Over the weekend, a certain woman who shall remain semi-nameless—I’ll call her May—was confronted with the choice between committing piracy and…well, going without. While her story centers on a couple of music files, the larger issues it raises are equally applicable to ebooks. So hang in there, this really does have some bearing on matters of authorship and publishing.
May has been waiting for two specific, favorite old music tracks to become available for sale in digital format for many years. Both songs are from British artists, and the albums on which the tracks were originally included have been out of production for years. Kind of like a book the publisher has allowed to go out of print.
May started by checking iTunes, Amazon’s mp3 store, eMusic, and every other legitimate digital music vendor site she knows of to see if the tracks were available for sale. They weren’t, so she used each site’s contact form to request them. Months and years passed, and the tracks remained unavailable on vendor sites.
So she did periodic internet searches, just in case some new vendor might show up with the tracks on offer. She also checked the artists’ websites for any updated information from time to time. Every time she did these things, she’d spend half an hour or more on the necessary research; she really wanted those tracks, and she wanted to get them legitimately. And every time, she’d come up empty-handed. Except for the many links to pirated mp3s of the files she wanted, of course.
Those links were always there, right at the top of any search results, putting the tracks tantalizingly close. And sometimes, she’d follow one of those links to see if the tracks were really there, in their entirety, and in a high-quality file. They were. And on most of the web pages she found, the tracks were downloadable with a simple right-click/Download As command combo. No need to be a semi-hacker, or subscribe to a bit torrent service, or sign herself up for a file sharing network. Just two mouseclicks, and she’d have those songs she’s wanted so badly for so long. But every time she went on this reconnaissance mission, she’d resist the temptation of those two mouseclicks. Until this past weekend, that is.
This past weekend, she decided she was finished wasting her time and energy on the search. In frustration, she joined the ranks of the many consumers who eventually come to feel it’s the publisher’s or producer’s own fault if she downloads pirated copies, because they failed to offer her a reasonable, legal alternative.
She might’ve gone to a reseller site, like eBay, to purchase the CDs upon which the desired tracks originally appeared, this is true. But is it reasonable to expect her to spend somewhere around $10 each for the CDs, plus shipping costs, when she only wanted one track off of each? And while it may be a simple case of guilty rationalization, was she wrong to conclude that since purchasing a used copy would not benefit the artists or producers of the tracks, doing so was no better for the artists and producers than downloading pirated copies?
Now, imagine if May had been on the hunt for an ebook instead of these two music tracks. Imagine further that the book in question is out of print—though not yet in the public domain—, and neither the publisher nor the author has elected to make it available in electronic formats. May could purchase a used copy of the book from any of a number of resellers, but this won’t put any additional royalties in the author’s pocket, or send any money the publisher’s way. And May really prefers ebooks to hard copy books; she’s bought a Kindle or Sony Reader, and intends to make the most of her investment by limiting her book purchases to e whenever possible. If you were in May’s place and found yourself two clicks away from obtaining the desired book in e format, what reason would you have to resist those two clicks? What reason has the publisher or author (in a case where rights have reverted) given you to resist those two clicks?
Taking this a step further, let’s imagine the book in question is still in print, but only in a hardcover edition. May faces the choice between paying $25-30 for a ‘dead trees’ version, or two mouse clicks to get the book in the format she wants for free. May doesn’t want to cheat the publisher or author out of their due, but she can’t afford to spend that much money on a book. So she simply crosses that book off her wishlist, and while she has every intention of keeping an eye out for an electronic edition, life goes on and in a matter of days she’s forgotten all about the book. In the end, she never buys a copy at all.
In yet another scenario, imagine the ebook is made available, but only at a pricetag of $14.99, and with DRM that will prevent May from moving the ebook among her various devices. Furthermore, if May “purchases” the $14.99 ebook, she won’t really own a copy of the book at all. She’ll own a limited license to view the book’s content on one specific device, only in the format specified by the publisher, and that license is subject to recall under numerous circumstances. If the publisher becomes aware of any copyright irregularities, or if May gets into a dispute with the ebook vendor site on an unrelated matter, for example. Alternatively, she can buy the paperback for $13.99 and have a physical copy that she keeps in perpetuity, or can lend to others, or resell when she’s finished with it.
Or she can click her mouse two times and get the ecopy she wants, with DRM stripped, for free. Could you blame her for feeling the publishers’ excessive pricing and limitations on the ebook edition justify a decision to go the two-clicks route?
Observe and learn: this is how well-meaning, otherwise honest consumers are lured—some might say pushed—into piracy. Most consumers want to do the right thing. They want authors to be rewarded for their hard work. They want publishers to earn a fair profit on their products. But they also want reasonable prices, and the same flexibility and functionality they’d get with a hard copy book.
Publishers and authors who think raising the prices and restrictions on ebooks will work because readers will have no other choice are forgetting about those two mouseclicks. And the many justifications they’re giving consumers for making those two mouseclicks.
No publisher or author would have much to worry about with respect to ebook piracy if they would just give readers what they want, within reason. The criminal element that cares nothing for compensating content creators is a small group that will always find a way to steal content no matter what you do. But that group’s ranks are being joined by guilty, reluctant ‘pirates’ every day. This new type of pirate isn’t out to hurt authors, and in fact would probably be very happy to “pay” a reasonable price for pirated copies through the use of a donation button on authors’ websites. But of course, this would still be illegal and would likely put the author in hot water with his or her publisher.
Publishers: other than complaining about how wrong and unfair it is, what are you doing to make a legitimate, legal option both available, and more attractive, to consumers than a free ebook that’s just two clicks away? Because at the point where your choices with respect to ebook pricing and restrictions look more unethical to the consumer than their own choice to download a free, pirated copy does, you’ve lost the sale.
And Authors: if the only thing standing between you and giving your readers what they want is a publisher, have you considered the possibility of retaining your e-rights and releasing ebook editions of your work yourself? I’ve provided a free guide for publishing to the Kindle on my website, and there are many for-hire services that can do it for you. This is impossible for works already under contract, but is it a move that might make a whole lot of sense for your unpublished works, or works for which rights have reverted back to you?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Amazon v. Macmillan: Authors, Are You Backing The Right Horse?
Herewith, I present an updated and amended version of my original blog post on the Amazon v. Macmillan affair. Let me state up front, I do not agree with Amazon's strongarm tactics, and it is not my intention to defend those actions in this post. Rather, I'm puzzled by authors' nearly universal lack of criticism for Macmillan's part in the matter. I can't help wondering, if Amazon had quietly agreed to Macmillan's requested terms, thereby depriving authors of an easy target and distraction, might they have reacted differently to Macmillan's move?
[Earlier this week], Amazon announced it will cave to Macmillan’s demand that it sell Macmillan Kindle books at up to $14.99 instead of the $9.99 pricetag that’s become standard for Kindle bestsellers. Per a report on Booksquare, Macmillan may have plans to price their Kindle books across a range, anywhere from $4.99-$14.99, and author royalties on those books may be based on an 'agency model' calculation which computes author royalty as a percentage of net, not a percentage of list price. See the linked Booksquare post for more information.
Macmillan authors are rejoicing, and I’m shaking my head.
Would musicians cheer a decision on the part of their labels to raise the price of their music on iTunes by up to 43%? I think not. Yet despite the fact that their books may cost up to 43% more than other Kindle bestsellers, and their royalty on those sales won’t be even one cent higher, the Macmillan author “victory” dance continues apace on the interwebz. The Author's Guild has come out on Macmillan's side too, and I'm completely mystified by that stance since Macmillan's change in terms with Amazon only stands to hurt authors and ebook readers alike.
The only reason I can think of for authors to be on the wrong side of this battle is that they don’t understand it. Let’s look at the facts.
1. Under pre-existing terms Amazon pays big publishers like Macmillan half the hardcover price on each Kindle book they sell: generally, that’s between $12-$17. This means Amazon is taking a loss on the sale of every such Kindle book, but the publisher is still getting its standard share, regardless.
2. Macmillan cut their standard author royalty on ebooks from 25% of the list price to 20% of the list price last October.
3. Amazon announced last week it will grant a royalty of 70% of the list price to U.S. authors and 75% to UK authors who sign Kindle book publication deals with Amazon directly. Ian McEwan, Martin Amis and Stephen Covey are just a few of the authors who’ve already signed on. A data storage/transfer/processing fee of .15 per MB will be deducted from list price prior to the 70% royalty split's calculation, but Amazon states that on average this fee only amounts to .06 per Kindle book sold.
4. The author’s royalty in either case is/was based on the list price of a given book, not the price at which the book is/was ultimately sold. This means Macmillan authors used to get the same royalty on every sale whether the customer paid $14.99 for it, or $9.99 due to Amazon discounts.
