Prophecy by J.F. Penn
A Kindle bestseller in Action/Adventure and Religious Fiction
The prophecy in Revelation declares that a quarter of the world must die and now a shadowy organization has the ability to fulfill these words. Can one woman stop the abomination before it’s too late?
Find out more on Amazon and download a sample to your Kindle.
Table of Contents
DoJ Statement: Self-Publishing Cleans Up Well
DoJ and Self-vs.-Traditional Publishing: A Coda / Gardner
DoJ Statement: Wider Coverage
DoJ Statement: O’Leary reads Schumer – ‘Maddening’
Author Solutions: Extra Ether Report
Harlequin Lawsuit: Quick Info
Big Prizes: The Man Booker Long List / Singh
eBook Prices: Panel Derision / Leather
Money: More 2011 Trade Sales Numbers / Cader
Craft: Mysteries of the Serial Kind / Craig
Craft: Prompts and Poetry / Friedman, Gonzalez
Craft: Your greatest asset / Simone
Language: Until We Can Record the Future…
Bradbury: 1book140 in August
Books: Reading on the Ether
Last Gas: Quantifying Community / Dyson, Ingram
DoJ Statement: Self-Publishing Cleans Up Well
Hm, did something just change? Things feel different to you at all? Maybe it’s just me. High on the E-gas again.
No, wait, there it is again. Hear it? Sounds so civil … thoughtful … polite … considered … articulate … businesslike … professional … mature … like a latter-day “when in the course of human events” … naaaaah, can’t be.
But there it is again. Get a snootful of this:
When prices of media are high, they’re a barrier to entry. Many are avoiding buying an ereader because the ebooks they most want are $9.99 – $14.99. If prices came down, more Kindles (and Kobo readers and Nooks and Sony readers) would be sold. That widens the market, which leads to more ebook sales. This is good for authors, and for readers who can get more for their money.
Never mind whether you agree with that line of thinking. Hold your blow darts. Instead, I want you to guess who said it.
I’ll give you a little more. This is so What’s My Line? I can’t stand it, but you’re too young to know what I’m talking about, so never mind that.
I write a popular blog, notable in the industry for its contrary opinions.
Notable in the industry for its contrary opinions?
Contrary opinions?
What, did they reissue Little Lord Fauntleroy? [Cue harpsichord]
That “popular blog” is more “notable in the industry” for:
putting the screamin’ meemies into everybody who gets within 50 picas;
making attractive women curse and strong men cry;
whipping up half the self-described “indie” camp into something that might have inspired William Golden to think about flies on an island.
The “popular blog” is called:
A Newbie’s Guide to Publishing and I’m including four recent blog posts to underscore some of the points I make above, and the structural problems in the publishing industry as they relate to the DOJ suit.
Can it be? The same guy? All underscoring and including and structural-problems-as-they-relate?
Yes, Ethernaut, that’s Joe Konrath in his letter to the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) in support of its proposed antitrust settlement with three of the Big Six publishers.
J.A Konrath
He has shucked off his trademark rabble-rouser J.A. Konrath drag. And what a sensible figure he cuts when he’s not playing to the groundlings, huh? In fact, his numbers are more imposing when laid out without rancor:
I’m writing to you as the author of forty-six books–eight legacy published, two Amazon published (with three more on the way), and thirty-six self-published, all of which inform the views I express in this letter.
Here’s an excerpt from one of the four posts he mentions for the edification of Justice. In this post, headlined The Agency Model Sucks (that’s the Joe we know and don’t love), he’s addressing readers who may fear an Amazonian future:
You shouldn’t worry about being eaten by a lion tomorrow when there is currently a pit viper biting you in the ass. And if you’re defending the pit viper, you’re an idiot.
