[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by soulfuldog

Considering there are a few people who've made pretty strong comments against Amazon (right or wrongly), Rowling seems a strange choice for them to highlight, I reckon she could be just a less subtle if she really had any strong views!

Oh, I found her a very appropriate spokesperson and typical of the authors assailing Amazon. Rich author making tons of money off Amazon sales. Right now. Still.


Here, try this one:
http://writerunboxed.com/2014/06/10/...Writer+Unboxed)

Michael J. Sullivan, is a fulltime novelist who definitely has real skin in the game, with multiple books published by Orbit (Hachette’s fantasy imprint). I think Sullivan sums things up brilliantly here:

In today’s landscape, publishers are in a tight spot, but they have only themselves to blame. For years their “customer” was the retail channel. They didn’t foster a direct relationship with readers and as such ceded that ground to Amazon. Back when Amazon was gaining dominance, why didn’t they build a site to sell directly to readers? Oh, I forgot…they did. It’s called Bookish and it’s been a miserable failure plagued by delays, poor management, a terrible online experience, and rather than discounting books they sell at full price. Is Amazon “evil” for building a really good mousetrap? Similarly, there was a huge outcry when Amazon bought Goodreads. But why didn’t any of the publishers pick it up first? A site with millions of readers talking about and sharing books, and no one but Amazon saw the value in such an asset? It’s unfair for the publishers to criticize Amazon for their own lack of vision.

So yes, there is an imbalance of power, and Amazon is in a position of strength. It’s because Amazon has been smart, forward thinking and innovative while publishers have plodded along with a “business as usual” mentality, leaving them behind the times. Does Amazon have to give publishers special treatment for their poor choices?

I hope Sullivan’s remarks don’t get him in trouble with Hachette, but I have to say, I find his candor and analysis far more compelling than the chest-thumping of authors like Patterson, who has no problem complaining about Amazon all the way to the bank. Hmmm – here’s a thought: Since he seemingly fears for the future of the entire American culture, maybe Patterson could donate the Amazon-generated portion of his earnings to some noble cause, like the Save Our Adverbs Partnership (SOAP), or my recently hatched nonprofit organization: “Friends Don’t Let Friends Read Cussler.” (Sadly, attempts to secure donations from Patterson have gone unanswered to date.)

Note that Mr Sullivan is at some actual risk of blacklisting for those comments.
Which is why you *don't* hear from other hostage authors who might *not* be blaming Amazon. Makes coverage pretty one-sided.

Or this one:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ishing-writers

But look: if Amazon is indeed doing so much to destroy literature and all the rest, if the situation really is so dire that the US government has to pass laws to fix it, why haven’t Patterson, Robinson, Russo, Turow and other anti-Amazon authors demanded that their publishers pull their books from Amazon? How can someone condemn a company’s evil, monopolistic, culture- and livelihood-destroying ways … while continuing to make millions of dollars working with that company?

So yeah, Rowling is perfect for the role.
She is known to be a tradpub loyalist: even bringing her tradpub into her ebook selfpublishing partnership with Sony when they had little, if anything, to contribute to the online venture. But she's rich enough to afford it. (Plus she is doubtlessly *not* signed to the "industry standard" contract. She is very smart and can afford lawyers to negotiate for her.) The ancien regime works just fine for her. And Patterson. And Colbert.

The silent hostages actually hurting from the impasse might have different opinions, though. Quietly. In private. They might not want to risk having their books designated for deep-discount sales...