Archive for the ‘Rant Alert’ Category

Bitter Cents

Saturday, May 18th, 2013

According to my Google Alerts, someone appears to have DNF’d My Darkest Passion. Are you kidding me? How could anyone not understand the story Harsh and Addison deserve?

I could have watered down the story, sure. I could written something without thinking about my ART but I would have had to title that story, My Medium Dark Passion. Or even My Pastel Passion. But that would have cheated Harsh and Addison out of their story. I’ve always said that writing is hard. Really hard. God, no one understands how hard I work and how much it means that every reader out there admits my brilliance.

Rather than risk anyone else wanting their passion Medium Rare or, worse, Well Done, (God, I think I just threw up a little in my mouth), I am taking My Darkest Passion off sale on Tuesday, May 21st, 2013. That’s: TUESDAY, May 21, 2013. After TUESDAY, May 21st, 2013, My Darkest Passion will not be available in any format.

Yes, I could stick to my principles and leave the book on sale after TUESDAY MAY 21, 2013, and simply take my lumps, but then I would be making money off a book someone did not finish. Ever bitter penny to hit my bank account after TUESDAY, May 21, 2013 would hurt my soul and betray the loving, twisted passion of Harsh and Addison, who, my GOD, so fucking deserve their happy ending.

I want to thank everyone who’s emailed or left a comment on my Facebook page telling me you couldn’t put the book down. Thank you. Thank you! Although all of you can continue to read the book, after TUESDAY, May 21, 2013 you should probably no longer do so. Anything else would not be fair to Harsh or Addison, or all the people who try to find the story after Tuesday, May 21, 2013.

I’m sorry the money you paid for the book has turned out to be nothing more than bitter cents in my direct deposit. And I’m sorry Harsh and Addison’s dark and twisted path to love didn’t work for that person who DNF’d. This is why we can’t have nice things. Some of you ruin it for the rest of us and now I’m not able to own my words or take any risks in my writing, or even, accept that some readers may not like my work. Because, how could that be, really? I am brilliant. I think about ART when I write.

Last night, I cried bitter tears (just like the money) when I realized that I would be taking the story off sale on TUESDAY May 21, 2013.
::::
::::
::::
::::
::::
::::
::::
::::

Call me cynical if you want. This is in response to this.

TumblrStumbleUponRead It LaterPinterestShare

I think I’ve had it with this – Male is NOT the default

Monday, April 29th, 2013

Most of you know my day job is in tech. Some of you may have heard my story about the programmer I worked with who actually refused to work with me because of my gender. All the men I worked with knew it. To save time, I would send my male colleagues the emails I needed to get to this guy so he would do necessary work, and they would then send the email to him so that it appeared the request came from them and — and voila! — he would do the work. He particularly disliked me because, as the database administrator in charge of (among other things) vetting scripts for production, I often returned his scripts with requests for corrections.

Lest you think the problem was secretly me, when I moved to the database team and had to interact with this man, more than one woman took me aside to warn me about his creeper behavior. Never go in a conference room alone with him. Never walk down a hallway where he was if there wasn’t anyone else…

This is not something men in Tech ever deal with. They have never had to do their job by proxy because some asshole can’t deal with smart tech women. They never have to know, for their safety, who the creepers are.

You-all should know that last night I was up several times to deal with server alerts in a colo with crap for infrastructure. I’m tired and crabby as a result since I STILL had to get up at 5:30 to go to work.

So, today, there’s this email forward to an Info-Sec list I’m on. It’s about a Defcon presentation and it says this:

Skytalks VI CFP
2-4 August 2013
@ Defcon 21

It’s that time of year again, people. Wine, Women, and the silky-smooth sound of slot machines. Yeah, that’s right. It’s time for Defcon, and that means it’s time for Skytalks.

You know the routine. Skytalks is presented by 303. Our mission: to show off the best knowledge our community has to offer. The kind of stuff you won’t or can’t do at home. We’re talking classic, old-school Defcon here: no cameras, no recording. No pre-con content takedowns. No sobriety. No bullshit.

https://skytalks.info/

We’ll be seeing you.