And now here he is, knowing that the lords and ladies on Pennsylvania Avenue are unused to such poetics — even in the most amici of curiae — explaining to them that his Newbie’s Guise is just that:
The language I’ve used to rebuke these agents is the language I use on my blog, which is casual, coarse, and accusatory. I mention this just so you’ll know that despite what I think is justifiable anger at the industry practices which I believe betray authors and harm readers, I recognize there’s a difference in the kind of tone one can use in a blog and the kind one ought to use in a letter like this one.
@jakonrath I've read the first books in the Timecaster series, great. Nitpick: atmospheric reentry heat is due to compression, not friction
July 16, 2012 4:05 pm via TwimbowReplyRetweetFavorite
@amoroso
Paolo Amoroso
@amoroso Thanks! But what about bedroom reentry heat? ;)
July 16, 2012 8:37 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@jakonrath
JA Konrath
In a thorough departure from the daily ‘tude, our normally Kon-wrathful one, in fact, makes his points to the DoJ with finesse and without the hostility that can turn his best comments into a sneer.
Here’s an example of his perspective in his DoJ letter (PDF), emphasis mine:
Though it is my understanding that the goal of the DOJ’s suit is to protect consumers, it is my belief that the group most harmed by the actions of the publishing cartel is writers, who have been forced to accept onerous, often unconscionable contract terms without recourse. The Association of Authors’ Representatives, and the Authors Guild, which purportedly defend the rights of writers, in fact work for the publishers. For decades, thousands of writers have been exploited by a powerful industry that universally offers nonnegotiable, one-sided terms, which have gone unchallenged.
And Konrath isn’t alone. (I wasn’t just hearing voices, you see?)
I’m sure you will have already received plenty of letters regarding the terms of the proposed settlement; I would like to apologize at the outset for adding to the pile.
David Gaughran
That generous opener is from fedora-ed author David Gaughran, who posted his letter to the DoJ at his site before sending it, under the headline An Open Letter to the DOJ from Someone Who Actually Cares About Writers (and Readers).
While he writes that he hadn’t anticipated it serving as a kind of a petition, Gaughran was approached by 186 colleagues either in comments or in email: they wanted to have their names appended to his letter. And so it is that his letter is listed by DoJ as “Gaughran et al.”
Unlike some of the publishers named in the suit, I’m not part of a major media conglomerate that owns newspapers and television stations around the globe. I’m a one-man operation who set up a publishing company to release my own books.
That’s what’s compelling about these messages to the DoJ from self-publishing authors. Here is Gaughran distinguishing his stance from that of organized efforts:
Vocal resistance is to be expected…One such group are best-sellers like Scott Turow, the President of the Authors Guild — an organization that claims to represent the interests of writers. Another such group are literary agents like Gail Hochman, the President of the Association of Authors’ Representatives — an organization of literary agents, which also claims to represent the interests of writers. To be clear, neither organization speaks for me.
These comments got through.
The DoJ statement specifically calls out an assertion in Konrath’s letter, writing:
Joe Konrath, author of 46 books, clarifies that letter-writing campaigns by the Authors Guild and the Authors Representatives “did not solicit the views of their members, that they in no way speak on behalf of all or even most of their members.”
And Justice mentions Gaughran specifically, as well:
Many comments from self-published authors, in particular, expressed appreciation that Amazon opened a path to publication that was immune from Publisher Defendants’ hegemony. David Gaughran, writing on behalf of 186 self-published co-signors, writes that “Amazon is creating, for the first time, real competition in publishing” by charting a “viable path” for self-published books.
Came across this today. "Using our POD facilities, publishers can ensure titles remain in print indefinitely." Mustn't let rights revert!
July 23, 2012 7:36 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@DavidGaughran
David Gaughran
When the DoJ made its 64-page “stay the course” statement available Monday in response to the 868 comments filed about the proposed ebook pricing settlement with HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, and Hachette, only some 70 of the more than 800 letters were supportive of the settlement the government has proposed.
And naturally, the overwhelming bulk of the news coverage went to the majority critics of the proposal.
