A Lot of Amazon-Hatchette News, A Little Crow

More news comes out about the Amazon-Hatchette title bout and this time Amazon breaks with tradition by speaking out. Amazon has made an offer to Hatchette, but also says that they are not hopeful about Hatchette accepting. The negotiations have been going on since November, so I am not surprised Amazon has that take on things. They would know since they are facing Hatchette across the bargaining table.

Joe Konrath has it all on his blog -- along with a helping of crow.

Take the time to actually click on the links and read other viewpoints. I did and I found them very interesting and enlightening, especially when it came to reading the graph on churn among the Big 5.

Author Earnings had this to say about the drop in sales:

"Our focus on Amazon Kindle sales prevents us from seeing any possible corresponding increase of Hachette sales at other digital retailers to offset these declines, but we can say that the increase in the average price of Hachette’s e-books is having an effect on sales. It could also be that various Amazon algorithms and recommendation tweaks are contributing to the decreased sales. The big lesson is this: Across the Big-5 publishers, lowering average e-book prices correlated with higher per-title revenue. Increasing e-book prices correlated with lower per-title revenue.

This bears repeating, and it’s a lesson publishers could take from self-published authors: Lower prices means earning more money. We understand that this is counter-intuitive, but our data bears this out. And it’s a truth that many authors have seen for themselves as they experiment with prices. Which raises the question of whether or not publishers would even benefit from control over e-book prices. It could be that the worst thing for Hachette’s bottom line would be to get what they’re asking for in these negotiations."

I found Martin Shepard, co-owner of the Permanent Press, a small literary publisher based in Sag Harbor, NY, to offer an enlightened view about who the New York Times interviewed for their article on May 24. It shines a bright light on what went into the NYT's research.

"Who are the other publishers that are crying out? Hachette, the fourth largest of the five conglomerate publishers (who together , through all their more than a hundred imprints sell  85% percent of the books sold to the general public in America). Eddy and Streitfeld then makes passing reference to a third publisher, Bonnier, based in Germany, known primarily for publishing magazines throughout the Western world and far fewer books. As for the outpouring of social media they cite two of Hachette’s best-selling writers:  James Patterson, a writing factory, who, in 2013, “wrote” 13 Alex Cross thrillers alone, using numerous co-writers, which is why one out of five hardcover books sold bears his name. Though he reportedly earned $80 million dollars last year, he described the confrontation between Amazon and Hachette as “a war.“ The other social media complaint about Amazon came from Nina Laden, who writes and illustrates children’s books."

I knew that James Patterson, a Hatchette author, worked much like James Michener did with his massive tomes, but seeing it verified makes me feel so mcuh better than I did about how many books and stories I write every year. Then again, I do have a full time job -- 2 full times jobs if you count reviewing books -- and cannot write as much as I would like since I'm busy making the money to pay for a roof over my head and food to fuel my continued existence.

Hybrid author, Michael J. Sullivan, throws his 2 cents into the mix and comes up with some good advice for publishers.

"Of course many people wisely point out that Amazon may apply similar pressure to self-published titles, and I have no illusions about the long term prospect of a 70% royalty. But even if Amazon cuts the self-publishing royalty rate in half, they would still be paying twice as much as I get under the current Hachette contract where ebook royalties are split 30% to Amazon, 52.5% to the publisher, and 17.5% to the author.

What do I think should happen? Well first off, publishers have to realize that getting $3 for every $1 that an author makes on ebooks just isn’t fair. Ironically, they are feeling the same pressure from Amazon that they apply to authors—requesting a higher share because they hold a strategic advantage. I’m sure both Amazon and authors look at the publisher’s 52.5% and can’t help but think more should come their way, but unlike Amazon authors are powerless. The big-five publishers are remarkably uniform in paying 25% of net on ebooks, so the author has to either accept that rate or go the route of self-publishing. If I could set the terms, I would suggest 30% to Amazon, 35% to the publishers, and 35% to the author.

What can authors do in such an environment? I suggest we each develop a direct sales channel with our readers. In my Hachette contract, I was able to negotiate the ability to sell signed copies of my print books from my website. Since I buy the books from my publisher at a discount similar to what they receive from bookstores, they get their share. I would love to sell my Hachette ebooks as well, and I would willingly pay my publisher their cut from any money I brought in. I’ve not been successful getting this provision from Hachette, but for my latest novel, Hollow World, I retained the ebook rights, so for that title I sell both ebook and print versions. The problem is readers don’t know I sell directly, but if this became more common, it would solve any disruptions when the publisher and retailer are battling."