Actually, Skytalks, you WON’T be seeing me and it’s pretty certain there’s a lot of other really good tech women you won’t be seeing either.

Men are not the only people in tech. There are women, and you know what? Most of us have no interest in your pitch about wine and women. All that does is tell us you have no clue and it’s highly likely that you’re contributing to the number of women who won’t risk being in an environment where women are there for sex and you think the guys will all get drunk. Those women, too, I suppose.

If you ever bother to wonder where all the geek girls are here’s a hint: it’s not that there aren’t any. You don’t see them because you create a hostile environment for us.

When I set aside the tech work to write romance novels, I work hard to portray geekish men outside stereotype. After all, I know plenty of men in tech who are nothing like the stereotype. In my non-historical work, I often use tech. Because there’s a lot of cool stuff in tech that makes for exciting stories. My novella Free Fall features a hacker. He’s a demon. Here’s a picture I commissioned of him:

telos_small In the high res version, you can see his shirt says, “While you were reading my shirt I hacked your bank account.”

I give romance readers sexy demon hackers. You give hackers a stale, failed and offensive view of 51% of world’s population. No wonder women are saying no thanks.

So, now, I’m going to ask you to think hard.

1. I work in tech. In a highly specialized technical job.
2. I write and read romance novels.
3. A lot of romance authors have advanced degrees, including PHds. Readers, too, actually.
4. I’m not the only romance writing DBA.

Maybe you could open your world view just a wee bit more. It’ll hardly hurt at all.

TumblrStumbleUponRead It LaterPinterestShare

Librarians: Pirates of the Public Sector

Monday, April 8th, 2013

Scott Turow is WRONG Again

Turow is the president of the Author’s Guild and, well. I’m not renewing my membership this year. For the last couple of years, Turow has not espoused one single policy or opinion in his role as president of the AG that is in any way beneficial to my writing career. In fact, if I were to adhere to his vision of a writing career, I would still be making nothing from my backlist and very little from my frontlist. I would not own a house, either. I’d have accepted a print contract with numbers that don’t come close to maximizing my writing income.

His latest is The Slow Death of the American Author that’s a marvel of self-serving misstatements of fact. In re the Wiley decision that established the right of a consumer to resell foreign-purchased books in the US: “Not only does this ruling open the gates to a surge in cheap imports, but since they will be sold in a secondary market, authors won’t get royalties.” Turow conveniently forgets to mention that in that situation the author has already been paid … for the foreign sale.

Librarians: Pirates of the Public Sector

Turow goes on to say “It seems almost every player — publishers, search engines, libraries, pirates and even some scholars — is vying for position at authors’ expense.”

Turow is actually placing libraries in the same bucket with pirates. More on pirates in a minute. OMG! Libraries are stealing from the mouths of starving authors!

Too bad it’s been amply demonstrated that libraries drive sales of books. But please, don’t let facts get in the way!

Digital Book World, my favorite publisher shill (tip o’ the hat to Courtney Milan for use of the word shill in a similar context), just today interviewed Mike Serbinis, CEO of Kobo Books, who had this to say about piracy:

Our publishers have the option to make any and all of their books DRM-free, but most of them don’t. Most of them choose to apply DRM. We have a global purview on where that matters and where that doesn’t. The way DRM exists today, it doesn’t get in my way. But, regardless, the behavior around ebooks, I’ve found with respect to DRM and piracy, has largely to do with price and convenience. Where ebooks are very expensive and through a combination of factors it’s inconvenient, piracy is crazy. Where it is convenient and prices are low, there’s almost no piracy.

Turow’s evidence is . . . um …. he Googled and found Bit Torrent sites.

Serbinis, who runs a world-wide eBook company that, in many markets has a bigger share than Amazon, says when you overprice eBooks and make them hard to get you can …. (wait for it) Google and find Bit Torrent sites. Notice the part where he ties business data to observable effects. “We have a global purview on where that matters and where that doesn’t.”

Notice where Turow does the same thing….oh wait. He doesn’t.

FFS.

TumblrStumbleUponRead It LaterPinterestShare

Carolyn The Curmudegeon Rides Again!

Friday, April 5th, 2013

Privacy Matters

Boy, Facebook Home. You might as well go live at FB. Does anyone REALLY think that having FB embedded in your phone’s OS is a good thing? Anyone who doesn’t work for FB, that is. I don’t believe for even one second that FB wouldn’t be accessing ALL your phone calls. ALL your location information, every single thing you ever do on your phone. It will take about 10 seconds for someone to be heinously embarrassed or shamed after FB automatically uploads all their pictures (because you know that would be the default behavior) and shares them on their profile, or worse, someone else’s pictures of you get uploaded to their timeline… whether you consented to the photo or not.

Don’t think for even a second that this “app” was designed to be anything but a way for FB to exploit you. It has nothing to do with “If you build it they will come” and everything to do with “how can FB make a shitload of money?”

“Real” Identities

Google, FB and many, many others want people operating in their environment to be “real” people. They don’t permit “fake” names. And it’s not because fake accounts can be spammers and other unsavories. It’s because the data they mine from us is FAR more valuable when it can be folded under the umbrella of a single person who buys stuff.

Here’s the problem, and in my opinion, it’s one that is disproportionally harmful to women. People operate in spheres: there’s a private one — what we do when we’re not at work, what we do when we’re at work, or when we are operating in some other space: people like writers, actors or musicians.

Women are more likely need to shield themselves from violent men. We are more likely to be threatened and harassed online and off. Women are more in need of ensuring their online activities don’t endanger them physically.

Carolyn Jewel, the person who is many things besides a writer, should not be made to reveal any aspects of her non-writing life to public spaces unless private Carolyn explicitly consents. And by consent I don’t mean, I decide I have no choice. Someone like, say, Remittance Girl, whose public persona is deliberately Remittance Girl and not whoever she is in real life, should not be forced to publicly attach her actual identity to that public space because Google+ says she has to.

I have myself, in my writing life, received disturbing communications from violent men. Yes, because when someone writes to me from death row, I am entitled to assume they are there because they are violent. And some of those men are not on death row, they’re just in a Federal Penitentiary. I have also received communications from people who are not mentally stable. Readers, well intentioned though they may have, have shown at at the homes of writers.

I have, in my private life, had encounters with men who are violent and abusive to women, and I have had employers who have not acted to protect my safety. (“Oh, he doesn’t mean anything by that!”)

Men sitting in corporate offices attempting to monitize their social application have no idea at all about what it means to be forced to share and, I am willing to bet, have not spent even five minutes wondering if maybe they’re developing policies and practices that endanger women. They don’t because their gender is, by and large, not a part of unacceptable statistics regarding violence against them. (They are, however, the gender overwhelmingly responsible for the violence.) They have never, ever walked down the hallway to their offices hoping that the creep coming the opposite way isn’t going to do his famous “oh, sorry! I didn’t mean to brush up against you!” They have never had to worry that giving a personal email address to a stranger opens the door to harassment.

I know an author who, at a signing, had a man come up and give her a photograph of his penis. I was there when it happened. I saw him. I saw her reaction and how frightened she was. And so was I, because, maybe he’d fixated on her at that time, but a man with a screw loose like that didn’t make me feel very safe.

The Spheres

I heard a marketing person on the radio talking about how great targeted advertising is, how useful and wonderful it is, and why we should all be eager to see this in place

Well, let me give you an example of why not. I was writing along and then I decided to have my heroine wear Crocs. But, I realized, I had only the vaguest idea of what Crocs look like. So I googled, saw some pictures, and went back to my story — with my heroine wearing different shoes. For two weeks I’d go to a site and get shown pictures of Crocs. Not only was that “targeted” advertising incredibly annoying, it was also the exact opposite of effective and it bore ZERO relation to the kind of shoes I might want to buy.

First off, if I’d actually been shopping for Crocs, and was at some shoe site, why later show me ads for shoes I probably already bought? This has happened before. I bought a 4TB external hard drive. For two weeks after, I got shown ads for external drives and that was a waste. I bought the damn drive already.