5. Last week Macmillan informed Amazon that if Amazon wanted to continue to sell Macmillan books in Kindle format, Amazon would have to raise [or lower] the prices on them to Macmillan's stated prices. If not, Macmillan wanted Amazon to delay release of new Kindle books by 7 months following a hardcover release, and, according to this report, several months following release in Apple's iBook store.
Recent reports have said Macmillan asked Amazon to match the 'agency model' deal it made with Apple's iBook store, which dictates a 30/70 split (70% going to the publisher) and allows the publisher to set the price at which each ebook would be sold. If Amazon did not agree to these terms, Macmillan would allow Amazon to continue to sell Kindle editions of their books under existing terms, but wouldn't allow Amazon to release the Kindle edition of a new book for sale until 7 months after its initial release in hardcover and several months following release in Apple's iBook store. I have yet to hear or read any report as to whether these delays would also hold for books intially released in trade paperback or mass-market paperback editions.
6. Amazon didn’t agree to Macmillan’s terms, and childishly removed the Amazon ‘buy’ links for all Macmillan books from its site in response to Macmillan's demand for new terms.
7. Macmillan authors stormed the internet, posting angry diatribes against Amazon and drumming up support among their fans and followers for Kindle and Amazon boycotts. Yes, that’s right: they took the side of the party who demanded that Amazon raise the price of their Kindle books, or delay their release by 7 months, or reduce the price of their ebooks below Amazon's $9.99 standard and pay their royalties based on an agency (net profit) model instead of the percentage-of-list-price model they've had on their Kindle books to date.
It was Macmillan which set forces in motion that ultimately resulted in the removal of ‘buy’ links, not Amazon, and while Amazon's actions in this seem excessive, I still see plenty of reasons for authors to be irked with Macmillan. If the report stating that Macmillan intended to withold Kindle editions of their books for a number of months after those books were released in the iBook store is true, is that a move that would've pleased the thousands of readers who own a Kindle, or who use the Kindle reader app on their computers or portable devices? Seems like a rather diabolical move to pressure ebook consumers to buy their ebooks from Apple (at higher prices) instead of Amazon, no? And isn't it very likely that by the time Macmillan books were released in the Kindle store following this Macmillan-imposed delay, Kindle-reading consumers would have forgotten all about those titles and moved on to other, more readily-available ebooks?
I don't own a Kindle, but release delays and pricing impact my book-buying decisions, too. I rarely buy hardcovers because they're so expensive, and there's many a book I intended to buy if/when it came out in softcover or e or audio, but either the book was never released in those formats or---salient in this case---by time it did, I'd forgotten all about it. This same phenomenon among ebook fans is well-documented, and ebook fans have always clamored to have their preferred format released at the same time as any print edition.
Also, recall that Macmillan may be planning to offer Kindle titles in a range from $4.99-$14.99. This isn't good news for their authors either, since Kindle books priced higher than $9.99 will be a tough sell and those priced below $9.99 will net the author a lower royalty. None of Macmillan's intended changes in its Kindle books deal with Amazon stand to benefit Macmillan authors or ebook readers. The intended changes only stand either scare off sales (in the case of Kindle books priced higher than $9.99 or those delayed by 7 months) or reduce author royalties (on Kindle books priced lower than $9.99).
So while I can understand Macmillan authors' anger at Amazon for having their buy links removed, especially in the case of authors of books offered in print editions only (since they don't even have a horse in this race), I still don't understand why Macmillan authors haven't been publicly objecting to Macmillan's actions as well. Macmillan presented Amazon with an ultimatum in which either option hurts authors' and ebook readers' current situation.
8. Macmillan authors will not receive one penny more in royalties on their Kindle books if those books are priced up to 43% higher, because their royalties were always based on the list price for their books, not the price at which Amazon ultimately sold them, in the pre-existing arrangement. Now their royalties will be based on 70% of the ebook retail price, and it’s a safe bet their books will be netting fewer sales if prices go up to $12.99-$14.99.
9. The upshot is a lose-lose-lose. Consumers lose reasonably-priced Macmillan Kindle books, and reasonably-priced Apple iBooks too, since according to this NY Times article:
With Apple, under a formula that tethers the maximum e-book price to the print price on the same book, publishers will be able to charge $12.99 to $14.99 for most general fiction and nonfiction titles — higher than the common $9.99 price that Amazon had effectively set for new releases and best sellers. Apple will keep 30 percent of each sale, and publishers will take 70 percent.
So Macmillan earns the dubious distinction of being the first major publisher to make calculated moves to drive ebook prices higher across all platforms. Thanks to Macmillan's "victory" over Amazon, Macmillan, authors and Amazon all stand to lose sales. Macmillan stands to lose market share. Authors stand to lose readership.
10. Prediction: emboldened by Macmillan’s so-called win, other major publishers will likely follow suit. More “lose” for everyone.
So tell me again: exactly why, and what, are we supposed to be celebrating here? I can already imagine the one objection I hear raised in discussions on this topic again and again: Macmillan is staving off devaluation of the ebook. There’s much hand-wringing over the notions that authors can’t possibly earn their due on low-priced ebooks, and that authors (like me) who sell their ebooks at prices significantly lower than the $9.99 Kindle store standard are somehow doing a great disservice to our fellow authors and trade publishing overall. This is so patently untrue, and such a pointless distraction from more important ebook issues, as to call to mind the Chewbacca Defense.
Under the pre-existing deal between Amazon and Macmillan, Macmillan authors earn a royalty of about $3.19 on their Kindle store standard-bestseller-priced books, whether those books are sold at $9.99 or $15.99. Under the new deal, which is the same in both Apple's iBook store and the Kindle store, authors would earn a royalty of just $2.10 on an ebook priced at $14.99: 20% of 70% of the book's $14.99 list price, and about $1 less in royalties per copy sold than what they have earned on their standard-priced Kindle books to date.
At a 70% royalty, I can earn $3.50 per copy sold of my self-published Kindle novels if I price them at just $4.99. The higher retail price does not add value for the author or the consumer, and at this point, it doesn’t even increase Macmillan’s profit since they’ve always gotten half the hardcover price on all their Kindle books from Amazon.
It's quite clear that Macmillan's take on each Kindle book sale under the new deal will be less than what they've received to date on those sales (since they used to get 1/2 the hardcover price and will now only get 70% of the ebook list price, which appears to have an upper limit of $14.99 for the foreseeable future), but I guess they decided they were willing to take that financial hit in exchange for the freedom to set their own ebook retail prices. Of course, Macmillan was under no legal obligation to include authors in their decision-making process, even though their decision stands to reduce their authors' Kindle book royalties by up to 33%; I'm just saying it's mind-boggling to me that Macmillan authors don't seem to be the least bit peeved at this outcome. In fact, they don't seem to have noticed it at all.
Publishers claim they need to wrest pricing control back from Amazon for the sake of what Amazon might do someday if it becomes too dominant in the ebook space. What if Amazon eventually decides to tell publishers it will no longer pay them half the hardcover price for their Kindle books, for example?
First of all, that’s a bridge to be crossed if, and when, someday arrives. Second, perhaps the correct answer in the event of that scenario is for publishers to lower their wholesale ebook prices. They claim it costs them just as much—or nearly so—to bring an ebook to market as it does to bring a hard copy, and they are therefore justified in their current pricing demands. But if it really takes a small platoon of publishing professionals and tens of thousands of dollars to bring a Kindle book to market, how is it possible that authors like me, JA Konrath, Piers Anthony, and countless others are doing it by ourselves, in our homes, from our consumer-grade computers, in a matter of hours?
“Your Kindle books lack the professional layout and design a publisher can bring to their Kindle books,” some of you are no doubt answering. This is true. But the thousands of readers who buy Kindle books from me, Konrath and the many other self-publishing Kindle book authors don’t seem to care all that much. I suspect that if you asked them, they would tell you they’d rather have a minimally-formatted Kindle book that costs $4.99 (or less) than an exquisitely-formatted Kindle book that costs $14.99.
As I’ve stated before, publishers arguing in favor of higher priced ebooks are ignoring the customer’s priorities in favor of their own, self-imposed priorities. This is because the ugly truth is this: the only parties being hurt by low-priced ebooks are big, mainstream publishers. Their overheads cannot be sustained by $4.99 ebooks, but that doesn’t mean their costs to bring ebooks to market should be forcibly subsidized by authors or consumers. To quote Konrath, “It would have really sucked to have been a buggy whip manufacturer when Henry Ford introduced the Model T. But technology changes things, and it isn't always fair.”
In the end, all the arguments I’ve heard and read about the devaluation of the ebook are toothless. There seems to be this notion floating around that books must be expensive in order to inspire readers to value literature, but that’s ridiculous. If I’m earning more on my $4.99 Kindle books than a Macmillan author earns on a $15.99 Kindle book, both on a per-sale and volume basis, how is my book’s low pricetag hurting me, the author? And if low-priced ebooks bring more literature and ereaders within reach of more consumers, how are the books’ low prices hurting literature and literacy? If anything, low-priced ebooks stand to benefit authors and consumers alike, and advance the cause of literacy overall.
