Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
Thanks for your post, Steve. The phenomenon you discuss is a very real one. Discussions get boring very quickly when there are no opposing views. The statements you quote are mine.
I freely concede that I am biased. I dislike the BWM publishers because I think I paid extortionate prices for books for most of my life before Amazon came to the rescue. So did my parents on my behalf. And they continue to try to overcharge Australians even today, at least in my view. I also confess a pecuniary interest to the extent that I love paying less for my ebooks. I love Amazon, what they have done and what they are doing. I do not, however, think that they are perfect nor do I think they are motivated by altruism.
I do recognise that there are some reasonably arguable views contrary to my own. But I am surprised that such a strategy as this letter was ever seriously contemplated let alone implemented. However, given that it was, I would have expected that such a letter signed by such writers would have put those arguments intelligently, articulately and most of all persuasively. Instead, it is full of spin and half-truths and worse. I genuinely think that this letter has far more likely harmed their cause than enhanced it. I can do no better than refer you to the various links in this thread where the numerous shortcomings of the letter are discussed, starting with Hugh Howev and J.A. Konrath.
My "steaming pile" rhetoric may be a little bit strong. But I was seeking an appropriate way to express my disgust, and this was what I came up with. And not just a normal steaming pile. I'm thinking the scene with the Vet in Jurassic Park.
So far as my other comment goes, it is accurate. The letter is delusional in the sense that it shows a real disconnect from the real world and real people. Honestly, books are not consumer products! Patronising? The air of we are prominent authors and we are special and entitled to special treatment which permeates the letter is almost overpowering. Insulting. That they actually seem to believe that they can turn the tide of public opinion with this ill conceived piece of spin. Well, I suppose they did fool one reporter at the New York Times, who others have followed. Stupid? Overlaps with patronising and insulting. The whole strategy is flawed. A piece of spin like this needs to be done well. And just plain wrong? Look at the many criticisms for examples. I particularly liked the concept of the advance for the untried author to give up their day job and write their first book. In response to this I can't resist quoting part of Susanna Kearsley's comment linked to by AnemicOak in Post #3. I might add that she makes her point forcefully and elegantly, as one should be able to expect from quality authors:
|
Disconnect? Not really. It seems obvious to me that what the authors mean is that books are not consumer goods from the stand point that people do not go out and buy generic books. They go out and buy the latest J.K. Rowlings or whomever is their favorite author. Sure, there are a handful of people who buy "generic books", some of whom are quite vocal here, but they are outliers. There are some genres where the author isn't nearly as important as the imprint. The old Harlequin romance novels are prime examples, but by in large, the people are looking for something specific when they buy a book. The majority of the time, it's the author's name. That's why authors can move between publishers and people still buy their books at more or less the same rate.