Second off, in my personal opinion, Crocs are not the fashion choice for me. (So if a user Googles “Crocs” and goes to sites and DOES NOT BUY anything — wouldn’t it be just as possible that the person has decided NOT to purchase them?)

Third off, having been shown so many ads for Crocs, I now actively hate them. HATE THEM. Right now this minute I am thinking hateful thoughts about Crocs.

Please leave one of us alone

Carolyn Jewel, Author is not Carolyn Jewel. I want a firewall between my private life and my public one, and companies like Google and FB are actively seeking to prevent that without offering me any protection from the consequences.

The conversation needs to start from Here is the personal privacy individuals have, how do we monitize our app without compromising that? Not, how much can we force our users into giving us with or without their knowledge.

I wouldn’t be on FB at all in my private life if FB didn’t REQUIRE it for an author page. I feel the same about Google+ and just about every other social media out there.

TumblrStumbleUponRead It LaterPinterestShare

Ms. McGrump Has a Brilliant Idea

Wednesday, February 6th, 2013
needles_20081210_2

Prickly? Photo by Yours Truly.

This has been a week of short sleep and too much caffeine. Probably that’s why I’m grumpy. Anyhoo. I just had the world’s most brilliant idea.

If you’re an author and you have yourself worked up about reviews at places like Amazon and Goodreads, I have an utterly brilliant suggestion.

Start your own review website.

I know, right?

Here’s the rules:

1. Posters must provide proof of purchase before posting a review.

2. Posters must also sign an affidavit affirmatively stating that he/she is a true fan of the type of book she/he is reviewing.

3. Reviews must be a minimum of 250 words.

4. Reviews cannot be mean, disrespectful, or otherwise likely to upset the author.

5. The lowest possible rating is 4 stars. The highest is 5.

6. All reviews are sent to the author for editing and approval BEFORE it posts.

I’m sure readers will find such a site really informs their future buying decisions.

I am a genius.

A Kickstarter campaign to get this off the ground is in order.

I doubt I missed anything but if I did, please let me know in the comments.

TumblrStumbleUponRead It LaterPinterestShare

Why M. Night Shyamalan Made Me Angry

Sunday, January 27th, 2013

From the twitter stream of filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan:

MNightShyamalan: “Suspense is like a woman, the more room she leaves to the imagination, the greater the emotion and the expectation.” -Alfred Hitchcock.

Comparing a woman’s behavior to a method of achieving a quality required for good story-telling is offensive. It’s demeaning to women and it’s demeaning to writers. It objectifies women and tells us that our behavior matters only in its impact on the observer. A male observer.

Let’s not forget that Hitchcock was trading women’s careers for sexual favors, and the one woman who stood up to him never worked again in her chosen career.

If you want to be a good writer, or a good movie-maker, you might want to give some thought to whether you have internalized prejudices that demean and objectify 51% of the population. If you, as a writer, don’t find that offensive, then let me suggest that you are not reaching your entire audience and that maybe your definition of good art is fatally flawed.

Such a statement automatically omits cis-hetero women from this method of achieving suspense in writing. As a hetero-woman, it’s actually not my cup of tea to think of women in that sexualized way. But then, as a woman, I recognize how insulting and damaging it is whenever we reduce women to their sexual impact on men.

Shame on you, Mr. Shyamalan, for suggesting that this is a world view a writer should adopt.

TumblrStumbleUponRead It LaterPinterestShare

Oh, Librarian, whoever you are. You have made me sad

Tuesday, January 1st, 2013

This post at Library Journal made me sad. It’s a late commentary on the whole Joe “No Such Thing as a Conflict of Interest” Konrath/Amazon review situation (I blogged about that here) and also slightly about some review abuse (which I have blogged about here – sarcasm version and here – the Swiftian version as well as here – This is just wrong version.