A hybrid author keeps some of his rights, like digital publishing, while selling some rights to publishers. Digital Book World offers a good explanation.  Amanda Hocking is also a hybrid author. When it comes down to it, I think more authors will go hybrid in the future - or at least they should since they retain more control over pricing and and discounts.

Whatever happens between Amazon and Hatchette in their contract negotiations, please keep in mind that Amazon is not the only game in town. It's the fastest and easiest game, but even Amazon suggests buying from third party sellers and going to other bookstores for your favorite author fix. If price is a concern, learn patience and explore other books that are available. It's one way to expand your horizons and find new authors to love and read.

And don't forget to catch Joe's meal of crow. He eats it with consummate grace and humor. 

"If you missed me saying it earlier, I was wrong. I'd still like to get more data confirming that, but if Amazon and Macmillan did compensate authors, I leaped to a lazy conclusion in my haste to chastise a publisher, and I apologize for that and am grateful someone corrected me. Good going, Macmillan, for taking care of your authors.

And to my many detractors, crow sort of tastes like chicken. Humble chicken. I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong."

Balancing the Elements

This morning I read an article on editing and it suggested that Show Don't Tell is not the only rule in the book. It isn't, but that has been the rule for a very long time. I didn't know that Sol Stein and Donald Maass popularized the technique to "modernize storytelling." As the author suggested, we need to be more catholic in our tastes and styles of writing and embrace more than one style.

The short story I spent the weekend critiquing is predominantly dialogue with no sense of place or time or much in the way or characterization. All the characters nod, grin, shrug and sigh with nearly every confrontation, which is pretty much all interactions. Only a couple of characters had any real quirks or speech patterns that set them apart from the rest and that's because their dialogue was written in colloquial style. There are a few descriptions of the ship, as would be expected in a space opera, but very few of those. The main character checks his appearance in a mirror at the beginning of a story and describes what he sees, but other than a few brief remarks about a couple of characters, there is no real sense of how the characters move, talk, react or are and even less to set the scene or give a sense of place and space to the environs.

The other big problem is that the dialogue is used as an information dump for the background of the story and there is very little action except in one short sequence. It reads more like a script than a short story and I found myself writing "show don't tell" or "show me how he moves and acts" more than once, outside of adding comments about "grinning again, nodding again, sighing again" in almost every line on every page. There is no emotional range and I do not feel connected to these characters. Now I wonder if telling the writer to show me what's happening and how the characters inhabit the space of the story is wrong.

Uh, no.

While there is room still for Show Don't Tell, there is also room for exposition, something that particular piece lacks. Don't tell me the character grinned when you just told me the other character grinned and the character in the next second grinned and sighed without telling me how they looked and how their grins are different. Give me something to work with. Is that wrong? Do we expect too much of our characters? Wasn't Shakespeare able to convey in dialogue alone what Tybalt and Puck and Henry V were like? Yes, but he was Shakespeare and he knew how to write.

What I strive for in my own writing is balance between dialogue, description, inner monologue, and exposition. It's not easy and I do struggle with it some times, but I do have more of a grip on facial expressions and emotions than grinning, nodding, sighing and shrugging. I expect more from my reading that such generic and unimaginative terms and reactions. It is as if the writer took no effort with building characters and used stock phrases and words to convey his meaning. I doubt he really has a handle on the characters except as pawns in his own science fiction chess game, and very little imagination except for technical details.

While I don't dislike the story of a 100-year-old battle cruiser running a plague beacon and waiting to be found and returned to its planet before the surrounding systems can glom onto it and use it against the rest of the universe, I want more than dialogue and vague facts. I want to be engaged. I want to be able to lose myself in the story and not run headlong into a brick wall of typos, information dumps and bland characters. I want action. I want life. I want a good story that isn't ruined by its lack of attention to detail. I want him to show me something or at least tell me something good.

Do we ask too much of writers so that we end up with a generic soup of writing that is formulaic and unimaginative? I wonder.

