Skip to content

Pie

Soon, Dave will be finished moving! (It’s never as easy or cheap or fast as hoped.) And then, he’ll be able to bake more pie! This one’s from August 06, 2018.

I like pie…

Now my answer to who gets what share of the pie in publishing (actually in most things) is hey, let’s make a bigger pie.

That’s always seemed a sensible answer to me. I’ve spent years talking about ways to make reading more popular with as many people as possible. I can summarize many thousands of words into this: Give as many readers as possible what they enjoy. Help them find it, keep them coming back for more.

A rising tide floats ALL boats.

The key is not so much what an individual is reading (from Das Kapital to Atlas Shrugged), but that as many of them are reading as possible. That all feeds back into the industry, which means an industry big enough to support Feminist Lesbian Vegetarian Urban Goat Breeding Fiction as well as Macramé Flower Baskets Aryan Neo-Nazi fiction, because car-chases, shooting and blowing things up, kiss-an’-cuddle Fiction carries a lot of the costs.

Alas… not a lot of the Traditional publishing establishment and their hangers on agree with me – which should surprise no-one, least of all me. It still does, every time, because getting my head around ‘how can you be that stupid?’ is always hard.

But it doesn’t actually end there because there is a new level of stupid below that: It’s called the ‘you’re putting off your readers if you don’t support our extreme left wing narrative’ stupid. We had our favorite Chinese Bot man trying this one on recently. I thought it had died with the puppy-kicking a few years back – but it seems not. The person attacked tried some kind of reasonable response, but probably because it was just so bizarre didn’t really grasp the nettle. In case you encounter this, let me talk you through it.

cherry pie

Here is the finite pie. Now, it used to be a much bigger pie, but Trad Publishing has, under its brilliant stewardship, managed to make it a lot smaller.

pie -political shares

Here is the pie of the demographics of the self-assessed political attitudes of the principle market for English language SF/Fantasy the US – the smallest section is ‘left’ or as Americans call it ‘liberal’. Now, the fractions may differ slightly when it comes to ‘selling books especially in English.’ Some may not read. However it is important – contrary to some assertions – to state that really no section in this pie is potentially not a market. Much effort has gone into trying to prove lower IQ etc. by those who want to claim they have the moral authority to lead despite being smaller numbers. It has failed or you’d hear about on the MSM every 10 minutes.

One of the rallying calls much heard in modern publishing and their hangers on is ‘own-voices’. Now the argument goes that people who are not one-legged midgets from Equatorial Africa, cannot possibly write one one-legged midgets from Equatorial Africa well, and that that their use and culture should be reserved for said OLMFEA and will be embraced by the OLMFEA community and eagerly read as one of their own, and by all those who want to embrace the cultural diversity of OLMFEA people. (In other words a market of 200 on a good day). But there is a tiny element of truth in it all: the author’s background, interests, politics, social status and experience do get reflected in the writing. Research helps, of course. And if most of the audience isn’t from that community, that demographic, it doesn’t matter that much from the sales point of view.

Where of course it DOES matter is when a substantial part of the audience are from those sections of the demographic. Let’s say the author’s book had a Military Veteran as a major character – and they got it all wrong, because the author hasn’t served – and drew all their information from Jane Fonda (very popular in the author’s social circles). You can guarantee it will not sell well to a large part of the demographic, although it will possibly be loved by a small part, just as ignorant as the author.

Now here’s the thing: if you took trad publishers and did their political demographic, it looks like this:

pie political donations

You’d think common sense and wishing to make a profit would see to it that this didn’t matter. They’d still buy the best authors to appeal to as much of the demographic as possible. Two things however come into this: 1) see the Jane Fonda example above – they just don’t know audiences outside their bubble. 2)There is no direct feedback loop rewarding acquiring editors for good choices that make their company money, certainly not all in the new, minimum advance entrant level (it is somewhat different if you come with a pre-existing shoo-in market). So, it becomes about what they enjoy and what they feel would be ‘good’ if it was published. Which, um, amounts to the publisher’s ‘own voices’.

Which means, again, that the choice made by most publishers is… in sf/fantasy anyway — at the most generous. (on the left) compared to the market (on the right).

pie -purchase vs actual demographic

When it comes down to Awards, recognition, critical acclaim – it is the same or worse. Most of the ‘love’ goes to the extreme end – the 7% far left. None goes to the opposite extreme.