It’s pretty clear the author of the post isn’t fully informed about the whole Amazon review thing and missed entirely the disturbing implications regarding the outing of Harriet Klausner. That’s a whole other post. Here’s what this post is about: (Emphasis added):

Sitting around all day reading romance novels hardly qualifies as a life, and romance novels hardly qualify as books.

But it’s also hard to feel sorry for customers who were duped into buying a “bad” romance novel by a good review. After all, they’re all bad books. It’s not like people are reading romances for their literary quality. I almost feel sorry for the people who get so worked up over this.

Right. Anyway, I left a comment and since comments are moderated there, it’s possible mine won’t be approved. Here’s what I said:

Wow. I was with you, kind of, up until this: “romance novels hardly qualify as books.” I’m so sorry you feel this way. I am, as you may note, an author of romance. Like many readers and writers of Romance, I am not only a college graduate but in possession of a graduate degree. (In English, by the way.)

It’s been my experience that most people who go down the “All Romance is trash” path have in fact never read a romance. There are as well a lot of people who read one romance (often years ago) didn’t like it, and now, based on a sample size in single digits and in no way reflective of Romances being written today, decided that the entire genre must be awful. This mutually assured stupidity conclusion about the genre and the people who read it is, sadly, all too familiar.

There are so many talented, gifted authors of Romance and they come from all backgrounds, some are academics, some are librarians, some are even men. Since I write in the genre, I happen to know a lot of authors of the genre. They are lawyers, PhDs, engineers, technologists, teachers. There are also, by the way, many fine Romance authors who did not go to college, but let me ask you this:

Do you really believe that so many smart, educated women (and a few men) would ALL write awful books with no redeeming value? Are you honestly willing to suggest that’s remotely possible?

Please, please, consider the possibility that you are wrong. Maybe Romance just isn’t the genre for you, but I can assure you there are Romances out there as fine, or finer, than any literature you care to name.

TumblrStumbleUponRead It LaterPinterestShare

The Letter Before P: Help a Reader Out

Thursday, December 27th, 2012

I have not had good luck lately with my reading. Very, very few have been wins and this makes me sad.

I’m tired of eBooks with rotten formatting. As someone who self-pubs, I understand the complexity of good formatting, but I am now tired to death of people uploading a Word document, doing little to no QA and calling it good. Maybe for 3% of you the result is fine. For the rest of you: Not. Outsource it or learn how yourself. I guess that’s a longer rant for another day.

My main complaint now is crappy books. What’s more, crappy books with double digit glowing reviews.

Here’s a hard truth: 97% of writers who get rejected by traditional publishers are getting rejected because the writing is crappy. Period. Obviously some writers have no idea how weak their writing is and they’re self-pubbing their crap. Bleh. I’m not sure if that’s worse than the traditional publishers who obviously didn’t bother to edit, copy-edit- proofread or format their over-priced offerings.

CRAP writing. CRAP!

“I just want to run,” she whispered, her eyes strangely blank, like she was retreating internally.
He pulled her so she was sitting and put his hands on either side of her face. It was so small, so precious, so cold between then. He was finding it hard to take air in.

Worse, the blurb actually suggests this book is edgy and full of disturbing sexual power dynamics. Uh, no. This book is full of emotionally immature characters with no depth and completely implausible events. Stupid and wrong history, too.

Should have stopped at down

I read three sentences of a YA that started like this:

I stand up and look down at the bed, holding my breath in fear of the sounds that are escalating from deep within my throat.

Great. More crap writing. stand up and look down. BAD. BAD CRAP! holding my breath…. Right. How the HELL is she making any sounds at all if she’s holding her breath? Really. Hold your breath. Now try to make a sound. You can’t.  . . .sounds escalating from deep within What the hell? Escalating is the WRONG verb. WRONG!

Downhill Fast

So then I started another book and that went downhill fast, too. I want the authors I read to have spent some time seriously pondering word usage because they find the subject riveting. Because then it’s likely words will get used carefully, correctly, and in interesting, thought provoking ways. The exact opposite of the use of words in this book.

Big Dark Secret!!! —— KIDDING!