I have two novels currently jostling for position inside my mind (more, if the truth be told). One is a post apocalyptic vampire story that is anything but run-of-the-mill vampires. Imagine an earth where here has been eternal winter for 200 years and humans living underground and guided by vampires, while on the surface of the planet in domed cities vampires rule humanity, cloning and raising them to do the menial tasks and provide a steady supply of food. As the earth begins to warm and come out of nuclear winter and the underground humans return to the surface to begin life anew, they need one thing, DNA to re-establish plant, animal and human life, information contained in DNA banks beneath the domed cities. The vampires in the domed cities need fresh DNA because they have cloned the clones until there are too many replication errors and the blood is thin. They need food.

The other novel is a Victorian gothic where morals and science and superstition collide until a man is split and a serial killer spawned.

Each novel requires different styles and techniques, but the one thing that remains the same is the need to put the reader in the scene and let him feel and sense everything that is happening. The reader needs to be invested in the story. Can the reader lose himself if the book is all dialogue or if he is bogged down in exposition and description? I doubt it. The real techniques lie somewhere in between, a balance of style and Show Don't Tell and pacing that is matched to the story and the time period. Therein lies the hard part, finding that balance.

In the end, it's all about what the reader needs and how the writer can provide that. The writer must craft his tale so that it's something he would enjoy reading as much as he enjoyed writing it. Editing, that's never fun and is something else again.

I can write a whole book in two weeks and get the structure laid out, but it takes a bit more time to find the balance and add muscle, sinews, nerve and flesh to the bones. It takes even more to add style and flair and clothe the characters; that's where polish comes in, and where I balance all the elements as best I can.

I doubt I'll give up the tenets of Show Don't Tell, but I'm also not averse to using whatever techniques and style will create a book that I want to read when I'm finished, balancing all the elements until the book is worth reading.

Russian Piracy

Yesterday, I was approached by a couple of writers from the Russian Federation about e-books and copyright infringement. The discussion began because of my recent posts on e-books and publishing. It seems that things in Russia, the former Soviet Union, are very different than they are here in the United States. It's all about getting what you can and getting it for free.

Young Russian authors usually get from $800-$1000 per book, not enough to live on, but enough to keep them plugging away, and e-books are not great sellers becauseit is far too easy to crack the codes and get it for free. It could be a matter of economics or it could be perceived value.

As it was explained to me, trying out songs from an album on MP3 or getting a bootleg copy of a movie to check out production values, acting and story line is the usual practice before deciding to buy. After all, I was told, why pay good money for a lousy movie or buy a whole album if only one song is good? The movie ". . . must be out-of-scale good . . ." to be worth the money. Some movies aren't worth the price at all because ". . . they really suck."

According to my sources, the authors who complain the loudest write ". . . shitty love-novels . . . no one wants to read twice. And they are printed on the cheapest paper ever, so there is no way you could read it twice, even if you wanted to." These authors purportedly churn out two novels a month, so at least romance books are alive and well in the Russian Federation. E-books are another kettle of fish altogether.

Buying a movie or CD that has been downloaded for free or from a pirated copy that is not nearly as good as the original is a good investment, especially when money is tight, but buying the e-book after getting the pirate copy is redundant. With the file already on the hard drive, why buy another copy? Pirated or original, the file would be about the same. It's hard to encode an e-book the way CDs and movies are protected. In that sense, hardcover and paperback books, at least those not printed on the cheapest paper, are tangible and cannot be pirated.

Do I still believe in e-books? Yes. I think they are the next step in publishing evolution. Am I having my ups and downs with the system and getting my e-book recognized? Yes, again, but it's a learning process and I'm still learning a lot.

Copyright infringement of e-books in the United States is not unheard of, but I think there are fewer chances to get something for nothing and finding my e-book pirated. Someone would have to find it first and read enough to want to crack the codes and get it for free. At least, if my book is being pirated in the thousands or tens of thousands, I would be secure in the knowledge that the word is spreading and my books are being read. I wouldn't make much money from the pirates, but -- who knows? -- I might find myself with a whole underground group of fans avid for my next book. Not an ideal situation, but it's a start.

Kick Start Your Writing

My astrological chart says I'm not a self starter and I would have to agree. I am a born procrastinator -- on some things, writing being one of them. I love to write and can sit and write for hours on end, usually irritated that I have to get up and tend to nature's call or eat. I have been known to write for 36 hours straight, with nature breaks, of course, and not get tired. I am in the zone. The words are coming. The characters are cooperating and often teaching me things about them I did not know. My fingers are not tired of typing and my backside has not yet reached the leaden stage where getting up is like trying to free my nether regions from a powerful electromagnet -- must be the endorphins and adrenaline coursing through my bloodstream. Everything works fine. I wrote a 100,000-word biography like that once.