While the similar situation exists in publishing as in fishing – where 10% of the skippers catch 90% of the fish – and those 10% of the skippers or authors are doing well, regardless, among the 90% that are struggling – well, they’re all fighting for a piece of that ‘readership pie’. But let’s for the purpose of keeping it simple, assume that all shares are pretty well equal.

The authors on American left, openly supported by their publishers, are open and vocal about their politics, reflected in public pronouncements and work. Moreover – particularly in the wake of Sad and Rabid Puppies, but well before too – eager to take this to punishing, excluding, badmouthing those that don’t belong to their political section of the demographic. In fact, they attack even authors who fail to show sufficient enthusiasm in doing this. It was career suicide–anywhere but Baen, to admit even in private that actually you were conservative, or even centrist or independent.

But this didn’t only extend to the authors, who they’d de-platform and dis-employ, but even to the public in general. They’d sound off at the audience. They still do. That pleased their acquiring editor. It may well be that those publishers and authors had somehow deluded themselves into believing that those who didn’t agree were a tiny non-customer minority – but the fact is they definitely actually have 26% of the market agreeing with them. Depending on how much they’ve succeeded at alienating the independent/centrist part of the demographic with the ‘if you’re 100% with me or you’re agin’ me’ attitude… that may be all they have left. Personally I suspect it may possibly get to 40-45% -and shrinking – but let’s assume the market is split 50:50.

Which means if out of every ten authors, the nine left wing authors push out the one ‘not left’… and his/her share goes on buying, they’re up from 10% each to 11%. Well… that not bad they all say. I mean that’s an extra 10% onto their income. Onwards! De-platform and banish.

Of course, that rests on the assumption that their customers will simply replace them with one of the nine.

Which I think we all know isn’t happening. “Oh, I can’t buy Kratman. I’ll just try this Hurley.” I’m SURE…

What has of course begun to happen is that some of those they’ve attacked and marginalized… have gone on the counter-attack. Done exactly what the left has done. Become open about their politics, and attacked the left. Think about it.

The nine left wing authors HAD 10% each. They thought they’d get rid of the one out of ten who was not left wing – which might have given them 11%.

The one they ostracized is not going to get ANY of the 26% of left wing part of the demographic. Oh woe is him. He should have been silent! Which is what ChinaMike (TM) was lecturing him about: his folly.

And even ten years ago, that would have been folly. Like or loathe John Norman, he was a massive success: until the Traditional Publishing industry decided that he had to go. They killed his career. He was far from the only one. If your politics or even other views disagreed with your publisher and his coterie of hangers on… you shut up. Not for fear of losing your share of audience, but for fear of losing access, losing your career, losing everything.

Well, we all know that changed with Indy, or at least partially. The same group still effectively control access to brick-and-mortar display space and most of the influential sf review sites and most awards. They can’t stop you being available to be read. At most they can limit your visibility. And a lack visibility is of course the single largest obstacle to an author’s success – even before this practice came along.

So would shutting up have helped there?

Um. No. Not unless you were prepared to go a lot further than ‘shutting up’ – You’d need to kiss up so hard you could bite off their tonsils from the inside… because there are nine out of ten other trad authors fighting for that same spot. Playing as many victim-group cards (why someone in an apparently heterosexual ‘housewife’ situation raising a child is loudly ‘gender-queer’ – think about how that plays out with any child’s schooling and growing up) as possible, seeing who can condemn their publisher’s foes and political dislikes fastest and loudest… If you’re up for that, despite not actually sharing these positions, you could be the darling of the month to their shrinking share of the pie. Of course, you’d be pretty well anathema to anyone outside their 26% – and lose that too if the mask slipped.

Take our one out of ten ‘non-left’ author. He had a 10% share… if he was lucky… in practice, he probably wasn’t. But as an Indy there’s the 36% of the demographic that are right wing readers and 37% Independents. They just need to know he exists – and the established channels aren’t going to support or promote him.

So what is the author in this circumstance to do? Logically… vocally hew into the Left. After the relentless kicking they’ve had for years, Many of the right LIKE hearing him hew into the Left, and a fair amount of the Center… don’t mind. After all, these are people that attacked them. And, quite frankly, if the Left responds with their normal vitriolic invective and attempts to smother and destroy… That’s the best advertising and endorsement he’ll ever get – because these people have been obnoxious jack-asses (cue the entire puppykicker brigade) there are a lot of people who will support anyone these people attack. A lot MORE than the 10% share he might have had.

Meanwhile, the other nine out of ten authors get very angry and vocal attacking not just him but everyone who doesn’t identify with their politics.