The next book had some promise. There was a big dark secret in this OCD heroine’s past. BIG. DARK SECRET! And then… it wasn’t big or dark. It was just stupid. All her fucked-upness was fucked up only because the author didn’t have the nuts to make her actually fucked up. AND, she thinks she’s plain yet the hero describes her as centerfold hot. I’m sorry, but women who look like centerfolds are rarely unaware of the fact. BAD. BAD BAD BAD.

Dumb and Dumber

The next book also started out well. It quickly crashed and burned with the characterization getting stupider and stupider. The author set up rules of her story “We cannot do X because bad things will happen.” And voila! They do X and nothing bad happens. I’ll be honest here, this book devolved into what read like the author’s masturbatory fantasies where the rules only matter during the build up and then…. o …. and there’s no need to examine the thin constructs that lead to the letter before p because, you know, you got to the climax, only now there’s still 200 pages to write…. I could not finish. Skeevy and stupid.

Billions and billions of them…

The book before that one started out well enough. It takes place in an establishment dedicated to the pursuit of BDSM pleasures. The heroine is there and oddly clueless… she is unaware she is sexually submissive … and then wait for it . . . she’s actually a journalist looking to write a story about… Oh? You mean you’ve read 10 bazillion books with the same fucking plot? (Pun INTENDED!!) Yes, yes, all the dom men stand around getting hard ons because ohmygod she thinks she’s plain abut they all know she’s hot and submissive. Shoot me now.

Guess what else? Some of these books were traditionally published.

Help!

All I want is an insanely hot book that explores sexual power in a thoughtful, edgy, dangerous way. Need not be politically correct. MUST be well written and risky. The author MUST have spent some time thinking about alright vs. all right and come to a decision about which to use when (like maybe NEVER for one of them?) and why, and she/he should probably feel slightly smug about it. If tasked with writing 250 words on the subject, she/he should feel constrained by the word count and ready to rumble on the subject.

I would like recommendations. I have already read just about all of Charlotte Stein. The two big authors who probably leap to your mind I have either already read or, frankly, are not good enough in my never humble opinion.

Anyone who recommends his or her own book will be BANNED forever.

TumblrStumbleUponRead It LaterPinterestShare

Effects of Unfairly Favorable Book Reviews on Independent Readers

Saturday, November 17th, 2012

Readers are cheated when a majorly flawed piece of writing receives unfairly favorable reviews.

Books with severe language errors cannot have earned a 5-star review. Correct grammar is not a matter of opinion. The correct usage of a word is not opinion. There are reference books that contain the rules of grammar. Dictionaries contain both the accepted spellings and definition of 99 percent of all words in the English language. There is no excuse for getting these things wrong out of ignorance or sheer lack of interest.

No reader should be required to mentally substitute correct grammar, word usage, and sentence structure in order to make sense of the words the writer actually put on the page.

Readers have a right to assume the writer has written in a purposeful way such that she has, in fact, said what she means. When the connection between words, sentences, and meaning is fundamentally broken, then, objectively, that book does not deserve a 5-Star review. Yet such books do receive 5-star reviews.

Some Examples

I hated Jonathan Franzen’s Freedom. I think that book has serious flaws, but none of them are language flaws. Franzen’s writing is not incoherent. He uses words correctly. My disagreements are with the story he chose to tell and the actions of his characters in that story. Reasonable people can, and have, disagreed with my opinion. I understand why someone might give the book 5 stars. There are, by the way, 1,091 Amazon reviews of this book. The average star rating is three. 307 of them are 5-star reviews. 308 are 1-star. Obviously, opinions differ.

There are two self-published books I’ve read recently and both were dreadful. The writing in both was immature and unprofessional. The plots appealed to me, which is why I bought them, but the execution was so bad, I could not finish either. One of them has 23 reviews on Amazon with a 4.5 star average. The lowest star reviews are 3-stars and there are only three of them. A book that is objectively bad did not get a single 1-star review. That is a completely unfair representation of the objective quality of the book.

Here’s a snippet from one of the reviews:

. . . one word that would express my thoughts of this book, and the only one that I can find is WOW!