Then there are times that I just cannot face the page, knowing that if I do I will be caught in powerful currents and dragged down into the zone where I will not emerge for hours, maybe even a day or two. I cannot afford it. I have to work my day job and do the laundry and bulldoze the detritus from the last writing stint, definitely not a good idea if avoiding surprise visits by the health department.

I do write every day, but not on my works-in-progress. I journal every day, keep up with correspondence and emails, and work, which consists of 8-10 hours of typing dictation, very technical dictation. On the laptop waits my novel or short story waiting to be finished and it calls to me. Like the hunger pangs I ignore when I am in the writing zone, I ignore the siren's call to write until pretty soon, like hunger pangs, the call fades. Then begins the avoidance dance and the procrastination when a deadline looms. It is my fault; I am not a halfway person. I am either all in or all out, my versions of "Do or do not; there is no try," from Yoda to Luke Skywalker. There stands the problem: inability to commit hindquarters to seat in order to write.

Instead, I play a couple rounds of computer games (I prefer skill and knowledge games), work on blog posts, fire off a couple of quick tweets and a run through Facebook to see if I missed anything and then rounds through the various blogs, all while checking email and getting ready for work while sipping a cup of hot green tea that is cooling fast. One job through the widgets to check hits on the blogs and a quick visit to see if anyone has read the latest chapter of the novel I posted on a publishing site. The novel is unfinished and needs a final edit and proofread. It is the reason I have been procrastinating.

I want to finish the novel. Well, it is already finished and needs a little tune-up and loose ends tied. I need to finish the novel before the editor gets to it. I plan to finish the proofreading but, oops, where has time gone. Almost time for work and I still need to eat breakfast (pesky hunger pangs) and take a shower. Maybe later.

Maybe tomorrow.

Maybe this weekend.

By then, a few weeks have passed. Good thing the editor has not contacted me because I have nothing to offer to excuse my inability to kick start my writing engine.

That was yesterday. This morning, I found the answer. I knew it all along because it works for getting the laundry done, the clothes folded and put away, the bed made after the sheets are washed (making the bed every day provides a warm and moist environment for dust mites and other microscopic vermin to grow and procreate -- that is my story and I am sticking to it), the dishes done, the vacuuming finished, exercising and taking out the trash. Once I begin, the rest takes care of itself.

With writing, it is the internal editor that kick starts my engine. One of my critique partners mentioned an extra word in chapter twelve and a comma missing in chapter fifteen. They cannot be allowed to stand or I will forget and the spell check program will not catch them. Into the breach once more I go.

Control-F and type in a few words of the phrase and the extra word is easily found. Next search coordinates go in and, wait a minute, there is something else. How could I have missed that awkward phrasing? Well, that has to go. A few moments later and I am in the zone happily writing and editing and listening to the characters tell me secrets that I dutifully transcribe and polish. The first step is the problem, but the internal editor makes taking the first step effortless.

I do not have the problem in journaling or editing others' work or writing reviews. Deadlines and missing days in the journals keep me honest, but there is no real deadline for a new book or a work-in-progress that has not been contracted. Yes, the problem crops up when I have a long critique and the first glance at the manuscript ends with groaning sighs after glancing at the first page, but the deadline keeps me honest there, too. No, I will just have to rely on the internal editor and program her to whisper errors, typos and misspellings in my ear that she caught on the way out of the zone so that I am anxious one again to go once more into the breach. When that wears thin and begins to go the way of the hunger pangs, I will have to find another way to kick start the writing.

Someone else will have to whisper errors into my ear that engages the internal editor. I doubt I will ever get past the need to clean up mistakes, especially when they are mine.

Spring Cleaning

Pages bleed.

All the pages are bleeding. Some are hemorrhaging and some just grazed by the editing pen. On the computer screen, the hemorrhaging is in blue or purple or green, signs of alien intrusion into the fabric and heart of the story. Characters are remodeled. Evocative descriptions are slashed to ribbons. Double-spaced lines flood the once pristine words with criticism and suggestions. Shock sets in. Denial is followed by anger. How dare they? Curiosity peers over the edge, grows bolder and settles in for a long and thorough look until the writer is overwhelmed.

