Ursula K. Le Guin: “I keep Asking You Not to Buy Books from Amazon”

[murg]

Originally Posted by Tarana

Let's face it. She's trying to get her 3 minutes of fame so that people will again buy her books so she can makes some retirement money.

Maybe she has a first draft of The Right Hand of Darkness that she thinks she can publish now...

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

If you look carefully at her screeds you'll quickly notice the non-sequitur that she keeps bringing up and gives away what really offends her: capitalism.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by conan50

People like her bemoaned the mass publication of paperback books in exactly the same way.

Do you have any names?

[conan50]

Quote:

Literary authors and critics weren’t the only ones turning up their noses at paperbacks. Bookstore owners, for the most part, refused to stock them, and students at most schools and universities still used hardcover texts.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/12247...americans-read

Quote:

Paperbacks: Publishers declared it was the end of an era and they were all going broke. Authors echoed the sentiment and, except for a early adopters who embraced the new genre, most “serious authors” rejected paperbacks as both cheapening and an assault on their income.
http://blog.optimityadvisors.com/?p=750

Quote:

"In the past six months we have produced 9,020,645 books, and people seem to like them very well." However, hardcover publishers resented Roscoe Fawcett's innovation, as evidenced by Doubleday's LeBaron R. Barker, who claimed that paperback originals could "undermine the whole structure of publishing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paperback

[TimW]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Do you have any names?

George Orwell, for one.

In my capacity as reader I applaud the Penguin Books; in my capacity as writer I pronounce them anathema. Hutchinson are now bringing out a very similar edition, though only of their own books, and if the other publishers follow suit, the result may be a flood of cheap reprints which will cripple the lending libraries (the novelist’s foster-mother) and check the output of new novels. This would be a fine thing for literature, but it would be a very bad thing for trade, and when you have to choose between art and money well, finish it for yourself.

http://vintagepenguins.blogspot.com/...uin-books.html

[tompe]

Originally Posted by conan50

The fantasy that traditional publishers found these great new authors to present to us died long ago. Actually the place to discover great new authors is Amazon and other self-publishing outlets. Those same 'great' traditional publishers turned down "Harry Potter" numerous times and had closed the door to many new authors.

This is just a bad argument. Harry Potter was published by a traditional publisher. It is not the case that big publisher misses a lot of best selling authors.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

More likely she's just forgetting there is more to publishing than litfic and that non-litfic writers like getting paid as much as anybody else. And because non-litfic is popular they do get paid. A lot of them. Often a lot.

The only opinion that truly matters these days is that of the readers voting their wallets.

Viewing writing as an art does not mean that you have to write litfic.

[conan50]

Originally Posted by tompe

This is just a bad argument. Harry Potter was published by a traditional publisher. It is not the case that big publisher misses a lot of best selling authors.

I can't help but wonder how many J.K. Rowling's the publishing industry drove away. I'm thankful she was persistent.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...potter-success
http://harrypotterrejected.blogspot.com/

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tompe

Viewing writing as an art does not mean that you have to write litfic.

Most of the successful authors of the past century-plus saw it as a craft. A skill to earn a living with, not an exercise in wordsmithing and/or obfuscation.

The former gave us cultural icons that have transcended the ages, the latter fodder for critics and english lit classes. Which would be perfectly fine if the latter had not spent the past century bemoaning the works (and economic rewards) of the former.

Personally, what annoys me is the latter: complaining about what the masses choose to read even they have no desire to write for those masses.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by tompe

This is just a bad argument. Harry Potter was published by a traditional publisher. It is not the case that big publisher misses a lot of best selling authors.

That's why the luddite publisher's stranglehold on market share remains unshaken.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by conan50

I can't help but wonder how many J.K. Rowling's the publishing industry drove away. I'm thankful she was persistent.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...potter-success
http://harrypotterrejected.blogspot.com/

The informed peoples opinion about that seem to be zero.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Most of the successful authors of the past century-plus saw it as a craft.

Of course it is also a craft. You have to be a good craftsman to be able to reach the next step which might be art (or something similar).

If you only look at it as a craft you have no reason to write better if your current level give you maximum income.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by TimW

George Orwell, for one.

conan50 wrote that "People like her bemoaned the mass publication of paperback books in exactly the same way."

Orwell didn't tell people not to buy paperbacks. So it wasn't anywhere close to "exactly the same way."

And even though Orwell claimed to be a socialist, I think literary merit was his real concern, rather than that being a smoke-screen for a dislike of big business, as in the Le Guin case.

However, maybe my challenge to come up with names who met the conan50 criteria was unfair. History rarely repeats itself in "exactly the same way," and it's not a terrible crime that conan50 engaged in a bit of overstatement.

Paperbacks were attacked more by publishers than authors. With Amazon, the attacks are broader. Also, early paperbacks were mass market books aimed at low-income readers, whereas the need to purchase a Kindle or other eReader, or own a tablet, means that eBooks skew to a higher demographic.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Also, early paperbacks were mass market books aimed at low-income readers, whereas the need to purchase a Kindle or other eReader, or own a tablet, means that eBooks skew to a higher demographic.

You may be right on this Steve. Then again, anecdotally, many in the third world are reading on their phones, and even many who are in real poverty seem to have at least access to phones or even computers. I'm really not in a position to judge whether this is accurate or to what extent. Perhaps there are members of Mobileread who are better able to comment on this.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Also, early paperbacks were mass market books aimed at low-income readers, whereas the need to purchase a Kindle or other eReader, or own a tablet, means that eBooks skew to a higher demographic.

That may be true for people living in the U.S, UK or other big western countries, where cheap paperbacks are readily available. Where I live, paper books are expensive. Used books in English are almost nonexistent. There are very few English fiction books in local libraries. Buying paperbacks via Amazon or used book marketplaces is expensive too (shipping them here costs often more than the book itself). E-books, OTOH, are cheap compared to paper books (no shipping involved). So, even though I don't certainly have a high income, I managed to purchase a couple of cheapest Kindles available and have been reading e-books almost exclusively for the last four years. And have saved lots of money doing this.

I doubt I'm in a unique position regarding e-books. What I described is probably true for most small non-English-speaking countries. Of course, many people (especially older people) in those countries don't read in English or other foreign languages at all, but for those that do, e-books are truly a blessing.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

That may be true for people living in the U.S, UK or other big western countries, where cheap paperbacks are readily available. Where I live, paper books are expensive. Used books in English are almost nonexistent. There are very few English fiction books in local libraries. Buying paperbacks via Amazon or used book marketplaces is expensive too (shipping them here costs often more than the book itself). E-books, OTOH, are cheap compared to paper books (no shipping involved). So, even though I don't certainly have a high income, I managed to purchase a couple of cheapest Kindles available and have been reading e-books almost exclusively for the last four years. And have saved lots of money doing this.

I doubt I'm in a unique position regarding e-books. What I described is probably true for most small non-English-speaking countries. Of course, many people (especially older people) in those countries don't read in English or other foreign languages at all, but for those that do, e-books are truly a blessing.

Even in the United States paper books are only cheaper than paper books for people in metropolitan areas. Out in rural areas and small towns there is likely a thirty-five mile or longer drive to even a small book store.