Hasn’t it been wonderful to find short fiction and poetry collections—species on the verge of extinction in trade publishing—coming back into their own in the Kindle store? It seems readers are only too happy to take a chance on these supposedly ‘fringe’ books if the price is reasonable. Midlist authors are earning new royalties and new readers by bringing their backlists back into print on the Kindle as well. Most importantly, in my view anyway, the current indie author movement wouldn’t be possible at all without Amazon’s equal treatment of indie and mainstream authors.
So authors, indie authors especially: if you’re backing Macmillan in this flap, why? Has Amazon's overreaction distracted your attention from the long term ramifications of Macmillan's move, and the likely damage to be done to you and your readership? To put it another way, see if you can answer this question: what part, if any, of Macmillan's revised agreement with Amazon stands to benefit you?
[Earlier this week], Amazon announced it will cave to Macmillan’s demand that it sell Macmillan Kindle books at up to $14.99 instead of the $9.99 pricetag that’s become standard for Kindle bestsellers. Per a report on Booksquare, Macmillan may have plans to price their Kindle books across a range, anywhere from $4.99-$14.99, and author royalties on those books may be based on an 'agency model' calculation which computes author royalty as a percentage of net, not a percentage of list price. See the linked Booksquare post for more information.
Macmillan authors are rejoicing, and I’m shaking my head.
Would musicians cheer a decision on the part of their labels to raise the price of their music on iTunes by up to 43%? I think not. Yet despite the fact that their books may cost up to 43% more than other Kindle bestsellers, and their royalty on those sales won’t be even one cent higher, the Macmillan author “victory” dance continues apace on the interwebz. The Author's Guild has come out on Macmillan's side too, and I'm completely mystified by that stance since Macmillan's change in terms with Amazon only stands to hurt authors and ebook readers alike.
The only reason I can think of for authors to be on the wrong side of this battle is that they don’t understand it. Let’s look at the facts.
1. Under pre-existing terms Amazon pays big publishers like Macmillan half the hardcover price on each Kindle book they sell: generally, that’s between $12-$17. This means Amazon is taking a loss on the sale of every such Kindle book, but the publisher is still getting its standard share, regardless.
2. Macmillan cut their standard author royalty on ebooks from 25% of the list price to 20% of the list price last October.
3. Amazon announced last week it will grant a royalty of 70% of the list price to U.S. authors and 75% to UK authors who sign Kindle book publication deals with Amazon directly. Ian McEwan, Martin Amis and Stephen Covey are just a few of the authors who’ve already signed on. A data storage/transfer/processing fee of .15 per MB will be deducted from list price prior to the 70% royalty split's calculation, but Amazon states that on average this fee only amounts to .06 per Kindle book sold.
4. The author’s royalty in either case is/was based on the list price of a given book, not the price at which the book is/was ultimately sold. This means Macmillan authors used to get the same royalty on every sale whether the customer paid $14.99 for it, or $9.99 due to Amazon discounts.
5. Last week Macmillan informed Amazon that if Amazon wanted to continue to sell Macmillan books in Kindle format, Amazon would have to raise [or lower] the prices on them to Macmillan's stated prices. If not, Macmillan wanted Amazon to delay release of new Kindle books by 7 months following a hardcover release, and, according to this report, several months following release in Apple's iBook store.
Recent reports have said Macmillan asked Amazon to match the 'agency model' deal it made with Apple's iBook store, which dictates a 30/70 split (70% going to the publisher) and allows the publisher to set the price at which each ebook would be sold. If Amazon did not agree to these terms, Macmillan would allow Amazon to continue to sell Kindle editions of their books under existing terms, but wouldn't allow Amazon to release the Kindle edition of a new book for sale until 7 months after its initial release in hardcover and several months following release in Apple's iBook store. I have yet to hear or read any report as to whether these delays would also hold for books intially released in trade paperback or mass-market paperback editions.
6. Amazon didn’t agree to Macmillan’s terms, and childishly removed the Amazon ‘buy’ links for all Macmillan books from its site in response to Macmillan's demand for new terms.
7. Macmillan authors stormed the internet, posting angry diatribes against Amazon and drumming up support among their fans and followers for Kindle and Amazon boycotts. Yes, that’s right: they took the side of the party who demanded that Amazon raise the price of their Kindle books, or delay their release by 7 months, or reduce the price of their ebooks below Amazon's $9.99 standard and pay their royalties based on an agency (net profit) model instead of the percentage-of-list-price model they've had on their Kindle books to date.
It was Macmillan which set forces in motion that ultimately resulted in the removal of ‘buy’ links, not Amazon, and while Amazon's actions in this seem excessive, I still see plenty of reasons for authors to be irked with Macmillan. If the report stating that Macmillan intended to withold Kindle editions of their books for a number of months after those books were released in the iBook store is true, is that a move that would've pleased the thousands of readers who own a Kindle, or who use the Kindle reader app on their computers or portable devices? Seems like a rather diabolical move to pressure ebook consumers to buy their ebooks from Apple (at higher prices) instead of Amazon, no? And isn't it very likely that by the time Macmillan books were released in the Kindle store following this Macmillan-imposed delay, Kindle-reading consumers would have forgotten all about those titles and moved on to other, more readily-available ebooks?
I don't own a Kindle, but release delays and pricing impact my book-buying decisions, too. I rarely buy hardcovers because they're so expensive, and there's many a book I intended to buy if/when it came out in softcover or e or audio, but either the book was never released in those formats or---salient in this case---by time it did, I'd forgotten all about it. This same phenomenon among ebook fans is well-documented, and ebook fans have always clamored to have their preferred format released at the same time as any print edition.
Also, recall that Macmillan may be planning to offer Kindle titles in a range from $4.99-$14.99. This isn't good news for their authors either, since Kindle books priced higher than $9.99 will be a tough sell and those priced below $9.99 will net the author a lower royalty. None of Macmillan's intended changes in its Kindle books deal with Amazon stand to benefit Macmillan authors or ebook readers. The intended changes only stand either scare off sales (in the case of Kindle books priced higher than $9.99 or those delayed by 7 months) or reduce author royalties (on Kindle books priced lower than $9.99).
So while I can understand Macmillan authors' anger at Amazon for having their buy links removed, especially in the case of authors of books offered in print editions only (since they don't even have a horse in this race), I still don't understand why Macmillan authors haven't been publicly objecting to Macmillan's actions as well. Macmillan presented Amazon with an ultimatum in which either option hurts authors' and ebook readers' current situation.
8. Macmillan authors will not receive one penny more in royalties on their Kindle books if those books are priced up to 43% higher, because their royalties were always based on the list price for their books, not the price at which Amazon ultimately sold them, in the pre-existing arrangement. Now their royalties will be based on 70% of the ebook retail price, and it’s a safe bet their books will be netting fewer sales if prices go up to $12.99-$14.99.
9. The upshot is a lose-lose-lose. Consumers lose reasonably-priced Macmillan Kindle books, and reasonably-priced Apple iBooks too, since according to this NY Times article:
With Apple, under a formula that tethers the maximum e-book price to the print price on the same book, publishers will be able to charge $12.99 to $14.99 for most general fiction and nonfiction titles — higher than the common $9.99 price that Amazon had effectively set for new releases and best sellers. Apple will keep 30 percent of each sale, and publishers will take 70 percent.
So Macmillan earns the dubious distinction of being the first major publisher to make calculated moves to drive ebook prices higher across all platforms. Thanks to Macmillan's "victory" over Amazon, Macmillan, authors and Amazon all stand to lose sales. Macmillan stands to lose market share. Authors stand to lose readership.
10. Prediction: emboldened by Macmillan’s so-called win, other major publishers will likely follow suit. More “lose” for everyone.
So tell me again: exactly why, and what, are we supposed to be celebrating here? I can already imagine the one objection I hear raised in discussions on this topic again and again: Macmillan is staving off devaluation of the ebook. There’s much hand-wringing over the notions that authors can’t possibly earn their due on low-priced ebooks, and that authors (like me) who sell their ebooks at prices significantly lower than the $9.99 Kindle store standard are somehow doing a great disservice to our fellow authors and trade publishing overall. This is so patently untrue, and such a pointless distraction from more important ebook issues, as to call to mind the Chewbacca Defense.
Under the pre-existing deal between Amazon and Macmillan, Macmillan authors earn a royalty of about $3.19 on their Kindle store standard-bestseller-priced books, whether those books are sold at $9.99 or $15.99. Under the new deal, which is the same in both Apple's iBook store and the Kindle store, authors would earn a royalty of just $2.10 on an ebook priced at $14.99: 20% of 70% of the book's $14.99 list price, and about $1 less in royalties per copy sold than what they have earned on their standard-priced Kindle books to date.