And, as a result, the other nine out every ten… stand to lose access to at least 50% of the market.

If they’re lucky their share goes like this.

pie 50

5.5% of the market each. If they really push hard… and alienate everyone but their sector of the political demographic… they’re down to 2.8%.

pie -74

And the other one in ten is left with no competition for 36-74% of the market. So potentially up nearly 30 times the income of any one of the remaining ‘left’ authors. I can see good reason for any non-left author to encourage the most rabid and abusive behavior possible from the establishment, and they’re obliging him eagerly.

I imagine he’ll rapidly find many joining him, but it’s a much better share of that pie than he had. On the other hand for a loud left wing author – IF you are reliant on this income (not, as many of them are supported by a trust fund, or second job or a partner earning a viable income, or begging on Patreon (as so many of the noisy and aggressive ones are)) – you stand to lose between half and three quarters of your income, by dividing the market and alienating readers of different politics. Because the traditional publishing market skews so hard left that most of the entrants fit there, the share of the pie in a politically divisive arena will destroy many of their careers.

More than that, it will seriously damage a lot of publishers’ income, and their ability to publish books which are politically close to their hearts.

So: in fact the sensible advice goes in the inverse of that being given. Being silent will not give you access to the 26%’s market share, that’s already being squabbled over by a huge group, trying to prove themselves more woke than thou.

Yes, if you reveal yourself to be in the slightest out of line of the established US left wing doctrine, in fact don’t cheer-lead loudly enough, Traditional Publishing and their friends and camp-followers will attack and belittle you, and do their level best to deny you an audience. The good news is that is fairly limited to their remaining – and shrinking — audience. Some of those, of course, are still people who haven’t worked out what is going on, and would enjoy your book. The other good news is their hatred-spew is more likely to actually find you some audience – potentially a very large one, bigger than theirs.

On the other hand if you’re a left-leaning author trying to make a living at this (and there are still some good ones, despite the effect of playing the game on the easiest setting for a few decades not weeding the field well) and you’re doing Indy books… Now is the time to button your lip. Yes, that will effectively exclude you from about a quarter of the market who share your views. Yes, it’s not something you have ever had to do. But you have a simple choice: Either ¼ of the demographic pie, competing with almost all of the traditional authors, or ¾ competing with a handful. There are probably a fair number of individuals and sites you would be wise to distance yourself from. Your decision, and yes, it would be nice if we’d go back to judging writers’ work on its merit, not the person or their politics.

But I don’t see that happening.  The genie is not going back in the bottle much as the US Left longs for things to go back to their ‘good old days’.  Funny isn’t it? They’re very ‘conservative’ and really loathe this ‘progress’.

 

33 Comments
  1. Draven #

    The thing is, the US left longs for things to go back to a good old days that never actually existed… their dominance of the MSM for decades has given them an illusion of a historical time period that is part sixties revolutionary, part free love seventies, and part financially expanding 80s- that didn’t actually exist.

    June 17, 2019
  2. But, what is your favorite pie?

    /c4c

    June 17, 2019
    • snelson134 #

      He’s a guy, right? 😉

      June 18, 2019
  3. George Phillies #

    The analysis seems to be somewhat vigorously stated. What fraction of readers ever hear the political opinions of editors and authors, other than what appears directly in their books? What fraction of readers ever see blog reviews from left or right?

    Of perhaps greater import, someone bought Barnes and Noble:

    https://authorkristenlamb.com/2019/06/barnes-noble-goliath-has-fallen/

    Perhaps they will turn it around, the way they turned around Waterstones. Perhaps it will go under, taking some part of traditional publishing with it.

    Good luck with the move.

    June 17, 2019
    • That article was highly interesting, informative and entertaining.

      Has anyone used Kristen’s classes? Are they worthwhile? I am pitiful at branding.

      June 17, 2019
    • Thing is, though, authorial politics do come out in their writing.
      The fact is that there are certain authors who will never see a dime of my money, because people like me and mine are never anything but villains in their writing, and cartoonish villains at that. There are also authors who will not see a dime of my money because they present other demographics as cartoon villains.

      June 17, 2019
    • BobtheRegisterredFool #

      Is it possible that the political experience of your cohort is not a good model through which to understand the political experience of younger cohorts?

      I know I do not understand the experience of my own cohort. My background is unusual in ways that cause me to weight Sad Puppies very heavily in my models of political behavior. Much more than if my personal experiences had been broader.