Really? Really? The writing is objectively bad. BAD. The heroine is infantile and infantilized. The writing is confusing and muddled. This author brings all the insight and maturity of a five-year-old to her work. None of the reviewers who gave this book five stars said word one about any of the objective flaws. Why? What’s fair to the reader when a book receives a plurality of glowing reviews that omit mention of such egregious writing errors?

In case you think I’m picking on self-published books, how about Hugh Howey’s Wool? Howey was never NY published, and yet Wool is better, yes, better, than most of what comes out of NY. Readers found him, in droves.

There are 2,415 reviews of the Kindle Omnibus version and the star average is five. Wool is an amazing piece of writing, in my opinion. Like Franzen, Howey does not make language errors. If you read Wool, or Freedom, for that matter, you can assume the words were chosen with great care and thought and that the authors thought hard about the stories being told.

Don’t Cheat the Reader

Wool and Freedom are a far cry from books written by an author who can’t spell, doesn’t know the difference between past and passed and couldn’t correctly punctuate a sentence if her life depended on it.

Giving books like those 5-stars cheats the reader, and those reviews unfairly increase the ranking of those books.

Take Your Review with Lumps

If you’re an author, take your lumps. Franzen is considered one of America’s greatest writers, and his book has 307 1-star reviews, while books written by authors with less than a third-grade command of language receive not a single 1-star review. How is that fair? Say what you will about Franzen’s book or his blindness to the reality of being a woman in America, I’ve not heard him whine about bad reviews.

If Franzen can suck it up, so can you. If a book like Freedom, which some reviewers called a masterpiece, can end up with an average 3-star review, then surely the rest of us can live with the same result for our books.

This is my my response to this baloney.

TumblrStumbleUponRead It LaterPinterestShare

Librarians are Nate Silver. Publishers are the GOP party leaders.

Friday, November 16th, 2012

I subscribe to the DBW (Digital Book World) newsletter. One just landed in my inbox, with this headline:

Shocking News from Libraries [sarcasm intended, I believe] in which the email blurb talked about how library borrowers buy a lot of books after discovering them in the library and that libraries have been saying so for ages. The email blurb went on to say this:

We have no direct knowledge of this that we can share, but it’s our guess that publishers have heard the message. So, here’s a message from DBW to libraries: Those publishers are our readers (along with many librarians) and they’re smart folks. They’ve heard your message and have evidently not yet done what you want them to do in regards to ebooks. So, try another strategy, a different message.

Is wide-spread library ebook borrowing an inevitability? We don’t know. But it’s not happening any faster because of yesterday’s study.

Well, there’s not much I enjoy more than an idiotic article that is WRONG, so of course I clicked through to this article

The article sets out all the ways in which libraries drive book sales in significant numbers. Then actual article says this:

Publishers worry that if readers can borrow their ebooks for free and easily, they won’t buy them, cannibalizing their business.

Take a minute. Absorb the blurb text and article text.

In what universe can these two things be true?

1. Publishers are smart and have heard the message about book borrowing leading to book sales.
2. Publishers are afraid eBook lending will lead to lower sales.

Let me re-write that blurb for you, DBW!

We have no direct knowledge of this that we can share, but it’s our guess that publishers have heard the message. So, here’s a message from DBW to libraries: Publishers are living in a world so paranoid and closed off to the facts that their reality distortion field is cutting off the oxygen to their corporate brains.

There all fixed.

Librarians are Nate Silver. Publishers are the GOP party leaders

 

Publishers, do you REALLY want to be Karl Rove insisting that you have worked too hard and spent too much money to lose Ohio even though the math proves you did?

Do you really want to be Fox News, the GOP and the Romney campaign all rolled into one on November 7 wondering what the hell happened to their comfortable, warm illusion of the world?


Is wide-spread library ebook borrowing an inevitability? We don’t know. But it’s not happening any faster because of yesterday’s study.

1. Yes. It is. Clinging to the past does not mean BetaMax lives on.
2. Why the hell not?

TumblrStumbleUponRead It LaterPinterestShare