Are they right? Is the main character that unsympathetic? No, someone likes her grit and determination. Another critic sees the brittle facade hiding the fear and confusion. Yes, there's another critic who hates her, who missed the subtle body language: cringing against the wall, spooked by harsh sounds, refusing to meet anyone's eyes.

How much of the burning, pillaging and savaging of editing is personal and how much impersonal and useful? That is the real question.

When writers entrust the work to other writers of different experience and skills, the results are always mixed. It is easy to fall back on the knowledge that every opinion is subjective, colored by personal prejudices. The real problem is finding balance and weeding out the negative from the positive. In the end, it all comes back to the writer.

What is the point of the story? What is the dominant theme? What is the best starting point for the main character's journey? Where is the beating heart of the story? How much should be revealed -- and when?

It is difficult to find balance between your vision and how the results are perceived and received. You are the writer. You get to decide.

Beginning writers will follow every suggestion and change the manuscript to reflect everyone's taste until the essence, the writer's vision, gets lost in a muddle of different styles. It is hard to hold up against so many different, and often more experienced, critics. The critics could be right. The critics could also be wrong. One things cancels out all the rest. No one writer can please everyone all the time. It is impossible. The best one can do is to hold fast to the vision and point of writing the story -- any story.

Ayn Rand had a hard time getting The Fountainhead published. It was long. Some publishers considered it boring and pointless. Others thought it was too radical, too different. Rand stood firm. When a publisher finally contracted the book, editors suggested changes. Rand agreed to remove one character, Roark's girlfriend before Dominique, because it did not advance the story. The rest of the book would be published without any further changes or she would go elsewhere. The book was published without another change.

I remember seeing the massive book on the bookshelves when I was growing up. It was a book club selection. It was so big, taking up a significant space on the shelf. It would be missed. I chose The Graduate instead, switching dust jackets with a less adult book so it wouldn't be discovered. I didn't read Rand's book until many years later.

When I finally read The Fountainhead I was mesmerized. I flew through the story, marveled at the themes and characters and wanted to start all over again when I read the last page. I didn't know that many critics panned the book and said Roark was unsympathetic, too harsh, too unlikable. I liked him immediately. I knew what he felt and wished I had the same strength of character, the same passion and devotion to my own dreams. He touched and awakened feelings and thoughts I didn't realize were there even though I didn't care for his carrot orange hair. One small feature in another wise remarkable character was not enough to ruin my enjoyment. It was insignificant in contrast to everything else about the admirable and stoic Roark. Had I read the savage criticisms before I picked up the book, I would have read The Fountainhead anyway. No one earns the critics' ire or dismissal without arousing my curiosity.

I expected critics to rape and pillage my first published novel, but I didn't expect it with my current book. I had learned and evolved. I was a better writer -- I thought -- and I wrote a story that was close to my heart, born out of my own experiences. How could I go wrong? I forgot the rule. No one can please everyone all the time.

Seeing the bloody comments and suggestions was like starting at square one all over again. The main character isn't sympathetic. She's snooty. Why isn't she afraid? How can she be so cool, calm and collected in her situation? Too much back story. Not enough back story. Too many adjectives. Not enough adjectives. The sentences are too long, too short, too many. Too much dialogue. Not enough dialogue. Too much action. Not enough inner monologue. The comments went from one extreme to the other. I resisted the urge to change everything.

You cannot please everyone all the time.

I chose to focus on spelling mistakes, sneaky words that hid when edited and popped out later during critiques. I made a few changes. Added scenes, took others out, put them in earlier or later. Then I stopped. The story I wrote was getting lost. It didn't help that after over a year of stalling and schedule changes, the publisher decided not to publish the book after all. My confidence was shaken. This book meant so much.

All the books mean so much.

I know I will not please everyone all the time. I can only write the story, fix the typos and grammar mistakes, and let it go.

No matter how many books an author publishes, when the critics descend, confidence wavers and the urge to change everything to fit everyone's suggestions grows stronger. No one can write a book that pleases everyone. It is impossible. The only thing that comes close is an interactive story where the reader gets to choose the paths the characters take. I don't write those kinds of books. I will never please everyone. There's no need to try.

