It's rare that I piggyback onto a Dear Author post. Usually, I just pop into the comment section or hop onto Twitter to chime in, but today's post struck a nerve for me. I'm just going to write my reaction in my usual, meandering style.
I'm reading the Clare Fergusson series by Julia Spencer-Fleming right now. Or rather, I WAS reading it. Until I went to buy the next installment and discovered that Minotaur has set the ebook price at $9.99. The rest of the series is priced at $7.99, but that particular volume is out of print in mass market. $9.99 for a book printed in 2006. I'm not paying that. I can afford to pay it, but I'm simply not going to.
Showing posts with label publishing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label publishing. Show all posts
1/6/15
Why Asking Your Readers to Fund Your Creative Process is Wrong
If you've been on social media the last day or two and are part of the book community, you probably saw the kerfuffle about the crowd-funding campaign by author Stacey Jay. In her now-cancelled campaign, she asks her readers to help raise $10,000 to help her produce her next book. But here's the kicker: most of that money was not earmarked for editing, cover art or any of the other admittedly expensive things that must be done to a finished manuscript prior to publication. This money was for LIVING EXPENSES while she sits back and writes the book! It's not written yet.
Here are some of the arguments I've heard that are supportive of the idea:
1. It's like an advance, something traditional publishers used to do all of the time.
2. Artists need to eat like everyone else.
3. It's voluntary. Don't like it? Don't contribute.
4. It's a commission. There is risk involved. All Kickstarter members know this going in.
5. Lots of Kickstarters pay their staff.
To understand what the fuss is about, you need to first understand that this is part of a trend. Most people made uncomfortable about this aren't objecting based on just this Kickstarter. [Full disclosure, I have contributed to two Kickstarters: the Veronica Mars Kickstarter and the Reading Rainbow one]
When I object to this, I do so knowing this is a trend that if sanctioned as an "ok" thing to do will continue to proliferate. It will grow. And I do NOT want to see that happen.
Here are some of the arguments I've heard that are supportive of the idea:
1. It's like an advance, something traditional publishers used to do all of the time.
2. Artists need to eat like everyone else.
3. It's voluntary. Don't like it? Don't contribute.
4. It's a commission. There is risk involved. All Kickstarter members know this going in.
5. Lots of Kickstarters pay their staff.
To understand what the fuss is about, you need to first understand that this is part of a trend. Most people made uncomfortable about this aren't objecting based on just this Kickstarter. [Full disclosure, I have contributed to two Kickstarters: the Veronica Mars Kickstarter and the Reading Rainbow one]
When I object to this, I do so knowing this is a trend that if sanctioned as an "ok" thing to do will continue to proliferate. It will grow. And I do NOT want to see that happen.
9/29/14
Ellora's Cave
I don't have much to add to the current media landscape regarding publisher Ellora's Cave suing blogger Jane Litte and her blog, Dear Author, other than to say I will no longer be reviewing any book published by Ellora's Cave. I rarely did, anyway, because their prices were far beyond what I was willing to pay, but I'm officially done with them.
It's a shame, really, since I have some really cool swag from previous RT Conventions that I loved, but I'm adding my voice to the blogging boycott.
It's a shame, really, since I have some really cool swag from previous RT Conventions that I loved, but I'm adding my voice to the blogging boycott.
1/15/14
Sourcebooks releasing new edition of Anne of Green Gables series
BUT! I just got one from Sourcebooks that made me smile. Anne of Green Gables is being rereleased in new editions! I'm a huge L.M. Montgomery fan, so it also brightened my day to see her lesser known books slated for re-release, too.
You can find out more at Sourcebook's L.M. Montgomery page.
Anyone else excited? I admit, I'm more of an Emily of New Moon fan, but I enjoyed all of LMM's books as a young girl.
7/29/13
Yes, Author to Author Blurbs Really Are Worthless
After my last gripey post , I was surprised by the number of responses I received from authors on Twitter.
Sadly, those authors were not objecting to the practice I had been describing as both deceptive and wrong. They were objecting to the notion that author blurbs (those marketable little quotes from fellow authors you see on the covers and on the first few pages) were fake. Or less than genuine. Responses ranged from "I only blurb authors I think my readers will love," to "Just because authors are friends, it doesn't make the blurbs less genuine."
Sadly, those authors were not objecting to the practice I had been describing as both deceptive and wrong. They were objecting to the notion that author blurbs (those marketable little quotes from fellow authors you see on the covers and on the first few pages) were fake. Or less than genuine. Responses ranged from "I only blurb authors I think my readers will love," to "Just because authors are friends, it doesn't make the blurbs less genuine."