      I know that there are conservatives in their fifties who disagree with the what was once the consensus of conservatives now in their seventies, eighties, and nineties, that the Democrats/socialists were going to win, and that the best that could be done was a rearguard delaying action.

      It seems like there might be folks in their thirties with a different perspective on legalization than those in their fifties, due to different potency profiles over respective lifetimes.

      Modern social media has been around for fifteen years or so, call it about ten years of the self reporting political panopticon effect. I’ve no certainty what it would be like to grow up with that.

      I do know that I can tell some of where someone is coming from with word choices, and choices of worldbuilding. I do find myself noticing that stuff in my reading. I can’t necessarily immediately tell someone who finds themself sincerely believing what the crowd believes from someone who has simply gone insane with viciousness.

      Sometimes I can tell when someone goes out of their way to make a story decision that is intended as a blow against me and mine.

      June 17, 2019
    • What fraction of readers ever hear the political opinions of editors and authors, other than what appears directly in their books?

      That’s a rather big “other than.” When you can tell that anybody who is Catholic will either be a CiNO or a villain, military members will be monsters or victims, buisnessmen will be idiots or villains, it gets pretty obvious.

      It’s boring to be constantly insulted as authors make their genuflections to whatever is popular. “Oh, look, mandatory homosexual couple. Oh look, magical minority character shoe-horned in. Oh, look, ignorant political lecture.” Etc.

      June 17, 2019
    • George said: “What fraction of readers ever hear the political opinions of editors and authors, other than what appears directly in their books? What fraction of readers ever see blog reviews from left or right?”

      This turns out to be something fairly interesting (to me, anyway).

      It used to be, and you remember this George, when the political leanings of authors were all over the map. Heinlein had his, Asimov had his, Stanislaw Lem had something but I was never sure what, etc. It informed the story, maybe, but it didn’t overpower the story. And there were people who ignored the whole issue. What was Christopher Stansheif’s political slant in “The Warlock in Spite of Himself”? You’d have to dig pretty hard to find it.

      But now, the political slant IS the story most of the time, and always hard Left. It isn’t subtle.

      Now, pre-2010, I was that “average reader” you’re talking about. Asimov, Heinlein, Stansheif, all the same. I didn’t know and didn’t care about the politics, even though I was over 50. Politics were and still are an irritation that I look to science fiction to FORGET.

      I’m escaping reality, thank you very much, and I don’t want to find it waiting for me on Barsoom in Deja Thoris’ liquor cabinet. She pours John Carter a drink, and we get a five-page extravaganza about gender roles and the plight of whammyn, I’m going to be seriously pissed.

      Therefore, in those few writers that abjure politics in favor of story, I do not go and look at their social media or blogs. Ever. I do not know what Peter F. Hamilton’s politics are, nor do I know Neil Asher’s public stance on gun control. Dianne Duane presumably has an opinion about immigration and trans-genderism, but I’ve worked hard to not know what it is.

      People like Charles Stross and John Scalzi, whose work I used to enjoy, have managed to make themselves sufficiently unpleasant on-line that I will not buy their work no matter what it is.

      Therefore, I would argue that “fraction of readers ever hear the political opinions of editors and authors” is larger now than it has ever been, and is growing every day. Furthermore, political opinions are being made into THE thing that decides an author’s worthiness in the polarized atmosphere we live in, whether we like it or not.

      Post-2010, I picked a side in the SF world. My side is Sad Puppies. Larry Correia, Dave Freer, Sarah Hoyt et al. Because why? Because I was absolutely forced to pick a goddamn side, is why.

      I would vastly prefer to have nothing to do with any of it, and spend my time reading about people falling through jump gates in overpowered spaceships, or magic swords, or Boy Meets Girl on Barsoom. But I am no longer allowed to do that, because “Boy Meets Girl” is now a political issue. People who write Boy Meets Girl stories are Nazis, proclaimed one side. The Big Five publishers and the one remaining national retail chain in the USA plus the one in Canada are on that side.

      Perforce I am on the “other side”, wearing a swastika t-shirt and looking for a cattle car to load. But I haven’t changed much in ten years. The difference between 50 and 60 is mostly around the stomach, not so much between the ears. I didn’t move. What happened was the industry ran away from me as hard and fast as it could.

      And that’s why the audience is starting to pick sides. I’m not the only guy the industry ran away from.

      June 17, 2019
      • TRX #

        > What was Christopher Stansheif’s political slant in “The Warlock in Spite of Himself”? You’d have to dig pretty hard to find it.