In the end, it all comes back to the writer's vision, the writer's skills and experience and the writer's story. It is like spring cleaning. No two people do it the same way, no matter how they were taught. Editing one's own writing is like spring cleaning. No matter what rules and guidelines were learned, editing is as individual as the writer. Stick to the original vision.

Write the story in your own voice with your own style. Take criticism and suggestions under advisement. Stay true to the course. It may take a while to find a like-minded agent or publisher, but the result will be worth it. Your book may not be The Fountainhead, but it will be memorable and readers, critics and other writers will like it. Even if they don't, it doesn't matter. What matters is writing what moves you.

Overnight Success Takes a While

The same question crops up all the time: How long did it take you to write Past Imperfect? Answer: 2 weeks.

Yes, it's true. I wrote the whole book in two weeks, at least the first draft. The published book took a little longer -- 10 years. Why? That isn't a simple answer.

In between writing the novel and publication, I had a full time job, sometimes two jobs, wrote articles, stories, edited other books and stories, kept a paper journal and several online blogs, read and reviewed numerous books (300+) and, from time to time, went back to the novel to tweak it. I had to tweak it a lot after 9/11 because there were major changes in the way airports handled incoming traffic and that affected the story.

In the meantime, I also learned about electronic surveillance and earned a ham radio operator's license, actually three licenses (Technician, General and Extra -- all within a week -- and learned Morse code). I traveled and moved and kept writing stories and articles for publication while still tweaking the novel. That brings me up to three years ago when a publisher finally contracted the novel and I changed the original name, Out of the Past, to Past Imperfect, which, as it turned out, wasn't such a good idea. The name fit but what I didn't know what that someone else had chosen the same title. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

As September 2007 rolled around, I was getting antsy because I still had not heard from the publisher or the editor and my emails weren't answered. I did some checking only to find out the publisher had gone bankrupt and forgot to tell me. There I was with the manuscript ready to be published and no publisher. Goodbye January 2008 debut.

Undaunted, I sent the manuscript to another publisher and got a quick response. YES! I signed the contracts and waited and I didn't have to wait long. During an email conversation about choosing an editor, the publisher decided she didn't want to publish the book. I had a contract, but decided it wasn't worth fighting it out in court to force her to publish the novel because she wouldn't give it her full attention or her support.

I sent the manuscript out again and got another quick response, another yes, but I didn't hold my breath. Good thing I didn't. The publisher loved the manuscript but they were over sold and requested I send it in again in a year. I didn't want to wait, so I sent it out again. That was October 2008 and I was anxious to get moving. Another yes. Another wait. This time the publisher kept in contact and finally in March 2009 the editor contacted me. Two quick edits and I was ready, but not in time for the Rocky Mountain Writers Showcase. I didn't have a cover and hadn't seen even a mock-up, and no one asked me for my input. I began to worry, seeing yet another contract fizzle.

July 2009 rolled around and two weeks before my novel debuted the publisher sent me a JPG file of the cover and the link for my page on their website. I was in business. I had a publishing date and Amazon listed the book for sale. The rest is history.

It has been a long road for that particular book, but I refused to give up. It wasn't my best work, but it was a good start and so far the reviewers feel the same way, giving Past Imperfect rave reviews all across the board. I'm now an overnight success -- sort of.

Overnight is a relative term. It may take years to get off the ground and see not only physical proof of all the hard work and struggles, but money from sales. It's not an easy road and writing isn't for the faint of heart or the easily scared and cowed. What it takes, beside hard work and a certain talent for words, is forbearance, fortitude and a whole lot of determination.

As it stands now, I'm waiting to hear from the editor for the next two novels waiting in the wings for their turn at bat. One took many years to write and the other I wrote in two weeks, spending the last year revising, editing and adding to the bones with blood, sinew, flesh and skin. I still get nervous waiting because I'm not a patient person, but it's coming. Until the next two books arrive overnight on the scene, there's plenty of time to work on new projects to keep from biting my nails and going crazy with my overnight success.

Ride the avalanche or be buried

There's a quiet hush over the house. Work is finished for the day, although I'll be back at it soon. In the meantime, I'm going to take a shower, get dressed and run some errands. I need the exercise and there are things I need to do.

I've been enjoying the 1150 and finished Hogfather and began Dead Until Dark. was right about Terry Pratchett. The "punes" are funny and thoughtful and Pratchett's use of mythology and science in such close proximity is nothing short of genius. He definitely deserves to sell more than 30 million books. I'm glad some of his books are available as e-books, which brings me to an op-ed piece I read this morning.

Jonathan Galassi, president of of Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, wrote about what a publisher puts into a book and used William Styron and his experience with Random House as an example. There is no doubt that Random House put their best editor and resources forward to make those of Styron's books they published best sellers. Random House marketed Styron's books, like Sophie's Choice, to film and other markets and eventually, after the hard cover versions had been out a while, printed a paperback version at a lower cover price. Galassi makes the case that Random House should also be able to set the price for digital versions and that Styron's heirs shouldn't be allowed to sell those rights to a digital publisher using the Random House created version. He does have a point; however, he didn't pay attention to what he wrote.

He said a paperback version costing less than the hard cover version was put out after a period of time. Some changes had to be made in fonts and formatting in order to create the paperback version and they made money. Styron's heirs shouldn't be allowed to use the Random House version to make the e-book, which says he doesn't know anything about digital publishing. A publisher doesn't take the hard cover or paperback version of a book and scan it to create an e-book, not if it's a good quality e-book and not just a scan for the Google book project. In that sense, the e-book is not the original version and thus does not belong to the publisher in any way, shape or form. Yes, a Random House editor helped make Styron's book better, as Styron stated many times, but the editor was paid, and not in royalties. He drew a salary and did a job for hire. His part was over and his input, although valuable, was part of the copyright Styron owned and his heirs now own. And that is the point. The author owns the copyright and it is up to the author who is allowed to publish his work.

Instead of whining about losing digital rights, the publishers should be learning to make and market digital copies of their books and market them in the same way they market paperback versions. Right now, the cost of e-books is far out of line with what the market will and can bear. There is no paper, no binding, no cover and no physical book and yet big publishers insist on pricing e-books at the cost of hard cover copies and far about paperback copies. Paperback books have a shelf life of 5-10 years, depending in how much they are handled and read. They are a product of planned obsolescence. In other words, they are not meant to last so there is a market for replacements. There is no need for a replacement with an e-book as long as there is power and memory and the software necessary to bring up the e-book again and again, and that is what publishers are so upset about. They cannot continue to drink from the same well with the same dipper over and over. The answer is publishing back lists and making e-books affordable and not gouging the consumer.

Authors take their back lists to other publishers when the original publisher fails to promote and market the work sufficiently so they can concentrate on other authors making more money. Billions of books end up in landfills and are pulped and turned into who knows what if they don't sell during the first few weeks. With digital publishing, there is no waste and an unlimited market for books -- if they are priced affordably. With the current technology, e-books can be made available internationally and sell far more than paperbacks or hard cover with a wider distribution. That's where profit can be made. It's time for the big publishers to take a look at their business model and either move with the times or be run over by the digital avalanche.

In the Middle Ages, books were produced by hand and available only to the rich and the clergy. The average person couldn't read and didn't have access to books unless they took religious orders. Gutenberg changed all that with movable type. More books available made it possible for the average person to get hold of books and to learn to read. And the world was changed. Books were still the province of the haves and the have-nots scrounged for what books they could until Benjamin Franklin created the lending library. More people had access to even more books. In the booming economy, more people had access to more books, books they owned and read over and over. That was when books were made to last. As the middle class began to make more disposable income, they bought more books and publishers created paperbacks out of materials that were guaranteed to disintegrate with time so that beloved books must be replaced even with careful use and care.

We have gone from a world where books were the sole possession of churches and the wealthy to a world where anyone can buy a book and publishers are determined to make as much money as they can from the hunger for words and stories and fantasies that can transport the reader to magical worlds and into the realm of possibility and knowledge. It's time to move with the times where publishers realize that selling a book for $1000 is not nearly as important as selling a thousand books for $1. The technology has removed the barrier of planned obsolescence and in its place is a world wide open and ready for more books to read and savor. The answer for publishers is to buy, edit, market and publish good books that may not be available in hard cover until readers clamor for a print copy.

Publishers, either move with the times or stand aside for people of vision who are ready and able to do so or you will end up being swept away by the avalanche.

Ride the avalanche or be buried

There's a quiet hush over the house. Work is finished for the day, although I'll be back at it soon. In the meantime, I'm going to take a shower, get dressed and run some errands. I need the exercise and there are things I need to do.

