If it’s Tuesday . . .
I’ve been trying to come up with something for today’s blog for, well, the last couple of days. Every time I’ve sat down to write the post, I’ve wound up distracted. Part of it is I’m in the middle of the final edits for Honor from Ashes (Honor and Duty Book 3). I’m really excited about the book and how the story arc is developing. I’m also scared because I see the end of the arc in the next book and I’m not sure I’m ready to let Ashlyn and company sail off into the night skies. But that’s just me. Letting a character go is, in a lot of ways, like seeing your kid off to college, knowing that life will never be the same again for either of you.
Of course, that hasn’t been the only distraction. Pat Patterson, who is one of my favorite reviewers because he not only gives honest reviews but fun ones as well, reviewed Slay Bells Ring and said the one thing any author loves to see. He recommended the book. Whee! But then he said something else, something that had me considering running away from my muse. He said he wanted another book with the same characters. Gulp! He wants a series. Worse, he’s not the first one to say so. Double gulp. The writer started whining, I already have three active series! Then I realized I had no choice. Whether there will be another book and a new series is up to Myrtle the Muse and she is an evil muse. (And she is laughing hysterically in the back of my mind right now. I think I should be scared.)
Adding to the distractions have been trying to get paper versions of several of my books prepped to come out. Then there’s been real life, including allergies that want to make breathing and seeing the computer screen problematic at best. There have been other distractions as well but, let’s face it, that’s life and I’m not complaining. I’d rather have the distractions than the alternative.
Fortunately, others haven’t had the problems finding things to blog about that I have.
The first post I highly recommend everyone here read comes from Kris Rusch. I’ll admit to considering simply reblogging the entire post. It is that good. It also is a perfect foil for a certain group of folks who have attacked us here at MGC because they view us as attacking authors who decide to go the traditional route. Those critics have obviously never really read what we’ve said here, nor have they taken time to understand our posts. Are we critical of much of traditional publishing? You bet. The Big 5 have been operating an antiquated business plan that has failed to take into account changing technologies and changing reading demands from their customers. Worse, they have, as Kris points out in this post, some horrible contract provisions when looked at with the best interest of the author in mind.
But, as Kris points out, traditional publishers aren’t the only problem facing authors. Agents can be a problem as well. Not all agents, just like not all publishers.
Here is a sample of what Kris has to say:
Suffice to say some of the things I’ve run into are simply and completely unbelievable to me, in 2016.
At the same time, I’m being approached by a number of traditionally published writers who believe they will never get another book deal, and their careers are ruined forever. Ruined! They’re lowering themselves to consider self-publishing, and are wondering if I can tell them how to do it, step by step. They get peeved when I show them entire books on the subject, not just mine and Dean’s, but several other books.
And then there are the writers who are giving up their writing careers entirely, because they can’t sell another book traditionally, and they have been told by the agent who helped them self-publish their books that the books aren’t selling because of piracy.
There are teeth marks in my lips, deep ones. I try to be diplomatic. Honest I do. But I got so frustrated with one writer recently that I had to walk away from my computer. The writer’s career was hurt by theft, but the theft wasn’t the pirating site she had found: it was her agent.
But I’m not going to say that in e-mail, although I did point her to several blogs I wrote about agents and agent agreements and how easy it is for a middleman to embezzle and/or not send royalties she doesn’t know she’s entitled to, particularly when she signed documents letting the agent get all the paperwork.
She can’t even double-check her employee, to make sure that he’s handling the money properly. That’s Money Management 101. And she was flunking.
I walked away from that e-mail exchange and started a blog post with the title, “You Can Lead A Writer To Knowledge…” The rest of that saying is this:
You can lead a writer to knowledge but you can’t make her think.
Then there is this post from The Shatzkin Files. I’ll admit that I don’t always agree with Shatzkin. The same can be said about this post.
The good news for the publishers is that print sales erosion — at least for the moment — seems to have been stopped. (Print sales started to grow even before “new Agency”; when higher prices hit the ebook market, print was immediately assisted.)
While he is, to the best of my knowledge, correct in saying that print sales have started increasing once again for traditional publishers, he doesn’t touch upon the possibility that this is because of their over-pricing of e-books until later in the article. He discusses at length the possibility of publishers moving to the wholesale model for e-books and how different sides of the argument respond to that possibility. What bothers me is that, the more I read, the more it seemed to be an article about how to fight Amazon. Perhaps that isn’t what Shatzkin meant but that is how I read it and I once again wondered why publishing insiders and those who champion traditional publishing continue to want to attack the main outlet for their work. Isn’t that kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face?
I think The Passive Guy in his commentary on the post hits the nail squarely on the head.
On the other hand, PG wonders if anyone in Big Publishing understands a single thing about disruptive technological innovations and their impact on legacy products and legacy producers.
Trying to manipulate pricing and customers to preserve printed book sales is a fool’s errand. The future of books is digital just like the future of letters became digital when email was introduced and the future of news became digital when the web and streaming video entered the scene.
Stories are special. Printed books are not. Big Publishing is trying to preserve its landline business in a cellular world. The future of paper is in napkins and toilet tissue, not as a medium for communicating ideas.
What do you think?