That’s why I felt it might be good to point out that among the writers of those 70 favorable opinions — and in the signed support of others like the 186 behind Gaughran’s statement — we have heard something new.
DOJ shout-out to @jakonrath & @DavidGaughran for great work in countering Authors Guild bullshit http://t.co/qDWfJUC6
July 23, 2012 12:32 pm via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@barryeisler
Barry Eisler
These are voices and opinions of disparate entrepreneurs, solo operatives, independent authors. And however put out with them the establishment members may be at times, these non-aligned writers landed some palpable input in this official exercise. These messages were organized, calmly expressed, made without expletives or anger — and they got across.
It looks to me as if the self-publishing crowd did itself proud this time. And even if it means putting aside our respective opinions of the DoJ action to observe this, each of us needs to recognize that these folks found a seat at the table for non-traditional publishing.
As the DoJ wrote:
..Mr. Gaughran observes that “[t]he kind of disruption caused by the Internet is often messy,” and those who “do quite well under the status quo” naturally resist change.
I’m inclined to give the last word here to Konrath. And I’m glad I took the time to search out his letter in the DoJ compendium to see how he handled this.
If he can find a way to address issues in the self-publishing community as he’s done this time — without the fume-’n'-foam shtick, which only alienates some of the support self-publishing needs — then he’ll play a more progressive role in a situation that could use some effective leadership.
Look at the snap and provocative grace of his phrasing when he leaves the snarl behind and instead — to paraphrase the scriptures — heaps hot logic upon their heads:
Amazon has not destroyed competition. In fact, it is the only company encouraging it.
Click to comment
What do you think Jeff Bezos had for lunch today? Freeze-dried bookseller tears? Kitten hearts? #bezoslunch
July 24, 2012 2:13 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@melvillehouse
Melville House
Whatever Bezos ate, we know it was served to him on a silver salver by an agent of the Department of Justice. #bezoslunch
July 24, 2012 2:14 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@melvillehouse
Melville House
DoJ and Self-vs.-Traditional Publishing: A Coda / Gardner
I know publishers are still making traditional advance/royalty deals, they’re still printing paper books, and they’re still taking a year or more to get a book out. I don’t know how long this will continue.
Can an Ether item have a coda? You bet it can.
What agent Rachelle Gardner is trying to get across in Knowing What We Don’t Know is that we all need to keep quieting the natural impulses we may feel to try to see a solution, an answer, an end, an outcome when, in fact, none of that exists.
In some ways, the entire publishing industry is still operating “business as usual.” Most of us have years or decades of experience behind us. We know things. Based on our experiences from the past, we’re reasonably accurate at making predictions for the future and making decisions accordingly.
But look at the tremors sent though the industry by such events as the DoJ action. Needless to say, trying to advise each other during all this is fruitless, and exhausting. Being honest about the widening, deepening questions will become more important before it becomes less. Gardner:
We’re often speaking from a limited amount of personal experience, a bit of evidence/data, and a lot of our instinct based on years in the business. But it’s a mistake if we fail to acknowledge what we don’t know, and instead act like we “know” what we’re talking about.
Click to comment
If you're using an animated gif for your twitter avatar, please STOP IT NOW!
about 16 hours ago via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@DonLinn
Don Linn
DoJ Statement: Wider Coverage
The overarching theme of Justice’s response is clear: they see their job as ensuring that consumers pay the lowest possible price for individual ebooks: “Critical comments generally were submitted by those who have an interest in seeing consumers pay more for e-books, and hobbling retailers that might want to sell e-books at lower prices.”
Michael Cader
That’s Michael Cader at Publishers Lunch, offering one of the most extensive goings-over of the government’s statement, I commend it to you. Cader’s headline focuses on the apparent imbalance of opinion that reached the DoJ: Though 92 Percent of Comments Oppose Settlement, Justice Is Unmoved.