At a 70% royalty, I can earn $3.50 per copy sold of my self-published Kindle novels if I price them at just $4.99. The higher retail price does not add value for the author or the consumer, and at this point, it doesn’t even increase Macmillan’s profit since they’ve always gotten half the hardcover price on all their Kindle books from Amazon.
It's quite clear that Macmillan's take on each Kindle book sale under the new deal will be less than what they've received to date on those sales (since they used to get 1/2 the hardcover price and will now only get 70% of the ebook list price, which appears to have an upper limit of $14.99 for the foreseeable future), but I guess they decided they were willing to take that financial hit in exchange for the freedom to set their own ebook retail prices. Of course, Macmillan was under no legal obligation to include authors in their decision-making process, even though their decision stands to reduce their authors' Kindle book royalties by up to 33%; I'm just saying it's mind-boggling to me that Macmillan authors don't seem to be the least bit peeved at this outcome. In fact, they don't seem to have noticed it at all.
Publishers claim they need to wrest pricing control back from Amazon for the sake of what Amazon might do someday if it becomes too dominant in the ebook space. What if Amazon eventually decides to tell publishers it will no longer pay them half the hardcover price for their Kindle books, for example?
First of all, that’s a bridge to be crossed if, and when, someday arrives. Second, perhaps the correct answer in the event of that scenario is for publishers to lower their wholesale ebook prices. They claim it costs them just as much—or nearly so—to bring an ebook to market as it does to bring a hard copy, and they are therefore justified in their current pricing demands. But if it really takes a small platoon of publishing professionals and tens of thousands of dollars to bring a Kindle book to market, how is it possible that authors like me, JA Konrath, Piers Anthony, and countless others are doing it by ourselves, in our homes, from our consumer-grade computers, in a matter of hours?
“Your Kindle books lack the professional layout and design a publisher can bring to their Kindle books,” some of you are no doubt answering. This is true. But the thousands of readers who buy Kindle books from me, Konrath and the many other self-publishing Kindle book authors don’t seem to care all that much. I suspect that if you asked them, they would tell you they’d rather have a minimally-formatted Kindle book that costs $4.99 (or less) than an exquisitely-formatted Kindle book that costs $14.99.
As I’ve stated before, publishers arguing in favor of higher priced ebooks are ignoring the customer’s priorities in favor of their own, self-imposed priorities. This is because the ugly truth is this: the only parties being hurt by low-priced ebooks are big, mainstream publishers. Their overheads cannot be sustained by $4.99 ebooks, but that doesn’t mean their costs to bring ebooks to market should be forcibly subsidized by authors or consumers. To quote Konrath, “It would have really sucked to have been a buggy whip manufacturer when Henry Ford introduced the Model T. But technology changes things, and it isn't always fair.”
In the end, all the arguments I’ve heard and read about the devaluation of the ebook are toothless. There seems to be this notion floating around that books must be expensive in order to inspire readers to value literature, but that’s ridiculous. If I’m earning more on my $4.99 Kindle books than a Macmillan author earns on a $15.99 Kindle book, both on a per-sale and volume basis, how is my book’s low pricetag hurting me, the author? And if low-priced ebooks bring more literature and ereaders within reach of more consumers, how are the books’ low prices hurting literature and literacy? If anything, low-priced ebooks stand to benefit authors and consumers alike, and advance the cause of literacy overall.
Hasn’t it been wonderful to find short fiction and poetry collections—species on the verge of extinction in trade publishing—coming back into their own in the Kindle store? It seems readers are only too happy to take a chance on these supposedly ‘fringe’ books if the price is reasonable. Midlist authors are earning new royalties and new readers by bringing their backlists back into print on the Kindle as well. Most importantly, in my view anyway, the current indie author movement wouldn’t be possible at all without Amazon’s equal treatment of indie and mainstream authors.
So authors, indie authors especially: if you’re backing Macmillan in this flap, why? Has Amazon's overreaction distracted your attention from the long term ramifications of Macmillan's move, and the likely damage to be done to you and your readership? To put it another way, see if you can answer this question: what part, if any, of Macmillan's revised agreement with Amazon stands to benefit you?
Friday, January 29, 2010
Why I See The iPad As An Epic Ereader Fail
My ereader is a tablet computing device that's 9 3/4" x 8 3/8", with a full-color touchscreen that measures 6 3/4" x 5 1/8". It's 3/4" thick and weighs about 2 pounds. It carries an on-board, removable stylus, like a Nintendo DS.
It came standard with 2 USB ports, a built-in microphone, jacks for an external microphone and headphones, built-in compact flash card reader, 9-pin connector (for connecting to printers, external hard drives and other devices), internal wireless adapter, built-in network card reader, onboard speaker and A/C adapter/charger. It can surf the web, play games and music, run a mobile edition of MS Office and other programs.
With μBook (a freeware ereader program) installed it reads ebooks in multiple formats, and allows the user to customize all of the following when reading an ebook: page orientation, page background color/texture, font, font size, font color, font style (e.g., bold/italic), character and line spacing, bookmarks, indent spacing and more. It also has search, touch page-turning and 'jump to page' functionality. Other freeware ereader programs I could install include dictionary and markup/notes capability, but since those aren't functions I feel I need, I'm content with μBook.
None of this would seem particularly impressive, were it not for the fact that MY EREADER IS TEN FREAKIN' YEARS OLD!!
It's not as sexy as the iPad or the Kindle, and it doesn't have an e-ink display---neither does the iPad. But considering that it's TEN FREAKIN' YEARS OLD I'm more than a little disappointed that when the wizards at Apple finally decided to come out with an ereader, they couldn't beat my dinosaur device (ten years may as well be an epoch in terms of advances in technology) in either functionality or price.
My device is about the same size, and just slightly heavier than, an iPad. While the iPad's processor speed is faster than my device's, and its screen is larger and higher-resolution than that on my device, I'd have thought that with ten years to build on what I've had since 2000 it would've been no problem for a bunch of hardware and software engineers to improve my device's processing speed and screen to match the iPad's specs. Also, while my Ereader-saurus Rex's (largely useless today) wireless infrared adapter would be replaced with a wireless bluetooth adapter in a device built more recently, my device can still connect to the internet or a wireless network via a wireless network card.
Where are the iPad's USB ports? There's just one, on the available-for-separate-purchase docking device. Where is the iPad's microphone jack, where's its flash card reader, where's its input/output connector port? My ereader has had all of these for a decade, yet Apple couldn't find a way to get them into the iPad.
My device is an ePods: a tablet computing device that was originally intended to be used as a portable computer for email, simple productivity applications (e.g., stripped-down word processor and spreadsheet), playing music files and simple games, and for surfing the web via connection to a dedicated Internet Service Provider (ISP). When the ISP folded, there were suddenly a bunch of these ePods devices out in the world with no network to support them. It wasn't long before someone took a look at the device's form factor and available functionality and thought to himself, "Hey, this thing would make a terrific ereader!"
Soon, that someone figured out how to bypass the device's automatic attempt to connect to its now-defunct network every time it was turned on, and how to get the device to load a simple desktop like any other computer. With the simple desktop in place and USB connection to another computer, getting programs like μBook loaded onto the ePods is easy. With the ePods connected to a computer via USB, transferring files in either direction is a simple, drag-and-drop operation.
The ePods' compact flash card reader (which would be an SD card reader on a device built more recently) makes concerns about storage limitations moot: need more storage? Get more memory cards. The iPad, on the other hand, is like an iPod: you're limited to the on-board storage that comes pre-loaded on the device. Need more storage? Buy a better iPad.
I can buy books for my ereader from many different vendors, I'm not locked into a specific vendor's store. I can comparison-shop. I can read ebooks offered in various formats. I'm not chained to a specific vendor for my ebook purchases, nor am I married to a 'preferred' vendor which will allow me to buy ebooks from other sources but will make it a royal pain to get them loaded on the device.
I pay no monthly fees to use my device, and I actually own my copies of the books I've bought (or downloaded from public-domain repositories like Project Gutenberg). I will never turn on my device to find that this or that book's licensing term has "expired", or that some of my content has disappeared because the vendor who sold it to me had to pull it back due to questionable content licensing.
I paid about $60 for my ePods when I bought it on eBay. As of this writing, the lowest-capacity iPad costs $499 and the Kindle DX costs $489. After comparing the feature sets, it's clear to me that buying either device would be an expensive step backward for me in terms of ereader functionality. Sure, I'd like to have an e-ink display, but with my preferred font style, color and size selections made, my ereader isn't particularly hard on the eyes. And since ebook files are small (in terms of file size) and comprised primarily of text, I don't need any more processing power than my ePods has for reading ebooks. I don't use my ePods to run programs, access email, surf the 'net or subscribe to newspapers, magazines or RSS feeds. I just use it to read ebooks. And in terms of that functionality, it easily holds its own against the Kindle, Kindle DX, and the iPad.