7/15/13
Is the Author Bio the New Blurb?
Some believed JK Rowling wanted to try her hand at something without the huge burden of expectations that comes from being one of history's most financially successful authors. Some thought the "discovery" of her alter-ego to be too convenient, as, predictably, the book's sales shot through the roof after the revelation. Some felt deceived that they had read/purchased/critiqued something without realizing who really wrote it.
I have every confidence that Rowling truly wanted to make a fresh start. There's no way she can ever publish anything under her name without having it compared to Harry Potter. There just isn't. Her publisher, on the other hand, may not have been as altruistic. My issue isn't with the pseudonym or keeping that a secret. It's with the falsified biography.
6/6/13
Trust and the Reader/Author Relationship
[To be as transparent as possible, I have not read the series in question. I can only gauge the content from the reader reactions I have seen online.]
In contrast to so many reader flame-ups regarding series direction, authorial choice, quality decline etc. this reader rage-fest was caused by a decision to extend a promised trilogy (the Crossfire books) to a (minimum) of 5 books—and in a less-than-transparent way that caught many readers who pre-ordered by surprise when they reached an abrupt ending in book 3. As of this morning, at least 50% of the readers who left reviews on Amazon are feeling taken advantage of, duped, misled... None of which is good for Sylvia Day's reputation.
2/20/13
Romance is Not For Children: Why the Trendy Titles are a Bad Idea
I first noticed it with Kieran Kramer's stories. The cutesy titles that use popular children's book titles as a template for their own. Then it expanded further from "light historical" into the mainstream historical category. Now, they're everywhere.
This trend needs to stop. Right now. And here's why:
It's derivative. I understand that temptation to try something new. To get away from those throw away, easily forgotten titles. The titles are one of the main complaints from within the genre because they are so easily tossed aside. But copying another genre's most popular titles is not the way to show the world you can be original. It's really not. (This applies to copying other bestselling adult novels, too.)
It's infantilizing. We already contend with the snobs looking down on the romance genre as something less than refined. It's a genre written mostly by women for women. It's already marginalized. Do we really need to make it easier for the critics? Women are not children, but this trend seems to perpetuate that idea. By using patterns normally reserved for children's titles, we link romances with children. And that's bad because ...
It's creepy. The sexual content in most romances is one of the reasons many stay away from the genre. I happen to like that part of romance novels. We're grown ups. We can handle those grown up words and actions. But using a children's book as a starting point for a title just feels skeevy. This isn't a genre for children. We're classier than this.
I'm not a PC crusader by any means. I don't have an agenda to get romance more mainstream respectability. I really don't care all that much. I like the man candy covers. I don't mind the alpha heroes. I don't even care about historical accuracy as long as they get the basics correct. But I really think that the publishing industry is being incredibly foolish to continue blithely along with this trend. I'm not sure if this bothers romance readers who don't have this familiarity with children's books, but I'm positive it sends a negative message to those who do. And this romance reader is not buying another book, even by a favorite author, that follows this titling trend.
8/15/11
Indie is NOT Self Pubbed
I'm a little irritated this morning. There's been a brief discussion
on Dear Author and a lengthier one on Twitter about this issue, but I
still feel the need to rant a bit.
Self publishing is the bastard stepchild of the book world. The only thing worse according to many is vanity press. Self publishing has a reputation that makes that term synonymous with a slush pile of unedited, poorly written dreck.
Now that publishing is changing, and self publishing is having a few successes, there are some self published authors who are trying to use the term "indie" to refer to themselves. The problem is that the term is already taken. If self pubbers want to use a different term to describe themselves, more power to them. But they shouldn't do it by preempting a term that has been in use in the publishing business for decades.
An indie author is someone signed with an indie press. An indie press is also sometimes known as a small press, but not always. An independent press is to publishing as an independent record label is to the music industry. It's not owned by a large conglomerate which is then owned by an even larger media company. It's a stand-alone business.
Wiki has several pertinent sentences as well:
and this
We don't consider an indie music artist as someone putting out records in his or her basement. We consider them musicians signed with an indie label instead of one of the big music companies like Sony or Warner. The same concept applies with indie authors and indie pubs.
Why does it matter? It matters because conflating indie with self publication confuses the reader. And confusing/deceiving the reader is a bad thing. I don't care how many extra sales you think you'll get, once deceived, a reader will not only NOT buy your book, they'll tell every other person they can not to buy your book.
Indies are true publishing houses. They are a PRESS. They publish more than the work of a single author. They have editors who acquire or reject based on taste and quality. This is an entirely different thing from self publication.
Most writers I know are aware that words have power. How you use them is important. Using a term that means something specific to many people in the industry and pretending it means something else is a choice. And I'm not going to have a very high opinion of those who engage in that practice.
Don't like the self-pub label? Fine. But don't steal a well known industry term and use it to mask what you're really doing.
Self publishing is the bastard stepchild of the book world. The only thing worse according to many is vanity press. Self publishing has a reputation that makes that term synonymous with a slush pile of unedited, poorly written dreck.
Now that publishing is changing, and self publishing is having a few successes, there are some self published authors who are trying to use the term "indie" to refer to themselves. The problem is that the term is already taken. If self pubbers want to use a different term to describe themselves, more power to them. But they shouldn't do it by preempting a term that has been in use in the publishing business for decades.
An indie author is someone signed with an indie press. An indie press is also sometimes known as a small press, but not always. An independent press is to publishing as an independent record label is to the music industry. It's not owned by a large conglomerate which is then owned by an even larger media company. It's a stand-alone business.
Wiki has several pertinent sentences as well:
The terms "small press", "indie publisher", and "independent press" are often used interchangeably, with "independent press" defined as publishers that are not part of large conglomerates or multinational corporation.
and this
The majority of small presses are independent or indie publishers, this means that they are separate from the handful of major publishing house conglomerates, such as Random House or Hachette. The term 'indie publisher' should not be confused with 'self publisher', which is where the author publishes only their own books.
We don't consider an indie music artist as someone putting out records in his or her basement. We consider them musicians signed with an indie label instead of one of the big music companies like Sony or Warner. The same concept applies with indie authors and indie pubs.
Why does it matter? It matters because conflating indie with self publication confuses the reader. And confusing/deceiving the reader is a bad thing. I don't care how many extra sales you think you'll get, once deceived, a reader will not only NOT buy your book, they'll tell every other person they can not to buy your book.
Indies are true publishing houses. They are a PRESS. They publish more than the work of a single author. They have editors who acquire or reject based on taste and quality. This is an entirely different thing from self publication.
Most writers I know are aware that words have power. How you use them is important. Using a term that means something specific to many people in the industry and pretending it means something else is a choice. And I'm not going to have a very high opinion of those who engage in that practice.
Don't like the self-pub label? Fine. But don't steal a well known industry term and use it to mask what you're really doing.
7/16/11
The Romance Masquerade
Catherine Coulter, Jayne Ann Krentz, Susan Elizabeth Phillips, Nora Roberts and Diana Gabaldon are a few authors I can think of whose books are often shelved outside the romance area. Sometimes in mystery or fiction. During my tenure at BN, I spent quite a lot of time of escorting a confused buyer from the romance section to the fiction section when they were searching for Jennifer Crusie books or any number of other "romances in disguise."
Anyone who has followed the blog for awhile knows that I'm not a fan of my local indie. But I did manage to find some romance there. Just not in the romance section. And invariably, it was a big name author. In my observation, big names in romance seem to more frequently warrant the general "Fiction" label from the marketing department for their books. Which in turn allows them to skirt the stigma romance continues to suffer under and sell more to a wider audience. (Women's fiction and chick lit offer great camouflage, too.)
4/22/11
Jumping on the YA Bandwagon
Authors writing in multiple genres is nothing new. Neither is authors abandoning one successful genre to write in another. A decade ago, authors jumped ship from romance to mystery. Or from historical to paranormal. Today, it seems everyone is jumping on the Young Adult bandwagon.
At the RT Book Lovers Convention earlier this month, YA was everywhere. There was even a "Teen Day." And many of the YA authors are well known romance authors. Authors who are successful writing historical or contemporary adult romances are cranking out YA books now.
The reasons are varied: an expanding market for YA (with corresponding publisher demand), a perceived decline in the historical or contemporary romance market, author boredom with the genre they write in, pressure from agents and publishers to conform...
Personally, I get irritated when it seems as if an author is jumping on a trend bandwagon. I'm fine with an author who writes in more than one genre. But I intensely dislike it when an author basically abandons one readership in pursuit of another. Readers who make an effort to remember an author's name, who anxiously await the next book are apparently worthless when weighed against the almighty $.
No, authors don't "owe" their readership anything. And they're free to write what they like. But it still irks me when authors seem to choose a new genre to write in just because everyone else is doing it.