And he takes the step, unique among journalists I’ve read on the story, of giving you the “five common themes” the Department of Justice identifies in the big bag of mail it received. As Cader enumerates, they are:
The legality of restoring discount authority to retailers
The economic impact on industry participants of restoring discount authority to retailers
The viability of collusive pricing as a defense against perceived monopolization and/or predatory pricing
Collusive pricing as protection from free riding and low-cost competition
The clarity and breadth of the proposed Final Judgment
Sorting through the various highlights of the 64-page statement (PDF) — regardless of your position on the proposed settlement — you’re likely to find one or another comment or perspective helpful in clarifying the nature of the lawsuit and government’s view. You don’t have to agree with it to learn from it, in other words. It’s instructive reading in any case.
For example, here, from the DoJ’s statement, is what may be the clearest lay-out yet of the DoJ’s insistence that its target is not agency pricing. I’m on Page 25 of the statement:
As a preliminary matter, the proposed Final Judgment does not impose a business model on the e-book industry….Even Settling Defendants, whose agency contracts were the product of the conspiracy, are not permanently barred from using the agency model. For two years, however, Settling Defendants cannot prohibit retailers from discounting e-books.
The goal of that two-year ban on agency, the government says, is to stop publishers from creating new agency-pricing contracts that extend the effects of what the DoJ alleges was conspiracy, collusion.
Jim Milliot
And as to that alleged collusion, as Jim Milliot writes in DoJ Reviews Comments, Says E-book Deal to Go Ahead at Publishers Weekly:
The DoJ response showed little interest in comments from Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, the ABA and the Authors Guild that the “collusive limits” were a necessary response to Amazon’s anticompetitive behavior.
In fact, writes Dan Cullen for the American Booksellers Association in DoJ Unmoved by Public Comments:
Despite the level of opposition, DOJ stated that it has determined that “the proposed Final Judgment, as drafted, provides an effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust violations alleged” and that it is “therefore in the public interest.”
Perennial Amazon critic Dennis Johnson of Melville House headlines his write You’re all in on it, says the DOJ: Lawsuit to go forward.
He terms the Justice Department’s statement “a presentation with holes in its logic large enough to be staggering,” if not to drive a white whale through.
What’s more, Johnson takes a dim view of citations of self-publishing authors’ participation, referring to it as “bizarre and off-topic, to boot.” He goes on to interpret a dark and perverse motivation behind Justice’s action:
Beyond the conflation of a publisher not wanting to publish someone’s book with a vindictive and censorious — and completely imaginary — prevention program aimed at amateurs, and beyond the strange lapses in internal logic, and beyond the selective readings of antitrust law, the DOJ’s latest prosecution of its case clarifies something more deeply unsettling about the suit: that it seems animated by a vicious concept of capitalism above all else, a capitalism where the “technology giants” are granted the role of righteous protector of the people, and where the artifacts of art and free speech are valued only by a price devoid of actual cost, let alone cultural worth.
Julie Bosman
Let that chill get on down your spine, as Julie Bosman in the Times writes:
While the government received some comments in support of its action and others opposing it, “Critical comments generally were submitted by those who have an interest in seeing consumers pay more for e-books, and hobbling retailers that might want to sell e-books at lower prices,” the statement said.
Benedicte Page
And Benedicte Page at TheBookseller, sums up the DoJ’s assessment of “the Amazon argument” in DoJ rejects B&N/Authors Guild objections to settlement:
The Authors Guild had said…(referring to Amazon): “The Justice Department is sanctioning the destructive, anticompetitive campaign of a corporate giant with billions in cash and boundless ambitions.”
The DoJ said: “In the course of its investigation, the United States examined complaints about Amazon’s alleged predatory practices and found persuasive evidence lacking…Even if there were evidence to substantiate claims of ‘monopolization’ or predatory pricing’ they would not be sufficient to justify self-help in the form of collusion.”
Click to comment
Just give me the bad news, editors. I really can take it. Bad news promptly delivered is just as welcome as good news, whenever.
July 24, 2012 12:40 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@Ginger_Clark
Ginger Clark
DoJ Statement: O’Leary reads Schumer – ‘Maddening’
Pursuing the DOJ, Schumer mangles reality left, right and center.
Brian O’Leary
So if you’re really enjoying your Summer With the DoJ too much to let go of the topic yet, you owe it to yourself to give a few minutes to Brian O’Leary’s Talking Points of Tuesday. Probably a safe bet that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) isn’t getting off any thank-you notes to O’Leary’s Magellan Media.
Last week, New York’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer, contributed an op-ed piece to the Wall Street Journal asking the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to drop its eBook lawsuit. It’s a maddening read.
You have to realize that one of O’Leary’s hallmarks with his blog-a-day commitment in 2012 is a spare style. No bushes are beaten around. No bushes are even in sight.
I know that much of traditional publishing is headquartered in New York, and phone logs would likely confirm that senior staff from various houses have appealed to Schumer’s office for relief from this whole “collusion” thing. Still, the senator could have at least tried to write something that was not a recitation of traditional publishers’ talking points.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
O’Leary is in no mood to give Sen. Chuck a rest. I’m putting some emphasis on a great assertion to keep in mind these days:
Perhaps it’s politically savvy to pretend that “50 Shades of Grey” was miraculously picked out of the slush pile. Certainly it’s easier to believe Scott Turow than confront the fact that something like three times more books are published each year outside of traditional publishing houses.
I’ll let you enjoy for yourself the several intervening paragraphs between that and the conclusion. Pricing, DRM, digital disruption, the senator’s seat on the subcommittee that overseas antitrust issues, it’s all there. And it all comes down to O’Leary’s punch-line-stops-here finish:
Defending higher eBook prices to save the business model of five publishers (three of whom have settled the lawsuit) might feel a bit out of touch, even in a year in which the senator is not running for re-election.
Click to comment
Sherman Hemsley. A Class Act. Surely he is moving on up to a new deluxe apartment in the sky. RIP
about 23 hours ago via HootSuiteReplyRetweetFavorite
@ChuckSchumer
Chuck Schumer
Author Solutions: Extra Ether Report
The Gershwins apparently were joking with that “Summertime” stuff — “and the living is easy,” right? Maybe for opera characters.
Book people, on the other hand, have had a little too much news lately, not much of it easy to follow, let alone understand.
So in case you need to get up to speed on the news of Pearson, parent of Penguin Books, buying Author Solutions, this will fix you right up — EXTRA ETHER: Publishing vs. Authors?
A lively comments section awaits you, by the way. Here’s Matthew Turner jumping in with both feet:
This whole deal comes off as shady to me. For a big publisher like this to purchase a vanity press, it tells me they either want to take advantage of naive writers (had I the money six years ago, I might have used Author house – That book would have been a travesty to release there and then) or they want to add value to the self publishing market.
Click to comment
Rode bike to Starbys with my AlphaSmart on my back. Should be a Stephen Foster song or something.
about 18 hours ago via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@jamesscottbell
James Scott Bell
Harlequin Lawsuit: Quick Info
As I was just writing, it’s one of those summers when nobody seems to want to just take a seat and relax.
As you likely know, a class action lawsuit has been announced against Harlequin, alleging that three authors, the plaintiffs, received much less in royalty payments than their agreements with the romance publisher stipulated. Brief comment from the publisher has denied the allegations, saying its authors are properly paid.
Good early writes on this one came from:
Sarah Weinman at Publishers Lunch with Three Authors File Class Action Suit Against Harlequin On Deprivation of Digital Royalties and
Laura Hazard Owen at paid Content with Authors sue Harlequin for non-payment of ebook royalties
<div id='bbpBox_228452333128912897' class='bbpBox' style='pa