I've been enjoying the 1150 and finished Hogfather and began Dead Until Dark. was right about Terry Pratchett. The "punes" are funny and thoughtful and Pratchett's use of mythology and science in such close proximity is nothing short of genius. He definitely deserves to sell more than 30 million books. I'm glad some of his books are available as e-books, which brings me to an op-ed piece I read this morning.

Jonathan Galassi, president of of Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, wrote about what a publisher puts into a book and used William Styron and his experience with Random House as an example. There is no doubt that Random House put their best editor and resources forward to make those of Styron's books they published best sellers. Random House marketed Styron's books, like Sophie's Choice, to film and other markets and eventually, after the hard cover versions had been out a while, printed a paperback version at a lower cover price. Galassi makes the case that Random House should also be able to set the price for digital versions and that Styron's heirs shouldn't be allowed to sell those rights to a digital publisher using the Random House created version. He does have a point; however, he didn't pay attention to what he wrote.

He said a paperback version costing less than the hard cover version was put out after a period of time. Some changes had to be made in fonts and formatting in order to create the paperback version and they made money. Styron's heirs shouldn't be allowed to use the Random House version to make the e-book, which says he doesn't know anything about digital publishing. A publisher doesn't take the hard cover or paperback version of a book and scan it to create an e-book, not if it's a good quality e-book and not just a scan for the Google book project. In that sense, the e-book is not the original version and thus does not belong to the publisher in any way, shape or form. Yes, a Random House editor helped make Styron's book better, as Styron stated many times, but the editor was paid, and not in royalties. He drew a salary and did a job for hire. His part was over and his input, although valuable, was part of the copyright Styron owned and his heirs now own. And that is the point. The author owns the copyright and it is up to the author who is allowed to publish his work.

Instead of whining about losing digital rights, the publishers should be learning to make and market digital copies of their books and market them in the same way they market paperback versions. Right now, the cost of e-books is far out of line with what the market will and can bear. There is no paper, no binding, no cover and no physical book and yet big publishers insist on pricing e-books at the cost of hard cover copies and far about paperback copies. Paperback books have a shelf life of 5-10 years, depending in how much they are handled and read. They are a product of planned obsolescence. In other words, they are not meant to last so there is a market for replacements. There is no need for a replacement with an e-book as long as there is power and memory and the software necessary to bring up the e-book again and again, and that is what publishers are so upset about. They cannot continue to drink from the same well with the same dipper over and over. The answer is publishing back lists and making e-books affordable and not gouging the consumer.

Authors take their back lists to other publishers when the original publisher fails to promote and market the work sufficiently so they can concentrate on other authors making more money. Billions of books end up in landfills and are pulped and turned into who knows what if they don't sell during the first few weeks. With digital publishing, there is no waste and an unlimited market for books -- if they are priced affordably. With the current technology, e-books can be made available internationally and sell far more than paperbacks or hard cover with a wider distribution. That's where profit can be made. It's time for the big publishers to take a look at their business model and either move with the times or be run over by the digital avalanche.

In the Middle Ages, books were produced by hand and available only to the rich and the clergy. The average person couldn't read and didn't have access to books unless they took religious orders. Gutenberg changed all that with movable type. More books available made it possible for the average person to get hold of books and to learn to read. And the world was changed. Books were still the province of the haves and the have-nots scrounged for what books they could until Benjamin Franklin created the lending library. More people had access to even more books. In the booming economy, more people had access to more books, books they owned and read over and over. That was when books were made to last. As the middle class began to make more disposable income, they bought more books and publishers created paperbacks out of materials that were guaranteed to disintegrate with time so that beloved books must be replaced even with careful use and care.

We have gone from a world where books were the sole possession of churches and the wealthy to a world where anyone can buy a book and publishers are determined to make as much money as they can from the hunger for words and stories and fantasies that can transport the reader to magical worlds and into the realm of possibility and knowledge. It's time to move with the times where publishers realize that selling a book for $1000 is not nearly as important as selling a thousand books for $1. The technology has removed the barrier of planned obsolescence and in its place is a world wide open and ready for more books to read and savor. The answer for publishers is to buy, edit, market and publish good books that may not be available in hard cover until readers clamor for a print copy.

Publishers, either move with the times or stand aside for people of vision who are ready and able to do so or you will end up being swept away by the avalanche.