        Uh? He wasn’t as Libertarian as L. Neil Smith, but “Warlock” was all *about* politics. SCENT, PEST, and DDT, Libertarians vs. totalitarians and commies?

        June 17, 2019
        • They were gags, as I recall it. Sure, he had all that stuff in there, but it wasn’t “important” to the story. The actual story was about the Warlock and his efforts to manage the situation he was dumped in.

          Could be that I was subliminally having a positive reaction to libertarian-leaning stories, but I can tell you that in 1969 I was just getting out of university and I did not give a single F about politics of any kind. I was all about finding a girlfriend and a job, and I was doing Tai Chi when I wasn’t occupied with the first two things.

          My awareness of things political didn’t mature until the government declared me (and everybody else in Canada) a criminal for owning a certain kind of gun in 1992. Pretty sobering thing, being nobody special one day and a criminal the next, because of something that’s sitting in the bottom of your closet gathering dust.

          June 17, 2019
        • Libertarian? I didn’t get that…a definite cowboy vibe, and otherwise pretty normal Catholic influenced (but not active or preaching) natural rights theme.

          Which, yeah, is kinda a conservative thing now…..

          June 17, 2019
      • Mary #

        I have literally read someone say she can stand anything but a normal heterosexual couple who end up together at the end of the (sub)plot.

        June 17, 2019
        • “…she can stand anything but a normal heterosexual couple…”

          I’ve seen that. A common conceit among the perpetually aggrieved. Taken very much to heart by awards voters and publishers it seems. Which is why I can’t get my “boy meets girl on Barsoom” fix lately. “Genderfluid asexual romantic meets genderfluid Otherkin” is not doing it for me.

          Which is why I delight in writing “boy meets girl and they get married.” Its so edgy and offensive! ~:D Bwaha!

          June 18, 2019
    • George Phillies #

      “George said: “What fraction of readers ever hear the political opinions of editors and authors, other than what appears directly in their books? What fraction of readers ever see blog reviews from left or right?”

      The clause “other than what appears directly in their books?” seems not to have had the desired interpretation here. As an example, Jemison’s The Fifth Season might have been said to have political-inclination content., but that has nothing to do with “other than what appears directly in their books?”, that being what Jemison would have written that was not in her novels. Readers here may have encountered Jemison’s non-fiction political writing; the average SF buyer I suspect has not. Certainly I haven’t.

      The one SF writer who comes to mind, whose “political opinions … other than what appears directly in their books?” are well-known, was Newt Gingrich, author of Grant Comes East. He had plenty of political opinions outside of his novels, and a typical book buyer in that period would have known about them.

      June 17, 2019
      • George, I understand you wanted the question to focus on what percentage of readers know about authorial opinions from outside the reading content. But as the responses point out, readers are perfectly able to discern and dislike when they’re being preached at in a book, and they’re able to tell when the author’s worldview is that everything is political… and therefore the book must reflect their current politics, no matter how badly the story has to be bent or broken to accommodate this.

        As Dave himself pointed out:

        …the author’s background, interests, politics, social status and experience do get reflected in the writing. Research helps, of course. And if most of the audience isn’t from that community, that demographic, it doesn’t matter that much from the sales point of view.

        Where of course it DOES matter is when a substantial part of the audience are from those sections of the demographic. Let’s say the author’s book had a Military Veteran as a major character – and they got it all wrong, because the author hasn’t served – and drew all their information from Jane Fonda (very popular in the author’s social circles). You can guarantee it will not sell well to a large part of the demographic, although it will possibly be loved by a small part, just as ignorant as the author.

        The more demographics the left villanizes, and represents only as a cardboard stereotype… the more their writing reflects that, and the more the readers are putting the book down because they’re sick of the writer’s politics.

        June 17, 2019
        • Synova #

          I read a book that was pretty good. It was an “urban” fantasy set in Canada and I can’t remember how if the monsters were naturally from Earth or not, but it was fun and the heroine was bad ass and the Canadian military guy was suitably (and stereotypically) Canadian. Which was fine. But the bad ass American military guy, though he seemed competent and had a place of some serious authority in the organization was gradually revealed to be incoherent with fear and murderous fear fueled rages. Which also *might* have been fine except that it wasn’t supported by *anything* other than that he was “American” and probably special forces and wanted to kill the monsters.

          There were sequels, I think. I didn’t read them.

          June 17, 2019
      • George said: “The clause “other than what appears directly in their books?” seems not to have had the desired interpretation here.”

