Random Thoughts on a Sunday Morning

When I talked with Sarah last night, I noted -- well, actually I complained and whined, but we won't go there. It wasn't pretty -- that I was having a hard time figuring out what to write about today. I should have known better. Because by morning, a number of topics reared their ugly heads and now I'm having a hard time narrowing them down to a manageable number. So, here we go.

For those of you who have been waiting for a color e-ink e-reader, it's on it's way and possibly sooner than most of us thought. I have only one thing to say: YAY! I love my kindle, especially the fact that I can read it in direct sunlight and I don't get headaches from prolonged reading on it that I do from backlit screens. But it will be nice to be able to have full color maps and illustrations and it will make reading newspapers and magazines feel more "real". Here's the article from CNET about this latest development.

I also came across an interview with agent Chris Parris-Lamb. Now, what stood out in this interview was Lamb's view that an agent has better things to do for his clients than to take time out of his day to blog, facebook and tweet. At first, I found myself nodding and agreeing with him. After all, as writers, we want out agents out there finding the best deals they can for our work and doing all they can to protect our rights. But then the reality of publishing today hit me. Most agents blog for two reasons and they work hand in hand. One is to raise public awareness of the agent. The second, and as a writer the most important, is to promote the writer's book. Let's face it, publishers aren't spending the money they used to on promotion. Most writers don't have a clue about how to promote their own work. Then there's the added "ick" factor of going out there, shouting to the world how wonderful we are. So agents have to do it for us. What do you think? Should agents take half an hour a day to blog and tweet and facebook in an effort to promote themselves and their clients' work?

Finally, the cry of censorship by Amazon raised its ugly head again. Earlier this week, an author of "erotic fiction" posted on the boards that several of her titles had been removed for violation of Amazon's terms of service. Mind you, like most terms of service, Amazon's are vague at best in places. It wasn't long before another author joined in, saying she'd had titles taken down as well. Soon, cries of conspiracy and censorship were raised. Now, I don't know why these titles were taken down. But, by the first author's own admission, neither did she. She'd contacted Amazon but had not yet received clarification. In her own post, she was giving Amazon a set period of time to answer. And this is where I have an issue. First, I searched for the titles she said had been taken down and, at that time, at least two of the titles were available in print (which she'd said had been taken down along with the kindle versions). Second, and most importantly, she had raised the claims of censorship and thrown fuel on the fire by basically saying "if this happens to me, it can happen to you" before her own deadline for Amazon to respond.

As one of the editors for Naked Reader Press, one of the things I've had to do is read and try to understand the terms of service for Amazon's DTP program (as well as Barnes & Noble's PubIt program and Google books and iBookstore, etc). Every one of them has an out which allows them to remove objectionable material. Would I like the terms to be more specific? Absolutely. But they aren't, so you either accept that or don't publish with them. They are a retailer and can choose what they sell and what they don't. If there is a big enough demand for an item to be removed, they have to weigh the potential loss of sales if they keep that item in stock vs. loss of sales if they remove it.

That said, they have to be fair about it as well. If they remove one -- or a few -- books because they depict underage sex (which, according to the author in question her book did, albeit consensual), then you need to remove all books that do that were brought into the program under the same terms of service. However, we don't know that that's why the books were removed. The author jumped the gun by posting in the forums before getting an answer. As a writer, I feel for her. I'd hate to have anything I'd written removed from Amazon without explanation. I'd be furious and want an explanation. Still, there are channels to go through. You might not get your answer as quickly as you'd like, but you will get one. Wait for it before fanning the flames of conspiracy theories and cries of censorship, etc.

I hope Amazon isn't starting down the road of removing books simply because they get a few complaints about the subject matter. I hope the authors involved will soon get an explanation about why their books were removed. They, and a number of the commenters on the forums, assumed it was because of content. It could be any number of reasons, including format problems. Amazon certainly needs to make its initial notice of removal more specific. But authors also need to wait a reasonable period for clarification before whipping up a firestorm on the forums.

What do you think? Am I off-base here?

Smoke and Mirrors

This past week has been anything but peaceful in parts of the publishing world. At least that's how it seemed. It began with the news that Amazon had listed for sale an e-book that supposedly promoted pedophilia and ended with the publication of a contract James Frey and company are offering new and very gullible writers.

First, the Amazon affair. I'll start by saying I'm not giving the name of the book or the author. It's out there if you want to find it. But, as I said earlier in The Naked Truth, I'm not going to give this guy any more publicity than necessary to discuss the issue. The basic facts are that someone published through Amazon's DTP platform a book that supposedly told people how to avoid being caught committing pedophilia. I say supposedly because I haven't read the book and never will. Anyway, the reaction was fast and furious when news hit the Amazon boards and it wasn't limited to there. It hit facebook and then the internet and then national media. Demands were made for Amazon to remove the book posthaste. When Amazon didn't instantly do so, there were calls for boycotts.

What no one thought about when making the demands and going viral with them was the simple fact that it brought attention to a book that wouldn't have received it otherwise. The book went from unknown to the top 100 in paid e-books in a matter of hours. And all because of the very public demands for its removal. The author, if I remember correctly, was also to be interviewed on the Today Show. Talk about a lot of free press.

Then Amazon did take the book down. More press. The author is making the rounds saying he's sure the book will be back up soon. Who knows. Personally, I doubt it. At least if the book says what it's purported to say. Why? Because a book showing someone how to get away with the very heinous offense of pedophilia will be against the Terms of Service every author or publisher has to sign before publishing through the DTP platform.

But what worried me and a number of other people about this incident was the potential for more calls for books to be dropped from sales lists by Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other digital outlets. It's a slippery slope once started. And it soon appeared our concerns were valid. Within hours of Amazon removing the book, there were new threads popping up on the kindle boards demanding that other books be removed. People were actively searching the catalog to find books on subjects they thought offensive. PETA has since chimed in, sending Jeff Bezos a letter demanding books about dog fighting, etc., be removed from the catalog.

Slope...slippery...OOPS!

Anyway, to see more of my thoughts on this subject, check out the following posts:

• When Outrage & Good Intentions Backfire
• Update to When Outrage & Good Intentions Backfire
• And the Mob Mentality Continues

One last note on this matter -- unfortunately, I can't find the link right now. When I do, I'll post it -- Barnes & Noble has apparently responded in a knee-jerk way to the issue by adding a disclaimer to books published through its PubIt portal. Basically, is says that if a reader finds the material in the book objectionable, they should report it to Barnes & Noble.

Edit: I found the general site. It is in the PubIt Help Board at the Barnes & Noble Community. Here's what the disclaimer supposedly says: "About Self-Published Content
Barnes & Noble receives content from many independent authors and publishers. If you find any content that is inappropriate, please report it to Barnes & Noble."

Witch hunt anyone?

The other major firestorm of the week came from James Frey and his Fiction Factory. That should be more like his sweatshop. I initially read about it here after being pointed to it by Pam Uphoff. My initial reaction, because I wasn't really awake, was that it wasn't that big of a deal. Then, as the coffee kicked in and I started reading the contract terms, my blood boiled. I won't go into it all right now. I detailed my opinion of what Frey is doing here. Suffice it to say that for the price of a short story, Frey et al are convincing writers to do outlines, rough drafts, rewrites -- requiring they incorporate ALL notes and comments -- for a new series of books. Books that may or may not bear that writer's name because, gee, Frey can decide what names to put under "author", including fictional names. For a whopping $250, the author does all the work and MAY get a modicum of credit for it. Oh, yeah, they might, MIGHT, receive 40% of any fees from the sale of the work IN ANY FORM -- but only after all sort of fees (most of which are unlimited) have been deducted. And if that isn't enough to get your blood boiling, Frey retained an irrevocable right to have the author do any and all sequels he sees fit. Notice, there's nothing saying the author can opt out. Basically, the author indentures himself to Frey for as long as Frey wants.

I could go on but I'll stop here. John Scalzi says it so much better in his post about the contract:

Writers: This contract would be appalling and egregious regardless of who was offering it. A story idea good enough for James Frey to sell to Hollywood would be good enough to sell to Hollywood without James Frey. Write your story, get an agent, and sell your work with your own name on it and all your rights to the work intact. It may take more time, but it will be worth it. Have more respect for yourself and your work than quite obviously James Frey will have.

So, any thoughts about this or the Amazon slippery slope?

Saturday on the Links

Calm down, Chris K. I'm not talking about playing golf. It's too hot for that. No, I'm talking internet links. Here for your reading pleasure and, hopefully, to stimulate conversation, are some links to what's been happening in the publishing world this week.

In case you've been away from all forms of media, Barnes & Noble is rumored to be putting itself up for sale. The company founder and, iirc, chairman of the board, Leonard Riggio is in a battle with Ron Burke for control of the company. This article from Reuters notes that the fall-out from lower than expected earnings and in-fighting may have detrimental effects on the potential sale of the big box chain.

Jodi Picoult has taken on the NYT, claiming it is biased toward male writers. According to this post, Picoult tweeted the following: NYT raved about Franzen's new book. Is anyone shocked? Would love to see the NYT rave about authors who aren't white male literary darlings. It is possible this is a case of sour grapes after receiving a fairly scathing review from NYT. Still, is this something an author should be doing? More to the point, would a mid-list or new author be able to do something like this and get away with it?

Censorship also reared its ugly head again. If you haven't heard already, author Ellen Hopkins was un-invited to the Teen Lit Fest in Humble, TX. This is after she's made other appearances there -- without incident. I'll let Hopkins' own words explain what happened:

Apparently, a middle school librarian saw my name on the roster and decided my presence would somehow negatively affect her students. I’m not sure how that is possible. Maybe she thinks I sweat “edgy and dark.” (Are those things catching?) Anyway, she went to a couple of parents with her concerns. I’m guessing she knew the exact ones who would raise a stink, and they did. They went to the school board, and the superintendent, Guy Sconzo, decided to uninvite me. (He says I was never invited, but I was!)

You know, I’m kind of getting used to this, and I had just about decided not to make a big deal about it. But then another Texas librarian, who is a great supporter, e-mailed Mr. Sconzo. His reply was arrogant and condescending and really made me mad, on two fronts. First, he admitted he “relied on his head librarian’s research” in regard to my books or me or both. Meaning he never bothered to read them himself. (Censors rarely do!) Never bothered to contact me with his concerns. Didn’t listen to the other librarians who lobbied heavily to keep me on the speaker roster, or ask other teen book festival organizers about their experiences with me.

But that's not the end of the story. Other authors who had been invited to the Teen Lit Fest, upon hearing what happened, have pulled out to show their support of Hopkinsl. From the Publishers Weekly blog: In the last few days, four authors who were also scheduled to appear at the festival—Pete Hautman, Melissa de la Cruz, Matt de la Peña, and Tera Lynn Childs—announced in quick succession that they were also withdrawing. “What is important is that a handful of people – the superintendent, the one (one!) librarian, and “several” (three? five?) parents – took it upon themselves to overrule the vast majority of teachers and librarians and students who had chosen one of the most popular YA authors in America to be their headliner,” wrote Hautman in a blog post. “That is a form of censorship as damaging and inexcusable as setting fire to a library.” And on her blog, de la Cruz wrote, “I believe that as a writer, we have to stick up for each other, and against censorship, and against people who want to tell everyone else what to think, what to read, what to watch.”

Finally, for the gadget geeks and gawkers out there, news of two new tablets coming to your hot little hands soon. The first is a Chrome OS tablet from Google, scheduled for the end of November. The second comes from HP. It is due out the beginning of next year. Look out, Apple. It looks like there might be some real alternatives to the iPad soon.

So, any thoughts about any of these links? Do you have other publishing related news you want to discuss? The floor is now yours.