I look forward to the day when a device with all the functionality and connectivity of my ePods comes along, with an added full-color e-ink display, enough processing power and screen resolution to run enhanced ebook "apps" that have full-motion video and interactive features, high-quality audio for text-to-speech and audiobooks, all at a reasonable price. But that day hasn't come yet, and I have no idea why. And it's kind of annoying.
In the meantime, if you want an ereader with all the functionality and connectivity of my ePods and a Kindle (minus the e-ink display) and a Sony Reader, but with a speedier processor, full-color display and more power to run programs and surf the web, here's what you need to do. Get yourself a netbook and load it up with the free Kindle reader software for Kindle books (and Kindle Store connectivity), free Sony Reader software for Sony Reader books (and Sony Reader Store connectivity), and one of the many freeware ereader programs for all other ebook formats. Voila! You've got a small, light, portable ereader with all the functionality of a Kindle, a Sony Reader and my ePods rolled into one device, with more computing power than any of those devices, more connectivity and storage flexibility than an iPad, and all at a pricetag of around $300.
On the other hand, if you'd rather just have $500 worth of cool, sexy and impress-your-friends, get an iPad.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Congratulations: You Get To Be The Bigger Person Now
If you’re working your author platform effectively, you’re very active online. You’re doing any or all of the following: posting to your blog, possibly posting to others’ blogs, tweeting, posting updates on Facebook or MySpace or LinkedIn, participating in online discussion groups and comment threads, posting or commenting on YouTube book trailers, and maybe even podcasting. Your goal is to open a dialogue with readers and your peers, and the better your author platform, the more feedback and discussion you will generate. Much of the feedback and discussion will be enjoyable and thought-provoking, a kind of online ‘salon’. The rest of it, not so much.
An awful lot of people will have strongly held opinions with which you disagree, or which are ill-informed, or which are obviously being shared only for the sake of getting a rise out of you or casting aspersions on you or your work. But however much you may want to angrily tear into this latter group anytime they darken your virtual doorstep, however tempting it may be to respond with a biting and clever remark, you must never do it. Answering the uncouth and trollish in kind requires you to become uncouth and trollish, which can quickly escalate beyond your control, undermine all the goodwill you’ve built up to date with your community of readers and peers, and quickly turn off any newcomers to your tribe. As an author, you’ll find there are two primary arenas in which you may feel tempted to rain invective upon a perceived adversary: following a bad review, or following an ill-informed or insulting post to, or about, you. First, let’s look at what happens when authors respond to negative reviews…negatively.
Consider this case of commercially- and critically-successful novelist Alice Hoffman, who was so outraged by a negative review (some have called it merely lukewarm) from author Roberta Silman in the Boston Globe that Hoffman ended up flaming Silman all over Twitter. Hoffman eventually went so far as to provide Silman’s phone number to her fans and request that they call Silman to defend Hoffman. It wasn’t long before the mainstream press was all over this, and not much longer before an embarrassed Hoffman began making public apologies.
Then there’s author Alain de Botton, who responded to a negative review on Caleb Crain’s blog with a number of posts that eventually escalated to the point where Botton was saying things like, “I will hate you till the day I die and wish you nothing but ill will in every career move you make.” There’s a terrific post about the incident on Ed Rants in which de Botton responds to questions about the incident and provides an essay as part of his response as well.
Next, take a gander at the controversy more recently sparked by author Candace Sams on Amazon. When reader-reviewer LB Taylor posted a one-star review of Sam’s novel Electra Galaxy's Mr Interstellar Feller, Sams responded with a series of angry responses, initially under an alias but eventually under her own name as well. When the dust had settled and the press and blogs were finished with her Sams went back and deleted all of her posts in the Amazon thread, but it was too late by then because plenty of sites and blogs (such as Babbling About Books) had already copied and re-published the worst of them online.
Prior to the Sams debacle, perhaps the best-known author outburst came from Anne Rice in 2004, also on Amazon, in response to multiple negative reviews of her novel, Blood Canticle. In a 1200-word diatribe, among other things, Rice responded to reader-critics by saying, “Your stupid, arrogant assumptions about me and what I am doing are slander…You have used the site as if it were a public urinal to publish falsehood and lies." Her entire response is reprinted on the encyclopedia dramatica site, where the term “rice out” is defined as, “To make a spectacle of oneself in response to literary criticism by insisting that one's creative work is superior in all aspects.”
Now, compare these authorial meltdowns to the actions of Carla Cassidy, who posted a wry and clever rebuttal to a negative review on the Smart Bitches, Trashy Books site. SBTB’s review featured a sarcastic, snarky list of 26 reasons why Cassidy’s novel Pregnesia is the best book in the history of pregnant amnesiac romance books. Cassidy responded with her own list of 10 reasons why she loves the SBTB review, as detailed on the Saturday Writers site. According to Saturday Writers, “Carla responded with grace and humor that exactly matched the tone of the review. I don’t think I could respond so well to a negative review. I’m in awe of her.”
If you can’t craft a humorous and/or graceful response to a negative review—and the many examples of non-humorous, non-graceful responses from seasoned authors given in this post are proof enough that you can’t trust your own judgment on this—, then it’s best just to keep your mouth (and keyboard) shut entirely on such matters. As Neil Gaiman has said on his blog, “some things are better written in anger and deleted in the morning.”
As for coping with stuff and nonsense from respondents to articles or blog posts you’ve written, or from people who are more or less just out to make you look bad, you should simply ignore such commentary when it’s clearly labeled as opinion but it may sometimes be necessary to correct inaccurate factual information posted about you or your work. If you choose to do so you must tread with the utmost care, lest a new idiom for author freak-outs turns up in common usage with your name attached to it. I don’t think I’ve yet seen a more shining example of calm, professional, classy damage control than that of Harlequin Digital Director Malle Valik in response to the firestorm of controversy that followed Harlequin’s announcement of its partnership with Author Solutions, Inc.
First, Malle responded personally to the many charges leveled against the partnership on Smart Bitches, Trashy Books (scroll down through the comments thread to Malle’s first comment, posted on 11/18/09 at 6:48am). Next, she graciously answered some specific questions about the deal on Dear Author, then came back to respond to some very pointed and angry remarks in the comments thread following that interview. In the face of a plethora of insults and accusations, Malle kept her cool, kept a positive attitude, and remained professional. She kept the discussion on-point, and never allowed herself to stoop to the mud-slinging tone employed by many of the attackers.
Malle Valik is to be commended for her exemplary performance in this matter, and to be emulated by every one of us anytime we find ourselves in the unenviable shoes she was wearing last November. To do so, you must first acknowledge that as a writer, you are in the free speech business. It is your duty (and should be your honor) to defend the right of anyone to voice any opinion on any subject, however much you may disagree with that opinion or even find it offensive. While I freely acknowledge that very often, the people who put you in a mind to take the low road are not honestly attempting to engage you in a fair debate, it will do you no good to respond to them in kind. Correct factual errors if you must, but only if you’re certain you’re capable of Valikian conduct in the matter. Take action on libelous statements about you or your work if you feel they have the potential to do significant damage to your earnings or reputation, but do so in private, offline. Otherwise, your safest bet is to ignore the noise; it’s not truly worthy of your attention, anyway.
An awful lot of people will have strongly held opinions with which you disagree, or which are ill-informed, or which are obviously being shared only for the sake of getting a rise out of you or casting aspersions on you or your work. But however much you may want to angrily tear into this latter group anytime they darken your virtual doorstep, however tempting it may be to respond with a biting and clever remark, you must never do it. Answering the uncouth and trollish in kind requires you to become uncouth and trollish, which can quickly escalate beyond your control, undermine all the goodwill you’ve built up to date with your community of readers and peers, and quickly turn off any newcomers to your tribe. As an author, you’ll find there are two primary arenas in which you may feel tempted to rain invective upon a perceived adversary: following a bad review, or following an ill-informed or insulting post to, or about, you. First, let’s look at what happens when authors respond to negative reviews…negatively.
Consider this case of commercially- and critically-successful novelist Alice Hoffman, who was so outraged by a negative review (some have called it merely lukewarm) from author Roberta Silman in the Boston Globe that Hoffman ended up flaming Silman all over Twitter. Hoffman eventually went so far as to provide Silman’s phone number to her fans and request that they call Silman to defend Hoffman. It wasn’t long before the mainstream press was all over this, and not much longer before an embarrassed Hoffman began making public apologies.
Then there’s author Alain de Botton, who responded to a negative review on Caleb Crain’s blog with a number of posts that eventually escalated to the point where Botton was saying things like, “I will hate you till the day I die and wish you nothing but ill will in every career move you make.” There’s a terrific post about the incident on Ed Rants in which de Botton responds to questions about the incident and provides an essay as part of his response as well.