        We’re a little reactive here George. We’re the dog that’s been kicked one too many times. Besides, as I said its difficult to find a book or series these days where the politics are not front and center. You don’t have to call out the worst example, of Nora Jemisin, its frigging everywhere.

        Example, the Murderbot series that many are raving about.

        I read one. Short, well written, fun snarky humor. But the world building and characterization is still the same “Capitalism is bad, humans are stoopid” dystopian narrative.

        Is Murderbot going to get a boyfriend? Or hell, even a girlfriend? No way! The author is not going to go there. Will Murderbot win and beat the eeeevile corporation? Probably not, more likely the author will pull the usual bait and switch, and make Murderbot a self-serving anti-hero who only manages Good while pursuing Bad.

        So I can’t be bothered to buy the series, even though I like snarky humor, because I can predict it will go into a Dark Place where I don’t want to go. Reading is supposed to be an escape, not a punishment.

        That’s what’s commonly appearing directly in the books. Do I really need to go to the author’s blog and read about their disdain for corporations and lots of Orange Man Bad? No, I already read that. That was the whole point of the “story” I just read, and the entire reason it was published in the first place.

        Here’s the thing, George. Personally I don’t care if Lefties write stuff. They can go nuts with the writing, I don’t care. But can you think of a book or series that wasn’t overtly anti-
        Capitalist, anti-Human and/or anti-Western civilization in the last three years from the Big Five?

        June 17, 2019
  4. On the other hand if you’re a left-leaning author trying to make a living at this (and there are still some good ones, despite the effect of playing the game on the easiest setting for a few decades not weeding the field well) and you’re doing Indy books… Now is the time to button your lip. Yes, that will effectively exclude you from about a quarter of the market who share your views. Yes, it’s not something you have ever had to do. But you have a simple choice: Either ¼ of the demographic pie, competing with almost all of the traditional authors, or ¾ competing with a handful. There are probably a fair number of individuals and sites you would be wise to distance yourself from. Your decision, and yes, it would be nice if we’d go back to judging writers’ work on its merit, not the person or their politics.

    An example would be country music.

    *pauses for mandatory “boo, that sucks” comments to be macroed in*

    There’s actually a really wide range of political and social views in the singers and song writers, but because of the sheer insanity of “pop” music the liberal country singers tend to be very quiet about it, and it’s much more common for folks not to say anything at all, because it’s rude.

    I know at least one of the guys who quietly but publicly believed the Iraq war was wrong went into a live fire area to visit the troops– because they didn’t start it.
    That’s the kind of thing country singers DO.

    When the Dixie Chicks fell through the floor on popularity, it wasn’t because they are liberal– it’s because they insulted their fans by publicly airing dirty laundry over-seas. Up to that point, folks could ignore it.

    June 17, 2019
    • Country music… isn’t that banned? I thought there was a law or something.

      June 17, 2019
  5. I have some really wacked-out friends, and I am pretty sure that they all consider me deeply weird and wrong. But if they are polite and kind and fun (and avoid criminal activity), why should we not be friends?

    Similarly, if someone can tell a good story and is not known to behave criminally, I don’t care about their views and don’t expect they care about mine. We have a relationship based on mutual respect for items of value.

    But if someone acts like a nasty crazy person, and openly states he does not want the money or suck like myself, obviously we no longer share such a relationship of civil respect.

    June 17, 2019
    • “The money of scum like myself.” I swear, spellchecker is going to kill me.

      June 17, 2019
      • *snickers* Suddenly I’m sure at least a dozen short stories of witches dying exactly that way have happened.

        June 17, 2019
  6. Related:

    June 17, 2019
    • Synova #

      Exactly so.

      Now take the jagged edges of red rage and slap it on top of the tardis and then proclaim that everyone who isn’t happy about that is a bad person. 😦

      June 17, 2019
      • Yeah, that’s a picture of the 1980’s. They took over Marvel, DC, the Big Five and lately they’re even taking a run at Anime.

        June 18, 2019
  7. Synova #

    I tend to ignore author’s “public” behavior as hard as I can. At least I used to. I can’t say how many times I’ve recommended John Scalzi but just said “avoid his blog, trust me”. Right up until he himself didn’t allow that.

    June 17, 2019
    • Christopher M. Chupik #

      I can do it with some, but not others.

      June 17, 2019
      • Mary #

        Me, too.

        One notes that if the author makes the politics known, it’s a lot harder to ignore in the writing.

        June 17, 2019
        • Synova #

          An author has to be outright obnoxious about it before I care too much.

          June 18, 2019

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: