[wallcraft]

This is a real life morality play. Since it is real life, it is complicated. As a play, some of the actual facts may be different from what we think they are, but in outline:

a) Publishers turn down a book project (idiots!).
b) Author turns to on-line serialization paid for by donations (thinking outside the box, but can it work?).
c) Author says donations will allow everyone to read the work on-line (perhaps a sale pitch, or perhaps an implied commitment for a perpetual free on-line version).
d) Despite never being under contract, the book is nominated for an award from professional writers.
e) Author gets a mainstream publishing contract (publisher gets hit with the nomination clue stick).
f) Book wins the award.
g) On-line version is immediately taken down on the orders of the mainstream publisher (reverting to idiocy).
h) Mainstream publisher will release the book one full year later (how long can they keep up this feverish pace?).
i) Howls of outrage from a small minority, me included, about the take down (idiots of a different kind?)

The primary target of the full morality play is clearly the publishing industry. They failed to pick up an award winning book project, and then managed to remove said book from all legal channels for a full year after it wins a major award. I can't think of another example of an award winner that is unavailable from all legal channels everywhere in the world within a week of the award.

I was hard on Catherynne Valente in my original post, and at that time I was unreasonably angry. She could have made other choices, which would have lead to a different morality play, but for authors publishers are the devil they know (guaranteed to pay them pennies, but at least guaranteed to pay) and I think it is significant that the book contract must have been signed before the award. What fueled my anger was the feeling that Catherynne could have made money off the work without pulling it from the market for a year. For example, she could have self published a Kindle ebook when it was nominated (or earlier). This might have killed her mainstream publishing deal, but if not I'm sure that practically everyone now taking fault with the take down would be happy for the on-line version to come down if there was a legal paid alternative. Or she could have insisted that the publisher release the ebook version before May 2011. The ebook already exists after all.