Next, take a gander at the controversy more recently sparked by author Candace Sams on Amazon. When reader-reviewer LB Taylor posted a one-star review of Sam’s novel Electra Galaxy's Mr Interstellar Feller, Sams responded with a series of angry responses, initially under an alias but eventually under her own name as well. When the dust had settled and the press and blogs were finished with her Sams went back and deleted all of her posts in the Amazon thread, but it was too late by then because plenty of sites and blogs (such as Babbling About Books) had already copied and re-published the worst of them online.
Prior to the Sams debacle, perhaps the best-known author outburst came from Anne Rice in 2004, also on Amazon, in response to multiple negative reviews of her novel, Blood Canticle. In a 1200-word diatribe, among other things, Rice responded to reader-critics by saying, “Your stupid, arrogant assumptions about me and what I am doing are slander…You have used the site as if it were a public urinal to publish falsehood and lies." Her entire response is reprinted on the encyclopedia dramatica site, where the term “rice out” is defined as, “To make a spectacle of oneself in response to literary criticism by insisting that one's creative work is superior in all aspects.”
Now, compare these authorial meltdowns to the actions of Carla Cassidy, who posted a wry and clever rebuttal to a negative review on the Smart Bitches, Trashy Books site. SBTB’s review featured a sarcastic, snarky list of 26 reasons why Cassidy’s novel Pregnesia is the best book in the history of pregnant amnesiac romance books. Cassidy responded with her own list of 10 reasons why she loves the SBTB review, as detailed on the Saturday Writers site. According to Saturday Writers, “Carla responded with grace and humor that exactly matched the tone of the review. I don’t think I could respond so well to a negative review. I’m in awe of her.”
If you can’t craft a humorous and/or graceful response to a negative review—and the many examples of non-humorous, non-graceful responses from seasoned authors given in this post are proof enough that you can’t trust your own judgment on this—, then it’s best just to keep your mouth (and keyboard) shut entirely on such matters. As Neil Gaiman has said on his blog, “some things are better written in anger and deleted in the morning.”
As for coping with stuff and nonsense from respondents to articles or blog posts you’ve written, or from people who are more or less just out to make you look bad, you should simply ignore such commentary when it’s clearly labeled as opinion but it may sometimes be necessary to correct inaccurate factual information posted about you or your work. If you choose to do so you must tread with the utmost care, lest a new idiom for author freak-outs turns up in common usage with your name attached to it. I don’t think I’ve yet seen a more shining example of calm, professional, classy damage control than that of Harlequin Digital Director Malle Valik in response to the firestorm of controversy that followed Harlequin’s announcement of its partnership with Author Solutions, Inc.
First, Malle responded personally to the many charges leveled against the partnership on Smart Bitches, Trashy Books (scroll down through the comments thread to Malle’s first comment, posted on 11/18/09 at 6:48am). Next, she graciously answered some specific questions about the deal on Dear Author, then came back to respond to some very pointed and angry remarks in the comments thread following that interview. In the face of a plethora of insults and accusations, Malle kept her cool, kept a positive attitude, and remained professional. She kept the discussion on-point, and never allowed herself to stoop to the mud-slinging tone employed by many of the attackers.
Malle Valik is to be commended for her exemplary performance in this matter, and to be emulated by every one of us anytime we find ourselves in the unenviable shoes she was wearing last November. To do so, you must first acknowledge that as a writer, you are in the free speech business. It is your duty (and should be your honor) to defend the right of anyone to voice any opinion on any subject, however much you may disagree with that opinion or even find it offensive. While I freely acknowledge that very often, the people who put you in a mind to take the low road are not honestly attempting to engage you in a fair debate, it will do you no good to respond to them in kind. Correct factual errors if you must, but only if you’re certain you’re capable of Valikian conduct in the matter. Take action on libelous statements about you or your work if you feel they have the potential to do significant damage to your earnings or reputation, but do so in private, offline. Otherwise, your safest bet is to ignore the noise; it’s not truly worthy of your attention, anyway.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Talking Voice
[This is excerpted from a lesson I wrote for Vault University, with a little extra commentary added.]
What is “voice”?
There are differences of opinion on this, but generally speaking a writer’s voice is that combination of style, technique, tone and subject matter that immediately identifies a piece of writing as part of a specific author’s canon of work. As a rule of thumb, if you can imagine a contest in which entrants would attempt to emulate the style of a given author (e.g., Hemingway, Poe, Shakespeare, etc.), then the author in question has a very distinctive voice.
There are those who believe voice is an inborn talent that waits to be discovered, and then there are those who believe voice can be taught. Both camps tend to agree that regardless of where voice originates, it must be cultivated in order to reach its full potential.
Many writers think of voice as something that doesn’t apply to nonfiction, but this isn’t true. Such nonfiction authors as Stephen R. Covey, Seth Godin and Chris Anderson have very distinctive voices; reading their books, one gets a sense of each author’s unique communication style.
While some authors are celebrated primarily on the basis of their unique voices (e.g., Kurt Vonnegut, William Blake, Poe, etc.), there are many, many more who’ve captured a loyal following with compelling subject matter presented in a relatively generic style. Furthermore, it’s possible to have a very distinctive voice and not attract a following.
So don’t let the matter of voice stall your writing, and don’t make the cultivation of voice your primary objective. A writer who imagines his work too run-of-the-mill attempting to consciously cultivate a distinctive voice is like a party guest who imagines his stories too boring consciously trying to make them more interesting. The effort invariably shows, and tends to result in affectation: an unnatural slant to your phrasing, and word/technique choices that draw attention to themselves—thereby pulling readers out of your book. And there’s no point in waiting to write until you’re convinced your voice has emerged, because it’s only through repeated use and exercise that a writer’s voice is discovered and developed.
Many aspiring authors equate a strong writer’s voice with quality writing and therefore assume that if they haven’t developed a strong voice, their work won’t be any good. There’s a big difference between great writing in the mechanical sense (e.g., proper sentence construction, good grammar and spelling, effective plotting, natural-sounding dialogue, etc.) and great writing in the artistic sense (e.g., work that makes the reader think or feel, or both), but there’s little doubt writers must master the former before they can aspire to the latter.
The bottom line on voice is this: the lack of a distinctive writer’s voice may prevent you from winning the Nobel prize in Literature, but it will not prevent you from having a fulfilling career in authorship. There's more than one way to reach a readership, and we're not all destined to be the next Burroughs or Hemingway. Therefore, the matter of voice isn't worth worrying about.
Focus on honing your skills and let your voice emerge when, and if, it will.
What is “voice”?
There are differences of opinion on this, but generally speaking a writer’s voice is that combination of style, technique, tone and subject matter that immediately identifies a piece of writing as part of a specific author’s canon of work. As a rule of thumb, if you can imagine a contest in which entrants would attempt to emulate the style of a given author (e.g., Hemingway, Poe, Shakespeare, etc.), then the author in question has a very distinctive voice.
There are those who believe voice is an inborn talent that waits to be discovered, and then there are those who believe voice can be taught. Both camps tend to agree that regardless of where voice originates, it must be cultivated in order to reach its full potential.
Many writers think of voice as something that doesn’t apply to nonfiction, but this isn’t true. Such nonfiction authors as Stephen R. Covey, Seth Godin and Chris Anderson have very distinctive voices; reading their books, one gets a sense of each author’s unique communication style.
While some authors are celebrated primarily on the basis of their unique voices (e.g., Kurt Vonnegut, William Blake, Poe, etc.), there are many, many more who’ve captured a loyal following with compelling subject matter presented in a relatively generic style. Furthermore, it’s possible to have a very distinctive voice and not attract a following.
So don’t let the matter of voice stall your writing, and don’t make the cultivation of voice your primary objective. A writer who imagines his work too run-of-the-mill attempting to consciously cultivate a distinctive voice is like a party guest who imagines his stories too boring consciously trying to make them more interesting. The effort invariably shows, and tends to result in affectation: an unnatural slant to your phrasing, and word/technique choices that draw attention to themselves—thereby pulling readers out of your book. And there’s no point in waiting to write until you’re convinced your voice has emerged, because it’s only through repeated use and exercise that a writer’s voice is discovered and developed.
Many aspiring authors equate a strong writer’s voice with quality writing and therefore assume that if they haven’t developed a strong voice, their work won’t be any good. There’s a big difference between great writing in the mechanical sense (e.g., proper sentence construction, good grammar and spelling, effective plotting, natural-sounding dialogue, etc.) and great writing in the artistic sense (e.g., work that makes the reader think or feel, or both), but there’s little doubt writers must master the former before they can aspire to the latter.
The bottom line on voice is this: the lack of a distinctive writer’s voice may prevent you from winning the Nobel prize in Literature, but it will not prevent you from having a fulfilling career in authorship. There's more than one way to reach a readership, and we're not all destined to be the next Burroughs or Hemingway. Therefore, the matter of voice isn't worth worrying about.
Focus on honing your skills and let your voice emerge when, and if, it will.
