affiliated with Authors United has made an argument in such a cogent, no-bullshit, non-propagandistic way?
Just today, the New York Times ran another puff piece quoting new Authors United member Ursula K. Leguin saying, "We’re talking about censorship: deliberately making a book hard or impossible to get, ‘disappearing’ an author… Governments use censorship for moral and political ends, justifiable or not. Amazon is using censorship to gain total market control so they can dictate to publishers what they can publish, to authors what they can write, to readers what they can buy.”
And Andrew Wylie, who’s pitching all his clients to join Authors United, is quoted as saying, “If Amazon is not stopped, we are facing the end of literary culture in America.”
Not to mention all the existing rhetoric from your cohorts about books being “sanctioned,” and “boycotted,” about “We’re not taking sides,” etc.
Lee… do you really believe any of that craziness? If not, why are you lending your name to it?
If Authors United were as thoughtful and honest as you were in the thoughts I’m addressing here, l’d probably have written a blog post or two analyzing our different visions of the best system for serving readers and authors and that would have been the end of it. But instead what they peddle is overheated rhetoric, distortions, and propaganda. All of which we might loosely classify as “bullshit,” and all of which is what concerns me so much about the effect the organization is likely to have.
Because as I’ve said many times: I don’t care what choices authors make for themselves; I care that they can make those choices based on accurate information. I think it’s great that for the first time there are competing systems within publishing. What’s disturbing is when one of those systems peddles disinformation as a way of attracting new entrants — and this is the essence of what Authors United is part of. For lots more on this, here’s a post Joe and I did earlier this year called Publishing is Lottery/Publishing is a Carny Game.
http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/02/eisler-publishing-is-lottery-konrath.html
If Authors United is on the level, why can’t they take a straight-up position, as you have? Why all the distortions and bullshit?
I don’t know. Maybe it’s a rhetorical question. But as long as the organization continues to present itself as propagandistically as it does, I hope people will keep calling it out. I wish you would, too.
Thanks again for your thoughts on this. You're always welcome here, and it's a pleasure to have someone with a much different perspective than mine voice their opinion.
I also asked Barry Eisler to chime in (even though he and I vehemently disagree about airline seats) and he emailed me:
Barry: Hi Lee, you mentioned ironing boards and amplifiers as products that Amazon allows suppliers to price as they like, knowing some people will prefer the high-end items and others the low-end. In this system, no one is being denied access to ironing boards etc because low-priced alternatives are plentiful. And you asked, Why not just do the same for books? I think this is a great question and a great way to frame the issue — by far the best presentation I’ve seen on the topic yet from anyone affiliated with Authors United. So thank you for that.
For the most part, I agree. We already live in a world where there are more low-priced and probably even free books (not to mention library access) than any one person could read in a lifetime. So if some readers can’t afford, or don’t want to spend the money on, what we might think of as the luxury end of the book market, it’s not exactly a national tragedy.
I wouldn't want to go too far with this argument; I think reading is an important public good and in general I’m in favor of lower prices, more choice, and easier access for everyone, and therefore I tend to favor the business model that’s built to accomplish those aims rather than the one that’s built to impede them. But I’m also in favor of people having the freedom to price their goods as they like. There’s a balance in there somewhere, and maybe we fall to slightly different sides of it, or we have somewhat different views of the best way those possibly competing interests can be reconciled. Thinking about your points, I had the sense that our views might not be so different.
But this is what gets me. Why is this the first time anyone affiliated with Authors United has made an argument in such a cogent, no-bullshit, non-propagandistic way?
Just today, the New York Times ran another puff piece quoting new Authors United member Ursula K. Leguin saying, "We’re talking about censorship: deliberately making a book hard or impossible to get, ‘disappearing’ an author… Governments use censorship for moral and political ends, justifiable or not. Amazon is using censorship to gain total market control so they can dictate to publishers what they can publish, to authors what they can write, to readers what they can buy.”
And Andrew Wylie, who’s pitching all his clients to join Authors United, is quoted as saying, “If Amazon is not stopped, we are facing the end of literary culture in America.”
Not to mention all the existing rhetoric from your cohorts about books being “sanctioned,” and “boycotted,” about “We’re not taking sides,” etc.
Lee… do you really believe any of that craziness? If not, why are you lending your name to it?
If Authors United were as thoughtful and honest as you were in the thoughts I’m addressing here, l’d probably have written a blog post or two analyzing our different visions of the best system for serving readers and authors and that would have been the end of it. But instead what they peddle is overheated rhetoric, distortions, and propaganda. All of which we might loosely classify as “bullshit,” and all of which is what concerns me so much about the effect the organization is likely to have.
Because as I’ve said many times: I don’t care what choices authors make for themselves; I care that they can make those choices based on accurate information. I think it’s great that for the first time there are competing systems within publishing. What’s disturbing is when one of those systems peddles disinformation as a way of attracting new entrants — and this is the essence of what Authors United is part of. For lots more on this, here’s a post Joe and I did earlier this year called Publishing is Lottery/Publishing is a Carny Game.
http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/02/eisler-publishing-is-lottery-konrath.html
If Authors United is on the level, why can’t they take a straight-up position, as you have? Why all the distortions and bullshit?
I don’t know. Maybe it’s a rhetorical question. But as long as the organization continues to present itself as propagandistically as it does, I hope people will keep calling it out. I wish you would, too.