At the RT Book Lovers Convention earlier this month, YA was everywhere. There was even a "Teen Day." And many of the YA authors are well known romance authors. Authors who are successful writing historical or contemporary adult romances are cranking out YA books now.
The reasons are varied: an expanding market for YA (with corresponding publisher demand), a perceived decline in the historical or contemporary romance market, author boredom with the genre they write in, pressure from agents and publishers to conform...
Personally, I get irritated when it seems as if an author is jumping on a trend bandwagon. I'm fine with an author who writes in more than one genre. But I intensely dislike it when an author basically abandons one readership in pursuit of another. Readers who make an effort to remember an author's name, who anxiously await the next book are apparently worthless when weighed against the almighty $.
No, authors don't "owe" their readership anything. And they're free to write what they like. But it still irks me when authors seem to choose a new genre to write in just because everyone else is doing it.
6/18/10
Trade Paperback books: My least favorite format
I admit it. I'm a format snob. I'll buy mass markets without a thought. I'll pay hardcover prices for a book I don't want to wait for. But I rarely, if ever, even LOOK at trade paperbacks.
Why?
Part of it is the price vs. value proposition for me. Trade paperbacks are still paperbacks. They are not made sturdier (in general) than a mass market paperback. They are simply bigger. And are, in some cases, double the cover price of a mass market. There's no additional value for the increased price.
The size is also a factor. Trade paperbacks are uncomfortable for me to hold. Hardcovers can generally be rested on my lap. They stay open easier. (Not to mention that they do not suffer the insta-damage of spine creasing that paperbacks do.) Trade paperbacks must be held open. And I have small hands.
The biggest reason, though, is that I tend to mentally equate trade paperback books with literary fiction. It's most likely a leftover reaction to all of those Oprah books I had to shelve when I worked for B&N, but I don't think of genre fiction when I see a book in trade paperback.
Why?
Part of it is the price vs. value proposition for me. Trade paperbacks are still paperbacks. They are not made sturdier (in general) than a mass market paperback. They are simply bigger. And are, in some cases, double the cover price of a mass market. There's no additional value for the increased price.
The size is also a factor. Trade paperbacks are uncomfortable for me to hold. Hardcovers can generally be rested on my lap. They stay open easier. (Not to mention that they do not suffer the insta-damage of spine creasing that paperbacks do.) Trade paperbacks must be held open. And I have small hands.
The biggest reason, though, is that I tend to mentally equate trade paperback books with literary fiction. It's most likely a leftover reaction to all of those Oprah books I had to shelve when I worked for B&N, but I don't think of genre fiction when I see a book in trade paperback.
1/8/10
Beware the Ugly Covers
Christina Dodd has been poking fun at bad covers on her Facebook page this week.
I inadvertently did the same after stumbling across the cover for the new Amanda Quick hardcover, Burning Lamp
, due out April 20.
No, that's not her mouth. It's her nose.
There's something not quite right about this cover. With the creepy angle, near baldness of the woman, the odd eye color, and the nose-mouth thing at the bottom it's a wonder how this example of hideousness made it out of the art department.
Even weirder is the UK version. Perhaps it's because Jayne Ann Krentz is more well known in the UK than the Amanda Quick pen name that the JAK name was given such prominence. It's disconcerting to say the least. At this size, I can hardly even SEE the Amanda Quick name.
From there, it's just a quick jump to pondering the usefulness of the not-really-a-secret pen name. Is it merely to keep your genres separated ala Nora Roberts/JD Robb? Is it to keep prolific authors from overwhelming the market ala Barbara Michaels/Elizabeth Peters? Or is it strictly a marketing tool? Given the intertwined nature of the Arcane Society series between both Krentz and Quick, I'm thinking the latter in this case.
For me, it seems a bit silly to write under assumed names that are open secrets. And even sillier to put those multiple names on such ugly covers.
, due out April 20.No, that's not her mouth. It's her nose.
There's something not quite right about this cover. With the creepy angle, near baldness of the woman, the odd eye color, and the nose-mouth thing at the bottom it's a wonder how this example of hideousness made it out of the art department.
From there, it's just a quick jump to pondering the usefulness of the not-really-a-secret pen name. Is it merely to keep your genres separated ala Nora Roberts/JD Robb? Is it to keep prolific authors from overwhelming the market ala Barbara Michaels/Elizabeth Peters? Or is it strictly a marketing tool? Given the intertwined nature of the Arcane Society series between both Krentz and Quick, I'm thinking the latter in this case.
For me, it seems a bit silly to write under assumed names that are open secrets. And even sillier to put those multiple names on such ugly covers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)