Friday, December 18, 2009
How To Write The Best Critique Ever
If you've ever belonged to a workshopping writers' community and have made your work available for critique, you're probably all too familiar with a certain type of singularly insulting and useless feedback. And you've probably wondered why the authors of condescending and mean-spirited critiques are so...well, condescending and mean-spirited.
At last, I've found the answer in the following little-known and closely-guarded set of instructions to which only the most self-important reviewers are made privy. If you've ever been on the receiving end of one of these more-writerly-than-thou types, I'm sure you'll recognize some or all of the instructions given.
As one of the more accomplished members of any of a number of writer community sites, you are no doubt aware that there are a bunch of barely literate boobs who post their so-called “manuscripts” online in hopes that worthy experts such as yourself will see fit to magnanimously drop a few pearls of wisdom on them, thereby helping them to elevate their work from absolute tripe to mere garbage. While it may seem a terrible waste of your precious time and rare gifts to offer these bumbling idiots your wise and insightful critiques, you must do it because keeping your peerless views to yourself is virtually a crime against humanity. Think of it as charity work.
The rank amateurs who seek your advice are like little children who don’t know when they’ve done wrong, and must turn to an authority figure such as yourself for a firm hand and guidance. Don’t make the mistake of addressing them as equals to yourself, thinking perhaps that as impossible as it may be for them to actually be your equal, adopting a friendly or informal tone will put them at ease. You don’t want them at ease, you want them at full attention, respectful of your status as their superior and perhaps even a little fearful of you.
With respect to the content of the review itself, disregard whatever you’ve read in the sample reviews provided by the site to which you wish to post. As we savvy experts know, such samples are only there to deflect litigation. These sample reviews would have you mention the bright spots in each manuscript, and perish the thought, even compliment the author wherever possible. Remember, dear reader, that regardless of what the writer wants, what he really needs is to be told, in painstaking and tortuous detail, what you think is wrong with his work. And note particularly that I’ve said ‘what you think’; forget about Lajos Egri, Joseph Campbell and other supposed “experts” in the field, the only thing that matters here is your opinion. While such artsy-fartsy, lit hippie types may encourage writers to cultivate a unique "writer's voice", you know there are rules for a reason and rules must be followed.
When reading through a sample, pay no attention to such trifles as tone, plot or characterization. You're on a search-and-destroy mission to identify each instance of rule-breaking and mock it mercilessly. As you undoubtedly know, adverbs and flashbacks have no place in a professional-grade manuscript, nor do shifts in point of view (however purposeful), nonlinear time, or vampires, among countless other things. Don't hesitate to berate the author thoroughly for his inclusion or use of such hallmarks of the novice.
Choose your words carefully. Don’t gently prod the author with a tactful note indicating that something in his manuscript does not meet industry standards or for that matter, your own, better standards; limit yourself to saying that his work “screams amateur”, or accuse him of failure to do his “homework”---this is a particularly good choice of words since it reminds the author that his proper place with respect to you is like that of a child with respect to an adult. Use the most inflammatory and provocative language possible in your reviews. Don’t say that action passages are ‘unclear’, say they’re ‘inept’. Don’t say that dialog ‘doesn’t sound natural’, say it’s ‘laughable’, ‘backward’, or even better, ‘lame’. If there’s one thing these would-be novelists must learn and learn quickly, it’s that Trade Publishing is a cruel and faceless mistress; it is your solemn duty, dear reader, to acquaint your charges with feelings of rejection, self-doubt and despair. As the song goes, you must be cruel to be kind, so try to make your reviews as pointed and hurtful as possible.
There is some disagreement among those in the know where using specific references to a given work sample in a critique is concerned. There are those on the one side who favor this approach, arguing that it provides much more opportunity to insult the writer while adding a personal touch. Then there are those others who prefer vagueness, arguing that the best way to keep the writer guessing is not to give him anything at all to go on. I leave the decision on this point to you, dear reader, but strongly admonish you that if you choose to cite references from the writer’s work, you nevertheless limit your remarks about that citation. For example, consider this excerpt:
“The car chase sequence on page 52 is about as exciting as watching my kid race his Hot Wheels. If you knew anything about writing action you’d know that you need to add more tension here. If you weren’t so clueless, you might have included more innocent bystanders, or maybe had the protagonist’s driver get injured so that the protagonist has to take the wheel of the limo. Try not to be such an idiot in your rewrite.”
At first blush, this excerpt seems like a fine example of the reviewer’s art. The reviewer uses appropriately harsh language and peppers his remarks with insults, but he also makes the unfortunate mistake of giving the writer an idea of how to fix the problem in question. How can we expect them to learn if we spoon-feed them the answers? Resist the temptation to share any suggestions for improvement, even knowing as you must that you are capable of wrenching any manuscript, no matter how awful, into a masterpiece.
Finally, don’t forget to share something about yourself in the review. Informing the writer that your enviable level of expertise and wisdom comes as a direct result of having placed third in the Busted Truck, Nevada Novel Derby is not bragging, it’s merely stating a fact of which the writer should be aware. Don’t let your ignorance about the writer deter you from asserting that you are undoubtedly better informed and more experienced than he. After all, by asking for your critique he’s already said as much himself, hasn’t he?
And don’t worry that being as yet unagented and unsold somehow detracts from your position of authority. As all of us on this preternatural wavelength of talent know, the small minds of ‘the industry’ are simply not ready for our caliber of work. Their shallow wants and self-serving agendas allow no room for a true visionary, and maybe if they’d answer a query or return a call once in a while they would have a chance at breaking the first real talent they’ve seen in their miserable little lives!
But, I digress.
In conclusion, too many reviewers mistake the workshopping process as a democratic support community when it is, in fact, a theocracy intended to provide a platform for we, the truly gifted few, to cut down the endless rows of talent-free hacks like so many stalks of wheat before the scythe, thereby discouraging any further progress by these also-rans who fancy themselves writers. Do not neglect your duty, and you are sure to be among the Top Five reviewers on any sites you frequent within a month.
(In case anyone reading hasn't yet picked up on it, this is satire. If critiquers would do the exact opposite of the instructions given here, I think aspiring authors everywhere could share their work a little more freely, and breathe a little easier)
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Death and Taxes
Ah yes, the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. While I hate to harsh anyone's holiday season mellow, this is something to which we U.S.-taxpaying authors need to pay attention, especially at this time of year.
Let me open by saying I am not a tax professional and nothing in this blog should be construed as professional tax advice. For that, you must consult a professional tax preparer.
I just want to share some information and get my readers thinking about tax issues now, before the end of the year, when there's still a possibility of making some changes to alter your tax situation and when the deadline for paying your personal income tax is still about four months off.
Is Your Royalty Income Being Reported to Tax Authorities?
By U.S. tax law, as of this writing (see Guide to Information Returns section), if you've earned $600 or more in income in a given tax year from a given source (e.g., employer, Createspace, Lulu, Amazon), the company or person who paid you that money must report it to state and federal tax authorities so the authorities can tax it as income. The minimum threshold for reporting at the state level may vary from state to state, so that's something you'll need to look up for your specific state of residence, and/or the state in which you do business as an author.
At the federal (IRS) level, if the amount of money from a given source is less than $600, neither you nor the payor MUST report it to taxation authorities, but those authorities prefer that ALL income is reported regardless of the amount. Again, we're talking "as of this writing"; since tax regulations are subject to change, this is something you'll need to verify on the IRS site or with a tax preparation professional if you're reading this post months after it was published.
Amazon, Createspace & Booksurge Reporting Policies: Here's The Scoop
Based on my experience with Amazon and Createspace in prior years, I've previously reported that neither entity will report the proceeds of your book sales on the Amazon or Createspace site(s) unless you've earned at least $600. Since Booksurge is now merged with Createspace, and Amazon has stepped up other reporting requirements and seems to be generally getting its federal reporting ducks in a row, I decided I should look into the matter once again.
I just spoke to a Createspace representative, and an Amazon representative, regarding their IRS reporting policies. If you sell your books on the Createspace site or on Amazon's U.S. site, this information is applicable to you. If you sell through other outlets, such as the Lulu store, or another bookseller, you will need to contact that outlet directly to get clarification on their tax reporting policies. Here's what I was told:
Amazon and Createspace (which now includes Booksurge) will both report ALL your earnings on book sales through their online stores to the IRS as income, regardless of whether you meet the $600 minimum reporting threshold or not. They are within their rights to do this, and the IRS prefers that payors report ALL payee income regardless of the amount, so don't go hating on them for it. They will report this income on a Form 1099, also known as 1099-misc (for miscellaneous income). 1099 income is income that has not had any tax withheld, so you must be prepared to pay tax on this income when you report it on your annual tax return (both state and federal).
What If They've Reported Less Than $600?
There's a bit of a wrinkle here though, in that if the income shown on a given 1099 is less than $600, as of this writing IRS rules don't require you to report it on your tax return. This puts anyone with a 1099 form for less than $600 in a tax quandary. Theoretically, by law, you are not required to report it. But the tax authorities will learn about it when they get their copies of the 1099. You have two options here: either report the income on your return and pay the income tax on it (the safest, most conservative route), or consult a tax preparer for further, expert guidance.
I've always reported all my 1099 income, regardless of the amount, because I'm terrified of getting into trouble with the IRS and when in doubt where such matters are concerned, I always go the most conservative route. I may very well be paying taxes I don't have to, but this is just the way I've chosen to handle things. In discussing the matter with my CPA, he's agreed with me that while I'm not strictly required to report the income on a 1099 if it's less than $600, doing so helps to validate any write-offs I wish to take for writing-related activity in a given year.
Why Report A 1099 That Shows Less Than $600?
If you've got one or more 1099s that each show something less than $600 and opt not to report any of them on your tax return, but you're attempting to write off expenses related to your authorial activities, this may well raise a red flag in the tax authorities' analyses because you're writing off expenses without reporting any income. This makes it harder for you to prove you're running a legitimate business and are entitled to expense write-offs, and generally makes you look suspicious in the eyes of tax authorities. Red flags can lead them take a closer look at your return. And at your prior returns. This is why I choose to report everything, but your tax preparer may advise you to handle your situation differently.
Improving Your 2009 Tax Picture
As to the matter of changing your tax situation before the end of the year, there are two major things to think about here: maximizing your legitimate expense claims, and minimizing your reportable income (where it's both possible and legal to do so).
Maximize Expenses
Maximizing your legitimate expense claims just means that if you're intending to invest in some goods or services that constitute legitimate tax writeoffs for you as an author (check with the IRS or a tax preparer for guidance on what constitutes a legitimate tax writeoff), doing so before the end of the year will increase your reportable expenses, thereby decreasing your net income and the tax you must pay on that income.
So if you plan to hire a professional editor, buy more promo copies of your book, book travel or pay registration fees for a writer's event you'll be attending next year (like the Author Workshop Cruise - shameless plug!), or something similar in the near future, you might want to consider paying for those things by December 31 in order to include the expenses in your 2009 tax return. It's generally a good idea to book travel and pay event registration fees as early as possible anyway, since doing so usually gets you a discounted rate.
Minimize Income
Options for legally, legitimately minimizing your reportable royalty income are not as numerous, as you don't have total control over how many people buy your books or when. However, you do have some degree of control, at least where promotion and marketing campaigns are concerned.
If you've been planning a big launch for new book, or a renewed promo push for an existing book, delaying your plans till after January 1 will put all the income you earn as a result of such activity solidly into your 2010 tax year. Of course, you must balance the desirability of minimizing your 2009 reportable income against the desirability of jumping on the holiday shopping gravy train at a time when you know lots of people are doing lots of shopping. If it looks to you like you can sell a lot more copies before December 31 than after, you may elect to just take the income tax hit.
Also, if you're in a position to receive any other author-related income (e.g., advance on a book or manuscript you've sold to a publisher, speaker fees, etc.), if you can afford it, you may want to consider asking till after January 1 to have those checks cut.
Bottom line: be prepared, plan ahead, and when in doubt, consult a tax pro.
Let me open by saying I am not a tax professional and nothing in this blog should be construed as professional tax advice. For that, you must consult a professional tax preparer.
I just want to share some information and get my readers thinking about tax issues now, before the end of the year, when there's still a possibility of making some changes to alter your tax situation and when the deadline for paying your personal income tax is still about four months off.
Is Your Royalty Income Being Reported to Tax Authorities?
By U.S. tax law, as of this writing (see Guide to Information Returns section), if you've earned $600 or more in income in a given tax year from a given source (e.g., employer, Createspace, Lulu, Amazon), the company or person who paid you that money must report it to state and federal tax authorities so the authorities can tax it as income. The minimum threshold for reporting at the state level may vary from state to state, so that's something you'll need to look up for your specific state of residence, and/or the state in which you do business as an author.
At the federal (IRS) level, if the amount of money from a given source is less than $600, neither you nor the payor MUST report it to taxation authorities, but those authorities prefer that ALL income is reported regardless of the amount. Again, we're talking "as of this writing"; since tax regulations are subject to change, this is something you'll need to verify on the IRS site or with a tax preparation professional if you're reading this post months after it was published.
Amazon, Createspace & Booksurge Reporting Policies: Here's The Scoop
Based on my experience with Amazon and Createspace in prior years, I've previously reported that neither entity will report the proceeds of your book sales on the Amazon or Createspace site(s) unless you've earned at least $600. Since Booksurge is now merged with Createspace, and Amazon has stepped up other reporting requirements and seems to be generally getting its federal reporting ducks in a row, I decided I should look into the matter once again.
I just spoke to a Createspace representative, and an Amazon representative, regarding their IRS reporting policies. If you sell your books on the Createspace site or on Amazon's U.S. site, this information is applicable to you. If you sell through other outlets, such as the Lulu store, or another bookseller, you will need to contact that outlet directly to get clarification on their tax reporting policies. Here's what I was told:
Amazon and Createspace (which now includes Booksurge) will both report ALL your earnings on book sales through their online stores to the IRS as income, regardless of whether you meet the $600 minimum reporting threshold or not. They are within their rights to do this, and the IRS prefers that payors report ALL payee income regardless of the amount, so don't go hating on them for it. They will report this income on a Form 1099, also known as 1099-misc (for miscellaneous income). 1099 income is income that has not had any tax withheld, so you must be prepared to pay tax on this income when you report it on your annual tax return (both state and federal).
What If They've Reported Less Than $600?
There's a bit of a wrinkle here though, in that if the income shown on a given 1099 is less than $600, as of this writing IRS rules don't require you to report it on your tax return. This puts anyone with a 1099 form for less than $600 in a tax quandary. Theoretically, by law, you are not required to report it. But the tax authorities will learn about it when they get their copies of the 1099. You have two options here: either report the income on your return and pay the income tax on it (the safest, most conservative route), or consult a tax preparer for further, expert guidance.
I've always reported all my 1099 income, regardless of the amount, because I'm terrified of getting into trouble with the IRS and when in doubt where such matters are concerned, I always go the most conservative route. I may very well be paying taxes I don't have to, but this is just the way I've chosen to handle things. In discussing the matter with my CPA, he's agreed with me that while I'm not strictly required to report the income on a 1099 if it's less than $600, doing so helps to validate any write-offs I wish to take for writing-related activity in a given year.
Why Report A 1099 That Shows Less Than $600?
If you've got one or more 1099s that each show something less than $600 and opt not to report any of them on your tax return, but you're attempting to write off expenses related to your authorial activities, this may well raise a red flag in the tax authorities' analyses because you're writing off expenses without reporting any income. This makes it harder for you to prove you're running a legitimate business and are entitled to expense write-offs, and generally makes you look suspicious in the eyes of tax authorities. Red flags can lead them take a closer look at your return. And at your prior returns. This is why I choose to report everything, but your tax preparer may advise you to handle your situation differently.
Improving Your 2009 Tax Picture
As to the matter of changing your tax situation before the end of the year, there are two major things to think about here: maximizing your legitimate expense claims, and minimizing your reportable income (where it's both possible and legal to do so).
Maximize Expenses
Maximizing your legitimate expense claims just means that if you're intending to invest in some goods or services that constitute legitimate tax writeoffs for you as an author (check with the IRS or a tax preparer for guidance on what constitutes a legitimate tax writeoff), doing so before the end of the year will increase your reportable expenses, thereby decreasing your net income and the tax you must pay on that income.
So if you plan to hire a professional editor, buy more promo copies of your book, book travel or pay registration fees for a writer's event you'll be attending next year (like the Author Workshop Cruise - shameless plug!), or something similar in the near future, you might want to consider paying for those things by December 31 in order to include the expenses in your 2009 tax return. It's generally a good idea to book travel and pay event registration fees as early as possible anyway, since doing so usually gets you a discounted rate.
Minimize Income
Options for legally, legitimately minimizing your reportable royalty income are not as numerous, as you don't have total control over how many people buy your books or when. However, you do have some degree of control, at least where promotion and marketing campaigns are concerned.
If you've been planning a big launch for new book, or a renewed promo push for an existing book, delaying your plans till after January 1 will put all the income you earn as a result of such activity solidly into your 2010 tax year. Of course, you must balance the desirability of minimizing your 2009 reportable income against the desirability of jumping on the holiday shopping gravy train at a time when you know lots of people are doing lots of shopping. If it looks to you like you can sell a lot more copies before December 31 than after, you may elect to just take the income tax hit.
Also, if you're in a position to receive any other author-related income (e.g., advance on a book or manuscript you've sold to a publisher, speaker fees, etc.), if you can afford it, you may want to consider asking till after January 1 to have those checks cut.
Bottom line: be prepared, plan ahead, and when in doubt, consult a tax pro.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
